The late Yitzhak Shamir, a former Prime Minister of Israel
went to visit the United States of America at a time when it was becoming clear
that the old Soviet Union was dissolving for good, never to be revived.
Speaking in America about the Muslims in general and the Arabs in particular,
Shamir blurted out the expression that planted a dagger in the heart of
America's image as a superpower worthy of continued respect.
“Zey know nossing about za damocracy” was the expression
that Shamir blurted in America in his distinctive Yiddish accent, and this was
enough to incite the Jewish dominated American media; incite the successive
administrations that followed as well as the Congress of the brain dead. They
were incited to rise up and set in motion debates, policies and resolutions
that culminated in a series of tragedies befalling America and the people they
intended to hurt half way around the world.
In fact, the Shamir blurt got America mired in wars in
places it had no business being under pretexts that no one believed. People
laughed at the immaturity of the Americans, and they cried at their country's
potential to inflict pain on far away peaceful groups. Underneath it all,
America's mission was meant to disrupt the progress that the Arabs and the
Muslims were making to allow Israel to shine in the region, and look less
miserable than it really is. But instead of diminishing the Arabs or the
Muslims, the result has been that the image of America as a superpower was tainted
and made to look like the has-been that managed to do it to himself.
The lingering effect of all this is that the war against the
Arabs and the Muslims did not stop when America exhausted itself. It continued
unabated because two forces were unleashed that the American officials could
not snuff out. They were on one side the worldwide Jewish organizations and
their non-Jewish recruits, and they were on the other side the young Arabs and
the Muslims who rose to defend their respective homelands and the faith they
share between them. To this day, the two sides continue to fight it out at the
expense of America whose media is still controlled by the Jewish organizations
and their non-Jewish followers. The battle is still raging as can be seen in
four articles published on the same day, April 23, 2013 – three of which came
in the same publication, and one in a different publication.
The Three that came in the same publication came in National
Review Online. They were (1) the Dennis Prager contribution that has the title:
“The Lessons from Boston and Chechnya” and the subtitle: “There are obvious
lessons about good, evil, and Islam.” (2) The Rich Lowry contribution that has
the title: “Radical Islam, Once Again” and the subtitle: “The motive of the
Boston Bombers is obvious to everyone who will look.” (3) The Mona Charen
contribution that has the title: “A 'Friendlier' U.S., To No Avail” and has no
subtitle. As to the stand alone article, it is (4) the John Bolton contribution
to the Washington Times that has the title: “We can't ignore foreign roots of
the massacre” and the subtitle: “America won't be safe if inconvenient facts
are ignored.”
The one thing that the four articles have in common is that
they clearly demonstrate that the Jews have no understanding of the redemptive
act, a powerful concept in the Arab and European philosophies as well as the
Christian and Muslim theologies. Dennis Prager put it this way: “One of the
greatest insights I learned as a young man came from reading Viktor Frankl.
[He] was a Jewish psychoanalyst who … conclud[ed]: 'There are two races of men
in this world … The race of the decent man and the race of the indecent man.'
Those races do not understand one another. More important is … destroying the
indecent.”
This is the first of 6 lessons that Prager says come out of
the Boston events. As you read through the rest of the article, you realize he
means to say that the Jews and everyone else are decent people except for “tens
of millions of Muslims” for whom “Islam is beyond good and evil.” They are,
therefore, the indecent ones that the decent must destroy, in his opinion. The
problem is that Dennis Prager seems to forget that throughout time and
everywhere on the planet, humanity thought of the Jews as being the indecent
ones. It did more than talk about destroying their race; it actually tried to
do so on many occasions, and came close to succeeding at least on one such
occasion. Go figure.
From there, Prager goes on to discuss the concepts of
victimhood and lack of happiness; states of mind which he attributes to the
brothers of the Boston event. He does so as if he had no clue victimhood is
what allows the Jews and the Israelis to make a living, while the state of
unhappiness is what he and those of his ilk project with every word they write
and everyone they utter. As if this were not enough of a reversal to stuff into
one article, he makes the point that “Boys will be bad men if they had no good
men.” Really? Is he now blaming Viktor Frankl for the way that he turned out?
Maybe so. And then there is the inevitable act of blaming the whole thing on
the political Left in America which he says, includes the universities.
And this brings us to the Mona Charen article. You really
have to be a forgiving Christian or a Muslim to endure reading more than the
first ten words of this article because they form the sentence in which the
author slaps your face once, then slaps you again with the seventh words in the
next sentence. Here is the first sentence: “Despite Obama's Mideast outreach,
the Muslim world still hates America.” You see, my friend, when it comes to
this woman, everything dances around who loves who, and who hates who. As to
her second sentence, it goes this way: “If there was one thing the Left...”
Kaboom; it's the Left again that's at fault. I give up.
I give up; and I ain't readin' any more of this woman's
writing. You go ahead and read the rest of the article yourself if you want,
because I am Christian enough to endure only two slaps on the face, and no more
than that. Besides, the woman bores me to death, and I am not ready to die as
yet. I still plan to say a great deal before I'll be ready to go, and I intend
to say it come hell, high water or the monotonous rants of Mona Charen.
We now come to Rich Lowry who happens to be the editor of
National Review. His article starts with this revelation: “We are in the midst
of the least-suspenseful investigation.” Tongue-in cheek, he goes on to muse
about what may be uncovered. And he ends the article this way: “The chances are
that we will learn nothing … about the threat against our country. When the
next attack comes … we will again … wonder who could do such a thing, and why?”
By the time you get to this point, you realize that Lowry is
missing one big thing. Unlike the investigators who will be seeking to discover
the motive of the Boston bombers, many around the world know the motive of
those like himself who keep inciting America to bomb them in their bedrooms.
Some of these are not Christian enough or Muslim enough to forgive, or even
pray that the Americans will seek to redeem themselves. And so, they take it
upon themselves to get revenge in the name of righting the wrong done to them
and their families. To this end, they do the thing that the Jews make America
do to them. They prove in this way to be no better than the Jews.
We finally come to the John Bolton article. The first thing
we notice about it is that it resembles in many respects the Bret Stephens
article I discussed in my previous posting: “A Style That Kills Half The
Message.” Look at this passage: “Unfortunately … many commentators ... are
displaying a willful blindness … Before we engage in a contentious debate … we
need to know more.” It is as if the two authors received instructions from one
and the same source. But given the fact that each has a style of his own, each
has left a distinct fingerprint on his article.
What distinguishes the Bolton fingerprint is that he takes
an approach that looks legalistic when making his points. In doing so, he slips
through some subtle hints, and some that are not so subtle. They are to the
effect that what is needed now is a declaration of war. It will be a war that
will remain open till the enemy is vanquished for good. And he wants to do this
by: “The far better approach [that] may well be to take the fight to the
terrorists overseas.”
What he wants is maintain the policy of steady as she goes –
one that has ruined America already. Obviously, this man lacks imagination, and
he cannot be the friend of America. Since he designated himself as being an
enemy of the World, whose friend can he be?