A short tweet exchange between John Cusack and Philip Klein offers
a superb case study that allows us to put in perspective the difference between
concern about a cause that is justifiable, and fanaticism for a cause that
cannot be justified. (
What happened to trigger the exchange between these two gentlemen,
is that Cusack retweeted something by mistake, honestly believing he was
promoting Palestinian justice. However, the retweet turned out to be material
offensive to Jews rather than supportive of the Palestinian cause. When the
mistake was brought to Cusack's attention, he apologized and promptly corrected
the error. This can only be viewed as the response of a concerned citizen of
the world.
Philip Klein would not let the matter end here. Motivated by the
opportunism that powers fanatics of his kind, he pounced on Cusack's mistake
and tried to advance the latest concoction devised by his kinfolks. That
concoction consists of fusing into one and the same thing, all which relates to
Jewish, Zionist or Israeli matters. The idea of playing this game, is that such
fusion results in the image of a body that's made of various organs. Thus,
every time that one of the organs is attacked, the entire body suffers. And
this turned out to be the ultimate expression of Jewish victimhood. How
Convenient!
Why has this approach worked for the Jews? It worked because the
Jews made it so that an attack on them is considered a call to final solution
them. Thus, a criticism of any Judaic organ, will be considered a deliberate
call to wipe the Jews from the face of the Earth. This being the most extreme
form of antisemitism that someone can express, it requires a strong rebuke from
all those in authority. And that's how the Jews have managed to practically
kill any level of criticism directed at them in the English-speaking world.
This is what we see in the case we're discussing; which is
something that should concern all of us because it shapes the culture in such a
way as to distort our view of the world. When this happens, it erodes our
ability to get along with each other, or get along with anyone around the
world. We can get a feel for how this is working out, when we look closely at
the different ways that Cusack and Klein looked at the same thing, but saw
different things:
John Cusack and Philip Klein looked at Germany in the early part
of the Twentieth Century. Cusack saw a normal country populated with normal
people. An evil man rose among them and caused them to commit horrible crimes.
He started a war in which Germany was beaten. When the evil man was removed
from the scene, the people redeemed themselves because human beings are
naturally inclined to be good to each other.
As to Klein, he saw a Germany that was ready to be led by an evil
man. When he rose to power, the country went along with him. He started a war
in which Germany was beaten. When he was removed from the scene, the people of
the country were kept in check by the rest of the world, which is a good thing
because human beings are naturally inclined to be nasty to each other.
John Cusack is an optimist that behaved like a normal person who
committed an innocent mistake, which he promptly corrected. Philip Klein, on
the other hand, is a pessimist who behaved abnormally, attributing to Cusack
the Nazi character he imagined is ingrained in each of us. Here is a quote from
his article, which reflects that sentiment:
“Cusack sent out a tweet that could have come out of the Nazi
propaganda archives. It featured a giant arm with a Jewish Star of David, with
the hand literally crushing a group of people. It features a quote: 'To learn
who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize'”.
As can be seen, Cusack, who sympathizes with the plight of the
Palestinians, saw a giant Israeli hand oppressing them. Because they are
prevented from criticizing their oppressors, he took it upon himself to speak
for them. As to Philip Klein, he associated John Cusack with the Nazi death
machine that gassed and incinerated millions of people –– not because Cusack
did anything wrong, but because he made an innocent tweeting error.
So, the question to ask is this: How does it happen that a pundit
can look at a small mistake, and make a big hay of it –– so big in fact, as to
rival in size the industrial scale Nazi death machine?
The answer to that question can be found in the opening sentence
of Klein's article. It went like this: “Actor John Cusack sent out a virulently
anti-Semitic tweet. This episode is a demonstration of how easily harboring
deep hatred of Israel can lead somebody to spread anti-Semitism”.
The sentence contains adjectives and adverbs that exaggerate the
meaning of Cusack's error. The sentence also conflates the resentment of
Israel's actions with the spread of anti-Semitism that Philip Klein has falsely
accused John Cusack of spreading.
As long as the Jewish leaders will continue to use that sort of
language in the promotion of their agenda, they will corrupt the culture that
is shaped by that language.