It often happens that in the North American culture, people are metaphorically reminded not to mix “apples and oranges,” which means they should not draw false equivalences between two things that do not resemble each other enough––any more than they would tolerate confusing apples and oranges.
Well, if this is so bad as to
merit a saying dedicated to warn people, imagine what it would be like if the
one who is warning you not to mix apples and oranges, mixes the more unequal
raisins and pumpkins. He or she would do it trying to convince you of their
point of view, using an argument that is, on its face, as absurd as to suggest
that to entertain themselves, angels in heaven spend time dancing on the head
of a pin.
A controversy having to do
with the equating of various events, erupted more than half a century ago when
the Jews mounted a massive and relentless effort to use that warning –– not in
the way it was meant to be used but –– to establish a strange concept that was
too evil to grasp and too subtle to unmask.
It happened that the rabbis
and the other Jewish leaders got into the business of looking out for any
statement that was uttered by a gentile who might be drawing an equivalence
between something ordinary and something Jewish. When they spotted one, the
Jewish leaders and the rabbis brayed in a voice similar to that of a sick
jackass –– these memorable words: you can't compare! You can't compare. But
coming out of their mouths, the braying sounded like this: You can't
compaaaare! You can't compaaaare!
Criticized for singling
themselves to stand out as a special group at the same time that they howled
their pain for being singled out by society because of their habit to accuse others
of antisemitism, the Jews curtailed the habit of saying they were special, but
started doing something else. You can see what that is when you read the
article that came under the title: “Administering 'Truth' in our schools,” an
article that was written by Janet Levy, and published on October 24, 2020 in
the American Thinker.
The article tells the story of
two educators. One story is that of a school principal who said basically that
regardless of what he believes, he will not impose on the students the view
that the Holocaust did or did not happen. He was suspended for saying that, but
was reinstated when he appealed his case. The other story is that of a teacher
that accused everyone participating in the Black Lives Matter movement of being
a terrorist. He was fired from his job and never reinstated. And so, Janet Levy
points to these cases and says there is no justice for Jews in this world.
The fact that Janet Levy has
equated someone's refusal to vouch for a historical event, with the accusation
that a group identified by skin color, is a terrorist organization, must have
blown your mind, and caused you to ask: how can a thought like that be arrived
at by a writer who wants the world to believe she is sane? You look for an
answer in her article and discover that she may not be the only insane actor in
this abomination.
Here is the destructive time
bomb which comes in the form of a harmless political interference in education
but that inevitably leads to that kind of insanity: “The Florida Legislature
passed the Holocaust Education Bill, mandating lessons of the Holocaust to be
part of the curriculum. It said the Holocaust must be taught as a uniquely
important event”.
It is not surprising,
therefore, to see minds such as that of Janet Levy, mangled into that kind of
hideousness as if attacked by a thousand gremlins of drivel, when you mandate
by law that the suffering of European Jews a century ago in a faraway place,
can only be superior to the suffering of Black Americans in America, even if
you know nothing about the first, whereas you see Black Americans––some of them
your acquaintances––being deliberately chocked to death or shot in the back
every day with your own eyes in your own neighborhood. It is a display of
horrific banality like only the Jews are capable of.
To reinforce her imbecilic
argument, Levy cited other cases of lesser importance, all of which were
adjudicated at one legal level or another in a way that displeased her. Being
straightforward civil cases, Levy found herself unable to attack them in her
article based on the facts or the law, and so she switched to the race and
religious argument. The following is what she had to say in this regard:
“Anti-Semitism,
anti-Christianity, and anti-white statements are tolerated. Statements
criticizing a black movement are labeled racist, and objections to a curriculum
on Islam are labeled racist. We have truly entered an alternative reality where
our freedom to hold non-approved versions of the truth is severely threatened.
We need to speak out louder – and boldly – before it is too late. Or else, we
will have to swallow what the 'Ministry of Truth' force-feeds us”.
The poor thing, she does not
realize that there is a big difference between politicians making idiotic laws
under the pressure and the Benjamins of lobbyists on one hand, and judges as
well as jurors adjudicating cases without outside interference on the other
hand.
The Jews lost every time their arguments came under the scrutiny of sober judges, and the ears of jurors that cannot be corrupted … and that's what counts.