Look how Jonathan S. Tobin started his latest article: “If a
socialist demagogue with a soft spot for anti-Semites can rise to the cusp of
power in Britain, the same thing could happen here [in America]”.
Ignore the politics and the emotions that make up the
content of this statement for a moment, and concentrate on its form instead. It
goes like this: If “A” therefore “B” in the sense of ... because “A” therefore
“B”. That is, Tobin is saying: because something happened in Britain, it can
also happen in America.
Right or wrong, nothing says someone cannot start a text
like that. But from this point on, the reader will expect to see a development
of the text that matches the content of the writer's message. That is, if the
message is positive, the reader will want to know how it all happened so that
he may share the joy with the writer. But if the message is somber, the reader
will want to know what the writer believes can be done or must be done to
prevent or at least minimize the bad consequences that may follow.
Well then, my friend, now is the time to read the Jonathan
Tobin article which came under the title: “The Corbyn Precedent,” published on
August 8, 2018 in National Review Online. You'll find that while conveying a
somber message, Tobin said not a word as to how the potential negative
consequences may be prevented from repeating themselves in America or anywhere
else in the world, for that matter.
In fact, all that Jonathan Tobin did, was write nearly 1,200
words to describe and whine about an existing situation. He did so when he
could have drawn lessons from it to understand it and make sure that what's
unfolding in Britain does not evolve the way it has throughout history … also
make sure that it does not repeat itself in America, which obviously is Tobin's
greatest fear.
But why did the writer fail to take the correct course,
which would be logical and obvious to any sane person? Well, there are two
reasons why all Jewish writers – not just Tobin – who are allowed to flourish
and become influential, fail in logic. These are the reasons why the writers
become blind to the obvious, and always choose the wrong course when discussing
what they say are existential issues to them.
One reason is that searching for a way to prevent
“anti-Semitism” from happening, leads to the discovery that Jews must do their
part to make their relationship with others work. Since they view this approach
as a kind of debate during which they'll be asked to compromise, they reject
having any debate on the subject because when it comes to making demands, the
Jews see themselves as infallible. This makes it so that their demands are
non-negotiable. They state them as a take it or leave it proposition, and bribe
or blackmail the bipartisan idiots of the American legislature to adopt them
and pass them without question or debate. Period.
The other reason is that the spin doctors who are in charge
of the Jewish propaganda machine constantly prepare and update a narrative that
incorporates the events of the day. When done, they pass the new version on to
those like Tobin who spread it. The latter do so by memorizing the new version
of the narrative, stick to its main points and repeat them over and over again without
deviation to avoid making a fatal mistake.
And that's what Jonathan Tobin is doing throughout the
article. Instead of making the effort to understand what motivates Jeremy
Corbyn, Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, he attacks them all
because they are Socialists, he says. Actually, without coming right out and
saying so openly, he makes it sound like Socialism is by its nature
anti-Semitic.
If that's what Tobin really believes, I have news for him.
It was not long ago that Socialism was second religion to the Jews of Europe,
Israel and America. It became a pejorative term and turned into an insult when
the new-conservatives (neocons) found it convenient to make it so. Maybe
someday the new new-conservatives will find it convenient to make Socialism a
chic word again.
In fact, Tobin seems to be aware that such development is a
possibility. You can tell he is conscious of that because he attacked the
liberal elites in Europe, their counterparts in Britain and the Palestinians,
all of whom are reputed to have Socialist tendencies.
What remains to be asked is this question: Is there anyone
out there with ideas on how to save the Jews from themselves?