A dialectic is a logical argument that takes you along an
intellectual journey spanning the distance from observation to conclusion. Most
essays unfold along this pattern because the writer would have a good idea what
he or she wants to say, thus goes from A to Z thinking and expressing along an
almost straight line.
But there comes a time when a controversy proves to be too
complex to grasp if we think exclusively along the straight line as we parse
it. You'll find such examples in situations where each of two antagonists has a
legitimate right that – if exercised – can deny the equally legitimate right of
the other. This is when the Hegelian dialectic comes in handy. It is named
after the German philosopher, Georg Hegel who approached the parsing of
difficult questions the same way that a court case normally unfolds.
Think of two lawyers in a courtroom, each giving an opening
statement that tells the judge the half of the story that favors his client. At
first, the judge tends to believe that neither lawyer is telling the truth
because the truth lies between the two. When the trial gets going in earnest,
and the back-and-forth examination of the witnesses gets underway, the judge
starts to see the case as a complex puzzle. He realizes that the pieces of the
puzzle are intermingled and cannot be separated into two groups to create two
stand-alone half-stories as did the lawyers in their opening statements.
Still, the judge can only conclude that neither lawyer has
lied when they told half the truth. The problem, however, is that to tell half
the truth is to deceive, which – believe it or not – is an accepted practice in
the dispensation of justice. It is in such complex cases that “creative
solutions” or “creative judgments” are called for. To make them and be correct
is what sets apart a superior judge from the ordinary ones.
Without explaining what they were doing, the Jews quietly
took those practices from the courtroom to every debating floor; be it the
chamber of legislatures or the editorial boardrooms of the media. In this way –
deliberately or inadvertently – they managed to transform every situation into
a polarized adversarial encounter. The Jews also took those practices to
everyday give-and-take situations where every ordinary debate was turned into an
aimless haggling match.
It then happened that all kinds of people caught on to what
the Jews were doing, and started to play the game against each other and
against the Jews themselves. This infuriated the Jews so much; they deployed
another secret weapon they were keeping in reserve. Call it the Jewish “Sword
of Damocles” or the Jewish “Ton of Bricks,” the weapon was to drop the
anti-Semitic accusation on the head of anyone that dared to win an argument against
a Jew.
In the interest of self-preservation, the gentiles of the
nation shut their mouths and left every debating floor for the Jews to
monopolize and do as they wish. This is what the Jews wanted in the first place
because – like the saying goes – “there is no autocrat like a Jewish autocrat”.
Jewish autocracy is different from the other autocracies in
that it always seeks to have it both ways. It wants a firm grip on its subjects
like the rabbis used to have on the ghettos. But the difference between
governing a ghetto and governing a modern society that was raised on the
principles of liberal democracy, forced the Jewish leaders to create an array
of sayings that set the Jews apart from the rest of humanity. That array
granted the Jews privileges no one else was allowed to have.
And no one has articulated that ideology more forcefully
than the editors of the New York Daily News. Look what they said recently, and
compare it with what they said 6 months ago.
On August 29, 2016 – just yesterday – the Daily News
published “No room for safe spaces,” an editorial that also came under the
subtitle: “A Second
City
Now look what they said on February 25, 2016 – six month ago
– in an editorial that was titled: “An education in tolerance that CUNY must
end anti-Jewish agitation on campus.” You'll find the following passage in that
editorial:
“A pro-Palestinian group has created a climate of fear for
Jewish students … Students for Justice in Palestine
[SJP] has become a vocal presence. SJP has created a hostile atmosphere for
some Jewish students. The Zionist Organization of America has called on the
CUNY administration to determine whether to revoke SJP's status as a student
organization … Most fundamentally, SJP calls for intifada against Israel … The
group also advocates for free tuition and cancellation of student debt … [also
calls] CUNY's leadership a Zionist administration that propagates
settler-colonial ideology through Zionist content of education”.
This is how the editors of the NY Daily News told half the
story to have it one way; that of giving Jewish students the “safe places” they
sought. The editors then told the other half of the story to have it a
different way; that of denying gentile students the safe places they sought.