If you try to name a crime that's worse than saying rape was
committed in the name of love, you won't find one. But you'll find something
that’s comparable. What stands as morally equal to saying that rape is an act
of love, is to ask the public to hate someone to end anti-Semitism.
Complaining about anti-Semitism is the gimmick to which the Jewish
leaders return when they sense they are losing their grip on the levers of
power in the American ship of state. It is that the charge of anti-Semitism
both frightens and confuses everyone, thus allows the Jews to reshuffle the
ongoing agendas, sending them in directions more amenable to the Jewish
endgame.
Having centuries of experience at playing this game, the Jews
developed a good nose for detecting the random events of daily life that can
help them start a new round of anti-Semitic accusations. In fact, there has
been several bursts of accusations lately, as the mob of Jewish pundits was having
a field day pointing the finger at people and institutions, calling them
purveyors of anti-Semitism.
The Jewish pundits went on to counsel innocent third parties on
the need to declare their hatred for those who stand up to the Jewish hate and
attack machine. They convinced the innocent that to oppose the Jews was not an
exercise in free speech, but a kind of anti-Semitism whose intent is to pave
the way for the next holocaust.
Three articles in that vein can be reviewed at this time. One
piece came under the title: “Airbnb's act of corporate anti-Semitism,” written
by David Harsanyi and published on November 20, 2018 in the New York Post. A
second piece came under the title: “Liberal Jews are still turning a blind eye
to anti-Semitism on the left,” written by Karol Markowicz and published on
November 25, 2918 in the New York Post. The third piece is a New York Post
editorial that came under the title: “Linda Sarsour is still refusing to
condemn Farrakhan's hate,” published on November 25, 2018 in the New York Post,
of course.
To understand the criminal insanity that's powering a mentality
like that of David Harsanyi, we need to take a real-life example and discuss it
under different scenarios. There was a time in America when non-whites were
forbidden from renting or buying a house or an apartment in some neighborhoods.
Call these places color-free neighborhoods. They sounded like Nazi Germany
where they had Judenfrei neighborhoods. In fact, some people even wanted to
make all of Germany, if not all of Europe, Judenfrei.
The civil rights movement in America, and the Second World War in
Europe, put an end to those practices. Now, Africans, Asians, Latinos and
Natives can rent or buy any property they want, anywhere they want. So do the
Jews. But there is one thing that neither the colored folks, nor the Jews of
any color are allowed to do. They cannot kick a white family out of its home
and take it under the pretext that if forbidden from doing so, the Jews will be
discriminated against for no reason but that they are Jews. In fact, this is
how the criminally insane who call themselves Jews define anti-Semitism. And
that's what David Harsanyi is peddling in his article.
As to the Karol Markowicz article, it legitimizes one false
analogy, and avoids highlighting a legitimate analogy. The false analogy
compares (a) Israel's displacement of the Palestinians and the acquisition of
their properties to give to Jews who come from around the world to receive a
freebie — with (b) “Russian-annexed Ukraine and Turkish-occupied North Cyprus,”
where no one was displaced, and no property was seized or given to strangers. Every
time that the Jews make this kind of analogy, they reveal a state of mind that
is seriously impaired.
As to the legitimate analogy that Karol Markowicz avoided
highlighting, it is that the world once boycotted the apartheid Regime of South
Africa. This happened not because the world was anti-White, but because White
South Africans instituted a regime that robbed the Blacks of their rights, and
refused to change. That situation corresponds with the way that the Jews now
treat the Palestinians. The white South Africans did not complain about
anti-Whitism because they knew better, and neither can the Jews complain about
anti-Semitism because they should know better.
As to the editorial of the New York Post, its destructive effect
can only be understood in terms of what it does to the art of engaging in
politics. To do politics is to try persuading others of one's point-of-view.
When those who engage in politics stick to such principles, they produce
debates so memorable, they are studied and quoted centuries later.
However, it happens at times, that feeble minds play a game they
believe mimics the art of doing politics, but end up doing something else.
Instead of helping the debate go deep, move forward and bring forth the
insights of the participants, they politicize the subject being discussed,
which means they maintain the haggling at the superficial level.
And that’s what the New York Post editorial does. What follows is
a sample of that:
“Linda Sarsour tried to fend off criticism of her embrace of Louis
Farrakhan. She made an effort to get something on the record so that she could
pretend she's resolved the issue, hoping she can get away with refusing to
condemn the Nation of Islam leader. Other Women's March leaders have supported
Sarsour and Mallory in the face of calls for them to condemn Farrakhan,
prompting Alyssa Milano to call for the march leaders to condemn the hate or
step down”.