The Death of American Democracy

While I admire Lawson immensely, our points of dispute are of such importance that I think they deserve some attention.

The narrator's basic claim is that there was a time when American democracy existed, but by the nefarious intrigues of the Zionist lobby, that idyllic time has come to an end and we are now dominated by Israel. Zion rules America.

Firstly, America is not a democracy and has never been. It was never intended to be. It is, nominally at least, a republic, which is a representative form of government which is by definition in opposition to democracy. The Founders didn't want a democracy, in fact, they feared it. For them to effect their liberation from British capital, they needed to enlist the support of the lower class, to whom they promised much. As soon as they'd won, the ruling class, the New England traders and the Southern planter class, began to renege, even openly discussing the possibility of an American monarchy. It was only due to the pressure exerted by the lower class, often violent, that a republic emerged. The Founders, in their correspondence with each other, discussed the "threat" the lower class posed to their power and wealth, and debated what to do about it. Hence our Congress was born. One House to represent (and appease) the lower class, and a higher, (then) unelected chamber, the Senate, to overrule legislation inimical to the interests of the ruling class. The fact that we have been told our bicameralism is a result of a compromise between the large and small states doesn't make it true. It isn't, as much that we have been taught isn't. Democracy means power directly in the hands of the people, that has never occurred here due to the efforts of the Founders to prevent it. Happy Fourth of July!

But this is a common mistake, and forgivable I suppose.

While I have nothing but contempt for the Fascist, apartheid, Jewish race-state, they are not calling the shots any more than are the elected officials who putatively govern the U.S. For the handful of families who own the planet, some of them Jewish, the desire of Zionists to re-create a Jewish state, and more importantly a West-sponsored, West-dependent state, in the oil-rich Mideast, is of strategic benefit. Many of the ruling international families, including the Jewish ones, showed the Zionists the door when the first emissaries of Jewish irredentism came calling. It was only after oil was discovered in the Mideast that the plutocracy warmed to Zionism. I believe the subsequent history demonstrates that the Zionists are inescapably dependent on international capital and have always acted in concert with the latter's interests knowing they cannot survive without them. While I by no means wish to whitewash Israeli atrocities, of which there have been many, and I mean no disrespect to our beleaguered Palestinian brothers and sisters, Israel is a puppet state whose policies are not their own, and they know it.

On the other end of the Mideast oil belt lies Pakistan, which came into existence at about the same time, and I would argue, for the same reason. As with Israel, this bookend earned the support of the international elite not for concern for the well-being of Indian Muslims, but for its strategic location (more so then than now). Imperial design brought both nations into existence, and has been an albatross around both its necks. I think a review of the activity of their respective intelligence apparatus throughout their brief histories leads decisively to the conclusion that they are controlled from abroad, and have at times been compelled to act against their national interests. But this is not the place for this argument.

More specifically with respect to the USS Victory, I think this is a fine example of Israel taking the blame for something it was ordered to do. This is not to exculpate the Israelis, who were participants in this outrage, but I am persuaded that the idea of the attack did not originate with them.

In order to understand my disagreement with Lawson, it is necessary to debunk another myth, namely, that the Arabs were the aggressor in the 1967 war and Israel's militarism on that occasion was retaliatory. We have been told this lie for decades, but now the Israelis have admitted the obvious truth--that it was they who initiated the war by invading their neighbors. In fact, there was recently an account of this on the History Channel (or maybe it was the Discovery Channel or another of the type) in which high-ranking Israeli warriors appeared on screen and discussed how they had begun preparations in 1964. One knows that all pretense has been abandoned when loyalist media are reporting your subterfuges, however sympathetically.

The Israelis claim that they mistook the Victory for an Egyptian vessel, this after hours of repeated recons. The specific craft for which they say they misidentified the American ship was half the size of the Victory. I think it's fair to say that this is a lie. So why did they attack?

Even if you believe, as I do not, that the Israelis would do anything that might destabilize that critically important region without the consent of Washington, one has to ask how the attack on an American recon vessel would advantage them. This episode occurred simultaneously with Israel's invasions of multiple neighbors, why on Earth would they want to add another to their expansive list of enemies, particularly when it is the world's greatest military? Is this not insane?

The answer usually advanced is that Israel was trying to send the ship down quickly without anyone being the wiser, and that it did so because the Victory was a recon ship and it feared that the U.S. would detect their military operations and intervene in defense of the invaded Arabs.

This could only be true if Israel was acting on its own, and if one assumes that the U.S. would have intervened against the Israelis and put American soldiers, sailors, and airmen into battle against their longtime ally, an ally to whom they had given, and continue to give, billions of dollars in aid.

Given the advocates of this theory are the same contingent who believe the Zionist lobby rules America, why don't they see the political turmoil President Johnson would be creating for himself if he ordered American armed forces into combat against the nation upon whose behalf that omnipotent lobby labors? Isn't this a flaw in the argument? But for me this is a moot point, I believe that the Victory was there to aid the Israeli offensive up to the moment when the information the Victor supplied was no longer needed, and that the subsequent assault on the ship was also preplanned with the U.S. as part of a false flag operation.

In The Ol' Boys, Burton Hersh argues that the Israeli war on its neighbors was organized by American intelligence apparatchik Richard Helms in an operation called Room 303 (or perhaps a similar number, it's been a long time since I read this book). the idea was for the Victory to monitor the armed forces of Israel's Arab neighbors in case they had caught a whiff of Israel's aggressive intentions and began to deploy. Once the war had begun, the Israelis were to sink the Victory and blame Egypt for the crime in order to generate popular support for an armed invasion of the Mideast by American troops. The public was to be told (and were told) that it was Israel who was attacked, as was the Victory, on the orders of Egyptian President and pan-Arabist, Gamal Abdel Nasser, a man very much out of favor in the West. It was believed that the (alleged) attack on Israel might not be sufficient provocation for Americans to support military action in the Mideast, but the attack upon an American ship with the resultant loss of life would, like Pearl Harbor, arouse the country's fighting spirit. Unfortunately (for the plotters that is), the Israelis were unable to down the Victory because a Russian ship happened by and was in a position to observe or even provide assistance for the defenseless American recon ship, so the attack was called off. The absurd we-thought-it-was-an-Egyptian-ship dodge was offered as explanation for the attack, and Israel on its own was able to conquer the Sinai but not depose Nasser.

So there are two theories: The Israelis and Americans were acting in concert with an eye to ridding themselves of perceived adversaries and exerting greater control over the region and its resources; or the Israelis were acting alone, and even had the chutzpah to attack the world's greatest superpower and try to blame an enemy for the deed. I find the former infinitely more plausible. Certainly the two nations have been close allies, with Israel getting the tenderest of care from Washington. Why would they want to jeopardize the "special relationship" they have with their principal benefactor, and one without whose patronage Israel wouldn't last another month? Even if you ascribe no impulse to Israel other than self-interest, why would they bite the hand which has fed it so handsomely? Certainly the Israelis would understand that if they undertook to sink an American ship and assign responsibility to an enemy without the consent of Washington and were discovered, that that would mean the end for Israel. They could not survive long without the support of the U.S., they couldn't survive a week of war against America.

I'm sure there is still much we don't know about the affair. My conclusion is not set in stone. If new information emerges I may revise my opinion. But as it stands, I disagree with Lawson on the Victory incident and who controls whom, but otherwise I support him in his criticism of Israel, and admire his courage.