- "It's a good thing that he did not express his feelings
to someone like myself, because I would have DECKED him."
-
- Now, who do you think uttered those nasty words about
our 33rd president, Harry S. Truman? Was it cowboy tough guy, John Wayne?
No! Was it the California "Governator," Ah-nuld Schwarznegger?
Sorry, wrong thug! It was Richard Cohen, a trendy Woody-Allen-like syndicated
columnist!
-
- Cohen was all steamed up about the recent disclosure
of portions of a diary belonging to the late Truman, who had taken over
as president on April 12, 1945, after the sudden death of FDR. On July
21, 1947, while Truman was still in office, and with the heavy burdens
of a post-WWII on his shoulders, he had written,
-
- "The Jews, I find are very, very SELFISH. They care
not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs, or Greeks get
murdered or mistreated as Displaced Persons as long as the Jews get SPECIAL
TREATMENT.
-
- "Yet when they have power, physical, financial or
political, neither Hitler or Stalin," Truman continued in a philosophical
vein, "has anything on them for CRUELTY OR MISTREATMENT to the underdog.
Put an underdog on top and it makes no difference whether his name is Russian,
Jewish, Negro, Management, Labor, Mormon, Baptist, he goes haywire."
-
- The irresponsible Cohen insisted that he would have assaulted
Truman had he expressed those same words "to someone like myself."
Well, at least, Truman was in good company. Cohen's rant also managed to
insult Thomas Jefferson, one of Virginia's finest patriots.
-
- Truman's critical remarks about the pushy Zionist Cartel
caused Cohen to lash out at him, in a July 15, 2003 spiel that appeared
in the NY Daily News tabloid. Cohen said Truman's words were "anti-Semitic,"
but that he would give him the "benefit of the doubt," since
he had helped to "recognize Israel." Oh, Mr. Cohen, you are so
generous.
-
- Truman, a magnificent son of Missouri, was one of American's
greatest presidents. He brought the war against Nazi Germany and Imperial
Japan to a successful conclusion in 1945. During that monumental conflict,
American troops were fighting in five different theaters, and on two major
global fronts: in the Pacific and in Europe. Truman, ably assisted by giants:
like George C. Marshall, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur, and other
heroes, too, carried the day.
-
- In a just world, every night before he goes to bed, Cohen
should get on his knees and say a prayer of thanksgiving that Truman led
us to final victory in WWII. Now, instead of sincere gratitude, 58 years
after WWII, this pipsqueak of a scribbler and serial apologist for Israeli
wrongdoing, is puffing away about how he would, circumstances permitting,
have DECKED President Truman! Really?
-
- To tell you the truth, in a head to head match up, I
would have to bet on the feisty Truman. The gutsy ex-Field Artillery Captain
from WWI did not take any crap from anyone. Of course, if he had fought
with Cohen and won, then Cohen, a Chicken Hawk, would probably have yelled,
"Hate Crime!" And, the bullies from the ADL would have come running
to his rescue.
-
- Cohen cites the fact that Truman's comments were in response
to efforts of the late Henry Morgenthau, an arch militant Zionist, who
was urging the president to intervene with the British over the issue of
"Jewish displaced persons." Cohen leaves out of his biased narrative
the fact that this is the same Morgenthau, who while serving as U.S. Secretary
of the Treasury, in 1944, had proposed a vengeful and draconian plan for
a post-WWII Germany, which would have reduced that defeated country to
a "pastoral state." That sounds pretty darn "selfish"
and "cruel" to me!
-
- By 1947, Truman was surely aware, too, that many of Josef
Stalin's top executioners, like the "Wolf of the Kremlin," Lazar
Kaganovich, were Jewish. He must have also known that some of the Communist
regimes that Stalin was imposing on Eastern Europe were also significantly
dominated by Jews (See "Black Book of Communism," Stephane Courtois,
Ed.).
-
- As for Palestine, the Zionists had already begun, in
1945, using terrorist tactics against the British. They were also covertly
setting the stage for a blood stained ethnic cleansing campaign against
the indigenous Palestinian people. The expelling of close to a million
Palestinian refugees, and the confiscation of their lands, followed during
and after the 1948 War.
-
- The Israeli massacre at Deir Yasin, in 1948, speaks volumes
about Jewish "cruelty and mistreatment of the underdog" (Check
out PalestineRemembered.com for the murderous details). The Israeli campaign
of terror continues unabated to this very day against unarmed Palestinian
men, women and children (See "Searching Jenin: Eyewitness Accounts
of the Israeli Invasion," 2002, Ed. by Ramzy Baroud)
-
- As for getting SPECIAL TREATMENT, try the fact the Zionist
state has received $97.5 billion in direct U.,S. aid since 1948. Plus,
it has cost the American taxpayers over $3 trillion in indirect costs (WRMEA,
05/03), and made us more, and totally unnecessary, enemies in the Islamic
World.
-
- Cohen said what Truman wrote in his diary was "surely
anti-Semitic." I disagree.
-
- I think Truman was a prophet, who wrote, arguably in
undiplomatic language, his honest impressions of a powerful political lobby.
Despite prospering and competing in the American Republic, some in that
group, like Cohen, wrongly believe that they are ABOVE CRITICISM ("The
Culture of Critique," by Kevin MacDonald.) And, that any criticism,
no matter how well founded towards that Lobby, or one of its prominent
members, equals anti-Semitism. It is long past the time for Cohen, and
the other Zionists, too, to get over that one.
-
- © William Hughes 2003
-
- William Hughes is the author of "Andrew Jackson
vs. New World Order" (Authors Choice Press) and "Baltimore Iconoclast"
(Writer's Showcase). He can be reached at liamhughes@mindspring.com.
-
-
- http://palestinechronicle.com/article.php?story=2003071603301032
-
-
-
- Comment
-
- Den from Philadelphia
|8-4-3
-
- Hi Jeff,
-
- I found the article about Harry S interesting for a couple
reasons. First the spelling. Harry Truman did not have a middle name;
the initial S was added during a political campaign and does not stand
for a name. Harry's middle name was simply S and his name is correctly
displayed as Harry S Truman with no period following the S as it is not
an abbreviation. No kidding, this is a bonus question on many middle school
spelling tests in the US. Second, lets keep in mind that Harry blasts Poles,
Fins, Greeks, Yugo's and more. Not specifically Jews, it's obvious that
Harry is not very diversity minded. Not many people were in those days
and to be honest we are only grudgingly more accepting today. In modern
society it's not acceptable to be racist, sexist, or frankly to possess
any prejudice at all about anyone. But honestly how many of us are that
balanced? I think I'm pretty tolerant but when I pass through a neighborhood
with a racial slant other than mine I feel (not necessarily think) that
I am not safe. This is prejudice, I too am prejudice. In the last few
centuries we slowly became more enlightened and more culturally and gender
diverse, we legally enforced our responsibility to provide everyone with
equal protection and opportunity. It was not an easy move by any means
and caused much social upheaval.
Today there is legal protection of all people in regard to practically
all issues including housing, jobs, education, property, opportunity etc.
I totally agree that all people are entitled to equal opportunity and
equal protection. But I am still prejudice at least a little, my logical
mind is in agreement with political correctness but my reactions seem to
lag behind. In the last couple years I have wondered why I still feel prejudice.
And why other people feel prejudice about me. Why does my son's Korean
karate teacher seem to look down on all Americans and me? We provided
him the opportunity and customers for him to earn a princely salary and
he looks down on us. Why do I almost never hear any blacks on TV saying
how balanced and fair most whites treat them? We have blacks in my neighborhood
and we treat them like everyone else. And why do some whites feel that
the blacks are trying to destroy American culture?
Why do the Jews and Palestinians still deeply distrust each other? Why
do some woman seem to feel that men are helpless creatures and some men
feel ambiguity about women's abilities? Why do women feel stronger because
they express their feelings, men feel stronger because they don't? The
US may advertise equality to all but it still requires the courts to enforce
it, hardly anyone seems to react in a balanced and equal mode. We look
at Kobe and we think some prejudice thoughts, one set of thoughts for the
whites, one for the blacks, one for men and one for women. Same thing we
felt about OJ. We see bulldozers raze Palestinian homes and depending
upon our orientation we feel that one of the two parties is being treated
unfairly. We look at college admission policies regarding race and depending
upon our background we feel one way or the other. We are all still prejudice
in spite of the fact that we represent at least one generation of people
that were raised to not feel and behave this way. Could there be some
other factor at work here? Let's look at Harry's writing again. Harry
S writes "Put an underdog on top and it makes no difference whether
his name is Russian, Jewish, Negro, Management, Labor, Mormon, Baptist,
he goes haywire." Harry is clearly more prejudice than simply an
anti-Semite, Harry is clearly multi bigoted. In fact, I would wager that
Harry S feels his particular background is superior to management than
the lesser cultures of the world. But then so does my mom. Mom is fiercely
proud of her Scottish heritage, no culture is as good as being a Scot.
No offense to the Scot's that read this but honestly, Scotland didn't
launch any rockets or invent any particle physics that I can recall.
So mom is fiercely proud of a heritage that really doesn't seem to have
done much. Sorry mom and the rest of you Scot's (I am Scot too so cut
me a break). Could mom's and Harry's prejudice be linked to a genetic
predisposition for racism and/or prejudice? In the world of nature there
seem to be two types of individual. Prey and predator.
We are all a little of both. Bears fight rival bears. Bees kill rival
bees. My blood cells kill rival foreign cells. The bacteria in my gut
attack each other to keep themselves in stasis. Catholics felt compelled
to launch the inquisition and kill anyone that didn't support their beliefs/interests.
Some radical Muslims feel the same way. So do white supremacists. So
did the Japanese in WW2. Saddam did something similar. Ditto on Hitler,
Stalin, Pol Pot, Edi Amin, and colonies of ants. Cohen is all steamed up
about Harry and wants to deck him. I bet Harry would feel the same way
about Cohen. In the end we all feel justified so the question I ask is
why do we all feel our prejudice is justified? Could it be that we feel
justified because we are programmed to feel bias in support of our own
kind? Could racism, sexism, in reality tribalism be a hard wired survival
instinct? Could it be that we are all instinctively inclined to align
with our clan, tribe, gender, religion, race, nationality, etc? Darwin's
idea of survival of the fittest requires that we compete for resources
and that the best adapted survives to reach reproductive maturity more
often than rivals. In an aware species the best adapted would be the most
ruthless and without conscience. Ruthless individuals with the instinct
to band together will be more likely to survive and this could be the genesis
of tribalism. I am suggesting that the conflicts in the world, the wars,
distrust, and annihilation are instinctive and therefore very hard to eradicate.
I am suggesting that this instinct is present in virtually all life forms
from virus to the most complex multi cellular organisms.
We are inclined to use and exploit for our own survival with little regard
for others and this inclination is a hard wired instinct and we would not
have evolved this far without it. Nor would any of the other organisms
we share the planet and ultimately the universe with. Everything that
has survived this far is therefore the most aggressive and bias of its
evolution. And we expect it/them/us to casually get along in a social
context and accept all the others competing for survival without conflict
and in total fairness. In our increasingly global world could this be
the ultimate limiting factor in peace? Would the only thing to band us
together be an alien invasion like Ronald Reagan suggested? Would we then
feel more like a worldwide tribe and band together for our own common good?
Do Cohen and Harry S both display their tribalism in their reactions?
-
- Fairness, diversity, and equality are without a doubt
fundamental human rights. But the tolerance level to achieve fairness
and equality may be unattainable due to our evolution. The plethora of
laws supporting the rights of practically every social group is so complex
and entwined to be laughable. These laws represent the definition of equality
for every inequality we have recognized. For every inequality that is
corrected by law another group steps up to define how their position became
unbalanced and unequal with the previous adjustment to balance the legal
system. Laws spawn more laws and the boundaries and definitions become
more and more obscured the more we try to define equality. But deep down
we all know what equal is. We are all entitled to the same human rights
and we all intuitively know it. But our evolution doesn't lend itself
to supporting other people's rights; it helps us support our own rights.
This is why many of us feel less suportative for a war in Iraq, Afghan,
Liberia, Bosnia, or Somalia than we feel defending our own soil. It may
be the right thing to do but it doesn't feel right.
-
- I don't have an answer; I don't know how to move on from
here. Perhaps there is no answer other than to make the human populace
aware that we have reached a social plateau that may be controlled by instinct.
Perhaps we need to learn to repress our own selfishness or perhaps to
accept it as the instinct that got us to where we are and use it to get
to the next level of development. Perhaps this is the limit of our evolution,
like a safety net to ensure we don't overpopulate the planet. Whatever
it is, we need to consider that prejudice may have been the tool that allowed
us and all species to evolve to our present level. Rather than condemn
for a human emotion that seems to be a planet wide condition, perhaps we
need to step back and rethink it with less emotion. I would love to hear
some debate on the subject.
-
- Keep up the good work and please don't publish my email
address. Den from Philadelphia.
|
