Mark

Truman’s support for Israel in 1948 wasn’t due to any "benevolent attitude" of the American public. Supporting Israel was neither benevolent toward America nor benevolent toward the idea of civilization. The proto-Israelis were terrorists: letter bombs to England, assassinating Folke Bernadotte of Sweden, bombing the King David hotel, etc. Eventually individual terrorists held high positions in the Israeli government, including Prime Minister. In so far as people knew about Israel at all in 1948 the attitude of James Forrestal, U.S. Secretary of Defense, was also in the public eye. After his retirement in 1949 he was making plans to buy a newspaper to better promote his views: anti-Soviet, anti-Israel. He suffered a nervous breakdown in 1949 and, recuperating on the 16th floor of Bethesda Naval Hospital, went out the window.

I despise Israel for the reasons I’ve given. Hurling the Objectivist insult "hatred of the good for being the good" at that just bounces off. Israel is not good and in fact is hateful. "Despise" more accurately describes the feeling but hate is OK. Usually Aristotle’s relevant aphorism is translated using that word: "Justice consists in loving and hating aright." We ought to despise Israel because of its behavior, what Israel does. Instead of an ally it acts like an enemy. A few of its enemy actions are described in This Is Our Ally? Links to some others can be found in Links on Israel. The unquestioning attitude toward Israel is very like a religion, hence the phrase "Israel worship." It’s beyond evidence. There’s nothing you can say to those afflicted, you will always be a hater of the good for being etc. If you don’t like Israel you don’t like America, that’s the message conveyed by the obscene juxtaposition of images created by Yaron Brook, Israel born and bred, not long after taking over the Ayn Rand Institute: http://web.archive.o....org/medialink/ (from aynrand.org August 2002). If that loads too slowly there’s a copy at: http://ariwatch.com/...iaLinkFlags.htm So tell us all, if Israel is an ally of America, what friendly act has it ever performed that justifies billions each year in U.S. foreign aid and that begins to compensate for the crimes above? Be specific please. "Israel is a bulwark" and "America would be worse off without Israel" (instead of better) only begs the question. That Israel simply exists is not enough.

Ignore the name-calling. whYNOT asks sarcastically: "Would you believe it – that Israel also has an ‘angle’? One called ‘existence’." — OK, but not at my expense, if you please. The expense is two-pronged: U.S. foreign aid to Israel is one prong, abuse from Israel is the other. "... it shocks you that a Jewish-backed organization (openly) puts out a pro-Israel piece ..." — Why no, of course not. As for openly, Clarion adamantly denies any connection to Aish HaTorah. "Who did you expect to be behind it [Clarion’s film] – Costa Ricans?" — I didn’t expect that, no. "Israel was silent too long ..." — Right, AIPAC and countless other pro-Israel organizations have been silent all these years. Now I am being sarcastic. One needn’t object to every iniquity on earth before objecting to Israel. I criticize Israel here because the subject of this thread is the Clarion Fund’s pro-war propaganda. I claim it’s Israeli propaganda masquerading as American, and it pretends to be for the benefit of Americans when it’s really for the benefit of Israel. I’ll say this for the Arabs, at least they don’t pretend to be your ally while stabbing you in the back. They say they hate you and stab you in the front. The U.S. should never have entered the quarrel between Arabs and Israelis six thousand miles away – which it did not long after WW II. If whYNOT himself wants to emigrate and fight for Israel, I wouldn’t stop him. But I’m sick of being made a host and cats-paw for a socialist rat-hole on the other side of the earth. 　

That some proto-Israelis worked with the Nazis isn’t controversial. I brought it up because Mike R apparently believes that because the Arabs worked with the Nazis the Arabs are stained forever. If so why not the Israelis? (The point being that both bits of history have little relevance today.) The group "Jews Against Zionism" comes from the orthodox Jewish camp. Their motivation for setting forth Zionism’s disgraceful history is a separate issue from the history itself. Eventually I’ll write an ARI Watch article about the collaboration of the Israelis and the Soviets. I’ve got a lot of other things to do first, so keep breathing, LOL. It’s not my duty here to lecture history. It takes a lot of words and time. Mike R. writes that Israel "... is not only our staunchest ally in the war against the jihadists but also because she is a bulwark against them with an excellent military and clandestine apparatus to do so." The usual line, but I’m not buying. Per "This Is Our Ally?" Israel has used its (U.S. funded) military and clandestine apparatus against America. As for Israel being a bulwark, was it very effective preventing 9/11? Israel isn’t the "bastion of freedom" its promoters claim. It looks good only when compared with an [expletive deleted] country like Saudi Arabia. It’s far more statist than any country in Europe. Compared to America it’s the pits. Israel’s relative superiority 6,000 miles away doesn’t give it an option on your life. Those wishing to promote Israel know this, especially in Objectivist circles, so they spin your sacrifice into your interest. Yes, your being forced to finance Israel is in your interest — double-talk they really believe because in spirit they inhabit the 51st state of Israel. Mike R. argues as follows: Murray Rothbard had "an affinity" for Lenin – whatever that means – therefore Ben Gurion’s admiration for the Bolsheviks and his emulation of the early Soviet Union is excusable. Come again? Since when did Rothbard become a standard of proper behavior, and when did he ever promote Lenin?

Mike R responds to my USS Liberty link with "shame on you" — a typical, faux-Objectivist, ex cathedra, moral pronouncement that might as well come from a parrot. It’s no shame to look into the USS Liberty affair more deeply than Israeli press releases. It’s no shame to prefer the eye-witness accounts of U.S. sailors. It’s funny in a way. Either the Israelis tried to sink the Liberty with all hands knowing it was an American ship, or they were utter morons. Faced with that choice afterwards, when everyone knows what happened, they present themselves as utter morons!

What does the Muslim Brotherhood's historical connection to the Nazis have to do with Ohio? (For that matter what did the Nazis have to do with Ohio!) Some not too bright people argue: the historical Zionists collaborated with the Nazis, therefore the Zionists today are Nazis warmed over. The premise is true but the argument leaks. However a good case could be made that Zionists are Communists warmed over. Maybe I'll write an article about that sometime. Here's a little tidbit. David Ben-Gurion was the chief founder of Israel and its first Prime Minister. The following is from “Zionism, Socialism and United States Support for the Jewish Colonization of Palestine in the 1920s” by Lawrence Davidson (references afterwards): “For Ben Gurion it was Palestine’s destiny to be developed as a socialist Jewish state. (12) Here the model was the early Soviet state. ‘We are following a new path,’ Ben Gurion explained in 1921, ‘which contradicts developments in the whole world except Russia.’ (13) This led him to pay homage to the Soviet Union for ‘her great spiritual influence on our movement and our work in Palestine.’ (14) In these years Ben Gurion came to idolize Lenin and he even adopted the dress of the Soviet leaders – a quasi military uniform of rough wool. (15)” (References: 12 David M. Edelman, The Story of Ben Gurion; 13 Yonathan Shapiro, The Formative Years of the Israeli Labour Party; 14 Shabtai Teveth, Ben Gurion. See also Edelman, ibid; 15 Michael Bar-Zohar, Ben Gurion.) That's ancient history but it foreshadows a practical connection between Israel and the Soviet Union, despite apparent antagonism, which harmed the U.S. Mike Renzulli wrote regarding the Lavon Affair: "keep in mind what the context of the operation was the result of." Whenever you hear the word "context" from an Objectivist beware a pull on the wool above your eyes. Israelis lied to Americans, risked murdering Americans, and did destroy U.S property. Israel's supporters justify this with Israel's "context." It was in a good cause, Israel. That justifies the lying and all the rest. Firing on the U.S.S. Liberty for an hour and twenty minutes was in the context of ... well, that's a hard one to make fly, better make it an innocent mistake.

The Atlas Society is usually thought of as an alternative to the Ayn Rand Institute, but Edward Hudgins’s talk/article is no different from what ARI puts out. They hate us ’cuz we’re free, and only leftists say otherwise. (With a nod to evangelical self-appointed leaders, who in fact say the same thing). It’s all so in your face stupid. They hate us because we’re free? Sure, "they" – meaning some muslim intellectual creeps – hate the West for its rational elements. But take a random Arab, not an intellectual but a merchant or farmer, someone who trades or works with his hands, an olive farmer or whatever, does he hate the U.S. government and those who support it because Americans are better off than he? Or does some behavior of the U.S. government make him hate us? Such as killing and maiming the people around him, for whatever benevolent goal? Does Hudgins think the U.S. government is defending our freedom with its domestic police state measures? With government institutionalized torture? Hudgins very first utterance plays into the awestruck attitude of a lickspittle for power: "The first decade of the twenty-first century was defined by Islamists, who ..." Why the hell should we let "Islamists" – or some power-lusting politician – define ten years of our lives? And counting. It’s long past time we recognized who the real enemy was and is, neoconservative think-tanks like the Clarion Fund and elements within our own government.

Israel is not America’s friend. It may be a friend of the U.S. government, but it’s no friend of Americans – elaborated in "This Is Our Ally." Regarding Mike Renzulli’s post ... We were talking about the Clarion Fund's Zionist propaganda directed at Americans, paid for by Aish HaTorah. Why bring up the historical Nazi-Arab connection here? It makes as much sense as bringing up the historical Nazi-Zionist connection. The phony Muslim Brotherhood illustrates the duplicity of Israelis, which has some relevance here. One good way to defend the U.S. from the authentic Muslim Brotherhood is simply end, permanently, all Third World immigration, and vet immigrants from Europe.

LOL and then some. By us I meant America Firsters. With some Objectivists it’s Israel one, two, and three, and America somewhere down the list.

Renzulli wrote: "Iran gives direct support to groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hizbullah I believe in addition to supporting the Muslim Brotherhood." That may worry the Israelis but it doesn’t worry us. In fact America would be better off if Israel disappeared. Though the West shouldn’t have given Iran its nuclear technology, I’m no more worried about it than China and the others. Except Israel. Israel might be capable of setting off one of its nuclear bombs in the U.S. and blaming it on its enemies, because some Israelis might think they can do it with impunity. Look at all the other things they got away with: This Is Our Ally?

These discussions end up a thief of time. Kolker doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and I’m not here to give history lessons. His jaundiced account can stand here and the sanity left to John T. Flynn and Harry Elmer Barnes. The Clarion Fund interests me because of the Ayn Rand Institute connection. ARI recently (September 8, 2011) sponsored an event in Washington D.C. featuring neocons from half a dozen neocon organs, one of which was the Clarion Fund.

I’d originally written "... better off had the atom bomb not been made." Period. Then, realizing that the U.S. did need to make the bomb eventually, lazily tacked on the edit "for use on Japan" because that’s what we’re talking about. Yes, the bomb was made with Germany in mind. (Every physicist knew that a fusion bomb was possible.) Change my sentence to: "... Americans now would be better off had the atom bomb not been used on Japan." Kolker wrote that Truman decided: "... to use it [the atom bomb] on Japan to get them to surrender." Nope. Japan, as pointed out above, wanted to call it quits on a minor condition, one that Truman eventually met anyway. Truman used the atom bomb to impress the Soviets, not to get Japan to surrender.

Robert Kolker wrote: "Without that complete flake [Robert Oppenheimer] the bomb would not have been made." There’s no way Kolker could know this even as a probability. In any case, Americans in 1945 (including servicemen, especially the POWs in Japan) and Americans now would be better off had the atom bomb not been made for use [see below] used on Japan. Kolker is an ignoramus with a little knowledge, a dangerous thing. Japan was suing for peace before the atom bomb. They did have one condition, that the emperor be spared. Then after Hiroshima/Nagasaki Truman spared him anyway. Kolker – who even today breathes a sigh of relieve that he wasn’t made into innumerable little bars of soap (one gigantic bar, whatever) – might trouble himself to read a few good books and articles, referenced under the handy "Past Wars: WW II" link in a post above.

Doubtless Ayn Rand agreed with Leonard Peikoff about Pearl Harbor when he wrote The Ominous Parallels, because she helped him write it ("Rand read over the Ominous Parallels as Leonard was writing it. I’ve seen pages of early drafts marked up in her hand." – Amy Peikoff in the OO forum, 19 January 2004), and she praised the final result. A footnote near the end of chapter 14 reads (the first bracketed explanation is mine): The Roosevelt Myth, by the way, was favorably reviewed in Ayn Rand’s The Objectivist Newsletter, December 1962. For more on FDR, Pearl Harbor and WW II see the Past Wars: WW II on the Links page of ARI Watch. Ayn Rand’s views before Pearl Harbor can be judged from her support for FDR (1932) then her support for Wendell Willkie (1940). See Ayn Rand's Voting Record in Presidental Elections Note also her disgust with Eisenhower. Regarding Pearl Harbor, with the Ominous Parallels in mind, by the 1960s (at least) she may have thought that the primary enemy was FDR, that he should have been impeached first, then a just government could have punished Japan in some way. (To repeat, this is a conjecture. How to repair such disastrous treason is a hard question for anyone to answer.) Soon after the war’s end Hal Wallis asked her to write a screenplay about the Manhattan Project. Some of her private notes and studio notes (late 1945, early 1946) are published in ARI’s version of her journals. We must suspect ARI doctored the text (that they changed some of the journal text is well-known) but even reading it as given, obviously she was worried that another screenwriter would use the Project to glorify state science. She took on the job, perhaps to contain the damage. In any case, her mature, considered, and published view about U.S. entry into the war was that of adamant opposition. Thank goodness the Manhattan Project movie was scrapped. It later surfaced that Robert Oppenheimer, administrative head of the project, was a fellow traveler, indeed a complete flake. Imagine Ayn Rand making a hero out of a communist. A few years later she used Oppenheimer as model for her villain Robert Stadler in Atlas Shrugged. (I suspect she also used Robert Millikan, who not only had done research on cosmic rays, mentioned in the novel, he advocated government grants for science.) Hate to say it but Ayn Rand may have gotten what she deserved for trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. Hal Wallis sold his studio to MGM, including all her work on the script, to MGM and they butchered it for use in their own – Truman approved – film The Beginning or the End (1947).

Off the topic of whether or not the Clarion Fund is a reputable outfit, but ... Yes, a dictator has given up his right to self-defense. But if he isn’t threatening the U.S. the U.S. government has no moral right to tax and kill and maim Americans, not to mention kill and maim the dictator’s victims, in pursuit of his execution. 1940s Germany and 2003 Iraq have little in common, official Objectivist baloney notwithstanding. America – as opposed to the U.S. government – lost that war, by the way.

Correction to my post #6: The Obbession video did not feature John Hagee, it featured Nonie Darwish & Walid Shoebat – see post #3 above.

Unless the Clarion Fund is producing some of the New York MTA counter ads Selene's post is irrelevant to this thread. Merlin is not just pretty much avoiding my point, he's all the way avoiding my point. The Neocons gave a banquet and everyone got sick from food poisoning. Now they invite you to another banquet. If you value your health you might choose to eat somewhere else. Mark www.ARIwatch.com

The Iranium documentary is more of the same propaganda as Obsession (that’s the one featuring evangelical nutballs, something Clarion’s OL defenders have so far ignored) and Third Jihad. Among those featured in Iranium: Michael Ledeen – Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, past member of American Enterprise Institute. Frank Gaffney – Center for Security Policy, Project for the New American Century John Bolton – American Enterprise Institute, past member of Project for the New American Century (past member of Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, Project for the New American Century) Amir Fakhravar – Central Council of Iranian Freedom Movement (or the Iran Enterprise Institute, or the Iranian Freedom Institute) analogous to Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress. Reuel Marc Gerecht – Foundation for Defense of Democracies, past member of the American Enterprise Institute and the Project for the New American Century. Jon Kyl – U.S. senator, former chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security. Clare Lopez – Center for Security Policy, Clarion Fund Clifford May – Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Walid Phares – Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Harold Rhode – Hudson Institute, Clarion Fund Henry Sokolski – Heritage Foundation and Hoover Institution. Kenneth Timmerman – Foundation for Democracy in Iran, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. Frances Townsend – former Homeland Security Advisor. Supports the Mujahedeen Khalq (MEK). James Woolsey – Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, Center for Security Policy. Director Central Intelligence during the Clinton administration. Manda Zand-Ervin – Once held "positions" (all that Clarion says of them) in the Shah of Iran’s dictatorship. Fled Iran after the revolution, now bills herself as a human rights activist. Mark Dubowitz – Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Once a featured speaker at an event of the Christians United for Israel, the evangelical group founded by John Hagee. According to its website "Pastor Hagee has been presented the ZOA [Zionist Organization of America] Israel Award, the ZOA Service Award and the Humanitarian of the Year Award by B’Nai B’Rith Council in recognition of his unwavering support of Israel." Dore Gold – Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, former adviser to Israel prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The Clarion Fund promotes a number of intellectuals and government agents. Practically all of them have a history of lying, in particular many of them lied the Bush administration into invading Iraq. Frequently both intellectual and government agent are found in the same person: Michael Ledeen, Daniel Pipes, Frank Gaffney, etc. In case you’ve forgotten, so far the Iraq War has killed and maimed thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. The total cost of the war in taxes and/or inflation is over a trillion dollars and counting. And we’re supposed to believe the liars who caused all this, again? Only the supremely gullible would listen to them a second time. Only the dishonest or benighted would promote these creeps. They might say something true, but if it is true then Mikee and Mike should try to find independent, reputable men who present the case for it instead of an Israel-worshipping outfit like the Clarion Fund.

Point out Ledeen and get bromides in return.

My objection to the movie is that given its source, you cannot trust anything it states as a fact. The deeper you look into the Clarion Fund the worse it gets. It produced another documentary video, Iranium, which again features a raft of neocons, Iranian expatriates, and Israelis. Among the neocons are Frank Gaffney and Michael Ledeen, the latter a total fruitcake arguably worse than John Hagee in Obsession. Among the expatriots is Manda Zand-Ervin (also in Third Jihad), who once held ministerial "positions" (quoting all Clarion says about them) in the dictatorship/monarchy of the Shah and now presents herself as an advocate of human rights. Among the Israelis is Dore Gold, former adviser to Benjamin Netanyahu. 　 If Mike Renzulli wants to convince reasonable men that the U.S. should Iraq Iran he need to find a better source of information than an Israeli propaganda mill.

The Third Jihad: Radical Islam’s Vision For America is "a documentary film detailing the rise of radical Islam within the United States." It’s produced by the Clarion Fund, the same outfit that produced Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West. The following is from Presidential Elections – Ayn Rand and the "Ayn Rand Institute" ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ... the video Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West, produced and distributed (some 28 million copies before the 2004 election, most given away free) [was produced] by The Clarion Fund, in turn associated with Aish HaTorah, an Israeli organization. The video features among its pundits two Christian Zionists: Walid Shoebat, member of Christians United for Israel (an apocalyptic End Times organization), and Nonie Darwish, a Messianic Evangelist, though neither relation is mentioned in the video. Also featured is Caroline Glick, an Israeli journalist for the Jerusalem Post (according to her website she "made aliyah" in 1991) who elsewhere has praised Pastor John Hagee, founder of Christians United for Israel. Fine company for Daniel Pipes, also featured. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Among those interviewed in The Third Jihad:Joseph Lieberman, political hack.Walid Phares, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.Rudy Giuliani, political hack.Clare Lopez, Center for Security Policy and the Clarion Fund. From the video’s website: "A wake-up call for America." – Rudy Giuliani. We should wake up to the fact that America is being propagandized by a well-financed collection of Zionist and Neoconservative think-tanks. In order to watch The Third Jihad free of charge you’re required to give an email address. At this point I’ll let it pass, but don't expect the video to conclude any of the following: End Third World immigration, both legal and illegal. Severely restrict visitors from the Third World, including Israel. Repeal the Immigration Reform Act 1965. End the anchor baby nonsense whereby babies born of illegal immigrants are given automatic citizenship. Amend the Constitution so legal immigrants convicted of a felony are stripped of their citizenship and, after serving their sentence, deported. I suspect the video’s theme or subtext is regime change in Iran, per usual with Zionists and Neocons.

I didn’t like the article’s tone and the "we’ll all die anyway so what’s the worry" argument. That said, though I’d rather read them elsewhere it makes a few good points, among them: At which point I interrupt, because it doesn’t get at the essence of the misuse: police-state at home, empire abroad. Known in advance by the FBI, by the way. The author really should have mentioned that. True enough, but the object of the last sentence is the minor to a major he should have said first: a police-state. It could have been a much better article, but as is ... eesh. That’s ancient Greek for icky. Hate to disagree in public with ol’ Greybeard, by the way. Mark http://ARIwatch.com

Beware of leaping from Palin said to Palin believes. Chances are – heck, it’s a dead certainty – she (or her handlers) constructed this bit of rhetoric out of focus groups and telephone interviews. Tell ‘em what they want to hear. The ultimate be-all and end-all: get the rubes to vote for me. After that, gravy and to hell with it. Palin dresses herself up as an outsider, but she’s one of the very "permanent political class" she pretends to be fighting now. She’s part of "corporate crony capitalism," a friend of "vast, remote, unaccountable institutions," an enemy of a "capitalism of free men and free markets, of innovation and hard work and ethics." She herself is part of "the collusion of big government and big business and big finance to the detriment of all the rest – to the little guys." The "little guys" – isn’t that precious? She herself, right now as she speaks, is "a slap in the face to our small business owners" – her use of "our" being a telling slip. Her political record belies any concern for "the true entrepreneurs, the job creators." Better Obama than this political hack and her handlers. At least the dimmest wit will know he’s an enemy, and a Dem pres & Rep cong is better than gridflow. Ron Paul is so much better than Palin, there's no comparison.

The video-streaming has begun.