If the intent of talking about a subject matter is to leave
a permanent impression on the listener, then Jewish talk must be the least
impressive of all. That's because it is designed to generate an instant shock
that grabs the immediate attention of the interlocutor but nothing more. Empty
of substance, Jewish talk dissolves into thin air during the time that it takes
it to travel into the ear of the listener and out the other ear.
This is why the Jews prefer to debate someone verbally and
not in writing, having prepared an ambush to “gotcha” the interlocutor with
something he never expected. It is why they never debate someone in a
give-and-take exchange that is done in writing where they know they can never
make a coherent presentation. And it is why they prefer to “dialogue” among
themselves by presenting their own point of view and that of an opponent they
made sure they silenced beforehand and placed on a blacklist.
You can see how deficient a Jewish presentation can be when
you review the work of even their best (their cream of the crop) and find it to
be the literary equivalent of a soap bubble. It is impressionistic rather than
informative, lightweight rather than dense, erratic rather than stable, and
aimless rather than focused. It is heat that serves the moment rather than a
beacon of light that is meant to endure.
One such example is Charles Krauthammer's column that came
under the title: “The Final Solution: a Nuclear Iran” and the subtitle:
“Anti-Semitism is on the rise in Europe, and in the Middle
East a new Holocaust looms.” It was published on January 29, 2015
in National Review Online. Whether he chose to insert “Final Solution” in the
title or that was the choice of the editor, the message is the same. It is that
the presentation contains as much substance as you will find in a soap bubble.
Look at the chain of thoughts that took him about a third of
the column to express. (1) “Anti-Semitism has returned to Europe .
With a vengeance.” (2) “It has become routine.” (3) “The rise of European
anti-Semitism is in reality just a return to the norm.” (4) “The hiatus is
over.” (5) “European anti-Semitism is not a Jewish problem [but] a European
stain, a disease of which Europe is
congenitally unable to rid itself.”
This is the block of ideas upon which the writer stands
before moving on to the next block. So you ask yourself: what's in that block?
You look closely at the text and find that the writer narrates the history of
European anti-Semitism, and then describes it as being a “congenital disease.”
Wow! He says congenital, which can only be interpreted one way. He means to say
that the Europeans suffer from a disease called anti-Semitism at the genetic
level. It is incurable. It can be temporarily dampened with shame but never
eradicated.
Is that it? That's where he intends to leave the discussion
as far as this block of ideas is concerned? Yes, he says, because: “From the
Jewish point of view, European anti-Semitism is a sideshow.” End of discussion
on this subject. But you protest: What about Jewish responsibility in this
whole affair? Is there not something to be said about the Jews making an effort
to get along with the Europeans? Nope, he says, let's move on to the Middle
East where Israel
is situated and where the heart of global anti-Semitism has shifted.
He does not use the word congenital this time, but he speaks
of global anti-Semitism which is how he transmits the notion that the European
genetic defect is not only European but one that is suffered by the entire
human race. And that's the reason why: “For America ,
Europe and the moderate Arabs [they will have] nothing to do with Israel ,” whereas for Israel , the threat is “direct,
immediate and mortal.”
Unlike his discussion with regards to the Europeans,
however, Krauthammer now gives a hint as to how the so-called anti-Semitism is
generated. He tells of an Iranian President who said: “Application of an atomic
bomb would not leave anything in Israel but the same thing would
just produce damages in the Muslim world.”
Assuming this is exactly how the Iranian President expressed
himself, it is clear that he was responding to the Jewish repeated boasts that Israel
possessed at least 200 nuclear devices with which every Arab and every Muslim
on the planet can be annihilated with one push on the nuclear button. It is
that the Jew can have his bomb and use it too; whereas the Iranians can't even
bake their yellow cake.
And since in Jewish eyes, you cannot use the same sauce for
both the goose and the gander, the two can stay together if that's the only
accommodation you can prepare, but they must remain unequal because you can't
'compaaaare' one with the other. Their motto is unmistakable: What's mine is
mine; what's yours is disputed.
Furthermore, the Jew must always have the upper hand while
the others must accept – even love – being in a subordinated position. But
that's where many of the others resist, an act that the Jews identify as being
the anti-Semitic genetic defect which is plaguing the human race.