Let’s say you work in a place that’s big enough to have many employees, but not so big as to give each one a private office. Thus, all employees share one massive office that’s divided into cubicles with no doors to keep intruders out.
You worked there for many years with nothing unusual
happening till one day something happened that got you to scratch your head in bemusement.
What happened was that the luxurious pen gifted to you on your birthday,
disappeared as you left it on the desk to go on a coffee break. You figured
that with so many employees in one place, something like this was bound to
happened. You reasoned that someone must have come to talk to you, did not find
you, and in his distracted state, picked up the pen and walked away. You hoped
he’ll realize what he did, and will soon return the pen.
Instead of this happening, you were flabbergasted to see
your immediate neighbor use a pen that looks the same as the one you lost. Because
he is a new employee, and you know very little about him, you gave him the
benefit of the doubt, allowing for the possibility that he came to own that pen
as legitimately as you did yours. And so, you said nothing to the man for now.
With the passage of time, you became ever more convinced
that someone was rummaging through your desk whenever you went on a break.
Since all of this began with the advent of the new employee, you suspected he
was responsible for what was happening. Unable to take it anymore, you mustered
the courage to confront him. You started a gentle discussion by mentioning that
you once had a pen like the one his is holding. He said he bought it the first
day he was hired here.
Saying the pen was a gift that invoked warm memories, you
wanted to buy a similar pen to keep the memory alive. And so, you asked him
from where he bought his pen. He hesitated to answer for a moment, then
mentioned a store, then said he didn’t know because the pen was a gift he
received on his birthday, just like it happened to you. This answer did not
reassure you one bit.
You proceeded to tell him that things have been
disappearing from your desk when you went on breaks, and asked if he saw anyone
rummage through your cubicle when you were away. He instinctively responded
with a yes, but realizing that he may be asked to identify the culprit,
corrected himself saying that no, he didn’t see anyone rummage through your
cubicle. And that’s when you became convinced your neighbor was the thief.
Now, dear reader, consider this story a metaphor
representing people that commit reprehensive acts which are so transparent
everyone knows they are the culprits. But when you try to discuss that reality
with them, they throw a tantrum and accuse you and everyone else of racism and
antisemitism.
A recent article that shows how a situation such as that,
is unfolding in real life at this time, came under the title: “Dispensing with
the Israeli-Apartheid Myth,” written by Bobby Miller, and published on December
12, 2022 in National Review Online.
Citing the case of a university’s student government
passing a resolution endorsing the BDS movement, Bobby Miller has shown how he
expresses his tantrum. He did it by labeling the movement an antisemitic
campaign waged against the Jewish state, calling it an apartheid regime.
To belie what everybody sees as being the reality on the
ground, Bobby Miller proceeded to complain that this was, “the latest instance of
anti-Israel lies taking root on the campus of an elite American university.”
And so, he asserted that, “As instances of Jew-hatred continue unabated, it’s
important to debunk this pernicious lie”.
To deflect attention from the reality that Israel is an
artificial concoction erected on the stolen country of Palestine, Bobby Miller
went on to say that Israel was the only democracy in the Middle East, and a
vibrant one at that. What Bobby Miller failed to say is that Jewish democracy
resembles the Liberal Democracy of the Western World in the way that a cadaver
resembles the body it was before death. As to Miller’s assertion that Jewish debate
is vibrant, it must be that no one told him Jewish haggling does not rise to
the level of a debate. It is a shouting match that’s superficial, flimsy and
meager enough to leave the human spirit malnourished.
In the midst of all this, Bobby Miller mentioned Israel’s
“full and equal individual rights.” To understand this part, we must digress
for a moment to study the differences between the way that authoritarian
regimes oppress their people, as opposed to the way that the Jewish leaders
oppress citizens of the Anglosphere.
Under normal circumstances, citizens living under either
regime enjoy the same level of freedom. But when a regime feels threatened,
actions are taken differently under each. The authoritarians inform the masses
that dissent will not be tolerated, and enforce the stated directives when they
are violated.
In the Anglosphere, Jewish organizations proliferate and
become the eyes and ears of Jewish Central. They hide under every desk in every
institution, even behind every proverbial tree from where they watch to
identify individuals capable of growing in stature and become a future danger
to Jewish schemes. The Jews try to recruit the person and have him or her work
for them. If they fail, they instruct the security apparatus of the country to
destroy that individual before he/she grows too powerful.
The Jews have achieved this level of success, not by
operating in the open through the debating process set forth by the democracies,
but by giving out instructions in private and behind closed doors. Now my
friend, with this kind of operations unfolding in the Anglosphere where Jews
have to be careful, you can imagine how the operations unfold in Israel where the
Jews have a free hand to do as they wish. And yet, this is what Bobby Miller wants
you to believe constitutes respect for individual rights in Israel. He is
insulting your intelligence but you don’t have to take it anymore.
Looking at the entire landscape, it says that contrary to
what Bobby Miller claims, Israel is neither an open jurisdiction that respects
free speech, nor a democratic jurisdiction that respects human rights. And yet he,
and those like him, regularly throw tantrums, accusing others of antisemitism —
doing so to impress upon the public that Israel is the closest thing to
perfection. Why is that?
It is that the Jews have discovered they can ascertain
their supremacy by accusing others of antisemitism when the latter denounce
Israel for what it does in Palestine, and when they denounce the Jewish leaders
for what they make the Anglo political leaders do in secret for the benefit of
the Jews and Israel to the detriment of their own citizens.