Tuesday, May 20, 2014

I would not have been offended

Here again, I find myself breaking the promise I made to myself that I shall not respond to something Bret Stephens writes for at least two months no matter how offensive will be what he writes from now until then. The thing, however, is that while the intent behind what he wrote in his latest column may have been to offend some people – as he makes it clear – it did not offend me. The column comes under the title: “To the Class of 2014” and the subtitle: “Students who demand emotional pampering deserve intellectual derision.” It was published on May 20, 2014 in the Wall Street Journal.

Let me begin by telling a story that will explain where I stand with regard to being offended by one thing or another. I was taking a part-time course in the decade of the nineteen sixties with a professor who was also running to be a member of parliament. He had a thirteen year old son who let his hair grow to the shoulders, and would not trim it despite the fervent pleas from his parents who worried that his appearance may sink the chances of the father to get elected. Of course, boys, even grown men let their hair grow to the shoulders nowadays, and no one gets offended by their appearance. The moral of this story is that what is offensive today may not be tomorrow.

Having lived through many cultural changes where the bearable became offensive, and the offensive became bearable, I learned to tolerate many of the things that other people find offensive. Thus, none of the insults that are thrown at the country of my birth or the one I have adopted bother me unless the insults are meant to distort the truth for the purpose of advancing an illegitimate agenda. For example, an insult that tells a lie about Egypt for the purpose of punishing the country would anger me. Likewise, an insult that tells a lie about the healthcare system in Canada for the purpose of attacking the system in America would also anger me.

It is for similar reasons that I get angry at the Jewish moves by which they make a cottage industry of being offended by the things that diminish the gains they make at the expense of the gullible entities they court. For example, they will call you antisemitic if you criticize Israel; and they will explain that to say Israel is to say Jewish, therefore to criticize Israel is to insult the Jews for who they are … and this is antisemitic. But then if someone they don't like runs for office and speaks of the Jewish lobby instead of the Israeli lobby, they call him antisemitic because he stands accused of not differentiating between Israel and the Jews. The truth is: these people get offended coming and going because they plan to get compensated coming and going. This is how they live; it is what they do to earn a living.

Over a period of four decades, they meticulously put together a comprehensive roster of Jewish sensitivities, and built a network with which to infiltrate the North American institutions of higher learning. Using these two as tools to implement a heretofore hidden agenda, they went after the Jewish and non-Jewish professors who rejected their roster of sensitivities, and shunned their network. They purged many of them, denied tenure to others and convinced a number of university administrators to ban the use of expressions like Israeli apartheid on campus.

This done, they took their success to Europe, mostly Britain, where they tried to duplicate the success there too. Luckily, they made the mistake of appointing the notorious Alan Dershowitz to lead the drive to conquer Britain. Once over there, the locals – Jews and non-Jews alike – took one look at him, and told him to turn around and get the hell out of there before someone decides to do serious damage.

The word spread in North America as to what happened in Britain, and those who did not know how to handle the situation previously knew what to do now. They told the likes of Dershowitz and the administrators who banned the use of the expressions that offended the forever-displeased Jews to go to hell because they now have their own agenda ... though not a hidden one; and they have a roster of sensitivities they want the whole world to know about.

And no one is going to stop them because to do so means to stop the likes of Dershowitz and the administrators who would ban what offends the Jews … which is what they themselves are doing now. Neat huh!

And so, while I would not have been offended by the Bret Stephens attempt to offend me, I would have marveled at the unfolding drama the same way that I marveled at the tension created by the standoff between my professor and his son more than 40 years ago.