“The Benghazi Patsy” is the sort of article I would not have
continued to read after discovering what it's about from the first few
sentences. And I certainly would not have responded to were it not for the fact
that three names immediately came to mind. They were Jimmy Carter of America , Desmond Tutu of South Africa and Winston Churchill of the United Kingdom .
The article was written by Rich Lowry who is the editor of
National Review Online. It was published on may 10, 2013 under the already
mentioned title, and the subtitle: “The man who made the video that didn't
cause the attack has been made a scapegoat.” In fact, I was exposed on previous
occasions to the sort of arguments that Rich Lowry is articulating, but they
were uttered by simple pundits not by an editor. I saw these people as
exercising their First Amendment right, and so I exercised mine by ignoring
them.
But when it came to an editor repeating the same arguments,
something else came to mind. They were two related questions: Is this man using
the First Amendment as a tool to express his right to think and vocalize what
he feels and what he believes? Or is he using the Amendment as a weapon with
which to protect the activities of some people while denying the same
activities or similar ones to other people? Of course, it is the constitutional
right of an editor to accept or reject someone's work, but that's not what I am
questioning here; it is something else altogether.
I begin with the notion that an entity coalesces and becomes
a nation when its members adopt a set of rules that guarantee domestic
tranquility and allow for the adoption of new approaches whose aim will be to
further develop and modernize the nation. Such rules may be transmitted
verbally from person to person and from generation to generation, or they may
be written down and called commandments, code of conduct, code of ethics,
constitution, civil code, criminal code or what have you. As such they are the
tools that protect the nation from domestic and foreign offenders, allowing for
good things to happen and to flourish.
Then, for one reason or another; for a combination of
reasons or random events, a society that may have developed a perfect union and
lived under it for centuries, begins to show cracks. This happens when the
rules are misused by individuals who use them not to maintain the sense of
equality under the law or the continuity of its effectiveness, but use them as
weapons to defend and promote one group of people while offending and demoting
another. This is achieved by spinning every event that takes place, and by
applying the rules partially and selectively. When such practices become
widespread, society loses the ability to look after itself, and turns into a
parasite that needs a host on which to sponge.
You do not have to be an actual bug to lead a parasitic life
attached to a host. You do not even have to be an entity like Israel whose
worldwide associates promote discord with everyone on the Planet to create the
climate in which victimhood can be developed. When this happens, such people
score the ultimate triumph of victimhood which is to claim and obtain
compensation for the victims they feed to the monsters they create. No, you do
not have to be like that to be a parasite, you can be what Rich Lowry and
Richard W. Jencks are advocating.
What these two gentlemen did is advocate a dependency of the
cultural, social, moral and intellectual kind which is a state of mind we are
familiar with here in Canada .
In love with the status quo, we maintain our country as a colony under a
foreign monarch because we never had the wherewithal to develop a consensus as
to who we are or what we want to be. You see a growing trend of this kind in America where
influential people who, for some unexplained reason, occupy high positions but
have a level of self-esteem that is as low as the belly of a snake. They
advocate the adoption of one foreigner or another as an American hero and go on
to worship them.
You can see this phenomenon in an article written by Richard
W. Jencks, published in the Wall Street Journal on May 11, 2013 under the
title: “Why Capitol Hill Needs a Churchill Reminder.” The title alone speaks
for itself but the article is telling even more. You can also see the phenomenon
everywhere and all the time on the Fox News channel when male and female
interviewers dissolve into a state of smitten ecstasy every time they interview
a local Jew or an Israeli. They never question the assertions that these
characters make no matter how absurd they are; they only ask the set of
questions they were told to ask, and they let the Jewish Gods rattle off the
dissertation prepared in advance in response to those questions.
You also see Rich Lowry add his two-cents worth of effort to
the process of erecting a monument for a foreigner who did nothing more than
use his First Amendment right. What's that again? Is Lowry saying that anyone
who would exercise his First Amendment right in America should be considered a
hero? Is it so rare that people display courage when they exercise that right
in America
? What on Earth is Lowry saying?
In fact, that's exactly what he is saying. Everyday that he
is the editor of a publication, he contributes to the erosion of the most
fundamental of American law by abusing and distorting the First Amendment of
the Constitution when he selects and promotes the articles that attack the
right of someone like Jimmy Carter to speak his mind while rejecting the
articles that push back against such attacks. And he contributes to the erosion
by selecting and promoting the articles that attack the right of audiences in America to hear
someone like Desmond Tutu while rejecting the articles that push back against
such articles.
So then, what was it that made Rich Lowry begin his article
like this: “Nakoula Basseley Nakoula deserves a place in American history” He
answers the question this way: “He is the first person in this country jailed
for violating Islamic anti-blasphemy laws.” But the man never said he was
testing a law of any kind. In fact, no such law exists in America where
he did his deed. People test the law where it applies as some are doing in the Middle East . And Lowry himself has described the
character as: “The man who made the video that didn't cause the attack.” So
then, what is it that makes him deserving of a place in American history? How
low thy self-esteem, Rich? How low the belly of a snake?
So you ask yourself, what would an American say in an
article of this sort? And the answer is obvious: Having eroded the meaning of
their Constitution, people like him continue to spin its provisions not to use
as tools to ascertain the tranquility and perfection of the union; they use
them as weapons to attack the enemy that the Jewish gods have chosen for the
day. They also promote their agenda which is to seed sectarian discord in the Middle East .
In fact, this is why that man made the video that he did.
This is what motivated the people who financed him. And this is what Rich Lowry
is trying to promote.