When, in the decades of the Sixties and Seventies of the
Twentieth Century, the women's liberation movement was in full swing, an
abundance of images and arguments describing the lamentable state of women at
the time were made and purveyed by the leaders of the movement.
These women had two main goals. The first was to motivate
the women who sat on the sidelines waiting for their sisters to win the fight
so that they may reap the benefits. The second goal was to motivate the men of
goodwill who wanted to help but were bewildered by the whole thing, and did not
know what to do. And so, the leaders of the movement worked to jounce those
women and those men hard enough to see them shed their apathy and stand up in
support of the movement. And they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.
I am of the opinion that the most powerful argument ever
made was the one that got the least attention. It did not get the attention it
deserved because it rested on a sexual metaphor at a time that was so prudish,
sex was barely mentioned when the conversation was public, and discussed in
whispers when the conversation was private. Oh yes, the sexual revolution was
on, but the people who revolted had not figured what to do with the tools they
were endowed with. And so, the argument that got less attention than it
deserved was to the effect that men viewed women as rings they wore around
their penises. The more rings a man wore during his lifetime, the more manly he
felt, and the more his peers considered him to be so.
This image has slowly faded over the decades but not without
leaving behind a gamete that is now developing into a freakish monster; a
creature that is so horrible, it should give everyone the creeps. An example of
this is Pete Hegseth who must have taken to heart the word of television
pastors teaching him that the Jew is a God, someone he must worship as the
equal of Jesus Christ. And so, while the women who still believe in their
movement aim to add to their independence and expand it to full equality with
men, many an American male – such as Pete Hegseth – seek to replace the women
as rings around the penis of a Jewish male.
And what the Jewish leaders in America normally do with men who
show a disposition to ring themselves, is that they give them a task to fulfill
over a period of months or years, promising to reward them in accordance with
their performance at the end of the period. Hegseth was given the task of
recruiting veterans of American wars for the purpose of getting them to work as
foot soldiers and as propaganda purveyors for the causes of World Jewry and Israel . He
passed the test with flying colors, proving himself to be truly capable of
operating like a ring master of the phallic kind. And so, they sent him on a
junket to Israel
so that he may describe from there the joy of being impregnated with the
splendors of the local Jewish culture.
He wrote three articles for National Review Online that were
published on May 24, 28 and 29, of the year 2013. To those of us familiar with
the Jewish propaganda machine, they sound like run-of-the-mill talking points.
You already see this when examining the titles and the subtitles. The first
article comes under the title: “Israel 's
sense of purpose” and the subtitle: “In Israel ,
a sense of historical importance is palpable, and the U.S. can learn
from it.” Well, be aware, my friend, that when someone utters words to the
effect that America or
anyone can learn from Israel
or a Jew, you know that this ring has hugged the penis very tightly. After that
display of his true colors, Hegseth went on to write: “Securing Israel Today”
which also came under the subtitle: “It's hard to overstate the threat from
fanatics who want to annihilate the country.” And finally: “Stopping Iran's
Bomb” which also came under the subtitle: “The fallout from military action
would be terrible – a nuclear-armed Iran would be worse.”
By now you will have gotten a sense of what these people
want from America
at this time. You are not surprised to see that they want America to send its boys and girls to die for
their Jewish and Israeli causes yet again; this time in Iran . And so
you go over the three articles once more to see how they tried to suck the
readers into this frame of mind. You find that they got Hegseth to convince a
number of US veterans to go to Israel
with him. Once there, the group met an Israeli officer who did not waste time
conflating the purposes of America
and of Israel .
He told the American veterans that when he visited America :
“I felt like I was in Israel ”
to which Hegseth comments: “He was heartened to visit a country where
patriotism and reverence for freedom's sacrifices were still demonstrated.”
This is to say that freedom is both an American pie and a Jewish matzah bread.
Well, the English saying that applies to this situation goes
like this: Flattery will get you everywhere. The French have another way of
expressing this thought. It comes from a fable of Lafontaine “The Raven and the
Fox” and goes like this: May you learn that every flatterer lives at the
expense of the one listening to him. To add power to the conflated image, they
got Hegseth to contrast the America/Israel conflation against what America could become if it goes alone: “That is
in sharp contrast with his feelings about Europe ,
which he describes as a 'giant museum,' slowly fading into irrelevance.” But if
America can avoid this fate,
he goes on to say, it will be rewarded by becoming like Israel : “Two days into my trip to Israel I [get] insight into what makes Israel such a
dynamic and special place.” The ring is really hugging it now. He keeps going
like that throughout the first article to end with this: “Israel is
living on the front lines of freedom, and Americans would do well to remember
that we are too.”
But – and there is a but – Israel is in danger because it is
surrounded by enemies, which is the theme of the second article. In the same
way that they got Hegseth to paint an America
that shines bright when compared to irrelevant Europe, they now get him to
paint an Israel that shines
bright when compared to the rest of the Middle East ,
a tough neighborhood where it finds itself. He ends the second article by
saying that if this were not bad enough, there may be worse to come because
those bad neighbors may acquire weapons of mass destruction. And that's how he
prepares for the third article.
This one is about Iran 's bomb and the question on how
to stop it. Hegseth begins the article by tying Iran
to the unflattering picture he painted of Israel 's immediate neighbors. In
addition, he repeats the lie that was made about an Iranian official
threatening to wipe Israel
off the map if Iran
is attacked. And so, Hegseth asks: “Can Israel afford to hope they're
bluffing?” And right away, he answers: “Israel cannot. And neither can we.”
This is where you see how conflating America
and Israel comes handy for
the Israelis; they call on America
to do the dirty work they cannot do themselves.
But to make a strong case, he must show that Iran is a danger not only to Israel but also to the neighborhood as bad as it
is, to Europe as irrelevant as it is, and to an America
that must never become like Europe . And this
is why he ends the article and the series with a flattery. This time he quotes
Winston Churchill who said: “Americans can always be counted on to do the right
thing, after they have exhausted all other possibilities.”
And so Hegseth repeats what the Israelis and their
mouthpieces have been repeating for 15 years: “Time is running out.” And he
calls on America “to do the
right thing – for our sake, Israel Israel