Things that suffer from a small superficial defect can usually be
repaired with some ease. By contrast, things that suffer from a structural
defect are harder to repair, if they can be repaired at all.
For example, a building that's hit by a tornado, and suffers a few
broken windows, can easily be fixed, and will most likely withstand the next
earthquake. By contrast, a building that was built deficient of steel rods,
will most likely get demolished when the earthquake hits.
That principle applies to abstract institutions as well because
they too can be built with solid ideas but small defects that can easily be
fixed over time, or they can be built with a structural defect, thus get demolished
every time that an earthquake hits, and they are rebuilt the same way as
before.
If we consider Human Peaceful Coexistence (HPC) to be the ultimate
institution we aspire to build, we'll find that of the three pillars upon which
that institution is erected, there still remains a long way for humanity to go
before we can say we have constructed a Human Civilization that will withstand
any earthquake. The three pillars of HPC being (1) Scientific and technological
progress; (2) Civic governance at the micro and macro levels; and (3) Religion.
When it comes to scientific and technological progress, we can be
proud of our accomplishments. Despite the fact that we are deficient in other
areas, our ingenuity has transcended the difficulties, and forged ahead with
discoveries and inventions that are truly astounding. As to governance, most of
us seem incapable of discarding enough of our evolutionary baggage to steadily
give out instructions that carry no prejudice, or steadily receive instructions
without being suspicious of their source. As to religion, we are in a mess that
needs to be sorted out and redone from scratch, especially the one calling
itself Jewish. This one practices what it says is Judaism, but may be compelled
to redefine itself as something else.
In fact, two recent articles go a long way in clarifying what's
wrong with Judaism. The latest of the two came under the title: “Bari Weiss
Explains How To Fight The Rise Of Anti-Semitism,” and the subtitle: “New York
Times columnist Bari Weiss's new book, 'How to Fight Anti-Semitism,' offers a
trenchant look at an old evil that's on the rise once more.” The article was
written by Melissa Langsam Braunstein and published on September 14, 2019 in
The Federalist. Five days earlier, on September 9, 2019, Simon Butler had
published an article under the title: “The US Must Institute Laws Against
Antisemitism,” and had it printed in the Jewish online publication, Algemeiner.
Despite Melissa Braunstein's article that has a title which says:
“How to fight anti-Semitism,” reviewing Bari Weiss's book whose title is: “How
to Fight Anti-Semitism,” you'll find not a single word or a hint in
Braunstein's article that tells how Bari Weiss proposes to fight anti-Semitism.
Do you know why this is so, my friend? It’s because the Jews do not want to end
anti-Semitism. They want to fight it but not end it.
The fact is that the Jewish leaders thrive on anti-Semitism. Any
suggestion they offer on how to fight it, is designed to maintain anti-Semitism
at a level that does not get out of hand. They have two reasons for wishing to
maintain the prevailing state. First, they can play the victimhood card and
milk the society that feels sorry for them till there is no more to be milked.
Second, and more importantly, they can ask for laws that bestows on them a
special status. This is what they have been craving for thousands of years.
They began with the idea that they were God's favorite children. But as time
moved on, they became convinced that God will not show up to embrace them for
the whole world to see. And so, they began to look to various governments
replacing God and giving them that special status. Right now, what they want
are laws that will punish the public for not loving the Jews wholeheartedly.
But how do they do that? They do it the way that Simon Butler
explains it in his article. It is the one that came under the title: “The US
Must Institute Laws Against Antisemitism.” But do you know what that will do?
It will increase anti-Semitism, which is what the Jewish leaders are hoping
for.
So then, what's Melissa Braunstein talking about in an article
that's more than a thousand words long? Believe it or not, she's talking –– not
how to raise Judaism to the level of respectability but –– politics. It all
comes down to this passage in her article: “As for politics, Weiss and I will
have to agree to disagree that the political left is either the natural or
better home for American Jews.” There is a name for this kind of give-and-take.
It is called Jewish style haggling that floods the space with useless verbiage,
yet leads nowhere.
So, we go over the Simon Butler article to see if he is shedding
more light on the subject. We find that he begins his presentation with this
suggestion: “I believe that we must ask whether the American principle of
freedom of speech should be re-fitted to address today's social media climate”.
So you ask, what's wrong with that? And you discover what's wrong
from what he says his suggestion entails. Parse his words and judge for yourself:
“As long as there is no direct incitement to violence, people are
free to say what they want. Unless an individual threatens another person,
expresses a desire to harm people, or urges others to do the same, his or her
rights to freedom of speech are fully protected. I think we should revisit this
mandate”.
That's it, my friend. Simon Butler wants to lift the current
protection on freedom of speech because he wants it so that if you dare to
exercise your freedom, you should be left at the mercy of every little Jewish
fart who will charge you with a crime, and have you punished.