There is a difference between being an educated person and
being a learned person. To be educated, people go to school (often as children)
where someone teaches them a few of the basics that will be useful to them in life.
In some cases – even in these modern times – the children are taught at home by
parents or by tutors. On the other hand, someone can become a learned person by
acquiring knowledge on their own, something they do by observation, research,
reasoning and whatever else goes into this process.
What must be said, however, is that to be educated and to
acquire knowledge on one's own are not mutually exclusive activities. In fact,
most of the time, the people who do extremely well in the use and the application
of knowledge are those who first acquire an education up to a certain level –
be it at school or at home – then go on to add to their knowledge by acquiring
more of it on their own. In fact, even those who stay in a school setting up to
their adult years, are required to do research before they can earn a master's
degree or a PhD. That is, they are required to do a certain amount of
independent learning.
But there is a difference of sort between being taught a
subject and acquiring knowledge on one's own. It is that education alone has an
effect on people which is different from what happens when people learn on
their own. Teachers often detect this difference in the students where the
majority does no more than listen to the lecture in class then go home and do
the assignment. By contrast, there is always a handful of students who go
beyond that, and strive to acquire knowledge on their own. Even if they do not
add a whole lot to what they were given in class, the effort they make molds
these students into a different type of person.
An attentive teacher would discover that the first type of
students learn by rote. It takes them time to internalize a set of ideas and
when they do, they latch on to them stubbornly as if they were dogmas. The
trouble with this kind of situation is that if for a reason – such as having a
bad teacher one year – students of this type learn something that is incomplete
or confusing, they carry the weakness into the future and have a difficult time
shaking it off. The teacher who is unfortunate enough to face a situation like
this will have a hard time correcting a student of that type.
By contrast, the students who develop the habit of adding to
their knowledge by wrestling with the ideas they are taught in class and by
doing independent research on their own, are more hesitant to consider matters
as being absolute. Thus, the teacher will find these students to be more
receptive to being corrected when they are made aware that something they
thought was right needs a little more elaboration and more development. In
fact, if told where to look, this type of students welcome the challenge of
having to find out on their own where they went wrong and how to modify their
thinking to arrive at a different conclusion.
And that reality is not restricted to the school setting. It
is so universal, you encounter it everywhere you look, especially in the
settings where people earn a living peddling what passes for information they
label as being indispensable and useful knowledge for the masses. The worst of
these places is the sphere of punditry where individuals who can only learn by
rote have false or incomplete concepts hammered into their heads earlier in
their career. They come out looking like fossilized dinosaurs to express ideas
they hold onto so stubbornly, they sound like dangerous psychos. These are the
psycho-fossilized creatures of the modern media; and there are plenty of them
around.
One such individual is Victor Davis Hanson who wrote an
article published in National Review Online on October 2, 2012. It has the
title: “The Neurotic Middle East” and the subtitle: “The world tacitly exempts
the Middle East from rules of civilized
behavior.” This being a provocative title, you get the sense at first that the
highly educated person who authored this article may also be of the type that
did some learning of his own, and that he may have something valuable to
communicate to the world.
You do not necessarily accept the premise of his discussion
as proclaimed by the title and the subtitle of the article, but you trust that
if you engage him in a debate, you could perhaps influence him as much as you
may be influenced by him. But when you start to go over his article, it
gradually dawns on you that this man may not be flexible enough to be persuaded
of anything. You begin to think that despite his education and his learning, he
may be a psycho-fossilized creature disguised as something else.
And so you try to find out what could have happened to this
person that made him develop the way he did. To this end, you read the article
again, and you notice that the point he is making is to the effect that “Many
of the things which are bothersome in the world today originate in the Middle East .” This does not surprise you given that for
some time now, you have been following the antics of the Jewish propaganda
machine whose goal – you have come to understand – is to blame everything on
the Arabs and the Muslims. And so, you resign yourself to the reality that this
is just another one of those who either belongs to the horrible machine or is a
victim of it.
You keep reading the article to see how the author itemizes
the “bothersome things” which he says originate in the Middle
East . What grabs your attention is the style in which he does
that. It is that he makes subtle editorial points as he goes along by
pretending to say something different from what he actually says. For example,
he does not simply say that passengers are inconvenienced at airports for fear
of terrorism; he says they are inconvenienced not because the terrorism
originates in the slums of Johannesburg , and not
because it originates with the grandsons of displaced East
Prussians . You see what is happening here, my friend?
I'll tell you what is happening. Using that style of writing,
the author makes the point that the Palestinians are not the only ones to have
been forced to live in slums because someone stole their land; so did the South
Africans who suffered at the hands of the European Whites. Also, the
Palestinians are not the only ones to have been displaced because someone stole
their land; so did the East Prussians who
suffered at the hands of the Poles. But wait a minute, you say to yourself,
could this guy not see that the Africans and the Prussians each suffered only
one thing whereas the Palestinians suffered both things?
Not only that but the Palestinians suffered both things at
the same time at the hands of the same culprits who happened to be Jews. Is
there not something to be said about this? Maybe Hanson has been talking to
Alan Dershowitz who said that Israel
has the right to do to the Palestinians anything and everything that anyone has
ever done to someone at any time anywhere in this world. It all fits nicely,
does it not? It is like the glove that fits the hand, something that should
give Dershowitz nostalgia given that he participated in the O.J. Simpson trial
where the glove fit, and the jury was forced to acquit. This is justice as it
can be understood only by a Dershowitz, a Hanson and all those like them.
Hanson keeps using that same style of writing for a good
part of the article not realizing that he has been painting an image of Israel , making
it look like a garbage bin containing every conceivable sort of trash someone
has wanted to dump into it. He stops for a second to take a breath then
explains: “The world obsesses over Israel
and the Palestinians because of the neurotic Middle East .”
He then resumes the trek by recalling what other calamities the Jews have
brought to the Middle East, all of which he blames on someone else, of course.
This time he drags into the discussion Jerusalem
and Nicosia , Palestinian and Jewish refugees,
the West Bank settlements and the islands between China
and Japan , the dispute
between Argentina and Britain over the Falklands, the Kuril Islands,
Gdansk/Danzig, the minorities in Israel
and in Egypt .
By now you realize that this guy is a confirmed psycho.
What tells you he is also steeped deeply in Jewish culture
is what he does next. Having mutilated history, he now speculates about the
future, and talks about it as would a prophet who sees it with the same clarity
he sees the past and the present. He begins by asserting: “We don't expect
another Cal Tech to sprout in Cairo in the way
it might in either Bombay or Beijing .” And he drags into this part of the
discussion Tripoli and Tel Aviv, Syria and South
Korea , Saudi Arabia ,
Algeria and Kia ,
Pakistan and Germany , Afghanistan
and Yemen , Middle Eastern
biofuels and Brazil , Libya , the
American Southwest and Native Americans.
And if you were shocked by the fact that at least one
American President went around the globe mouth-farting what the Jewish
propaganda machine had stuffed in his oral orifice, wait till you read what
Hanson has written to compare the economies of the Middle
East with the rest of the world. If you are stunned by the fact
that Spain is in the sewer at this time having been hailed as a great model for
the Arabs to emulate by a President that did not know what he was mouth-farting
about, you will be horrified to know that Hanson still cannot see that the
center of economic gravity is shifting back not only to the Far East but also
the Middle East where the fortunes of the two Easts have moved in tandem since
the beginning of time.
He asks: “How do we make sense of this abject nonsense?” And
he answers that the world turns cowardly when it comes to protecting the self
interest of the few where recycling the oil profits play a role. After that he
makes two observations back to back that are truly puzzling. First, he asserts
that the West is self-loathing, which is a very Jewish thing to do. He then
says that the Middle Easterners suffer from a collective inferiority, which is
also a very Jewish thing to say. And so you ask yourself: How can someone hold
these two notions in the same head at the same time, and still believe that one
culture is superior to the other?
And you get the answer right away because he does something
without realizing what he is doing. Look what he writes: “Exasperated Arab
secular intellectuals sometimes confess that [this and that] combine in the Middle East to ensure poverty and violence.” No, no, no,
you scream, it is not sometimes; it has always been like that because no one
criticizes the self as much as the Arabs – especially the Egyptians. The
difference between then and now is that pundits like Hanson never bothered to
check if Jewish moral syphilis was being ejaculated into their skulls by those
who pretend to translate Arab and Muslim writing. For half a century, Hanson
and all the others never got the true story, they got moral syphilis instead.
When it became too difficult to continue hiding the truth,
some people began to admit there is more criticism of the self among the Arabs
than there will ever be among Jews in the primitive annals of the North
American media. This is the place where people tell me: “After nearly half a
century, we want to take you off the blacklist, Fred; we just don't know how to
do it.” And I say to them: This is so very Jewish. They started you on something
but never gave you an exist strategy or a way to reverse course. They screwed
you and you worshiped them.
What there is now is a democracy that stinks so odiously, it
could only have come out of Satan's asshole. And I tell these people: Don't you
dare go shove it down someone's throat anywhere in the world; it would be a
crime against humanity.
To end his presentation, Hanson uncovers a potpourri of
everything you expect to see in an anti-Arab, anti-Muslim propaganda cesspool.
Not only that, he also prescribes a remedy for what he convinced himself the
people of the Middle East need. This is how
the psychos of the world delude themselves.
How to retrieve people like that from their state of fossilized dogma
should be the preoccupation of those who want to rescue America from a
certain descent into irrelevance.
In the meantime, leave the Middle East
alone; it is doing just fine all by itself.