Wednesday, November 8, 2023

Bestowing grandeur where grandeur is not due

 Eric Severeid once reminded his listeners of the saying that goes something like this: when a small man casts a long shadow, you know that the sun is setting on someone’s radiance.

 

Well then, based on what Clifford D. May is saying, we can now report that because an impoverished population of two million crushed-to-the-ground paupers are casting a long shadow over Western Civilization, you must conclude that the Civilization is declining.

 

Clifford May made his comments in an article that came under the title: “Hamas vs. Western Civilization” and the subtitle: “Gaza is a significant battleground.” The article was published on November 7, 2023 in The Washington Times.

 

You got to feel sorry for people of the Clifford May caliber who lack the intellect and/or integrity to tell the truth, or at least a bastardized version of it, and defend what they put out for others to consume. Here is what Clifford May did that sent him this time to the doghouse of feeble mental prowess:

 

“On Oct. 7, Hamas one of Tehran’s several pit bulls, demonstrated what such a policy looks like in practice: mass murder, rape, decapitation of infants. Hamas terrorists proudly recorded their barbarism on GoPro cameras (a Western invention) and posted the images on the internet (a Western invention)”.

 

Consider this now, my friend. Whereas Moses instructed the Jews to adhere to the command: “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,” the Jews stuck with the old habit of going for ten eyes or more, and going for ten teeth or more. When criticized for doing this, they lied saying that they consider one eye and one tooth as being the limits of how much they can extract from their foes.

 

This has been Israel’s policy in occupied Palestine for decades, and the number of killed and wounded victims on both sides speak for themselves—all the more so because Israel habitually assures it rank-and-file that it is doing well by bragging about the number of Palestinians it has killed in every clash.

 

And while this is the truth which can be verified by everyone, people like Clifford May and thousands more, repeat the lie that terrorism is conducted by the Palestinians and not the Jews. And when speaking in abstract terms, they can no longer sustain the lie, they think up incidents that never happened and attribute them to the Palestinians. That’s how the poisoned Jewish inventions of mass murder, rape and decapitation of infants, slipped into the current debate.

 

Another trick that the Jews pull off to confuse the audience, is that they play what can be termed the single-leg dialogue. That is, instead of letting the two sides of a give-and-take come through their description of how an incident unfolded or an idea developed, they only tell the one side that favors their argument. With that, they falsely let it be understood that the other side is not pushing back because he has no valid argument with which to push.

 

That trick is one that modern Jews inherited from their predecessors. It was used so openly and so shamelessly by them during the decades of the sixties and seventies when they had complete control of the media, you could get sick watching a panel of half a dozen Jews and not a single Arab, tell the audience both the Jewish side of the story, and the Arab side of the story as they saw it. So, you ask: What do we get from the Jews now? Well, this is what we get:

 

“Ghazi Hamad, a senior member of Hamas’ politburo, told a Lebanese television interviewer: ‘We will repeat the October 7 attack, time and again, until Israel is annihilated.’”

 

What’s missing here is the mention and understanding of the principle that when you give the other side a take-it-or-leave it proposition to choose from, you make the choice for yourself and make it for your opponent as well. This is what Israel has been offering the Palestinians for decades. It was to choose from total occupation and the pretense of independence.

 

This being the case, the people of Palestine chose to work on liberating their country rather than give it away while under duress. It is what Ghazi Hamad was echoing during the interview.

 

What he said, in effect, is that in the choice between Palestine or Israel being annihilated, they choose to annihilate Israel.