Editors that wish to raise the
respectability of their publications will have to begin by respecting their
profession. Even hardcore advocacy journalism sinks to the level of the sewer
when writers celebrate the misfortunes suffered by others.
Truth be told, a good percentage of
articles on foreign policy written by Jews nowadays, and printed in American
publications, deal with political mishaps that happen overseas, ranging from a
simple protest to a riot where people die. The writers/commentators do more
than report the event or analyze the causes that led to it. They often
celebrate the misfortune because they see it as a sign that the regime they
hate, has gotten itself into trouble.
The number of writers who fit this
category is large. Two of the usual suspects, whose archives are filled with
this kind of articles, are at it again this week. They are Benny Avni and
Clifford D. May whose latest columns have appeared on the same day, April 2, 2019.
The first wrote under the title: “Turks finally start standing up to Erdogan,”
published in the New York Post. The second wrote under the title: “The
Hungarian resistance,” published in The Washington Times.
Benny Avni does not normally hide his sentiments
well, and he did not this time. What he has on his mind comes through his
writings loud and clear. You can see it in the opening sentence of his current
article. It goes like this: “Turkish voters punished their ruling party … That
could be a good omen for America unless the country has already drifted too far
from Washington.” Call this a guarded celebration.
As to Avni's hopes and expectations for
the future, he expressed them this way: “The question for America: Will the
shellacking force Erdogan to reassess his dreams of restoring Turkey's lost
Ottoman glory, with himself reigning as sultan? And will he rethink his ties
with ultra-nationalists at home and anti-Western forces in the region?” Alas,
Avni does not have a good answer to his questions. Here is how he ends his
article: “For now, the would-be sultan seems more likely to tighten alliances
with fellow anti-Western dictators.” Well, this was a short-lived celebration
that does not promise to deliver good news in the future either.
And this brings us to the Clifford May
article. Unlike Benny Avni who frets about ultra-nationalists at home that
might be inclined to ally themselves with dictators abroad, Clifford May's
article glorifies ultra-nationalists at home, whether or not they ally themselves
with dictators abroad. What follows is a condensed version of what he says in
this regard:
“Mainstream CNN criticized the Trump
administration for not addressing concerns over the spreading influence of
far-right ultra nationalist parties on the continent. CNN is entitled to its
opinions. Here's my opinion: I think Hungarians have a right to make decisions
for themselves, especially about issues likely to have profound and
long-lasting cultural and demographic impacts”.
A writer that used to condemn the
nationalism of others for standing in the way of welcoming in their midst Jews
that fled tyranny, how does Clifford May justify his current change of heart?
Here is how he did it: “Born in Austria, Hitler founded the Third Reich to be a
new empire. Nazi Germany was not nationalist but imperialist. Still, can
nationalism lead to hyper-nationalism and supremacism? Sure, just as having a
cocktail before dinner can lead to alcoholism.” It takes a powerful motive to
have someone create a mockery around a subject of such gravity.
So then, did that passage explode like a
bomb in your mind's eye, my friend? It should have, because if the Nazis were
crushed the way that they were because they had imperialist ambitions rather
than for being supremacists, it follows that every imperialist nation in Europe
should be crushed the way the Nazis were. This also applies to the Pax
Americana crowd advocated by the neocons. But what’s it all about?
Knowing the Jewish penchant for trying to
have it both ways, the above riddle can be solved with the following argument:
The Jews will argue for nationalism or against it depending on the
circumstances. They will say it's a good thing if it suits them and suits
Israel today. And they will say it's a bad thing if it does not work for them
or Israel tomorrow. Period — riddle solved.
But where or how did the Jews pick up the
habit of yearning to see others be stricken with misfortune?
No one that knows something about the Jews
should ask this question. It's all there in the stories they tell about
themselves. They tell them repeatedly, and celebrate the moment every year at
Passover.
The Jews contend that they came into
nationhood because God acted on their behalf when He afflicted Egypt with
plagues that lifted their spirits, and gave them the energy to add murder to
God's plagues.
They did so when they slaughtered the
babies of Egypt, robbed the country of its treasures, and ran into the desert
to go steal someone else's country and make it their own. What can be more
Jewish than that?