An old saying goes like this: “It takes a thief to catch a thief.”
Based on this idea, some law enforcement agencies hired former thieves to help
them catch currently active thieves. The practice spread to other types of
crimes, most prominent being computer hackers who get caught, get prosecuted
and then get employed by law enforcement agencies to work on catching currently
active computer hackers.
There is nothing wrong with that, as long as the criminals first
pay their debt to society by paying a fine or serving time as stipulated by
law. But when this is completed, there is no better way for a former criminal
to work on his own rehabilitation than to use the skills he acquired doing
evil, and put them in the service of the society he used to abuse. This can
only be viewed as poetic justice.
We must, however, throw in a word of caution at this point. Given
the nature of this undertaking, we must not go overboard and become so Pollyannaish
as to believe that a rehabilitated former criminal will remain clean to the end
of his days. It may well happen that the opportunities to which he is exposed
on the job, will pull him back to the life of crime he thought he left behind.
For this reason, he should be allowed to do his work, but only under
supervision, albeit one that will be discreet and respectful.
Now, imagine the extreme case of a criminal that's not a one-time
recidivist, but a habitual recidivist that never expressed remorse for what he
did, nor does he promise he'll never do it again. Yet, here he is challenging
the authorities to take his advice on how to conduct a war against all the
criminals and potential criminals out there, while guaranteeing a decisive
victory and lasting success.
If you were the authority, would you take this guy's advice?
In case you wonder, I am not giving you a hypothetical case. This
is really what the Jews are doing while at the same time running two
contradictory discourses. One discourse says: give unlimited freedom to
everyone that wants to say anything. The other discourse says: give us laws by
which to prosecute the people who will display anti-Semitic tendencies by
hinting they are less than 100 percent supportive of all the Jewish and Israeli
causes.
One such request came in the form of an article under the title:
“Why states must protect free speech on campus,” written by Kim Coleman and
published on March 25, 2019 in The Washington Times. To make his point, the
writer complains about the micro-suppression to free speech that happens on
college campuses. He asserts that, “free speech is lost in the papers not
written, the questions not asked, and the comments withheld because of fear of
retribution … numerous instances where free speech has been denied or
suppressed to demoralized students, desperate professors and frightened parents”.
Coleman spoke in the first person, telling the readers what his
experience has been. Well then, allow me to tell of my own experience, and that
of hundreds of others like me. We not only saw the suppression of our speech;
we saw a coalition made of Jewish organizations, the security apparatus of the
central government, and the most influential newspaper in the country join
forces to do one thing: Turn us into non-persons whose existence was never to
be acknowledged in public. We were banned for life from working in a profession
that had the potential to give us access to the public where we could take our
case.
My alma mater, York University here in Ontario, was nicknamed
“Jewish bastion” at the time. It was the place that did the most to stand with
Nathan Sharansky when he was in a Soviet Jail. It was the place to which
Sharansky's wife turned to publicize her husband's plight. And yet, I and the
other Arab students were repeatedly told that “for our own good,” we should not
engage in any discussion involving Middle Eastern matters no matter what the
Jews were doing to support Israel by denigrating the Arab countries.
Only a few years ago, the president of a famous University in the
city of Hamilton, not far from where I live, threatened to punish all those who
would say that Israel was practicing apartheid. Similar horror stories came out
of universities in the Canadian Western provinces.
As well, published stories about what happens on American
campuses, tell of groups of students having a collegial kind of gathering being
noisily invaded by Jewish students who tell them what amounts to the following:
We are here, we are Jews and we have a Holocaust story to tell you. Stop doing
what you're doing and listen to us or you'll be accused of anti-Semitic
tendency.
Students, faculty and administrators got so fed up in America,
they started to experiment with ways to protect themselves from disruption, and
protect their most precious possession: free speech. That’s because they see
their right to it being attacked on two fronts. They see the expression of personal
opinion being suppressed, and they see pre-packaged Jewish opinions being
shoved down their throats whether or not they like it.
Like all experiments in the realm of social change, a solution
will eventually be reached on this continent, and free speech will be preserved
on college campuses. It might take some time for this to happen, but such is
the nature of social change.
What should worry us, however, is that the whole thing could take
a bad turn because of what Kim Coleman, and people like him are doing. In
observance of the destructive Jewish habit, they ran to the authorities and
asked them to make laws that will serve the Jewish causes … which is a sure way
to screw up everything.