Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Jeff Benjamin 83rd Floor WTC North Tower


http://old.911digitalarchive.org/stories/details/7639

Contributed by:
Jeff Benjamin

Contributor's location on 9/11: 83rd Floor WTC North Tower
Contributed on: September 16, 2002

My name is Jeff Benjamin and I was visiting a client, Axcelera Specialty Risk, on the 83rd Floor of the North Tower when we observed an approaching aircraft (American Airlines Flt.11) from a distance of approx. 3-4 miles. At the time we initially spotted the plane, it appeared to be level with us. We could distinctly identify the American airlines insignia and my client commented that perhaps the plane had taken off from Kennedy and was experiencing mechanical problems. As the plane approached us it seemed to climb. I stood up from the conference table and walked over to the window assuming as everyone did that there was no imminent danger. As the plane came closer we could see that it was traveling at a high rate of speed and the sound of the engines intensified. Immediately before impact we could see images in the cockpit and the plane banked sharply. A split second later we heard an echoing shot, fell to the floor and observed a fireball followed by debris which struck the side of the building. At the same time you could feel the building sway every so slightly for a brief moment. We immediately retreated towards the main part of the office where we noticed a huge fireball shooting out of the elevator shaft which quickly disappeared. Fortunately, the glass door between our office and the elevator lobby remained intact as the drywall and ceiling tiles caught fire. The fire burned off leaving thick acrid black smoke some of which entered the office through the ceiling where some tiles had collapsed above the reception desk. We immediately went to the kitchenette in the office to locate hand towels and paper towels which we wet down in the sink to stuff under the door and to cover our mouths to prevent as much smoke as possible from entering our lungs. No one seemed to know for sure where the stairways were, and since the smoke was heavy in the elevator lobby, we decided to stay in the office for the time being. Almost as if on cue the phones began to ring. Relatives and co-workers called to provide assurance and to let us know they had contacted 911 operators and advised them there were people located on the 83rd floor that need to be rescued. I personally contacted a 911 operator and let them know our location. The operator stated we should remain in the office as they would provide our whereabouts to the firemen which were already in the building and on their way up. Shortly thereafter the phones stopped ringing. Minutes passed which seemed like hours. We closed the office doors located by the exterior windows as we were afraid some of the debris crashing against the side of the building could break some windows and physically located near the walls bordering the elevator lobby. It became eerily quiet as everyone seemed to pause in reflection. I specifically recall a woman, who entered our office from the elevator lobby immediately after impact, stating "If you think we are in bad shape you should see the South Tower". We had heard a large explosion but were not aware that it came from the South Tower. I proceeded to go to the far end of the office where I could see the South Tower. When I looked down I observed fire which totally engulfed one of the lower floors. It was the most frightening sight I had ever seen. Aprox. 30 minutes had passed when we decided to attempt to escape. We exited the office holding paper towels over our face to shield us from the smoke and began to walk slowly down the hall carefully avoiding smoldering drywall and ceiling panels that had fallen. We had walked only about 20 steps when we heard an explosion in the building and the lights went out. Immediately, everyone turned around and stumbled back into the office. We waited in panicked silence starring towards the lobby. No one spoke as we stood there clutching our possessions. Five minutes passed, and then miraculously, we saw the beam of a flashlight in the lobby. We all shouted as we watched the ray of light approach the glass office door. The door opened and a fireman appeared along with a building worker. They were very calm and advised us to leave everything behind as we would need both hands free to hold the railings in the stairwell as water was flowing down the stairs from the sprinklers on the upper floors. I led our group of eight as we began our escape. They directed us to the stairwell where another fireman held the door open. He advised me to proceed down to the 78 floor, exit the stairway and cross the floor to another stairway which we were to follow all the way down. Initially the smoke was heavy and there was a stream of water going down the stairs. The firemen advised the smoke would lessen as we went further down which it did. As we made our way down I don't recall meeting any other people for about 30 floors. Then we began to meet firemen going up as we were going down. I would estimate that we passed about 50 firemen. Though you could see the concern on their faces, there was an air of calm about them. They continually reassured us and advised us to take a brief rest if we need one. We encountered office workers carrying their injured colleagues down the stairs. One of my colleagues gave his nitroglycerin to someone who was suffering an apparent heart attack. As we proceeded further down we encountered firemen on each of the lower floors. They had broken into soda machines and were handing out drinks to ease our parched throats. As we approached the 10th floor, we heard a loud noise. I asked a fireman what it was. As I recall, he said the 65th floor collapsed. Shortly thereafter, a rush of dust came up the stairwell and stopped everyone in their tracks. The firemen on the floor motioned us out of the stairwell and into a hallway on the floor. They advised us they were opening up another stairway from which we could exit the building. Another five minutes passed as we waited in the cramped hallway. Finaaly, I heard a fireman behind me say the stairway we had been in was clear. I grabbed ahold of my client and we ran down the remaining floors to the main lobby. As we exited the stairwell and proceeded to pass the security area we heard what appeared to be an interior wall or elevator shaft collapse behind us. The main lobby was almost unrecognizable. Debris covered the walls and floor and all the windows were shattered. We exited through a window onto the street where we only saw a single policeman. He directed us to go under the covered walkway over Water Street where we ran into a group of firemen. they directed us to another policeman who told us to go towards the waterfront. We ran to the waterfront and tried in vain to call our families on cellphones that were offered to us. Within five minutes I looked up at the North Tower and noticed the antenna begin to lean. Soon the whole building began to implode. We ran up along the river but soon realized we were well away from the debris cloud. We boarded a ferry boat that had pulled up along the seawall and rode the boat back to the safety of Union Station in Hoboken where we were finally able to contact our families.

Cite as: Jeff Benjamin, Story #7639, The September 11 Digital Archive, 16 September 2002, .
Archival Information: 1280 words, 7100 characters
How do I know that this item is factual?

Monday, July 20, 2009

Darryl Worley's "Have You Forgotten?"

He seems to have forgotten Vietnam rather conveniently.


I hear people saying we don't need this war
But, I say there's some things worth fighting for
What about our freedom and this piece of ground
We didn't get to keep 'em by backing down
They say we don't realize the mess we're getting in
Before you start your preaching let me ask you this my friend

Have you forgotten how it felt that day?
To see your homeland under fire
And her people blown away
Have you forgotten when those towers fell?
We had neighbors still inside going thru a living hell
And you say we shouldn't worry 'bout bin Laden
Have you forgotten?

They took all the footage off my T.V.
Said it's too disturbing for you and me
It'll just breed anger that's what the experts say
If it was up to me I'd show it everyday
Some say this country's just out looking for a fight
Well, after 9/11 man I'd have to say that's right

Have you forgotten how it felt that day?
To see your homeland under fire
And her people blown away
Have you forgotten when those towers fell?
We had neighbors still inside going thru a living hell
And we vowed to get the one’s behind bin Laden
Have you forgotten?

I've been there with the soldiers
Who've gone away to war
And you can bet that they remember
Just what they're fighting for

Have you forgotten all the people killed?
Yeah, some went down like heroes in that Pennsylvania field
Have you forgotten about our Pentagon?
All the loved ones that we lost and those left to carry on
Don't you tell me not to worry about bin Laden
Have you forgotten?

Have you forgotten?
Have you forgotten?

Democracy Now! Eugene Jarecki on "Why We Fight."

11 February, 2006
Demorachy Now!

A new film opening in theaters nationwide Friday takes a look at the American war machine over the past half century. "Why We Fight" looks at conflicts from World War II right up to the current war in Iraq to examine the political, economic and ideological reasons that drive American war policy.

The film includes interviews with John McCain, Gore Vidal, William Kristol and Richard Perle, as well as a retired New York City cop and Vietnam vet who lost a son in the World Trade Center attacks.

"Why We Fight" won the 2005 Grand Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival. It opens in theaters nationwide today. Director Eugene Jarecki's previous film, "The Trials of Henry Kissinger" was widely acclaimed and won the 2002 Amnesty International Award.

AMY GOODMAN: 45 years ago, January, 1961, Dwight D. Eisenhower gave his final address as President of the United States.

PRES. DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER: My fellow Americans, this evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen. We have been compelled to create a permanent armament industry of vast proportions. Three-and-a-half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. The total influence, economic, political, even spiritual, is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development, yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

AMY GOODMAN: Those words are the starting point for a new film that examines the forces that take a look at the American war machine over the past half-century. The film is called Why We Fight. It’s by filmmaker Eugene Jarecki, looking at conflicts from World War II right up until the current war in Iraq, to examine the political, economic and ideological reasons that drive American war policy. The film includes interviews with John McCain, Gore Vidal, William Kristol, Richard Perle, as well as a retired New York City cop and Vietnam vet, who lost a son in the World Trade Center attacks. Why We Fight has won the 2005 Grand Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival. It opens in theaters nationwide today. The director Eugene Jarecki's previous film, The Trials of Henry Kissinger was widely acclaimed and won the 2002 Amnesty International Award. Eugene Jarecki joins us in our studio today. Welcome.

EUGENE JARECKI: Hi, thanks for having me

AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. The cover of Time-Out New York is a picture of, well, President Eisenhower, and it says "I told you so."

EUGENE JARECKI: Yeah, I was very proud to see Eisenhower on the cover of Time Out. That was a real milestone for us in making the film, because he's been on my mind for some years, and getting him into the public mind is a big deal for me.

AMY GOODMAN: Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower sounds very radical, very revolutionary today.

EUGENE JARECKI: Well, he's remarkable. I mean, here you have a hero of World War II and ultimately a man who then finds his way into the Oval Office quite grudgingly and ends up in the presidency witnessing firsthand how policy is made. And you know, we've been told by Bismarck, that if you don't – “there are two things you don't want to see getting made. One of them is sausages and the other is policy,” and Eisenhower had to watch that.

AMY GOODMAN: His famous line “military-industrial complex” actually was longer, right? “Military-industrial-congressional complex”?

EUGENE JARECKI: Yes. Eisenhower’s family appears in the film, and they talk about this speech and why he made it, and what it was about, and yes, they do reveal that in the early drafts of the speech, the formulation was “military-industrial-congressional complex,” because Eisenhower, as President, was keenly aware of the central role played by Congress in making possible the aspirations of the military-industrial elites. Without the help of Congress, where would the money come from?

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to go to a clip of Why We Fight that deals with interventions and begins with, well, Gore Vidal.

GORE VIDAL: We live here in the United States of Amnesia. No one remembers anything before Monday morning. Everything is a blank. We have no history.

CHARLES LEWIS: There are so many theories about what happened in Iraq and why we really went in, but when you look at the history of the United States, almost every president, there is something we don't like somewhere in the world, and we’ve got to dispense military force.

This is not about one president or one party. We fight as a nation because we perceive it is in our interest to fight. We then mention words like “freedom” and nice common values that -- who can be against freedom? -- when in fact much more has been going on privately.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Charles Lewis, and this is the film Why We Fight, going through the interventions. Why is that important to your thesis?

EUGENE JARECKI: Because I think Americans right now are preoccupied with thinking this is a one-off, that we've never done this before, that the American public has never found itself deeply in a war, far too in to go back, learning that the reasons we were given up front turn out not to have been what was discussed behind closed doors. And the sad reality is, Iraq is not unique in that way. The weapons of mass destruction are as grave an illusion as the Gulf of Tonkin was. And we've had a number of wars, all too many, where there's a huge gap between what the public understands and what is truly driving the machine.

AMY GOODMAN: When you say Gulf of Tonkin, for those who weren't even born then –

EUGENE JARECKI: Like myself. The Gulf of Tonkin was the myth on which Johnson's entry into the Vietnam War was based. The idea that our ships had been attacked in the Gulf later turned out not to have been true, but it was very useful illusion for those who wanted to compel us to war.

AMY GOODMAN: The title, Eugene Jarecki, of your film, Why We Fight, also goes back.

EUGENE JARECKI: It sure does, and you know, people have said that I took the title from Frank Capra's World War II films, the “Why We Fight” series. And, yes, guilty as charged. Not only that, I’d like to think I took Frank Capra's movie. I mean, he’s a better movie maker than me, but Frank Capra was an extraordinary defender of democracy, and he was ultimately one of the most committed artists we've ever had to protecting the little guy against the forces in our society that can compromise democracy and threaten the little guy. How do I see that? Well, in It's a Wonderful Life Jimmie Stuart plays George Bailey trying to protect little Bedford Falls essentially from Wal-Mart. In Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Jefferson Smith travels to Washington to stand until he’s weary on his feet to protect his little creek back home from special interests. And the fact is, when Frank Capra made the "Why We Fight" films, he took that concern for democracy global, and he told Americans that they had to stand up to fight to protect democracy. This sounds like a plug for your show, but the fact is he did. He wanted us to stand up and fight to protect democracy on a global scale. And at this moment in our history, like many people, I fear that our own democracy is in peril, both from without, but more importantly, from within, in many of the ways that Mr. Eisenhower pointed out.

AMY GOODMAN: Eugene, there's a central figure in your film Why We Fight, a man who lost his son on September 11th. Can you talk about him?

EUGENE JARECKI: Yeah, Wilton Sekzer was a New York City police officer for most of his adult life, and before that he had served in Vietnam as a door gunner. And, you know, he lived an extraordinary life, and it was a life devoted to his country. It has been, it continues to be. And on 9/11, he turned a corner on an elevated train in New York City, looking across the river to the city, and he saw that the tower of the World Trade Center was on fire. To those in the train, it was a horror. To Wilton, it was an unimaginable horror, because his son, Jason, worked in the building, and he knew at that moment, I think, that it wasn't good, and when he lost Jason, Wilton, like many people, dealt with that kind of strange mix of anguish and the impulse toward revenge. The impulse toward revenge was there in some people, not all people, but certainly in Wilton, and I think he felt particularly helpless that morning, because he was a cop. I think, you know, imagine if you're someone who is used to thinking that your job is to get people's cat out of the tree and help somebody on their way to school, and you watch something unfold in your own city about which you're completely helpless, and it affects you so directly.

AMY GOODMAN: Let's go to a clip of Why We Fight.

WILTON SEKZER: I think I was reading something about the bombing in Iraq. And I get this email to Major Thomas V. Johnson from the Lieutenant Commander Steven Franzoni, the private to the corporal to the captain to this -- must have been like 42 emails. And some of them were saying, “Well I don't know if we can do this, sirs. Normally we do not take personal requests.” “Son died on 9/11, wants to know if we can put name on bomb.” Passing it up, “Harry, this is Jerry, do you think we can do something like that?” Joe: “Fairly easy, don't you think?” “Well, we'll look into it. Let me go ask Harry,” and you read this whole list of emails. “Sorry for the delay, but business is booming. The weapons don't stay still long enough to write on them,” and finally, he goes to this Marine Air Division, “Can do, semper fi.” I get back the pictures. I'm looking at the pictures, I'm saying, “Holy smokes, there's a picture of a bomb, and then a close-up of the same bomb, and on the side of it, "In loving memory of Jason Sekzer." And the story that this is a 2,000-pound guided bomb, and that it was dropped on April 1, and it met with 100% success.

AMY GOODMAN: Wilton Sekzer, a retired New York City cop, in Why We Fight. Eugene Jarecki, a little more about him?

EUGENE JARECKI: It's an extraordinary story. I mean, Wilton was one of those Americans who was led by the current administration to think that there was a link between Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaeda organization, something that anybody who knows the first thing about the Middle East, knows it's almost systemically impossible. They believe in different things. They are fundamentally opposed already themselves at the time that they're being linked by an administration that sees it as useful to play upon Americans' natural racisms and natural lack of knowledge about other peoples, because it's easy to kind of say -- to lump Arabs all into one group, lump Middle-Eastern people all into one group and say: One person's 9/11 must be another person's 9/11. And so Wilton is put in a position to believe, from his president, who he trusts greatly and voted for -- he’s put in a position to believe that Saddam is behind the attacks, and therefore, that he should become involved in the Iraq war in a direct way.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, let's go to the clip that you have in the film of President Bush, and then this retired New York City cop reacting.

PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH: We – we -- we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th. No, what the Vice President said was that he had --

WILTON SEKZER: What did he just say? I mean, I almost jumped out of the chair. I don't know where people got the idea that I connected Iraq to 9/11. What is he, nuts or what? What the hell did we go in there for? We're getting back for 9/11. Well, if he didn't have anything to do with 9/11, why did we go in there? I was mad. I was mad. My first thought is: you know, you're a liar.

I'm from the old school. Certain people walk on water, and the President of the United States is one of them. If I can't trust the President of the United States, I don't know. It’s a terrible thing, when American citizens can't trust their president. You begin to wonder, what the hell is with the whole system? There's something wrong with the entire system. The government exploited my feelings of patriotism, of a deep desire for revenge for what happened to my son, but I was so insane with wanting to get even, I was willing to believe anything.

AMY GOODMAN: Wilton Sekzer, he is a retired New York cop, lost his son on September 11th, one of the people that is featured in Eugene Jarecki's award-winning documentary, Why We Fight. Eugene, in our studio, won the 2005 Grand Jury Prize at Sundance, and congratulations for that. Deeply moving story of this transformation of this man.

EUGENE JARECKI: Yeah, he's an incredible person. And I think, you know, when you're a filmmaker, you start out – anybody who tells you it's an objective form, is lying. It's a subjective form. You start out with ideas and feelings you have about a subject and then hopefully you do what we did, which is you go and you reach out to people who think very differently and don't have those impulses. And let's say you're A, you meet them and they're B, and the tragedy in America on the shouting match on television right now is that supposedly A or B is supposed to win. And I end up in a situation where I'm A, I meet B, I want to end up at A plus B equals C. I want to end up in a new place, and I'm a changed person for having met Wilton. And I hope he's changed to some extent for having been involved in the film, and that audiences feel that change on all of our parts.

AMY GOODMAN: And you show a young man, who – you worked with young filmmakers, who, -- well, E.V.C., Educational Video Center, used to be here in the Firehouse we broadcast from at Downtown Community Television. Talk about that part, that thread in Why We Fight?

EUGENE JARECKI: Well, the Educational Video Center is an incredible group here in New York City, run by Steve Goodman, who invented this wonderful apparatus for teaching young people how to document their lives with cameras, and for professionals like myself, it's a wonderful opportunity to do something very hands-on and not just sit in a dark room somewhere contemplating the fate of mankind. You can actually become directly involved in it. And movies can get pretty tiresome, and you can spend years not knowing if you'll ever come out with your movie. So I was teaching these kids in this inner city youth program how to document things around them.

And they knew I was making a movie about war. The kids were cool, and they were smart, and they figured if they made a movie that was also sort of tangentially related to war, it would have a sporting chance of ending up in my movie, and they played their cards right, because they decided to start filming the story of the recruitment of one of their friends, because people are being recruited on all sides of them right now, because we do have, as so many of us recognize, a kind of poverty back-door draft in America that is forcing young people by economics to put themselves in harm's way at a time of war and join the military. And so they said, “We're going to go off and film the story of one of our recruits.”

Now, a lot of the kids are black and Latino, so out of probably my own just presumptuous, you know, impulse, I thought they would come back with a black or Latino kid and the story of some kid who was in their ethnic groups. And they didn't. They came back with a white kid. And what was fascinating about that was that they were -- the kids were race-blind and very class-aware. They knew that this is a class issue, that ultimately, if you're poor in America right now, there's a draft.

AMY GOODMAN: Eugene Jarecki, your film is going nationwide today, but the politics of how a film makes it in this country is not very well-known, because the very corporations that control the message on television -- How does something like this get out there amidst all the Hollywood hype?

EUGENE JARECKI: Well, it starts in the worst way, because we couldn't raise the money for this film in the United States anywhere, and so a filmmaker like myself, wanting to make a critical film and a concerned film, has to go abroad. And so, I had to go to Britain, to Canada, to France, to Germany, to sister nations of the United States, whose media systems are far more healthy, that have not been emaciated by the dogs of corporatism in the way that ours have, where we have let those dogs run loose, and they have erased the kind of regulations that used to protect freedom of communication, where we have shrunk the range of the sort of biodiversity of opinion in American television, to what Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting calls the full spectrum from A to B.

It’s a harrowing time here, and so getting the money is the hard part. Once you’ve got the money from abroad, then we made a film, and then winning Sundance, actually, it’s what Michael Moore said about capitalism, “will give you the rope to hang itself,” or sorry, better said, “It will sell you the rope to hang yourself.” You know, we were successful, and once you’re successful, there was the bidding war to pick up the film, and then Sony Pictures Classics, who really are one of the most decent and honorable companies that take out films in a very committed way that is more than just about the bottom line, they, thankfully, picked up the film and are taking it out, you know, to about 200 cities. It’s a very wide release.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, I know it's coming out here in New York and all over the country?

EUGENE JARECKI: Yeah, it is. You know, and it's a remarkable thing. Having said that it's got this great big distributor, I cannot stress to audiences enough that this is all about them, that the listeners you have, if they don't come to the theater, they don't send a message to corporate America that these films matter. And I can't -- I sit with these corporate guys right now, and I get to know them, and I watch how they read the numbers, and frankly, when they see that people are showing up, they see that it's both good for bottom line, and it actually makes them think that what they're doing means something, and it's a very important point that I don't think a lot of people recognize because they just picture that –you know, we have so many examples of how corporate America is our enemy that the few case studies where there are actually corporations, like bringing out my movie, which is about as, you know, which is about as critical a movie as there could be, does mean a lot, and we've got to show up at the theater.

AMY GOODMAN: And, of course, if it makes it in the big cities, it goes out all over America.

EUGENE JARECKI: Yes, because it sends them a signal that this dog can hunt, and if they think it can, then they really get behind it.

AMY GOODMAN: Eugene Jarecki, I want to thank you very much for being with us, award-winning documentary filmmaker. His film Why We Fight is opening nationwide today.

Democracy Now! Eugene Jarecki on “The American Way of War: Guided Missiles, Misguided Men, and a Republic in Peril”

The American Way of War: Guided Missiles

Election Day is two weeks away, and this year may see one of the highest voter turnouts in US history. But filmmaker and author Eugene Jarecki argues that while voting is essential, it is not enough. He writes, “Unless we see our vote as part of a commitment to involve ourselves consistently and unrelentingly in the political process, our vote is wasted. This is because the forces that have led us to this economic, military, and political precipice exert such awesome power over the mechanics of Washington that no single candidate or group of legislators, whatever their intentions, can possibly go up against them unless armed with an irrepressible public mandate.”

Guest:

Eugene Jarecki, filmmaker who made the acclaimed documentaries Why We Fight and The Trials of Henry Kissinger. His new book, just published, is The American Way of War: Guided Missiles, Misguided Men, and a Republic in Peril.

AMY GOODMAN: Election Day is two weeks away. This year may see one of the highest voter turnouts in US history, if not the highest. But filmmaker and author Eugene Jarecki argues that while voting is essential, it’s not enough. He writes, “Unless we see our vote as part of a commitment to involve ourselves consistently and unrelentingly in the political process, our vote is wasted. This is because the forces that have led us to this economic, military, and political precipice exert such awesome power over the mechanics of Washington that no single candidate or group of legislators, whatever their intentions, can possibly go up against them unless armed with an irrepressible public mandate.”

Eugene Jarecki argues American democracy has been undermined by the military-industrial complex. President Eisenhower warned about this in his farewell address to the nation in 1961.

    PRESIDENT DWIGHT EISENHOWER: My fellow Americans, this evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Three-and-a-half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. The total influence, economic, political, even spiritual, is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development, yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.


AMY GOODMAN: President Dwight Eisenhower, delivering his final address as president of the United States in 1961. He is featured in Eugene Jarecki’s film Why We Fight. He also did the film The Trials of Henry Kissinger. His new book, just published, is called The American Way of War: Guided Missiles, Misguided Men, and a Republic in Peril. He joins us in our firehouse studio.

Welcome to Democracy Now!

EUGENE JARECKI: Thanks for having me.

AMY GOODMAN: The American way of war, what is it?

EUGENE JARECKI: Well, the American way of war is usually a term used to think about sort of what America brought to war making that other countries hadn’t done before, typically sort of mass production of equipment and weapons and logistics. And I sort of saw something evolve over our history that I thought was better represented by that term, “the American way of war,” which is really how America lost her way through war making, what war has done, the best of wars, the worst of wars, wars that seemed, quote, “necessary” and wars that seemed frivolous or sort of shadowy motives, like the one we’ve just experienced. The wars of all kinds, they guide America away from her founding principles, from basic standard norms of decency and humanity. And I think the American way of war is a sort of—is a very tragic way, in a sense, that needs now to be fixed, needs to be rescued. And that’s where I think the public comes in so necessarily.

AMY GOODMAN: Talk about President Eisenhower’s last address.

EUGENE JARECKI: Well, it’s an incredible moment. Here you have a general turned president; the hero of World War II becomes a two-term Republican president. And he takes his last few moments in office to warn his fellow Americans about this extraordinary threat to democracy: the military-industrial complex, a term he really coins that night and leaves us with to now sit, forty years later, and think, well, what exactly did he mean, and how do we apply it to today?

AMY GOODMAN: Republican president.

EUGENE JARECKI: Republican two-term president, and really the hero of Republicanism for the twentieth century in so many ways.

AMY GOODMAN: And general.

EUGENE JARECKI: And general. And a guy who knew very, very well, from the absolute front lines of battle and then from the front lines of the battles of Washington—he was once overheard in the Oval Office; he got so exasperated with the way in which the defense sector was manipulating public policy and really, as he said, holding his public policy captive, that he said out loud in exasperation in the Oval Office, “God help this country when somebody sits at this desk who doesn’t know as much about the military as I do.”

AMY GOODMAN: Barack Obama, who is now ahead in the polls two weeks ahead of the election—early voting has begun in scores of states right now, so people have already cast their votes—has pledged to increase military spending—

EUGENE JARECKI: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: —and has called for a surge in Afghanistan.

EUGENE JARECKI: Yes. Well, this is—you know, this is business as usual in Washington. And I think, you know, somebody like Barack Obama, you see somebody with what you would feel are probably very good intentions, and you get the sense that around the Obama kitchen table there’s a lot of heartfelt, well-meaning thought going on, and yet the machine does not care how well-meaning Barack Obama is, doesn’t care how well-meaning the voters are who hope that Barack Obama can make change. The machine is a cutthroat instrument of power. And all the rest of us are kind of cannon fodder in it.

And it’s not because it’s, you know, run by evil men like Dick Cheney. That’s kind of incidental. What really is happening is that you have a machine out there that has a vested interest, that simply pulses forward. And the only thing that can slow it is what Eisenhower called an alert and knowledgeable citizenry, basically all of us being deeply engaged. And we’re not, for several reasons that have to do with how our society evolved and how the American way of war took over the American way.

AMY GOODMAN: This call you’re making at the Huffington Post, saying voting is, yeah, essential, but not enough, talk more about the activism that you’re calling for.

EUGENE JARECKI: Sure. Well, you know, it’s an amazing thing. The one elephant in the room that’s always there, that we all never talk about, is just what we can do. And I get asked this question everywhere I talk to audiences. People really are scratching their heads about, well, what can I do? I’m just an everyday person. I’m overworked. I’m torn between paying bills and trying to put my kids through school, and I’ve got the cell phone and the computer and mortgage and everything. And it’s very hard, you know, to then say to somebody, “Well, your society is in peril. You need to be a Jefferson. You need to be a Madison. You need to think about this society.”

But I dare say, no matter how busy people are, we all have two things that we can do that are very crucial. One is to figure out, honestly, candidly, that we all have a bunch of time we waste in life watching American Idol, surfing the internet, whatever we do that’s our version of wasting time. And we all have something, no matter how busy we are. It’s sort of human nature. You’ve got to take some of that time and figure out how to direct it toward social change, because if all you do is vote at election time and sort of wake up and go, “Oh, my god, something’s happening; I’ll throw my vote in,” it services your conscience, it services your feel—your desire to feel like you’re doing something, but the actual practical implications of that are that a single candidate, up against the incredibly tangled corruption of this system, is hopeless. And they’re made more hopeless by the fact that we are disengaged, because without a public mandate, somebody like Barack Obama will enter the White House, and, as you see, it’s already happened in the evolution of his policy paradigms, he’ll enter the White House without a mandate. And if he doesn’t have a mandate, those enormous forces of power will give him a mandate. They’ll give him a very clear mandate.

AMY GOODMAN: Explain your example of the B-1 bomber.

EUGENE JARECKI: Perfect example. You know, the B-1 bomber has a piece of it made, a piece of the plane made, in every single US state. Now, why? I mean, that’s not an efficient way to make a product. So, it must be serving some end. And the end, it turns out, that it serves is that the B-1 bomber was designed by its makers according to a process called political engineering, fancy word for distributing the contracts and subcontracts to build a given weapons system to as many states, as many congressional districts as possible, not let’s make it as efficient as possible, but rather, let’s put it in as many districts as possible, so that if this thing ever comes up for review, everybody’s getting a piece of the action, everybody’s in on it. And as a result, when, you know, the questions arise—Do we need the B-1 bomber? Do we need to be spending this money?—there is a constituency built in in Congress that’s going to keep that thing going.

And what does that tell us? That tells us that—first of all, the defense sector is not alone in that. Every industry has their version of politically engineering Congress. But what it does is it puts the congressperson in a position of being a professional pleader to that corporation, that corporate interest, on behalf of them to the federal government. And it suborns, it really undermines the purity of their decision making. It produces some of the very tragic and wrong-headed decisions that we’ve seen in recent years.

AMY GOODMAN: In both your film and your new book, The American Way of War, you interview Senator John McCain.

EUGENE JARECKI: Yeah, I had the distinguished pleasure to interview John McCain.

AMY GOODMAN: Talk about that interview.

EUGENE JARECKI: Well, you know, John McCain appeared in Why We Fight, and it was kind of an amazing story, because audiences across the country really loved watching him in the film, and a lot of people said, “Wow, he’s like a modern-day Eisenhower.” You know, he’s outspoken in the film. He criticizes American imperialism. He criticizes the military-industrial complex. He even goes to the length in the film of commenting on Halliburton and the sort of shadowy feeling that was given off by the no-bid contracts. He says in the film at one point, when asked what he thinks about the no-bid contracts, he says, “It looks bad. It looks bad.” And then, when asked, “Well, what should be done about it?” he says, “I think there should be a public investigation of what went on.” Well, that was great, and the public loved watching that.

But again, if you watch how these forces of corruption transfigure and sort of disfigure our public policy and our public policy makers, within short order of having said that in the film, the film then came out, and I got calls from John McCain staffers, notably his lead staffer, Mark Salter, that were literally verbally abusive and were pressuring me, as a lowly journalist person—and they were the big guys—they were pressuring me to modify my behavior, to change the film or to give them the ammunition to have some sort of attack on me. They wanted to look into my files. They were extremely pointed in this attack.

And why? Because the, as it were, Straight Talk Express had just started going. They were thinking, OK, this is going to head to the White House if we can play our cards right. And the last thing we need is a bunch of impolitic stuff that the maverick senator said in this movie. So they decided the point of least resistance was to go after me. They did that by smearing my name in the media. They went onto Roll Call, which is the Capitol Hill newspaper, and called me a slippery son of a gun and a bunch of other sort of funny adjectives. And, you know, it was an amazing window for me into—obviously, that the Straight Talk Express is a farce, but beyond that, it was more a window into just how powerful the Washington paradigm of corruption is, because what was he afraid of? He was afraid that he had offended Dick Cheney. And his staffers were afraid that by criticizing Halliburton—he never mentions the word “Cheney,” I think they equate Halliburton with Cheney—that he had—that he had overstepped that kind of invisible barrier that exists in Washington that protects the interests, the joint interests, the collusion of interests.

AMY GOODMAN: What most surprised you in doing the film and now the book, The American Way of War? And why did you change the title from Why We Fight to The American Way of War? It reminds me of Jessica Mitford’s American Way of Death.

EUGENE JARECKI: Yeah. You know, I was going all over the country with the film, and I spoke to a lot of audiences, and, I mean, I’ve talked—spoken to thousands of people about this subject at this point, just in live audiences. And it was amazing to me the kind of questions I was getting and the kind of dialogue I was having with audiences. I had been teaching several times at West Point with this film, so I’ve been at military establishments and then in civilian audiences. And the range of questions spoke of a common humanity that we all share in trying to understand these very confusing issues.

This country has gone in a direction—I don’t care who you are—that nobody really understands. And the confusion of that seemed to me to be explainable, at least to some small degree, by understanding the way in which our military system took over our peaceable goals and that basically, as Washington himself warned, he feared that overgrown military establishments—George Washington’s term—were the enemy of republican liberties—small “r” republic, like the republic, like rule of the people, all those good things—that you can’t really have that during a time of war.

Why? Because if you and I are sitting here right now and we’re talking about democracy and we care about democracy on a global scale and a bomb dropped out on Lafayette Street right now, there’s some small part of both of us that would say, “There’s no time to deliberate, just do something.” It’s a human impulse, no matter how stupid it is. It’s a human impulse. We all think that, for a certain moment. At that moment, when you move away from deliberation toward doing something, you move away from the legislative branch to the executive branch, because the executive does something. All of a sudden there’s no time for the whole stupidity of like the gavel in Congress and “hear ye” and the honorable senator from wherever and all that stuff. That just seems inappropriate to wartime.

So, what Madison said early on is, therefore, war favors the executive. That means that the executive wants war. That means that that congressperson I mentioned earlier who’s stuck in that conflict of interest where he’s got to plead for his corporate benefactor, he’s got to plead to the executive. Well, what does that mean? That means—and this is where the kind of the tragic joke ends—is that when he’s pleading to the executive on a Monday, because he wants to continue some weapons system, and he’s contacting the DoD, the Department of Defense, which is in the executive branch, well, on a Tuesday, when he’s asking for that favor the day before, now the President is calling, saying, “I think there’s WMDs in Iraq, and I’m hoping I can count on your support, Senator.” Well, you’re the guy asking for the favor, so—just the day before, and now suddenly you’re going to stand and say, you know, “Show me the evidence”? You’re going to go very quiet, which is what so many representatives did when their constituencies thought they might speak out.

That issue, that quiet, that silence—in the book I call it “the missing C,” which is the missing Congress—has to do with how the American way of war came to trample the American way that many of us hold dear and raises the question how to find our way back.

AMY GOODMAN: Eugene Jarecki, I want to thank you for being with us. His new book, just out, is called The American Way of War: Guided Missiles, Misguided Men, and a Republic in Peril.

Related Link: Eugene Jarecki: "Real Change Trickles Up" (Huffington Post)

News Article Archive for 'Wilton Sekzer, Father of Jason, Got a Bone, an Inch Long Back'

He says, from the "pit"---or was that a "pile?"---or maybe it was from the Fresh Kills dump on Staten Island, all that was left after the World Trade Center towers were demolished on 9-11, killing nearly 3000 innocent people. This is all the forensic evidence he had that his son Jason really died that day. But I'll have to ask---show me the bone please. What if instead of being killed, his son had been "disappeared"---or should that be called "rendered," something I'd never conceptualized prior. How about "hondled?" Or "protected?"


Midway in this CNN news video, Wilton, a retired New York City cop, says rumors that 4000 Jews stayed home from work in and near the towers that day can't be proven, and he cites 400 Jewish fatalities in New York City that day as a counter argument to Jewish foreknowledge. But in an event which left 3000 people dead, only 12 corpses could be visually identified, and only one open casket funeral followed. I wonder how many Jewish body parts can be identified?

I have known for awhile that I had to continue testing my theory, that many of the 9-11 dead were in fact, alive---what now seems like such a commonsense cornerstone to understanding the 9-11 conspiracy. Having first visualized Lt. Col. Brian Birdwell, one of the very lightly burned victims at the Pentagon, as having willing submitted to his wounding, I thought fake wounding made fake death logical---especially in the closed-shop world of the United States military. When I published these theories online on this blog, and I wasn't struck immediately by lightning in return, I began to slowly inch toward intellectual consistency, i.e. in New York City.

It is now absolutely evident that the New York City uniformed services were in on the conspiracy---but not straight across the board necessarily, which needs to be kept in mind for every category---especially the final predictable category consisting of those workers on floors above the level of the first plane crash in tower one---the people who could be guaranteed to lose their lives with near 100 percent assurance.

Chief among them is Cantor Fitzgerald's office on the 101st-105th floors, which lost 658 employees (all of the employees in the office that day), or about two-thirds of its workforce. That statistic alone bears study. How many employees are normally out of the office on any given morning due to illness, appointments, or vacation. Also to be studied is the rationality of the company being able to bring its trading markets back online within a week, and any dips in the market share they handled.

But I know that Cantor's CEO and chairman, Howard Lutnick, was a willing co-conspirator, if only by dint of the common narrative factor of his brother being among the dead. No human being could be so evil as to consider the possibility that such victimization as losing one's sibling, or spouse, might have come about in a knowing conspiracy. Battalion Chief Joseph Pfeifer also lost his brother after watching him go up the stairs in the North tower on 9-11---or did he die in Building 7? Accounts vary.

But unique unto himself is the Cantor employee whose father was a Jewish New York City cop. A distraught father who said, "[a]fter 9/11, I couldn’t work. But I thought, I gotta do something. Somebody has to pay for 9/11. I want the enemy dead. I want to see their bodies stacked up for taking my son," so he started a campaign to get his son's name written as an honorific on 2000-pound bombs dropped in Iraq, and a publicity campaign to let Americans know of it.

Even more unique would be the father whose son's story would be made into an award winning documentary by Eugene Jarecki, "Why We Fight," winner of best documentary at the 2005 Sundance Film Festival. Newsday

But beyond the pale of unique-ity would be the father who when things started to seriously go south in Iraq in 2006, would have a media blitz on the September anniversary, telling all who would listen, "I was shocked when I heard George Bush say there was no connection between 9-11 and the Iraq war!" Parade Magazine, The New York Times, Chicago Tribune



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parade Magazine

A former New York City cop tries to do right by the son he lost on 9/11.

‘‘At First, I Wanted Revenge’’

By Wilton Sekzer as told to Eugene Jarecki
published: 09/10/2006
That Tuesday morning, I was riding the subway to work in New York City. It’s an elevated train, so through the windows you can see the skyline. Suddenly everyone in the car jumped up and gasped. I looked up, and there was the World Trade Center with smoke pouring out of it. I didn’t know if it was my son’s building, because Tower One and Tower Two were in perfect symmetry. So I could not tell which tower I was looking at.

At that point, the train went into a tunnel. And I was thinking, How did my son get out of there? He can’t be in there. ’Cause anybody who’s in there is gonna die!

Jason worked on the 105th story of Tower One as a vice president at Cantor Fitzgerald. He was 31 years old and had been married less than nine months. God gave me two of the greatest sons any parent could ever ask for. Why He took one back, I’ll never know.

When Jason was born, we gave him the middle name Maxwell, so he was Jason Maxwell Sekzer. Sounds nice, right? You could see him signing papers as a corporate executive: JMS.

I am a retired New York City cop. I mean, who am I? I’m nobody. But who could believe what my son became? Vice president at one of the largest bond-brokerage firms in the world. He started out as an entry-level clerk. Four years later, Jason was Vice President of Operations. Just listen to that title!

The Bugle Calls
I volunteered for Vietnam in July 1965. It was quite an experience for a 21-year-old kid. You’re involved in taking people’s lives.

I grew up knowing that you were expected to answer when your country made the call. There was no such thing as, “Well, I wonder if my country’s right? Is anybody lying to me about this?” You didn’t grow up thinking that. You grew up saying, “If the bugle calls, you go.”

When I came home, I met Evelyn. Things blossomed, and we got married. And that made me the luckiest guy in the world. When we lost our son, it was obviously a terrible time for both of us. To make matters worse, three days later, Evelyn came home to tell me she’d been diagnosed with cancer. Suddenly, not only was she grieving over her son, but she had to start battling for her own life. She is so strong.

Somebody Has To Pay
When Jason was a little kid, the game was always the same. He’d come running in in his pajamas and jump on top of me. “Dad! Dad! Wake up! Wake up!” “What?” I’d say. “What’s the matter?” “You gotta go get the bad guys!” he’d say. “Don’t forget to get the bad guys.”

After 9/11, I couldn’t work. But I thought, I gotta do something. Somebody has to pay for 9/11. I want the enemy dead. I want to see their bodies stacked up for taking my son.

That’s when the President said, “Iraq.” On the basis of that, I thought we should go in there and kick Iraq’s ass. And I wanted Jason to have a part in it. And that’s when I said, “Put his name on a bomb.”

I first got the idea reading about the bombing in Iraq. I remembered in Vietnam, sometimes we used to get requests: “Can you put my father’s or my son’s name on a rocket?” And I thought, That’s a good idea. I’m gonna try to do that.

So I sent out e-mails to the secretaries of all the armed forces: “My name is Wilton Sekzer. I’m a retired New York City Police Department sergeant and a proud Vietnam veteran. I lost my son on 9/11. I can’t tell you in words what his loss means to me. I would respectfully request if you could put his name on some piece of armament in the Iraq war.”

At first, I didn’t get an answer. Then they came in a flood. From the private to the corporal to the captain, there must have been 42 e-mails up and down the chain of command asking, “Do you think we can do something like this? Normally, we don’t take personal requests, but this one seems worth doing.”

Finally, a Marine air division answered, “CAN DO, SEMPER FI!” with a report that a 2,000-pound guided bomb “was dropped on April 1st on forces of the Republican Guard and met with 100 percent success.” Attached to the e-mail was a picture of the bomb, and written on the side of it was “In Loving Memory of Jason Sekzer.” It was unbelievable.

Before long, I started getting other pictures with Jason’s name in them from units all across the services. Gen. Tommy Franks’ personal bodyguard made a sign with Jason’s name on it, and wherever Franks went in Iraq, the bodyguard took pictures of him holding this sign. A group of Hollywood actors—Robert De Niro, Gary Sinise—went over to Iraq, and I got pictures of all of them holding the sign too. How great is that?

Something Wrong With the System
Months later, I was watching TV when President Bush came on and said he didn’t know why people connected Iraq to 9/11. He said: “We’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th [attacks].” I said, “What did he just say?” I mean, I almost jumped out of my chair. I said, “What is he talking about? What the hell did we go in there for? If Saddam didn’t have anything to do with 9/11, then why did we go in there?”

I’m from the old school. Certain people walk on water. The President of the United States is one of them. It’s a terrible thing if someone like me can’t trust his President. I began to wonder what the hell’s with the whole system. There’s something wrong with the entire system.

I feel that the government exploited my feelings of patriotism. But I was so insane with wanting to get even, I was willing to believe anything.

Undoubtedly, there are people who may read my statements and think that I’m no good. I’m an SOB. I’m a warmonger. I should never have put my son’s name on the bomb. Am I sorry? No, because I acted under the conditions at that time. Was it wrong? Yeah, it was wrong. But I didn’t know that.

It’s not easy to be calm when you lose your child. You want revenge. When people heard my story, I got a lot of e-mails. One guy wrote: “What about the other fathers whose sons were killed by that bomb?” You know what? He has a right to say that, because we were lied to. And if I found out the bomb killed innocent people, I’d feel terrible that I put my son’s name on it. I’d say, “Oh, my God, what did I do?”

A Sense of Pride
After all that, I still wanted to find a way to honor my son. A lot of street memorials were put in place to honor rescue personnel after 9/11. I thought about my son and that perhaps he’d be worthy of a street sign. So again, I started sending out letters to officials.

I live in Queens, N.Y., and that street sign now stands here: Jason M. Sekzer Memorial Place. It’s a real definition of “bittersweet.” There are times when I come home, and I look up at that sign and have such a sense of pride that Jason is being honored that way. And then there are times when I see that sign, and it’s really very painful.

People ask me which I’m more proud of—putting his name on a bomb or putting it on a street sign. The answer obviously is the street sign. The bomb was a reaction to anger. The street sign will be here forever. Two different categories.

Filmmaker Eugene Jarecki met Wilton Sekzer while conducting research for his award-winning documentary Why We Fight, now on DVD. The film examines U.S. foreign and military policy since World War II.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Out of grief,'Why We Fight'

Award-winning documentary examines 9/11 loss and America's war mentality

"Why We Fight"

From the Movie entitled "Why We Fight. " (Sony Pictures Classics)


Just shy of a year ago, on a Saturday night in January, Eugene Jarecki was in Utah. Wilton Sekzer was at home in Queens. Jarecki was warming the edge of his theater seat. Sekzer was watching the phone.

"We're all sitting around, waiting for it to ring," said Sekzer, Vietnam vet, retired city police officer and a man of finite patience. "Somebody'd call, I'd go 'Who's this? ... Joe? Talk to you later.' Click.

"Finally, it was him. Eugene. And he says, 'Hi, Will. How's it going?'" I said, "Fine ... Never mind! How'd we do?"

And he said, "We won."

It's hard to say whether the triumph of Jarecki's "Why We Fight," winner of best documentary at the 2005 Sundance Film Festival (it's released into theaters today), was the conclusion of anything for either man. But it certainly had been a journey. For Sekzer, it began Sept. 11, 2001, when his son, Jason - a 31-year-old vice president at Cantor Fitzgerald - died in the World Trade Center. It has continued throughout his intimate participation in Jarecki's provocative look at neo-conservative politics and the philosophy of perpetual warfare.

For the director, in some sense, his journey began when he met Sekzer.

"I think the film was sort of a rock in a storm for Wilton," said Jarecki, 36. "For me, Wilton was, and is, a force in my coming of age. He opened my eyes to just how textured the thinking has to be about America now, about the grief that Americans feel, the desire for revenge, and not allowing myself to have any kind of distance from that, or ignore it - which is too often the mistake of those who do not - shall we say - concur with policy."

Inspired by Ike's farewell

Jarecki's movie is titled after the propaganda films commissioned from director Frank Capra by the U.S. government during World War II, and was inspired by President Dwight D. Eisenhower's farewell address in 1961 warning of "the military-industrial complex." Amid the lofty talking heads from whom Jarecki gleans his material - everyone from former Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle to writer Gore Vidal - is Sekzer. The ex-cop's now notorious request - granted - was to have his son's name written on a bomb that was dropped on Iraq. But he ends up questioning almost everything about the war, and becomes, in his transformation, the most eloquent element in Jarecki's film.

At a diner just west of Jason Sekzer Place and Queens Boulevard in Sunnyside, Sekzer sat in front of a Diet Coke on a recent afternoon. He said Jarecki had initially found him through the NYPD's fraternal society of Jewish police officers, of which he's a past president. ("I didn't know there were Jewish cops," Jarecki said.)

"I said, 'So you're making a documentary about what?'" Sekzer said, in a tone that would have scared off most filmmakers. "He explained it, and I wasn't really sure what he was talking about, but I said, 'Look, let's not waste each other's time: Is this like Michael Moore Part II? Because if it is, we've already been talking five minutes too long.'"

Jarecki assured him it wasn't. "And for whatever it's worth," Sekzer said, "cops have a sixth sense about people; we definitely know when people are trying to [mislead] us. 'Oh no, I found that dope.' 'It's not my gun.' So I said, 'The guy sounds sincere. What's the worst that can happen?'"

As it turns out, Sekzer's trip to Sundance for last year's festival (he and wife returned before the awards) was "one of the greatest experiences of our lives," he said. "It was just great. Beautiful hotel. You open the curtains in the morning and those snow-capped mountains ... It was like something out of a movie."

And "Why We Fight"?

Jarecki is a "family" member

"I'm happy it's coming out," Sekzer said, "but I'm happy for Eugene. We saw the film, it's out there someplace; what happens to it isn't of that much concern to me, except how it helps Eugene. And Eugene is now part of our family. But the very fact that a documentary was made, that it won a prize out in the snowdrifted mountains of Utah, that it's been purchased by Sony, that it's being released. I know people say, 'Oh, it's great just to be nominated for the Oscar' and you say, 'You're full of --" but it was true for me. It's up on the screen. Jason's name is up there. The rest is whipped cream on the pie."

Last year at Sundance, "Why We Fight" had such an urgency, it seemed like it needed to hit theaters immediately. Ironically - sadly - the timing for it seems to get better and better. Jarecki calls it "macabre."

"Nothing about the film has had to change, because nothing in the film has been disproven by the unfolding of events," Jarecki said. "The only thing, of course, is that we've had to adjust the casualty figures in the film, as the count escalates. Every time I've done that, I've felt in a small way how the man who closes up the morgue for the night feels. Or the people who write obituaries. It's an undertaker's job, what I've done for the past year."


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mourning After 9/11, Outrage Ever Since

This was a perfect idea, Wilton Sekzer believed. His son’s name chalked onto a bomb headed to Iraq. When he served with the 101st Airborne in Vietnam, those kinds of requests came in all the time. A husband, a brother, a son — could you please write their name on some artillery pieces? “No problem,” Mr. Sekzer recalled.

He wrote to the secretaries of the Army, Navy and Air Force, a decorated veteran who had returned from Vietnam whittled to 110 pounds by malaria, a retired police officer who had watched the World Trade Center burn from an el train in Queens. He had heard members of the Bush administration describe a web of ties connecting Iraq and Al Qaeda.

It was March 2003, and the war that will begin its sixth year next week was then being made out of 9/11 grief and its furies. Mr. Sekzer wanted to stake his claim.

“ ‘My eldest son, Jason, was murdered on 9/11,’ ” he said, reciting from memory his letters. “ ‘I would appreciate it if you could put his name on some piece of ordnance so his name stays alive.’ ” An old friend sent more requests.

Right around this time five years ago, just before the invasion of Iraq, Mr. Sekzer started getting answers.

“They wrote, ‘God bless you, and God bless your son,’ ” he said.

Then came an e-mail message with pictures of a bomb. He was told that it was dropped on April 1, 2003, targeting elements of “the Republican National Guard and it met with 100 percent success.” On the side, it was inscribed: “In loving memory of Jason Sekzer.”

Yet another e-mail message showed an Apache helicopter, with the same message written one word at a time across six Hellfire missiles. And a third picture arrived, of a bomb inscribed, “Regards from Jason Sekzer.”

By then, polls showed that much of the country believed that Iraq had been involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. To read again the statements made by the Bush administration is to see the verbal equivalents of dotted lines, pointing directly at Saddam Hussein. “If we’re successful in Iraq we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11,” Vice President Dick Cheney said in a speech in December 2002.

As a police officer, Mr. Sekzer spent most of his career in Brooklyn North, going home to Sunnyside, Queens, where he and his wife, Evelyn, raised two sons, Jason and Marc. After he retired from the Police Department, he took a job in Manhattan and saw the towers burning as the No. 7 train rumbled along the el. Jason, 32, worked on the 105th floor of the north tower as a vice president at Cantor Fitzgerald. “The breeze came along and blew the smoke, and you could see the giant hole,” Mr. Sekzer said Friday.

His father served in World War II; an uncle died in it. When Vietnam started, Mr. Sekzer said, he volunteered. His support for the war in Iraq was instinctive. “I’m just not questioning it,” Mr. Sekzer said. “It’s just a poor character trait of myself.”

That faith blended with rage and the feeling that he could do nothing to avenge his loss. “The level of anger was immeasurable,” Mr. Sekzer said. “I had a certain mind-set: Let’s kill everyone there, demolish it to the point where there’s nothing taller than six inches in all of Iraq.”

Six months after the invasion, President Bush answered a reporter’s question about Iraq. “No,” Mr. Bush said, “we’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with Sept. 11.”

Mr. Sekzer saw the exchange. “I heard the president saying, ‘I don’t know where people got the idea that Iraq was the culprit,’ ” Mr. Sekzer said. “I thought I would go through the roof.”

Americans had died; so had tens of thousands of Iraqis who had no hand in the attacks on America.

Mr. Sekzer says he is glad, if it is true as he has been told, that the bombs with his son’s name killed no civilians and contributed to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. His trust, though, collapsed. “Had Bush said precisely that they did 9/11?” Mr. Sekzer said. “He said everything else, everything that inferred that. Why the hell else did we go in there?

“We’re at 4,000 young men and women lost over there. What’s going on there now? You had the election. Here’s the country. Goodbye.”

Since then, Mr. Sekzer appeared in a documentary about the war, “Why We Fight.” He takes a measure of the world through different eyes.

“The next time something happens, let’s think hard about why we’re sending troops,” he said. “Is it because the American people want to send troops? Is it because the military wants to send troops? Is it because the military industrial complex wants them to go?”

E-mail: dwyer@nytimes.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

APR. 17, 2003: HAVE WE FORGOTTEN?

Country singing star Darryl Worley joined me in the broadcast studio yesterday to sing his tribute to the troops called, "Have You Forgotten?" Darryl is the kind of guy you wouldn't associate with show biz. Unassuming, polite, and enormously talented, he wrote that song as a tribute to our troops after a visit with them in Afghanistan, and it's dynamite. I got two answers to the question the song posed yesterday. As you'd expect, the Marines haven't forgotten.

Everyone knows what the Marines' motto, semper fidelis, means. They are always faithful to their country and to their brothers in arms. I submit two proofs of this today. One is named Dan Roberts and the other named for Jason Sekzer.

If young Corporal Dan Roberts, USMC writes a memoir about the Iraq campaign, he could call it, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to Iraq." Wounded near An Nasiriyah, Roberts was confined to a military hospital. After a few days, he deemed himself cured and, ah, without asking permission, took off. After getting a set of BDU's and a helmet somewhere, he thumbed a ride or two and found his outfit in the fight to take Baghdad. Roberts got an M-16 and some web gear from his pals, and rejoined the fight. When he was interviewed yesterday by Ollie North, Corporal Roberts sounded a bit unsure of whether he was in trouble for kinda, sorta, going AWOL from the hospital. His gunny may growl at him, but I don't think a courts martial is in Roberts's future. A promotion maybe, not a courts martial. You just gotta love these guys.

Jason Sekzer's father, Will Sekzer, is a Vietnam veteran and a retired member of New York's Finest. Jason was killed in the 9-11 attacks on the World Trade Center. His dad sent an e-mail over to the Marines. It was a simple request. Mr. Sekzer asked that his son's name be painted on one of the bombs or artillery shells being used in the Iraq campaign. The request went up through channels. Yesterday I received the pictures of a 2,000-pound JDAM that had, "In loving memory of Jason Sekzer" painted on it. The e-mail from one of the boss Marine fly-guys was apologetic for the delay in acting on the request.

Sorry for the delay but business is booming. The weapons don't stay still long enough to write on them. For the record: The weapon this tribute was written on is a 2000 pound, Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) GPS guided bomb. It's big, it's ugly and it's always lethal, just like we love them. It was dropped on the night of 1 April 03 against targets located east of Baghdad. The targets were associated with the Al Nida division of the Republican Guard. A United States Marine Corps F/A-18D flew the mission. The mission and the weapon were 100% successful. Let me know if there is any more I can do. It's my honor and pleasure.

By now, Saddam's half brother Barzan Ibrahim Hasan al-Tirkriti has remembered. In a neat smash and grab yesterday, he was captured in the Baghdad area by spec ops in a joint operation with the Marines. Barzan's capture takes another card out of Vince Brooks's Doomsday Deck. Barzan--formerly one of the top guys in Saddam's Mukhabarat secret police--may have a lot to say. For example, he was in on the plan to assassinate George Senior. Someone should be reaching for the sodium amatol about now.

It wouldn't be a bad idea to give Little Jackie Chirac a little dose of it. President Bush's call to lift the U.N. sanctions yesterday met with predictable opposition from Chirac, who still wants the U.N. to run the reconstruction (meaning the oil revenues) and formation of the new Iraqi government. The reason for the sanctions--Saddam's WMD--is of course moot. But that won't stop the French from stopping any resolution to lift the sanctions unless they get their cut off the top.

The best news is that the citizen-inspired boycott of French goods is taking hold. The importers of French wine have noticed a significant drop in sales in America over the past couple of months. The whiners are meeting to whine about it and figure out how to get all these arrogant Americans to realize they're being unfair. This is only the start. No French goods should be bought here. None. I suggest they have some music at their meeting to set the mood. They should buy a copy of the "Have You Forgotten?" CD and play it over and over until they understand.

09:25 AM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
chicagotribune.com

'5 years later, father's pain remains'
By Radmilla Suleymanova
Special to amNewYork
September 7, 2006>

Wilton Sekzer glances toward the side of his Woodside apartment building, where the street sign above the passing cars bears his son's name, Jason, in memoriam.

"That sign to me is the true epitome of bittersweet," Sekzer said. "Sometimes I walk over and I feel overwhelmingly proud; other times it's just a reminder of what happened and I feel like climbing up there and ripping it off."

And there are reminders. On the same block, a movie theater is showing the Oliver Stone film depicting the historic day.

"It doesn't fail," the 62-year old retired police officer and Vietnam veteran said. "Whenever I open a paper or switch on the TV, I'm constantly reminded of my son's death."

His son worked on the 105th floor of Tower One as vice president of operations at Cantor Fitzgerald, the financial services firm that lost 658 employees in the attack, Jason among them. He was 31.

On the fifth anniversary, Sekzer will visit the site, something he has done only four times before.

"It's hard to go down there. I know in my heart, no matter what kind of cleanup job they do, if they picked up every micro speck, a part of my son is always there no matter what they do or what they build."

In May 2002, the city called to say they found Jason's remains: a bone fragment 2 inches long and an inch in diameter. The family buried the remains in a cemetery where their own graves are reserved. "For the rest of my life, I'll question whether I wish they found it or not."

Sekzer's eyes are big with anger and betrayal but overlapped with the undying sorrow that has lived in them for the past five years.

"I hate the word 'closure,' there's no such thing as closure when you lose a child," he said. "People don't realize it's impossible. The pain just never stops."

Sekzer has appeared in "Why We Fight," an award-winning documentary that examines America's military power since World War II. Moreover, he is known for getting the Army to put Jason's name on a missile when the war in Iraq started.

"My original intention didn't work out," Sekzer said. "I wanted to drop the bomb on those who deserved it, those who killed my son."

Now he compares the war in Iraq to his experience in Vietnam because he say both were started on a lie.

"What are they going to do if they catch Osama bin Laden alive?" he asked.

"A trial that's three years long and listen to him spout his philosophical bull ---- and then demonstrations. And in the end, he'll get sentenced to death and then get seven years of appeal?"

He pauses and he knows the answer.

Half a decade after the attacks not only on the country and city he served, but on the family, the son and the soul he once had, the answer is still not appeasing to him.

"I'll definitely be in my grave before he is."

A Simple Request - Put My Son's Name on a Bomb

04/30/03 A retired New York City Police Department Sergeant lost his son on 9/11 at the WTC. He contacted the Marines requesting his son's name (Jason Sekzer) be written on one of the bombs we drop on Baghdad. To his surprise, Will received the following e-mail and 3 photos from Major Joe Boehm stationed in Kuwait. Gotta love our troops.....

From: ***@aol.com [mailto:***@aol.com] Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 5:32 PM To: pao@centcom.mil Subject: Simple Request

Dear Public Affairs Officer:

If possible can this be relayed to a Navy, Air Force or Army or Marine unit in the Gulf Region. A simple request from a Vietnam Veteran and Retired New York City Police Department Sergeant who lost his son on 911 at the WTC. Simply to have his son's name put on one of the munitions (bomb, missile, artillery shell) that will be used on the war on terrorism including Iraq. His son's name was Jason Sekzer, the father is Wilton A. Sekzer and can be reached at ***@aol.com.

Thank you.

Gary Gorman Retired Police Officer NYPD ESS#1 Brooklyn, NY 11214

************

From: Franzoni, LCDR Stephen J. Sent: March 17,2003 13:10 To: Compton, LtCol Martin B. (PKI) Subject: FW: Simple Request

Now here is a request I wish we could see through!

LCDR Stephen J. Franzoni CENTCOM Web Developer

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

Caveats: NONE

**************

From: Compton, LtCol Martin B. (PKI) Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 5:01 PM To: Franzoni, LCDR Stephen J. Subject: RE: Simple Request

Forward to Thomas and Alderson.

Martin B. Compton Lt Col, USAF Public Affairs

**************

From: Franzoni, LCDR Stephen J. [mailto:***@centcom.mil] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 6:19 PM To: 'COL Rick Thomas (***@kuwait.army.mil)'; '***@cusnc.navy.mil' Subject: FW: Simple Request

Sirs,

Normally we do not take personal requests, but I think this one is worth doing. I appreciate your help and thank you in advance for any assistance you could provide.

V/R

LCDR Stephen J. Franzoni CENTCOM Web Developer

**************

From: Nyhart Maj Jeffrey Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 9:40 AM To: Johnson Maj Thomas V Subject: FW: Simple Request

TV,

Your call below. Son died on 9/11 - wants to know if we could put name on bomb. May be worth a picture and sent email. Let me know if you can do it.

****************

From: Johnson Maj Thomas V Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 7:42 PM To: Boehm Maj Joseph R Cc: Nyhart Maj Jeffrey; Napper Sgt William A; Nuntavong Sgt Chanin; DiDomenico SSgt John C Subject: FW: Simple Request

Joe, fairly easy, don't you think? Could get one of my guys to snap the picture. Please advise when you have a moment. Thanks.

TV

****************

From: Boehm Maj Joseph R Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:15 AM To: Johnson Maj Thomas V Cc: Nyhart Maj Jeffrey; Napper Sgt William A; Nuntavong Sgt Chanin; DiDomenico SSgt John C; Reynolds LtCol Shaugnessy A Subject: RE: Simple Request

Can do.

Semper Fi Major Joe Boehm

****************

From: DiDomenico SSgt John C Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 6:23 PM To: Boehm Maj Joseph R Subject: RE: Simple Request

Sir:

Was wondering if you got the photos?

R/S and Semper Fi! SSgt. DiDomenico

****************

From: Boehm Maj Joseph R [mailto:BoehmJR@taoc.3mawdm.usmc.mil] Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 4:50 AM To: DiDomenico SSgt John C; Johnson Maj Thomas V Cc: ProudPD@aol.com; NYPD24423@aol.com Subject: RE: Simple Request

TV, SSGT,

Attached from yesterday. Hope this is satisfactory. Sorry for the delay but business is booming. The weapons don't stay still long enough to write on them. For the record: The weapon this tribute was written on is a 2000 pound, Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) GPS guided bomb. It's big, it's ugly and it's always lethal, just like we love them. It was dropped on the night of 1 April 03 against targets located east of Baghdad. The targets were associated with the Al Nida division of the Republican Guard. A United States Marine Corps F/A-18D based in Kuwait flew the mission. The mission and the weapon were 100% successful. Let me know if there is any more I can do. It's my honor and pleasure. Regards.

Semper Fi Major Joe Boehm

To: All

Interview with Herman Rosenblat: Love Stroy Revisionist

"It's the greatest love story we've ever told on this show" Oprah Winfrey


Thursday, July 16, 2009

Concerning the Jews by Mark Twain a.k.a. Samuel Clemens

(1835-1910)
[Footnote *: The article was written in the summer of 1898. - Ed.]

Some months ago I published a magazine article descriptive of a remarkable scene in the Imperial Parliament in Vienna. Since then I have received from Jews in America several letters of inquiry. They were difficult letters to answer, for they were not very definite. But at last I have received a definite one. It is from a lawyer, and he really asks the questions which the other writers probably believed they were asking. By help of this text I will do the best I can to publicly answer this correspondent, and also the others - at the same time apologizing for having failed to reply privately. The lawyer's letter reads as follows:

"I have read 'Stirring Times in Austria.' One point in particular is of vital import to not a few thousand people, including myself, being a point about which I have often wanted to address a question to some disinterested person. The show of military force in the Austrian Parliament, which precipitated the riots, was not introduced by any Jew. No Jew was a member of that body. No Jewish question was involved in the Ausgleich or in the language proposition. No Jew was insulting anybody. In short, no Jew was doing any mischief toward anybody whatsoever. In fact, the Jews were the only ones of the nineteen different races in Austria which did not have a party - they are absolutely non-participants. Yet in your article you say that in the rioting which followed, all classes of people were unanimous only on one thing, viz., in being against the Jews. Now will you kindly tell me why, in your judgment, the Jews have thus ever been, and are even now, in these days of supposed intelligence, the butt of baseless, vicious animosities? I dare say that for centuries there has been no more quiet, undisturbing, and well-behaving citizen, as a class, than that same Jew. It seems to me that ignorance and fanaticism cannot alone account for these horrible and unjust persecutions.

"Tell me, therefore, from your vantage-point of cold view, what in your mind is the cause. Can American Jews do anything to correct it either in America or abroad? Will it ever come to an end? Will a Jew be permitted to live honestly, decently, and peaceably like the rest of mankind? What has become of the Golden Rule?"

I will begin by saying that if I thought myself prejudiced against the Jew, I should hold it fairest to leave this subject to a person not crippled in that way. But I think I have no such prejudice. A few years ago a Jew observed to me that there was no uncourteous reference to his people in my books, and asked how it happened. It happened because the disposition was lacking. I am quite sure that (bar one) I have no race prejudices, and I think I have no color prejudices nor caste prejudices nor creed prejudices. Indeed, I know it. I can stand any society. All that I care to know is that a man is a human being---that is enough for me; he can't be any worse. I have no special regard for Satan; but I can at least claim that I have no prejudice against him. It may even be that I lean a little his way, on account of his not having a fair show. All religions issue bibles against him, and say the most injurious things about him, but we never hear his side. We have none but the evidence for the prosecution, and yet we have rendered the verdict. To my mind, this is irregular. It is un-English; it is un-American; it is French. Without this precedent Dreyfus could not have been condemned. Of course Satan has some kind of a case, it goes without saying. It may be a poor one, but that is nothing; that can be said about any of us. As soon as I can get at the facts I will undertake his rehabilitation myself, if I can find an unpolitic publisher. It is a thing which we ought to be willing to do for any one who is under a cloud. We may not pay him reverence, for that would be indiscreet, but we can at least respect his talents. A person who has for untold centuries maintained the imposing position of spiritual head of four-fifths of the human race, and political head of the whole of it, must be granted the possession of executive abilities of the loftiest order. In his large presence the other popes and politicians shrink to midges for the microscope. I would like to see him. I would rather see him and shake him by the tail than any other member of the European Concert. In the present paper I shall allow myself to use the word Jew as if it stood for both religion and race. It is handy; and, besides, that is what the term means to the general world.

In the above letter one notes these points:

1. The Jew is a well-behaved citizen.

2. Can ignorance and fanaticism alone account for his unjust treatment?

3. Can Jews do anything to improve the situation?

4. The Jews have no party; they are non-participants.

5. Will the persecution ever come to an end?

6. What has become of the Golden Rule?

Point No. 1.

We must grant proposition No. 1 for several sufficient reasons. The Jew is not a disturber of the peace of any country. Even his enemies will concede that. He is not a loafer, he is not a sot, he is not noisy, he is not a brawler nor a rioter, he is not quarrelsome. In the statistics of crime his presence is conspicuously rare - in all countries. With murder and other crimes of violence he has but little to do: he is a stranger to the hangman. In the police court's daily long roll of "assaults" and "drunk and disorderlies" his name seldom appears. That the Jewish home is a home in the truest sense is a fact which no one will dispute. The family is knitted together by the strongest affections; its members show each other every due respect; and reverence for the elders is an inviolate law of the house. The Jew is not a burden on the charities of the state nor of the city; these could cease from their functions without affecting him. When he is well enough, he works; when he is incapacitated, his own people take care of him. And not in a poor and stingy way, but with a fine and large benevolence. His race is entitled to be called the most benevolent of all the races of men. A Jewish beggar is not impossible, perhaps; such a thing may exist, but there are few men that can say they have seen that spectacle. The Jew has been staged in many uncomplimentary forms, but, so far as I know, no dramatist has done him the injustice to stage him as a beggar. Whenever a Jew has real need to beg, his people save him from the necessity of doing it. The charitable institutions of the Jews are supported by Jewish money, and amply. The Jews make no noise about it; it is done quietly; they do not nag and pester and harass us for contributions; they give us peace, and set us an example---an example which we have not found ourselves able to follow; for by nature we are not free givers, and have to be patiently and persistently hunted down in the interest of the unfortunate.

These facts are all on the credit side of the proposition that the Jew is a good and orderly citizen. Summed up, they certify that he is quiet, peaceable, industrious, unaddicted to high crimes and brutal dispositions; that his family life is commendable; that he is not a burden upon public charities; that he is not a beggar; that in benevolence he is above the reach of competition. These are the very quint-essentials of good citizenship. If you can add that he is as honest as the average of his neighbors - But I think that question is affirmatively answered by the fact that he is a successful business man. The basis of successful business is honesty; a business cannot thrive where the parties to it cannot trust each other. In the matter of numbers of the Jew counts for little in the overwhelming population of New York; but that his honesty counts for much is guaranteed by the fact that the immense wholesale business houses of Broadway, from the Battery to Union Square, is substantially in his hands.

I suppose that the most picturesque example in history of a trader's trust in his fellow-trader was one where it was not Christian trusting Christian, but Christian trusting Jew. That Hessian Duke who used to sell his subjects to George III. to fight George Washington with got rich at it; and by-and-by, when the wars engendered by the French Revolution made his throne too warm for him, he was obliged to fly the country. He was in a hurry, and had to leave his earnings behind - $9,000,000. He had to risk the money with some one without security. He did not select a Christian, but a Jew - a Jew of only modest means, but of high character; a character so high that it left him lonesome - Rothschild of Frankfort. Thirty years later, when Europe had become quiet and safe again, the Duke came back from overseas, and the Jew returned the loan, with interest added. ^*[Footnote *: Here is another piece of picturesque history; and it reminds us that shabbiness and dishonesty are not the monopoly of any race or creed, but are merely human:

"Congress has passed a bill to pay $379.56 to Moses Pendergrass, of Libertyville, Missouri. The story of the reason of this liberality is pathetically interesting, and shows the sort of pickle that an honest man may get into whundertakes to do an honest job of work for Uncle Sam. In 1886 Moses Pendergrass put in a bid for the contract to carry the mail on the route from Knob Lick to Libertyville and Coffman, thirty miles a day, from July 1, 1887, for one year. He got the postmaster at Knob Lick to write the letter for him, and while Moses intended that his bid should be $400, his scribe carelessly made it $4. Moses got the contract, and did not find out about the mistake until the end of the first quarter, when he got his first pay. When he found at what rate he was working he was sorely cast down, and opened communication with the Post-Office Department. The department informed him that he must either carry out his contract or throw it up, and that if he threw it up his bondsmen would have to pay the government $1459.85 damages. So Moses carried out his contract, walked thirty miles every week-day for a year, and carried the mail, and received for his labor $4 - or, to be accurate, $6.84; for, the route being extended after his bid was accepted, the pay was proportionately increased. Now, after ten years, a bill was finally passed to pay to Moses the difference between what he earned in that unlucky year and what he received."

The Sun, which tells the above story, says that bills were introduced in three or four Congresses for Moses' relief, and that committees repeatedly investigated his claim.

It took six Congresses, containing in their persons the compressed virtues of 70,000,000 of people, and cautiously and carefully giving expression to those virtues in the fear of God and the next election, eleven years to find out some way to cheat a fellow-Christian out of about $13 on his honestly executed contract, and out of nearly $300 due him on its enlarged terms. And they succeeded. During the same time they paid out $1,000,000,000 in pensions---a third of it unearned and undeserved. This indicates a splendid all-around competency in theft, for it starts with farthings, and works its industries all the way up to ship-loads. It may be possible that the Jews can beat this, but the man that bets on it is taking chances.]

The Jew has his other side. He has some discreditable ways, though he has not a monopoly of them, because he cannot get entirely rid of vexatious Christian competition. We have seen that he seldom transgresses the laws against crimes of violence. Indeed, his dealings with courts are almost restricted to matters connected with commerce. He has a reputation for various small forms of cheating, and for practicing oppressive usury, and for burning himself out to get the insurance, and for arranging cunning contracts which leave him an exit but lock the other man in, and for smart evasions which find him safe and comfortable just within the strict letter of the law, when court and jury know very well that he has violated the spirit of it. He is a frequent and faithful and capable officer in the civil service, but he is charged with an unpatriotic disinclination to stand by the flag as a soldier - like the Christian Quaker.

Now if you offset these discreditable features by the creditable ones summarized in a preceding paragraph beginning with the words, "These facts are all on the credit side," and strike a balance, what must the verdict be? This, I think: that, the merits and demerits being fairly weighed and measured on both sides, the Christian can claim no superiority over the Jew in the matter of good citizenship.

Yet in all countries, from the dawn of history, the Jew has been persistently and implacably hated, and with frequency persecuted.

Point No. 2. "Can fanaticism alone account for this?"

Years ago I used to think that it was responsible for nearly all of it, but latterly I have come to think that this was an error. Indeed, it is now my conviction that it is responsible for hardly any of it.

In this connection I call to mind Genesis, chapter XLVII.

We have all thoughtfully---or unthoughtfully---read the pathetic story of the years of plenty and the years of famine in Egypt, and how Joseph, with that opportunity, made a corner in broken hearts, and the crusts of the poor, and human liberty - a corner whereby he took a nation's money all away, to the last penny; took a nation's livestock all away, to the last hoof; took a nation's land away, to the last acre; then took the nation itself, buying it for bread, man by man, woman by woman, child by child, till all were slaves; a corner which took everything, left nothing; a corner so stupendous that, by comparison with it, the most gigantic corners in subsequent history are but baby things, for it dealt in hundreds of millions of bushels, and its profits were reckonable by hundreds of millions of dollars, and it was a disaster so crushing that its effects have not wholly disappeared from Egypt to-day, more than three thousand years after the event.

Is it presumable that the eye of Egypt was upon Joseph the foreign Jew all this time? I think it likely. Was it friendly? We must doubt it. Was Joseph establishing a character for his race which would survive long in Egypt? and in time would his name come to be familiarly used to express that character---like Shylock's? It is hardly to be doubted. Let us remember that this was centuries before the crucifixion.

I wish to come down eighteen hundred years later and refer to a remark made by one of the Latin historians. I read it in a translation many years ago, and it comes back to me now with force. It was alluding to a time when people were still living who could have seen the Savior in the flesh. Christianity was so new that the people of Rome had hardly heard of it, and had but confused notions of what it was. The substance of the remark was this: Some Christians were persecuted in Rome through error, they being "mistaken for Jews."

The meaning seems plain. These pagans had nothing against Christians, but they were quite ready to persecute Jews. For some reason or other they hate a Jew before they even knew what a Christian was. May I not assume, then, that the persecution of Jews is a thing which antedates Christianity and was not born of Christianity? I think so. What was the origin of the feeling?

When I was a boy, in the back settlements of the Mississippi Valley, where a gracious and beautiful Sunday-school simplicity and unpracticality prevailed, the "Yankee" (citizen of the New England States) was hated with a splendid energy. But religion had nothing to do with it. In a trade, the Yankee was held to be about five times the match of the Westerner. His shrewdness, his insight, his judgment, his knowledge, his enterprise, and his formidable cleverness in applying these forces were frankly confessed, and most competently cursed.

In the cotton States, after the war, the simple and ignorant negroes made the crops for the white planter on shares. The Jew came down in force, set up shop on the plantation, supplied all the negro's wants on credit, and at the end of the season was proprietor of the negro's share of the present crop and of part of his share of the next one. Before long, the whites detested the Jew, and it is doubtful if the negro loved him.

The Jew is being legislated out of Russia. The reason is not concealed. The movement was instituted because the Christian peasant and villager stood no chance against his commercial abilities. He was always ready to lend money on a crop, and sell vodka and other necessaries of life on credit while the crop was growing. When settlement day came he owned the crop; and next year or year after he owned the farm, like Joseph.

In the dull and ignorant England of John's time everybody got into debt to the Jew. He gathered all lucrative enterprises into his hands; he was the king of commerce; he was ready to be helpful in all profitable ways; he even financed crusades for the rescue of the Sepulchre. To wipe out his account with the nation and restore business to its natural and incompetent channels he had to be banished the realm.

For the like reasons Spain had to banish him four hundred years ago, and Austria about a couple of centuries later.

In all the ages Christian Europe has been obliged to curtail his activities. If he entered upon a mechanical trade, the Christian had to retire from it. If he set up as a doctor, he was the best one, and he took the business. If he exploited agriculture, the other farmers had to get at something else. Since there was no way to successfully compete with him in any vocation, the law had to step in and save the Christian from the poor-house. Trade after trade was taken away from the Jew by statute till practically none was left. He was forbidden to engage in agriculture; he was forbidden to practise law; he was forbidden to practise medicine, except among Jews; he was forbidden the handicrafts. Even the seats of learning and the schools of science had to be closed against this tremendous antagonist. Still, almost bereft of employment she found ways to make money, even ways to get rich. Also ways to invest his takings well, for usury was not denied him. In the hard conditions suggested, the Jew without brains could not survive, and the Jew with brains had to keep them in good training and well sharpened up, or starve. Ages of restriction to the one tool which the law was not able to take from him---his brain - have made that tool singularly competent; ages of compulsory disuse of his hands have atrophied them, and he never uses them now. This history has a very, very commercial look, a most sordid and practical commercial look, the business aspect of a Chinese cheap-labor crusade. Religious prejudices may account for one part of it, but not for the other nine.

Protestants have persecuted Catholics, but they did not take their livelihoods away from them. The Catholics have persecuted the Protestants with bloody and awful bitterness, but they never closed agriculture and the handicrafts against them. Why was that? That has the candid look of genuine religious persecution, not a trade-union boycott in a religious disguise.

The Jews are harried and obstructed in Austria and Germany, and lately in France; but England and America give them an open field and yet survive. Scotland offers them an unembarrassed field too, but there are not many takers. There are a few Jews in Glasgow, and one in Aberdeen; but that is because they can't earn enough to get away. The Scotch pay themselves that compliment, but it is authentic.

I feel convinced that the Crucifixion has not much to do with the world's attitude towards the Jew; that the reasons for it are older than that event, as suggested by Egypt's experience and by Rome's regret for having persecuted an unknown quantity called a Christian, under the mistaken impression that she was merely persecuting a Jew. Merely a Jew - a skinned eel who was used to it, presumably. I am persuaded that in Russia, Austria, and Germany nine-tenths of the hostility to the Jew comes from the average Christian's inability to compete successfully with the average Jew in business - in either straight business or the questionable sort.

In Berlin, a few years ago, I read a speech which frankly urged the expulsion of the Jews from Germany; and the agitator's reason was as frank as his proposition. It was this: that eighty-five per cent. of the successful lawyers of Berlin were Jews, and that about the same percentage of the great and lucrative businesses of all sorts in Germany were in the hands of the Jewish race! Isn't it an amazing confession? It was but another way of saying that in a population of 48,000,000, of whom only 500,000 were registered as Jews, eight-five per cent. of the brains and honesty of the whole was lodged in the Jews. I must insist upon the honesty - it is an essential of successful business, taken by and large. Of course it does not rule out rascals entirely, even among Christians, but it is a good working rule, nevertheless. The speaker's figures may have been inexact, but the motive of persecution stands out as clear as day.

The man claimed that in Berlin the banks, the newspapers, the theatres, the great mercantile, shipping, mining, and manufacturing interests, the big army and city contracts, the tramways, and pretty much all other properties of high value, and also the small businesses, were in the hands of the Jews. He said the Jew was pushing the Christian to the wall all along the line; that it was all a Christian could do to scrape together a living; and that the Jew must be banished, and soon - there was no other way of saving the Christian. Here in Vienna, last autumn, an agitator said that all these disastrous details were true of Austria-Hungary also; and in fierce language he demanded the expulsion of the Jews. When politicians come out without a blush and read the baby act in this frank way, unrebuked, it is a very good indication that they have a market back of them, and know where to fish for votes.

You note the crucial point of the mentioned agitation; the argument is that the Christian cannot compete with the Jew, and that hence his very bread is in peril. To human beings this is a much more hate-inspiring thing than is any detail connected with religion. With most people, of a necessity, bread and meat take first rank, religion second. I am convinced that the persecution of the Jew is not due in any large degree to religious prejudice.

No, the Jew is a money-getter; and in getting his money he is a very serious obstruction to less capable neighbors who are on the same quest. I think that that is the trouble. In estimating worldly values the Jew is not shallow, but deep. With precocious wisdom he found out in the morning of time that some men worship rank, some worship heroes, some worship power, some worship God, and that over these ideals they dispute and cannot unite - but that they all worship money; so he made it the end and aim of his life to get it. He was at it in Egypt thirty-six centuries ago; he was at it in Rome when that Christian got persecuted by mistake for him; he has been at it ever since. The cost to him has been heavy; his success has made the whole human race his enemy---but it has paid, for it has brought him envy, and that is the only thing which men will sell both soul and body to get. He long ago observed that a millionaire commands respect, a two-millionaire homage, a multi-millionaire the deepest deeps of adoration. We all know that feeling; we have seen it express itself. We have noticed that when the average man mentions the name of a multi-millionaire he does it with that mixture in his voice of awe and reverence and lust which burns in a Frenchman's eye when it falls on another man's centime.

Point No. 4.

"The Jews have no party; they are non-participants."

Perhaps you have let the secret out and given yourself away. It seems hardly a credit to the race that it is able to say that; or to you, sir, that you can say it without remorse; more than you should offer it as a plea against maltreatment, injustice, and oppression. Who gives the Jew the right, who gives any race the right, to sit still, in a free country, and let somebody else look after its safety? The oppressed Jew was entitled to all pity in the former times under brutal autocracies, for he was weak and friendless, and had no way to help his case. But he has ways now, and he has had them for a century, but I do not see that he has tried to make serious use of them. When the Revolution set him free in France it was an act of grace---the grace of other people; he does not appear in it as a helper. I do not know that he helped when England set him free. Among the Twelve Sane Men of France who have stepped forward with great Zola at their head to fight (and win, I hope and believe ^*) the battle for the most infamously misused Jew of modern times, do you find a great or rich or illustrious Jew helping? In the United States he was created free in the beginning - he did not need to help, of course. In Austria and Germany and France he has a vote, but of what considerable use is it to him? He doesn't seem to know how to apply it to the best effect. With all his splendid capacities and all his fat wealth he is to-day not politically important in any country. In America, as early as 1854, the ignorant Irish hod-carrier, who had a spirit of his own and a way of exposing it to the weather, made it apparent to all that he must be politically reckoned with; yet fifteen years before that we hardly knew what an Irishman looked like. As an intelligent force and numerically, he has always been away down, but he has governed the country just the same. It was because he was organized. It made his vote valuable---in fact, essential.

[Footnote *: The article was written in the summer of 1898. - Ed.]

You will say the Jew is everywhere numerically feeble. That is nothing to the point ---with the Irishman's history for an object-lesson. But I am coming to your numerical feebleness presently. In all parliamentary countries you could no doubt elect Jews to the legislatures - and even one member in such a body is sometimes a force which counts. How deeply have you concerned yourselves about this in Austria, France, and Germany? Or even in America, for that matter? You remark that the Jews were not to blame for the riots in this Reichsrath here, and you add with satisfaction that there wasn't one in that body. That is not strictly correct; if it were, would it not be in order for you to explain it and apologize for it, not try to make a merit of it? But I think that the Jew was by no means in as large force there as he ought to have been, with his chances. Austria opens the suffrage to him on fairly liberal terms, and it must surely be his own fault that he is so much in the background politically.

As to your numerical weakness. I mentioned some figures awhile ago---500,000---as the Jewish population of Germany. I will add some more---6,000,000 in Russia, 5,000,000 in Austria, 250,000 in the United States. I take them from memory; I read them in the Cyclopaedia Britannica ten or twelve years ago. Still, I am entirely sure of them. If those statistics are correct, my argument is not as strong as it ought to be as concerns America, but it still has strength. It is plenty strong enough as concerns Austria, for ten years ago 5,000,000 was nine per cent. of the empire's population. The Irish would govern the Kingdom of Heaven if they had a strength there like that.

I have some suspicions; I got them at second-hand, but they have remained with me these ten or twelve years. When I read in the C. B. that the Jewish population of the United States was 250,000, I wrote the editor, and explained to him that I was personally acquainted with more Jews than that in my country, and that his figures were without a doubt a misprint for 25,000,000. I also added that I was personally acquainted with that many there; but that was only to raise his confidence in me, for it was not true. His answer miscarried, and I never got it; but I went around talking about the matter, and people told me they had reason to suspect that for business reasons many Jews whose dealings were mainly with the Christians did not report themselves as Jews in the census. It looked plausible; it looks plausible yet. Look at the city of New York; and look at Boston, and Philadelphia, and New Orleans, and Chicago, and Cincinnati, and San Francisco - how your race swarms in those places! - and everywhere else in America, down to the least little village. Read the signs on the marts of commerce and on the shops; Goldstein (gold stone), Edelstein (precious stone), Blumenthal (flower-vale), Rosenthal (rose-vale), Veilchenduft (violet odor), Singvogel (song-bird), Rosenzweig (rose branch), and all the amazing list of beautiful and enviable names which Prussia and Austria glorified you with so long ago. It is another instance of Europe's coarse and cruel persecution of your race; not that it was coarse and cruel to outfit it with pretty and poetical names like those, but that it was coarse and cruel to make it pay for them or else take such hideous and often indecent names that to-day their owners never use them; or, if they do, only on official papers. And it was the many, not the few, who got the odious names, they being too poor to bribe the officials to grant them better ones.

Now why was the race renamed? I have been told that in Prussia it was given to using fictitious names, and often changing them, so as to beat the tax-gatherer, escape military service, and so on; and that finally the idea was hit upon of furnishing all the inmates of a house with one and the same surname, and then holding the house responsible right along for those inmates, and accountable for any disappearances that might occur; it made the Jews keep track of each other, for self-interest's sake, and saved the government the trouble. ^*

[Footnote *: In Austria the renaming was merely done because the Jews in some newly acquired regions had no surnames, but were mostly named Abraham and Moses, and therefore the tax-gatherer could not tell t'other from which, and was likely to lose his reason over the matter. The renaming was put into the hands of the War Department, and a charming mess the graceless young lieutenants made of it. To them a Jew was of no sort of consequence, and they labeled the race in a way to make the angels weep. As an example, take these two: Abraham Bellyache and Schmul Godbedamned. - Culled from "Namens Studien," by Karl Emil Franzos.]

If that explanation of how the Jews of Prussia came to be renamed s correct, if it is true that they fictitiously registered themselves to gain certain advantages, it may possibly be true that in America they refrain from registering themselves as Jews to fend off the damaging prejudices of the Christian customer. I have no way of knowing whether this notion is well founded or not. There may be other and better ways of explaining why only that poor little 250,000 of our Jews got into the Cyclopaedia. I may, of course, be mistaken, but I am strongly of the opinion that we have an immense Jewish population in America.

Point No. 3.

"Can Jews do anything to improve the situation?"

I think so. If I may make a suggestion without seeming to be trying to teach my grandmother how to suck eggs, I will offer it. In our days we have learned the value of combination. We apply it everywhere---in railway systems, in trusts, in trade unions, in Salvation Armies, in minor politics, in major politics, in European Concerts. Whatever our strength may be, big or little, we organize it. We have found out that that is the only way to get the most out of it that is in it. We know the weakness of individual sticks, and the strength of the concentrated fagot. Suppose you try a scheme like this, for instance. In England and America put every Jew on the census-book as a Jew (in case you have not been doing that). Get up volunteer regiments composed of Jews solely, and, when the drum beats, fall in and go to the front, so as to remove the reproach that you have few Massenas among you, and that you feed on a country but don't like to fight for it. Next, in politics, organize you strength, band together, and deliver the casting vote where you can, and, where you can't, compel as good terms as possible. You huddle to yourselves already in all countries, but you huddle to no sufficient purpose, politically speaking. You do not seem to be organized, except for your charities. There you are omnipotent; there you compel your due of recognition---you do not have to beg for it. It shows what you can do when you band together for a definite purpose.

And then from America and England you can encourage your race in Austria, France, and Germany, and materially help it. It was a pathetic tale that was told by a poor Jew in Galicia a fortnight ago during the riots, after he had been raided by the Christian peasantry and despoiled of everything he had. He said his vote was of no value to him, and he wished he could be excused from casting it, for, indeed, casting it was a sure damage to him, since no matter which party he voted for, the other party would come straight and take its revenge out of him. Nine per cent. of the population of the empire, these Jews, and apparently they cannot put a plank into any candidate's platform! If you will send our Irish lads over here I think they will organize your race and change the aspect of the Reichsrath.

You seem to think that the Jews take no hand in politics here, hat they are "absolutely non-participants." I am assured by men competent to speak that this is a very large error, that the Jews are exceedingly active in politics all over the empire, but that they scatter their work and their votes among the numerous parties, and thus lose the advantages to be had by concentration. I think that in America they scatter too, but you know more about that than I do.

Speaking of concentration, Dr. Herzl has a clear insight into the value of that. Have you heard of his plan? He wishes to gather the Jews of the world together in Palestine, with a government of their own---under the suzerainty of the Sultan, I suppose. At the Convention of Berne, last year, there were delegates from everywhere, and the proposal was received with decided favor. I am not the Sultan, and I am not objecting; but if that concentration of the cunningest brains in the world were going to be made in a free country (bar Scotland), I think it would be politic to stop it. It will not be well to let the race find out its strength. If the horses knew theirs, we should not ride any more.

Point No. 5.

"Will the persecution of the Jews ever come to an end?"

On the score of religion, I think it has already come to an end. On the score of race prejudice and trade, I have the idea that it will continue. That is, here and there in spots about the world, where a barbarous ignorance and a sort of mere animal civilization prevail; but I do not think that elsewhere the Jew need now stand in any fear of being robbed and raided. Among the high civilizations he seems to be very comfortably situated indeed, and to have more than his proportionate share of the prosperities going. It has that look in Vienna. I suppose the race prejudice cannot be removed; but he can stand that; it is no particular matter. By his make and ways he is substantially a foreigner wherever he may be, and even the angels dislike a foreigner. I am using this word foreigner in the German sense - stranger. Nearly all of us have an antipathy to a stranger, even of our own nationality. We pile gripsacks in a vacant seat to keep him from getting it; and a dog goes further, and does as a savage would - challenges him on the spot. The German dictionary seems to make no distinction between a stranger and a foreigner; in its view a stranger is a foreigner---a sound position, I think. You will always be by ways and habits and predilections substantially strangers---foreigners---wherever you are, and that will probably keep the race prejudice against you alive.

But you were the favorites of Heaven originally, and your manifold and unfair prosperities convince me that you have crowded back into that snug place again. Here is an incident that is significant. Last week in Vienna a hailstorm struck the prodigious Central Cemetery and made wasteful destruction there. In the Christian part of it, according to the official figures, 621 window-panes were broken; more than 900 singing-birds were killed; five great trees and many small ones were torn to shreds and the shreds scattered far and wide by the wind; the ornamental plants and other decorations of the graves were ruined, and more than a hundred tomb-lanterns shattered; and it took the cemetery's whole force of 300 laborers more than three days to clear away the storm's wreckage. In the report occurs this remark - and in its italics you can hear it grit its Christian teeth "...lediglich die israelitische Abtheilung des Friedhofes vom Hagelwetter ganzlich verschont worden war." Not a hailstone hit the Jewish reservation! Such nepotism makes me tired.

Point No. 6.

"What has become of the Golden Rule?"

It exists, it continues to sparkle, and is well taken care of. It is Exhibit A in the Church's assets, and we pull it out every Sunday and give it an airing. But you are not permitted to try to smuggle it into this discussion, where it is irrelevant and would not feel at home. It is strictly religious furniture, like an acolyte, or a contribution-plate, or any of those things. It has never been intruded into business; and Jewish persecution is not a religious passion, it is a business passion.

To conclude.---If the statistics are right, the Jews constitute but one per cent. of the human race. It suggests a nebulous dim puff of star-dust lost in the blaze of the Milky Way. Properly the Jew ought hardly to be heard of; but he is heard of, has always been heard of. He is as prominent on the planet as any other people, and his commercial importance is extravagantly out of proportion to the smallness of his bulk. His contributions to the world's list of great names in literature, science, art, music, finance, medicine, and abstruse learning are also away out of proportion to the weakness of his numbers. He has made a marvelous fight in this world, in all the ages; and has done it with his hands tied behind him. He could be vain of himself, and be excused for it. The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greek and the Roman followed, and made a vast noise, and they are gone; other peoples have sprung up and held their torch high for a time, but it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, or have vanished. The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert and aggressive mind. All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?

Postscript The Jew As Soldier

When I published the above article in Harper's Monthly, I was ignorant - like the rest of the Christian world - of the fact that the Jew had a record as a soldier. I have since seen the official statistics, and I find that he furnished soldiers and high officers to the Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Mexican War. In the Civil War he was represented in the armies and navies of both the North and the South by 10 per cent. of his numerical strength---the same percentage that was furnished by the Christian populations of the two sections. This large fact means more than it seems to mean; for it means that the Jew's patriotism was not merely level with the Christian's, but overpassed it. When the Christian volunteer arrived in camp he got a welcome and applause, but as a rule the Jew got a snub. His company was not desired, and he was made to feel it. That he nevertheless conquered his wounded pride and sacrificed both that and his blood for his flag raises the average and quality of his patriotism above the Christian's. His record for capacity, for fidelity, and for gallant soldiership in the field is as good as any one's. This is true of the Jewish private soldiers and the Jewish generals alike. Major-General O. O. Howard speaks of one of his Jewish staff-officers as being "of the bravest and best"; of another - killed at Chancellorsville - as being "a true friend and a brave officer"; he highly praises two of his Jewish brigadier-generals; finally, he uses these strong words: "Intrinsically there are no more patriotic men to be found in the country than those who claim to be of Hebrew descent, and who served with me in parallel commands or more directly under my instructions."

Fourteen Jewish Confederate and Union families contributed, between them, fifty-one soldiers to the war. Among these, a father and three sons; and another, a father and four sons.

In the above article I was not able to endorse the common reproach that the Jew is willing to feed upon a country but not to fight for it, because I did not know whether it was true or false. I supposed it to be true, but it is not allowable to endorse wandering maxims upon supposition - except when one is trying to make out a case. That slur upon the Jew cannot hold up its head in presence of the figures of the War Department. It has done its work, and done it long and faithfully, and with high approval: it ought to be pensioned off now, and retired from active service.