It used to be said that the ills of
democracy (free speech) can be cured with more free speech. It looks now like
despite the dictum proving to work for a while, some people found a way to neutralize
the positive effects of free speech and transform it for use to advance their
agenda.
These people found a way to weaponize free
speech by turning it into the “anything goes” torrent of rubbish with which
they littered the marketplace of ideas. This done, they used the weapon to do
two things: First, they gave themselves the right to abuse free speech to
unlimited degrees. Second, they attempted to go after their opponents more
forcefully than ever before in a concerted effort to silence them. In other
words, they attempted to monopolize free speech.
Two articles appearing on August 2, 2019
show how the Jews pursued that path and came close to choking democracy to
death in America. One article came under the title: “No, The Israel Boycott
Movement Isn't All About Free Speech,” written by Melissa Langsam Braunstein
and published in the Federalist. The other article came under the title:
“Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Excellence,” written by Bret Stephens and
published in the New York Times.
To better understand what Melissa
Braunstein is trying to do, we need to look at two events that say something
important about human behavior.
First, it happened long ago, that Muslim
clerics went into primitive villages where the people adhered to no religion and
consumed pork as an important part of their diet. The clerics introduced the
villagers to the Muslim religion which prohibits the raising of pigs and the
consumption of their meat. The villagers liked the religion but discovered that
they could not live without raising pigs and eating their meat. Faced with a
serious problem, they solved it by calling the pigs something else. This way,
they were able to continue eating the meat of that something else while
practicing Islam.
Second, fearing the rise of Germany that
was progressing at a pace that could seriously challenge them, the old colonial
powers of France and Britain got together in a scheme that restrained the
German progress. Unable to live with this situation, the German people elected
the Nazi Party because it promised it had solutions to the nation's problems.
Once in power, the Nazis identified the Jews as the nation's worst enemies.
Being the highly civilized human beings that they were, however, the Nazis did
not want to behave like savages mistreating other human beings. So, they relied
on the burgeoning science of eugenics to “prove” that the Jews were not fully
developed human beings. Having thus decreed that the Jews were a species of sub-humans,
the Nazis justified gassing and incinerating them.
And so, we find that the common element
tying the human behavior of primitive villagers who could not live without
eating pork, to the human behavior of the highly civilized Nazis who could not
live without annihilating the Jews –– was the fact that both found the same
kind of solution to the same kind of problem facing them. They simply changed
the name of the subject that gave them trouble. This is how the pigs of the
primitive villagers became something else. It is how the Jews of the Nazis
became a subhuman species. And this is also what Melissa Braunstein has done.
You can see it in the title of her piece where she made it so that the speech
of Muslim-American legislators ceased to be called free speech simply because
the legislators refused to toe the Jewish line. So very primitive! So very
Nazi-like! So very Jewish!
As to the Bret Stephens article, it is a
sympathetic review of a book that was written by Anthony Kronman. I have not
read the book but if the Stephens review is a faithful reflection of Kronman's
thoughts, I have news for both of them. It is that the book is a distortion of
reality. It is so, not by commission but by omission. It misses so much of what
is essential for a book of this kind, what's in it –– even if entirely correct
–– reflects not a true story of what happened or even a partial one, but a
distorted story.
The missing part is the role that the Jews
have played on the campuses of North America after the 1967 Israeli air attack
on its neighbors, starting the six-year war. What happened almost instantly
after the attack, was that the paradigm shifted violently throughout the
continent's marketplaces of ideas –– including the campuses –– making it so
that what Stephens is saying in a paragraph near the end of his article, can be
paraphrased to read as follows:
“Hence the new campus mores. Before an
idea can be evaluated on its intrinsic merits, it must first be considered in
light of its adherence to the Jewish interpretation of history. Before a
speaker can be invited to campus for the potential interest of what he might have
to say, he must first pass the test of inoffensiveness to Jewish sensitivities.
Before a student can think and talk for himself, he must first announce and
represent his purported knowledge of Jewish matters. Before a leader of
anywhere can be judged by the standards of his culture and his people, he must
first be judged by the standards of our culture and political system”.
Comparing these demands to the reality of
Israel's savage conduct in the Middle East, the campus community and much of
the American population –– including an increasing number of Jews –– began to
realize that they were BS-ed by the self-appointed leaders of the Jews and
their sycophantic whores of both genders. In turn, the offended masses of
Americans began to demand relief from the choking stench of the propaganda that
was inflicted on them by the Jewish machine and the rightwing organizations.
Therefore, what you see in academia and in
politics today, is nothing more than the reflection of what has been happening
over the past half century ... and continues to happen today, as evidenced by
the Anthony Kronman book, as well as the articles of Melissa Braunstein and
Bret Stephens.