    Dry Thy Tears

    by Israel Shamir

    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
    http://www.newdemocracyworld.org/ 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
    Antiwar.com 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 www.counterpunch.com
    On the right, Justin Raimondo on www.antiwar.com

    [1] www.counterpunch.com

    [2] http://www.rense.com/general27/ode.htm

    [3] http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=2CAEBKTOMTZK0CRBAEKSFEY?type=politicsNews&storyID=6732780

    [4] http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/

    [5] http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1099282972036