Jewish America is so screwed up when it comes to
understanding the topic of free speech, it is important that we begin the
discussion on this subject by showing the difference between “speaker” and the
“spoken” word; and showing the similarities between one constituent speaker and
another.
When Ben Carson says that courageous is the person who dies
defending what he believes in, he tells the world he has not sunk to the level
of say, a Rich Lowry who believes that if de Tocqueville and Ahmadinejad say
the same thing, de Tocqueville would be correct and Ahmadinejad would not. Carson makes the point
that in this case, the spoken word is the same, having an intrinsic value that
does not depend on who the speaker is. The same goes for an act that may be
committed by two constituents, one we may like, and one we may not.
This being the case, de Tocqueville could have said things
that should offend Rich Lowry, except that the latter would not know it because
to him, de Tocqueville could never have said something wrong. By the same
token, Ahmadinejad could have said things that should please Rich Lowry, except
that the latter would not know it because to him, Ahmadinejad could never have
said something right. And the same goes for an act that may be committed by two
constituents, one we may like, and one we may not.
When it comes to the Jewish transformation of American
culture, things are even more horrid than comes out the Rich Lowry example. The
reality is that the Jewish propaganda machine does not cast in stone the values
it attributes to every de Tocqueville and every Ahmadinejad in the world.
Depending on the direction from which the political and diplomatic winds blow,
de Tocqueville can be good or evil today and change tomorrow. As well,
Ahmadinejad can be evil or good today and change tomorrow.
With this in mind, the reader may now review the Victor
Davis Hanson article which came under the title: “Can the West Stand up for
Free Speech?” and the subtitle: “False moral equivalence and blatant cowardice
threaten our tradition of free expression.” It was published on January 15,
2015 in National Review Online, the publication that is edited by Rich Lowry.
Early on, in the article Hanson makes the point that “Westerners cannot return
to the Middle Ages to murder those whose ideas they don't like.” He does not,
however, tell what it is that brought the change of attitude from the Middle
Ages to our time.
As a historian, Hanson could have reminded his readers that
in the Middle Ages, people killed each other in wars where religion was used as
a weapon. When those wars ended, the people ended the practice of insulting the
religion of the other, and started to criticize their own religion so as to
humble the powerful clergy, and bring it down to earth. When in the modern era,
the hot war between the Christian and Muslim worlds started – regardless as to
the reasons why it did – it was inevitable that an attack by one side on the
religion of the other be viewed as the addition of religion to the arsenal of
the enemy. This made it fair game for either side to use religion for what it
can accomplish in a war that was expanding.
The war between the two sides being an asymmetric one with a
Christian world that is technologically advanced battling a Muslim world that
is more resilient, each side is using the resources it controls to inflict
maximum pain on the other, and do so as efficiently as possible. Thus, while
the Christians kill Muslims by the hundreds of thousands and display on
television the explosive power and accuracy of their ordnance, the Muslims kill
Christians by the dozens and display the aftermath of what they can and will do
in response to being attacked, thus warn the Christian world that they will do
to it what the Christians will do to the Muslim world.
Calling that situation “false moral equivalence” as he does
in the subtitle, but failing to explain his point in the body of the article,
Victor Hanson goes on to tell that Obama could have hurt Iran's “theocracy” but
did not. That he could have defended free speech from “radical Islam” but did
not. That he could have joined Egypt 's
effort to maintain discipline among its own but did not. In his eyes, all these
were battle opportunities that Obama could have waged against Islam but did
not. And he considers this non-performance to be a dereliction of duty on the
part of the commander-in-chief.