The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewIsrael Shamir Archive
Dry Thy Tears
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The re-election of President Bush is a sad event; the failure of Kerry is not. Before the election, we called upon our American readers to vote for a Third Candidate. Some readers agreed and voted – for Nader or Greens or whomever their consciences were happy with. Today they have nothing to regret. Others objected, often vehemently, and proclaimed the main advantage of Kerry, namely: he is not George W Bush. Now those of you who did so are upset, and along with you many Europeans; they still regret the defeat of John Kerry.

This is a good time to re-read The Pickwick Papers by Charles Dickens. In this hilarious novel, a rogue and gold-digger Jingle elopes with a spinster Aunt Rachael; her relations, led by Mr Pickwick, apprehend the couple of their way to Gretna Green and pay off the rogue. The spinster was greatly saddened, but she was saved from a worse, lasting and painful disappointment.

Be comforted: the red-state voters played a Pickwick on you and saved you from a big disillusionment. Kerry and Bush were in full agreement regarding the war in the Middle East, from Palestine to Afghanistan, including Iraq and Iran. They were in full agreement on any point that really matters for the great majority of voters. Americans were allowed to choose who will bomb Iran and support Israel, privatise water and electricity, ruin families, promote alienation and profane the world – such policies were never in dispute. Kerry supported Bush by voting to authorize the war in Iraq, for an increase in the Pentagon budget, for the Patriot Act, for the “right” to pre-emptive war. Kerry was politically situated between Joseph Lieberman and Dianne Feinstein. Kerry was supported by our adversaries: the New York Times, George Soros, and organised Jewry who gave him 80% of their vote. The only points Kerry differed on were those we objected to: gun control and other liberal-totalitarian shibboleths.

If John Kerry had won, our situation would be worse: he would have continued the policies of Bush and put a claim on much of the world’s good will. His victory would have allowed the US to broaden their Coalition of the Willing; anti-war voices in Britain and elsewhere in Europe would die out; the main newspapers would call upon Europe to support this brand new American leader. The liberal opposition to the war represented by the Nation would lose its voice. The rift between the US and the rest of the world would shrink and heal while the US would continue to perpetuate the same policies that caused the rift in the first place. In short, victory of John Kerry would be a godsend for the Corporate US. Mercifully, this outcome was avoided.

The US of the second Bush’s second presidency is now more isolated than ever. Many European leaders had expressed their hope that Bush would be removed; now they will have difficulty coming back under the US aegis. The anti-war campaign will be able to continue unabated. We shall have the liberals as our allies: provided they agree to the proposition of Alexander Cockburn of Counterpunch: “Set aside your quaint obsession with abortion and the rights of gays to marry each other. All in under the big tent. One party under God!”[1]

This view is consistently upheld by this list. John Spritzler of wrote: “If we drive people away from the anti-war movement because they don’t have the “correct” views on issues like same-sex marriage or gun control or abortion or affirmative action or immigration, then we’re only shooting ourselves in the foot”. Indeed, it is the time to bring forth a Popular Front of all forces, whether ‘progressive’ or ‘conservative’, against the War Party.

Our chances improved in these elections as the pro-Judaic forces took a beating: our friend Cynthia McKinney once defeated by the Lobby[2], came back victorious. The great Zionist Tom Daschle was booted out by people of South Dakota. Jim Moran who was demonised for his statement that the “strong support” of the Jewish community was driving the push toward a war with Iraq, won the election. Tom Coburn, who objected to TV screening of the Schindler List, also survived unscathed.

Our adversaries’ strongest asset, their dominant position in the mainstream media, lost its magic touch. Has Hollywood become a liability for the Democrats? – asks Reuters[3], while Noonan in the Wall Street Journal[4] pontificated: “Who was the biggest loser of the 2004 election? The mainstream media. … Every time the big networks and big national newspapers tried to pull off a bit of mischief – the yeomen of the blogosphere and AM radio and the Internet took them down. It was to me a great historical development in the history of politics in America. It was Agincourt. It was the yeomen of King Harry taking down the French aristocracy with new technology and rough guts.”

Judging by these results, the Judaic hold on American discourse is slipping. But we won’t repeat the error of Justin Raimondo of who was gleefully pleased with what appeared as a Jewish setback after the first Bush victory four years ago – a few months later, we learned of the Neo-Cons.

“The Congress remains very strongly pro-Israel. It’s always a question, are you going to get 80 or 83 on a pro-Israel initiative in the Senate. That’s terrific,’ said one Jewish fund-raiser who distributes money to pro-Israel candidates in both parties.” – reported the Jerusalem Post[5]. The Lobby is still extremely strong, but now we know: there are many, many Americans, who would like to take it down a rung or two.


Our list is pointing out to the winning strategy: the union of traditional isolationist conservatives and left radicals against the US interventions overseas, or in spiritual terms for Christ and against the double paradigm of Mammon and Zionism. The losing strategy was offered by some anti-Christian Kerryites who posted a map of post-election America: the Red states were marked “Jesus-land”, the Blue – “The US of Canada”. The religious affiliation of the posters is too obvious to ponder. They want to turn their electoral defeat into an ideological victory of their anti-Christian policies. For us this dichotomy is unacceptable: a Red state, South Dakota, kicked out Daschle the Zionist, a Blue state, California, gave victory to an equally nasty Tom Lantos. This is the only criterion we are ready to apply.

Suggested reading: on the left, Alexander Cockburn on
On the right, Justin Raimondo on

(Republished from by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: 2004 Election 
Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Israel Shamir Comments via RSS