Is that a tongue-in-cheek title? Not really.
It isn’t much of an exaggeration to suggest that the Zionist project is, to many, a sacred entity – and that those who operate by the mainstream Western narrative are terrified of committing the heresy of not being wholly beholden to this Golden Calf.
We all recognise this.
Nothing less than total acquiescence to the Golden Calf is acceptable.
But several particular things happened in the last few weeks that reinforced this reality big-time.
The big one is obviously the deadly electronics attack in Lebanon: and the response to it. We already covered that here, so let’s leave that for now. There’s also the fact that the out-of-control Israeli government has now opened up its second front, this time bombarding a foreign, sovereign state and already killing hundreds in Lebanon.
But there’s a few smaller, less significant incidents in the last few weeks that really demonstrate the dynamic of the worship of the Golden Calf.
Here’s the first two. The third was in the US Presidential Debate, but we’ll get to that.
In the same week that Benjamin Netanyahu condemned the British government for what was a minor and fairly meaningless gesture concerning stopping a few weapons sales to Israel, The Telegraph also published a report accusing the BBC of anti Israel bias.
In both instances, we can see how even the smallest hint of criticising Israel is being treated like a major blood libel. It used to be that it was other Jews, such as the late Hannah Arendt, who were accused of ‘insufficient loyalty’: but now that attitude is directed towards more or less anyone.
In the case of the British Foreign Secretary saying certain sales to the Israeli military would be suspended, it wasn’t just Netanyahu who lashed out at his ally: the Chief Rabbi in the UK also took exception.
This is even though only 30 of the 350 arms components sold by the UK to the Israelis were under review.
The move was a mere symbolic gesture to try to pacify pro-Palestinian voices in parliament: it really amounts to nothing, given all the support that Britain is continuing to provide unquestioningly to the Israeli campaign, whether it’s militarily, intelligence-based, or propaganda wise.
But anything less than absolute devotion is considered a betrayal, as far as the Golden Calf is concerned.
Anyone notice the Golden Calf at the Paris Olympics ceremony this summer, by the way? Weird.
Anyway, Netanyahu and co essentially dismissed all of the UK’s substantial support to Israel as meaningless and unappreciated.
Meanwhile the idea of this supposed anti Israel bias at the BBC is nonsense, of course. But it demonstrates that even the slightest attempt by a broadcaster to be balanced in its Middle East coverage is perceived as some kind of gross betrayal of the Israeli state.
The whole maneuver is easier to understand when you look at where the Telegraph report originated and who was involved. Specifically British lawyer Trevor Asserson, who runs Israel’s largest international law firm, Asserson Law Offices, and who has long campaigned against the BBC.
Most of the attack on the BBC centers on words and semantics, such as use of terms like ‘war crime’ or references to ‘international law’, which are seen to be prejudicial against Israel.
Objections are even raised over the West Bank being referred to as ‘occupied’.
A few specific journalists, mostly linked to the BBC’s Arabic Service are singled out, as is veteran reporter Jeremy Bowen: but it’s mostly about language and optics.
The BBC has understandably refuted the report and its methodologies.
In fact, other studies have suggested that if there is any BBC bias it has been in favour of Israel.
Data scientists Dana Najjar and Jan Lietava, for example, analyzed a total of six hundred articles and four thousand live-feed posts on the BBC between October 7th and December 2nd, and concluded there was a “systematic disparity” in the language and framing of Israeli deaths versus Palestinian deaths.
Similar studies elsewhere have also produced similar results.
Even more noteworthy is that the BBC has been blocking aid appeals for the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
As reported last week, aid agency insiders claimed the broadcaster won’t allow any such appeals, with Disasters Emergency Committee sources saying the BBC fears backlash from those supportive of Israel’s war with Hamas.
Does that sound like an anti Israel bias?
But no, that’s still not good enough for the Golden Calf: it’s still insufficient loyalty.
In fact, this blocking of aid appeals is ironically a throwback to the famous footage of the late Tony Benn on the BBC back in 2009re, insisting he would broadcast a Palestinian aid appeal despite the BBC banning him from doing so.
Not a lot has changed, it seems.
But the third thing that really drove home this reality was the embarrassing spectacle of two US presidential candidates arguing about who is the more loyal to Israel.
During the Presidential Debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris this week, the two candidates were vying for Israeli approval like children fighting for their parents praise.
Trump says he is the best friend Israel ever had. He accused his opponent of insufficient respect for Israel. Harris duly insisted she has always worked for Israeli interests: but gave lip service to the need for a two state solution.
Some American voters watching might’ve asked themselves why religious-like devotion to a tiny country in a different continent was featuring so heavily in this debate supposedly about America’s future.
But for a lot of Americans – especially in the political establishment – there would’ve been nothing odd about it.
This is AIPAC country, after all: and no one becomes president of the United States without prostrating to kiss the AIPAC ring and worship in the glow of the Golden Calf.
It’s not even limited to the crazy Evangelicals and their end times agenda. Kamala Harris isn’t some right-wing Christian Zionist fanatic – but she has to bow to the Golden Calf just like everyone else does. And it’s embarrassing to watch.
Remember how angrily Netanyahu and the Zionists in both Israel and the US reacted to Barack Obama simply saying Palestinians needed to have more rights? He was practically depicted as Lucifer from that point on.
At least Alexandra Ocasio Cortez has been more honest, publicly revealing that she turned down the 100,000 dollars AIPAC offered her to shill for Israel.
Meanwhile the only country that is allowed to be secretive about its nuclear arsenal is now also the only country that can carry out a terrorist attack on foreign soil without being condemned or brought to task.
And after eleven months of decimation in Gaza, which supposedly high-minded world powers and democracies have stood by and shrugged at, that same rogue state now launches attacks on a neighbour state and openly plots a ground invasion… while, again, everybody looks on and shrugs.
Or worse, resumes making justifications on the Golden Calf’s behalf.
The way Britain, the US and European governments have dismissed or even demonised the International Court of Justice for months now has also been an extraordinary demonstration of subservience to the interests of the Golden Calf: showing that even international law and international institutions must be demeaned or diminished for the sake of the shimmering golden idol.
Even boycotting of Israeli goods – one of the few forms of actionable opposition available – are condemned: and, in some cases, made illegal.
Contrast this to the blanket sanctioning, boycotting and condemning of Russia following the Ukraine invasion: and the difference is night and day.
The Golden Calf cannot be boycotted. All must bow to its will. Get those Red Heifers over to the Holy Land, pronto. All must be fulfilled.
You know, it’s actually us – the non-worshippers – that are living in sin. We shall surely be punished some day for insufficient loyalty to the great project: and for not submitting at the altar of the Golden Calf. Shame on us.
Thk you
Always so good to read you.
Well summarized.
Hi! Where have you been? I was wandering if you had vanished. Great to hear from you.