August 5, 2014 is a day that should go down in history as
the day in which the website National Review Online unwittingly did mankind a
favor by shedding light on the intellectual contortion known as Jewish moral
clarity. And that's because it was on this day that Dennis Prager, Rich Lowry
and Victor Davis Hanson published an article each on subjects that began to
give definition to that moral puddle of mud.
Simple observation of the chatting landscape indicates that in
America
– more so than anywhere else in the world – the young generation is telling the
Jewish propaganda masters and their echo repeaters that they can take their
moral clarity and shove it because it is as clear as mud. What got the blood of
those in the said generation boiling is the Jewish argument that went as
follows:
In the war on Gaza , for every
soldier of ours that they killed, we killed 5 of theirs which is understandable
given that America
gave us superior offensive weapons, and mounted a massive international effort
to deny the Palestinians even the most elementary of defensive weapons. But
where moral clarity of the Jewish kind came into play is in the fact that for
every civilian of ours that we admit has been killed by them, we killed 500 of
theirs.
And here is the rub; we are saintly and they are evil
because we have good intentions and they have bad ones. This is why our
precision weapons did not kill the people we intended to kill which were their
soldiers, but killed their civilians instead. Whereas their imprecise weapons
did not kill the people they intended to kill which were our civilians, but
killed our soldiers instead. In case you missed it, this is moral clarity of
the muddiest kind, the most Jewish kind.
And so you have the Dennis Prager article which came under
the title: “The Poisoned Lancet” and the subtitle: “The once-respected medical
journal harbors anti-Israel extremists.” Prager says the journal is “considered
to be one of the world's leading medical publications.” Still, he rails against
it vehemently because it published “An open letter for the people of Gaza ,” which he describes as a grotesque attack on Israel .
And that is because, according to him, the signatories of
the letter denounced the Israeli aggression in Gaza ,
describing Israel 's
behavior as perverse “propaganda that justifies the creation of an emergency to
masquerade a massacre.” Prager then attacks the four main people – all
distinguished medical doctors – who stand behind the letter, and he maligns
them like only a Jew would do. He does it for no reason than these four people
have never been friends of Israel
… as if this were a sin or worse, a crime. See how muddy it gets?
Then there is the Rich Lowry article which comes under the
title: “Hitler Was Right!” and the subtitle: “With Europe 's
Muslim immigrants come ancient hatreds and a revival of anti-Semitism.” Lowry
begins the article by listing the acts that were committed by some people, and
the sayings that were uttered by other people – both expressing their
disapproval of what Israel
has been doing in Gaza .
He goes on to say that this is “the new Europe ,
where the street thugs have learned a lot from the Old Europe.” By that he
means that the street thugs know how to read history, which is something
already. He then describes these people as follows: “Europe
imported … immigrants from Muslim countries who are not assimilated to the new
European norms, but reviving the worst of the old ones.”
He explains: “a Hamas official said that Jews are addicted
to killing women and children,” which he rebuts with this: “a holdover from the
practice of killing Christians to use their blood in making matzos.” No. There
is no connection between the two. That the Jews are addicted to killing women
and children is what the Old Testament is all about. This is its content from
cover to cover. In fact, celebrating the murder of the innocent makes the bulk
of the Jewish religion. But if the Bible is also a book of history, the
so-called street thugs that Lowry mentions, seem to know more about it than
does Lowry himself. And he should not have tried to rebut the Hamas official,
calling him a cretin, without first reading the Jewish Bible.
As to the Victor Davis Hanson article, it came under the
title: “A Stronger Israel?” and the subtitle: “Elite opinion believes Israel will
lose 'long term' whatever happens in the next weeks. Not necessarily.” Well,
there is so much rant and so much useless verbiage in this article, the best
way to deal with it is to tell the unblemished story.
In 1948, the Arab countries were still reeling from the
effects of colonialism when the heavily armed Jewish hordes attacked Palestine aiming to steal
the country by terrorizing the British who were then the colonial power, and by
terrorizing the Palestinian peasants who had never seen a gun, much less used
one. In 1956, the British and French attacked Egypt in an effort to steal the
Suez Canal, and they brought Israel along with them to show the Jews how they
can live in modern times the way they did in ancient times – by raiding the
neighbors and stealing from them. In 1967, the Israelis put that lesson to use,
and started the 6 year war that culminated in their being booted out of the
Sinai in 1973.
But that booting out did not happen before the Jews had
accomplished what the legendary Walter Cronkite described as stealing “enough
food to feed Israel
for a whole year.” In fact, the Jews have always been the hungry hordes in
biblical times, and they are the hungry hordes today, which is why the weeping
rabbi of some notoriety keeps begging the Christians to donate 25 dollars each
to feed the hungry Jews of Israel. These people either raid and steal what they
can, or they weep and beg for food.
And so they did once again what they have always done, which
is to infiltrate an unwary society – this time the American. They conned their
way to the top where they taught the big shots how to serve them by
grid-locking the instruments of governance, and working against their own
people. Normally, the situation would persist till the masses wake up as to
what is going on, and deal with the situation in a manner that is not always
pleasant.