« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

What *did* Greenwald mean by ‘people like Chuck Schumer?’

After all, it couldn't have been 'swarmy, over-privileged, obnoxiously arrogant would-be aristocrat.'

Which is what I’d mean by that; but Greenwald’s a member of the Online Left, so that sort of thing wouldn’t bug him when it comes to a reliable Democrat.

None the less, Dan Riehl noted that Greenwald isn’t happy about the sudden cratering of Chas Freeman’s career:

Isn’t it rather obvious that at some point, there will be a substantial and understandable backlash as Americans watch people like Chuck Schumer openly boast that anyone who makes “statements against Israel” that he deems “over the top” will be disqualified from serving in our Government, despite a long and distinguished record of public service and unchallenged expertise?

As usual, I don’t directly link to pro-torture sites like Greenwald’s if I can help it; Dan’s got the link. I’d also like to note that the answer is “no, it’s not obvious.” Unlike Greenwald, most Americans don’t hate Jews Israelis Zionists are we still using ‘Likudniks’?  I can never keep track.

It’s amusing that this was apparently all due to “loyalty to the right-wing Israel agenda,” given the presence of Schumer, Lieberman – and noted right-wing neocon House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who will be somewhat surprised to discover that her ruse of being angry about Freeman’s rationalization of Chinese repression was so easily exposed. Nope, Nancy and the rest are doing it because of the Jews. So did I. If you objected, so did you. So did everybody else who objected. No doubt we get coded messages.

If this sounds like mixed contempt, weary amusement at the stupidity of others, and sheer exasperation… it should. The United States has always been rather self-consciously determined to at least try to push back against hatred of the Jews, from the Touro Synagogue letter onward: and this laudable instinct was reinforced quite strongly by the events of World War II, which produced an entire generation of men quietly and grimly determined to excise anti-Semitism from the American experience if it required a blowtorch to do so. And for several generations, it looked like we had. Unfortunately, the roots of this particular pathology are kind of deeply rooted in Western Civilization, and the latest iteration – helped along by the partisan posturing of a group of Evangelical Christian-haters who wouldn’t be able to comprehend Dispensationalism if their lives depended on it – of its growth is in rather nasty bloom right now. As usual, it involves AIPAC; also as usual, it’s fairly incoherent. That’s because anti-Semitism is the favorite game of the dull intellectual, particularly the ones who already suspect that they’re not as smart as they think that they are.

Fortunately, the way to handle this sort of nonsense is the same as it always is: smack it (metaphorically) in the head with full scorn and disgust. You should no more take seriously the babbling of somebody who believes in secret international Jewish conspiracies as you would somebody who believes in phlogiston theory. You have no obligation to, either. As the Zionist Entity-controlled Washington Post put it:

What’s striking about the charges by Mr. Freeman and like-minded conspiracy theorists is their blatant disregard for such established facts. Mr. Freeman darkly claims that “it is not permitted for anyone in the United States” to describe Israel’s nefarious influence. But several of his allies have made themselves famous (and advanced their careers) by making such charges — and no doubt Mr. Freeman himself will now win plenty of admiring attention. Crackpot tirades such as his have always had an eager audience here and around the world. The real question is why an administration that says it aims to depoliticize U.S. intelligence estimates would have chosen such a man to oversee them.

I do wonder about that, myself.

Moe Lane

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

Get Alerts