Newspeak is a term from the novel 1984 where the government controlled the meanings of words and regularly changed the meanings for its political advantage. Terms such as "Freedom is Slavery" and "War is Peace" were used as examples. Today there are more subtle examples that have been introduced into the language.

      At one time in the dim, dark past of maybe the 30 years ago, anti-semitism was limited mainly to overt actions such as painting swastikas on synagogues, publically blaming all Jews for problems and such. Today, the term is shamelessly used to describe criticism of Israel, questioning any story about the Holocaust, or pointing out the fact of life that there is jewish control of Hollywood.

      So what changed? As Mr. Sobran so clearly points out what all of Israel knows, the government and most of the media are in the hands of Israel. This power has been used to expand the meaning of the term anti-semitism far beyond its original meaning of overt actions to anything negative about any Jew or group of Jews or of Israel.

      For example, it is considered to be anti-semitic to point out that United States support of Israel is lead primarily by Jews in Congress and the campaign contributions of the America Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC).

      Additionally Jews form a major voting block in New York State for their electoral votes in presidential elections and in state and local elections. Thus when there was a bomb on a bus in Israel, the mayor of New York City, an Italian Catholic, feels politically compelled to go to Israel for a photo-op riding a bus.

      That is what is called political clout. Were Jews not a political power, we would not see such things happening. One does not see the mayor of Boston rushing to Ireland in response to British terrorism.

      Thus we see the creation of hate crimes laws where it is very clear that the only people who can violate these laws are non-jewish whites. Blacks can not violate them because they were "victims" in the United States. Jews can not violate them because they were victims in Europe over fifty years ago.

      Even pointing this out comes under the umbrella of anti-semitic. There may have been occasional non-violent actions against Jews and rare violent actions but nothing that could possibly put Jews into victim status in this country. The United States has never had any official policy against jews no matter how american Jews try to twist facts into pretending there was.

      Were there anything in the history of this country that would constitute serious anti-semitism we certainly would not have had such major Jewish immigration. If they had been worried about the physical safety of their families and themselves, they certainly would have picked another country. This is the last country where there should possibly be any claim of victimhood.

      Not only our government but our media has promoted this status. Schindler's List is just a recent example. If you are not at least 40 and more like 50 years of age it is difficult to appreciate the change in references to WW II.

      In those days it was all covered fairly proportionately save that the United States war against Japan got a greater share than it deserved. The camp system got coverage in accordance with its true footnote status in that war, it was not even called Holocaust. What today you find on The History Channel was often prime time network fair that earned its keep by its ratings. Over the years, new productions regarding all but the Holocaust aspect of the war decreased to the point of rarity while new productions regarding the Holocaust have increased.

      Consider that the production of a new movie on the Battle of Iwo Jima would be anachronistic while Schindler's List is not. Consider that while the Allies celebrated the fiftieth anniversay of the war as an attempt to minimize future anniversaries Holocaust museums are springing up all over the world, literally the British Imperial War Museum will be adding a holocaust wing soon. Consider that while the name VE Day or VJ Day is no longer on the calendar, Remembrance Day has been unofficially added.

      Here is a test for you. Ask anyone under twenty what the terms VE Day and VJ Day mean. Then ask what the term Holocaust means.

      By the time it was noticed this was happening the media had largely come into the hands of Israel, as is well known in Israel. The news media, to make it more newsworthy in the modern sense, found the worst examples of those who would criticize the change and imply guilt by association. Thus they find anyone who is a characature of a nazi like the Gruppenfuehrer in The Blue Brothers (and of course thank the Hollywood entertainment media for this characature itself) and portray his as the only kind of person who would question the Holocaust or Israel.

      Of course since the media were often named in these citicisms they had a stake in portraying such criticism in a negative light. And as this was seen as endangering United States support of Israel, there was a religious stake in the matter. Please make no mistake about it; although Israel was founded as a political movement as a nation it is now of religious significance to Jews. It is false to pretend otherwise.

      However, as in the US there is a separation of church and state, regardless of the religious sensibilities of jewish Americans there is no justification to bend US foreign policy to the desires of American Jews.

      So today the word anti-semitism that started as an overt act against a group of Jews can be mercilessly applied to even accidental criticism of one Jew. Totally political matters such as criticism of Israel are called anti-semitic. Even though the traditions of Judaism require questioning of even what is in their sacred books, questioning anything about the Holocaust is called anti-semitic.

      Even Marlon Brando, a man who one would certainly consider an expert upon Hollywood from his sixty some year career there, is considered to have made an anti-semitic remarks when he described Hollywood on the Larry King Show in terms that are clear to anyone. In fact he made similar remarks in a Playboy interview in the late sixties and it did not cause any kind of outrage. That is a measure of the magnitude of the change in the times.

      In comparison, lets take for example some doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church such as its positions against abortion and against women being priests. Both are regularly discussed in the media usually in the negative. Can you imagine such a thing were it the tenants of the Hebrew religion?

      Can you imagine the Kosher rules being openly criticism as outdated? Can you imagine a Chief Rabbi being criticized for being an out of touch old man? Can you imagine any kind of public and negative discussion of any aspect of Judaism?

      How about Hassidic Jews and snake-handling Christians being counter-examples of whacko religionists?

      Is that a bit far feteched? How about criticizing fundamentalist Jews as the cause of trouble in the Middle East because they believe in a literal interpretation of the Promised Land belonging to them? Even though that is in fact the cause of it, it can not be discussed negatively and only with very ginger reference in the first place.

      Name any other religion that is off limits for public discussion. But the claim is that it is either a religion or by their mother. Name any but those still following primitive tribal customs that determine membership in this manner.

      But how about these being fair game for public discussion? Can you imagine it without there being embarassed silence around talk show guests? Can you imagine it actually coming up as does the Catholic Church policy towards regarding women priests?

      Yet the United States is deeply involved with Israel as a financial loss and a political no-win situation. Can you imagine a similar situation involving the United States and Vatican City? Should not the factors be discussed? But they can not be publically discussed in a negative manner under pain of being condemned as anti-semitic. The public debate on Israel can only be on how relationship can be improved but it is not permitted to say that the relationship is of no value to the United States much less detrimental to the United States.

      So too, no aspect of the Holocaust can be discussed in a critical manner. It is permitted to discuss the degree of suffering but the mystic nature of the six million and the holocaust is not permitted. Nothing that suggests any apsect of it either did not happen or happened in a materially different manner is called anti-semitic. Even suggesting that millions died of disease is considered anti-semitic.

      That is another aspect of what happens when ordinary people give up the battlefield of ideas, as Ayn Rand put it. An idea was introduced and good men did not speak against it. It came to be sanctified in law and custom.

      Trying to turn it back is now anti-semitic. It has turned into a state of affairs where matters of major interest to United States foreign policy are off limits for public debate.