Nidra Poller’s J’Accuse
Although it certainly comes as no surprise, it seems that the technique of the Big Lie is not dead. Here’s still another–and very convincing–debunking of the al-Dura blood libel, the story of the death of a young boy that was instrumental in galvanizing world opinion against the Israelis at the start of the second intifada.
Please read Nidra Poller’s J’Accuse and you’ll see why mainstream journalism has come close to losing all credibility with many people–and how, in so doing, it has caused untold damage. The evidence points to the probability that the al-Dura case was an outrageous fake, or at the very least, that his death was at the hands of the Palestinians rather than the Israelis. Furthermore, the facts have most likely been known for quite some time to the journalists and the cameraman responsible for the story, which was promulgated originally by the French media.
Follow the “J’Accuse” link to a discussion of the original “J’Accuse” of Emile Zola, who championed the cause of the falsely accused Dreyfus–in France, naturalmente. In his famous article, Zola was using the mighty medium of the press to accuse the French military tribunal, and the military itself, of an outrageous miscarriage of justice against Dreyfus, a Jew. In the al Dura case, the culprit is the worldwide press itself, particularly France-2, a channel of the state-owned French television network.
Here is British journalist and blogger Melanie Phillips on Poller’s piece:
…the evidence assembled in this article strongly suggests that France 2 is guilty of one of the most monstrous pieces of deception of modern times whose effects in terms of fomenting hatred, violence and mass murder have been incalculable.
It seems the pen is mightier than the sword, both for ill and for good. Most of what Poller writes is not news, but perhaps her article will make it more widely known.
Then again, perhaps not.
In Zola’s case, he was already a huge celebrity, and this helped his “J’Accuse” reach a wide and influential audience. He used his “mighty pen” for good, and he was effective. The following refers to his article:
Written in sparkling and mellifluous prose, imbued with a tone of outrage, the article contains many beautiful sentences and phrases. The most memorable: “la verite est en marche et rien ne l’arretera” (truth is on the march and nothing can stop it).
In my more optimistic moments, I believe that this may be true today: truth is on the march and nothing can stop it.
In my more pessimistic moments, I’m with Churchill: A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.
So, as always, we have lies and truth in a worldwide race. Which will win? Our lives may depend upon the answer.
[ADDENDUM: Michelle Malkin is on the case.]
This story is the centerpiece of “The Life of Emile Zola”, which won the Academy Award for Best Picture in 1938. It’s a fairly good film, even by modern standards, with an excellent performance (again, for the time) by Paul Muni in the title role.
The Dreyfus affair takes up something like 2/3rds of the film, and you begin to realize what he really did when he took on the establishment. It’s the kind of film Hollywood never makes these days — they reserve true individualism for impossible-to-equal heroes like Schwartzenegger or for fantasy/sci-fi like The Matrix (not to suggest I don’t greatly appreciate either).
Can’t have any of our individualist heroes be mere human beings like you or me… no, that wouldn’t do. That wouldn’t do at all.
It’s worth seeing if you can bear watching something in (horror of horrors!!) Black and White.
Propaganda is very effective when it is based on 90% truth and 10% lies.
It is integrated far more easily if it is plausible, but once integrated, it is like a virus that multiplies over and over. Very hard to get rid of without killing the good cells.
Propaganda is a two edged sword however. Because if they are used to believing in lies, then their beliefs should be just as easy to manipulate for us.
If we could free ourselves of PC and red tape in the State Department that is.
Where is today’s Zola? The facts of the Dreyfus case were well known and in the public before Zola wrote his op-ed. But as the voice of France he electrified the anti-clericalist party into action on behalf of Dreyfus.
Is there anyone of that stature who would speak out today?
This big lie has been debunked repeatedly, but it lives on, right up there with the Jenin massacre. Those who are invested in this lie have no incentive to acknowledge the truth. Unsurprisingly, on this unwillingness to recognize the truth, the Bible got there first: Psalms 115:4, speaking of the non-Jewish idols, poetically says, “They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not: They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they smell not….”
Truth can never be a substitute for meaning and judgement.
Was it “good” or “bad” that the USA left Vietnam in 1974? (allowing the post-war genocides.)
It was good. It was bad.
Both statements are “true”, or not, depending on your value system.
But the speed of BLAMING, and even calling for the FIRING of people (like Brown?), might be a negative confluence of the faster Lie with ever faster tech, leading to more rash, hasty actions.