Self-Contradictory Cant

Perhaps, dear reader, you have heard of John Pilger, an Aussie left-wing writer and documentary filmmaker. To be honest, we’d only vaguely heard of Mr. Pilger, though we must admit we correctly recalled that he somehow got the impression that David Spade’s haircut in Joe Dirt was attractive.

Based in London, Mr. Pilger is essentially Europe’s answer to Michael Moore. He is, then, a stuffed shirt who produces detestable propaganda for bien pensant morons. In addition, much like Mr. Moore, Mr. Pilger has a huge crush on Hugo Chavez. Naturally, Mr. Pilger doesn’t believe that his esteem for Dear Old Hugo damages his supposed regard for human rights.

We mention Mr. Pilger because we recently spied an article he wrote for the May 28 number of the New Statesman, the UK’s premier left-wing weekly. His article made up half of what this issue of the NS advertised as “Gaza: The Jailed State.” As such, we fully expected to be treated to a cornucopia of anti-Israel cant.

And treated we were. In fact, from this sorry article alone, we got a great sense why Auberon Waugh—son of the great Evelyn Waugh—coined the verb “to pilger,” which, according to Wikipedia, means “to present information in a sensationalist manner to reach a foregone conclusion.”

Mr. Pilger’s rancid piece is given the laughable title “Children of the Dust.” Apparently, this buffoon thinks that he’s Stephen King.

As you might imagine, the article contains the sort of palaver you’d expect from an overheated apologist for Palestinian terrorism. As far as Mr. Pilger’s concerned, Hamas yearns for peace, yet evil Israel refuses to play their peaceful game. This is such nonsense, that one wonders whether Mr. Pilger is obtuse or sinister. (From our vantage point, he appears to be both.)

What’s most pathetic about his sordid piece of agitprop, however, is the fact that it’s not even effective propaganda. Instead, it’s self-contradictory garbage.

On the one hand, we get this ridiculous assessment of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

There is no war. There is resistance among the poorest, most vulnerable people on earth to an enduring, illegal occupation imposed by the world’s fourth largest military power, whose weapons of mass destruction range from cluster bombs to thermonuclear devices, bankrolled by the superpower.

Leave aside for the moment the insipid characterization of the Palestinians as “the poorest, most vulnerable people on earth.” How little about the world does Mr. Pilger know to offer such an unintentionally humorous description?

Now, let’s take a look at another choice bit from the selfsame article:

A censorship by omission runs deep in western journalism on Israel, especially in the US. Hamas is dismissed as a “terrorist group sworn to Israel’s destruction” and one that “refuses to recognise Israel and wants to fight not talk.” This theme suppresses the truth: that Israel is bent on Palestine’s destruction.

Forget the fact that this passage amounts to a giant non sequitur: Even if Israel did pine for Palestine’s destruction—which is absurd—this would in no way “suppress” any “truth” about Hamas’ genocidal intent.

But never mind that. Notice how pathetically self-contradictory these two passages are. In the first, the fourth most powerful army—swimming in US dollars—fights against “the poorest, most vulnerable people on earth.” In the second, “Israel is bent on Palestine’s destruction.”

Um, come on, Mr. Pilger. Get your propaganda straight. Israel has had close to 60 years to destroy Palestine. And, by your reckoning, it has an amazing advantage: An army of well-funded Terminators against a flock of Bambis.

So what gives? Why can’t this brutal fighting force destroy these baby seals in 60 years? You’d think it would be awfully easy, wouldn’t you?

It’s sad when propaganda this inept finds its way into print.