The best way to fight antisemitism is not to evoke it in the
first place. Since almost the beginning of time, this has been the piece of
wisdom that eluded the unfortunate characters who got lured into the Jewish
ideology that is falsely called religion, and remained trapped in it.
One such hapless character is David Brooks who tries,
whenever he has the opportunity, to discuss and to explain the phenomenon of
antisemitism. The problem he encounters each time, however, is that he tries to
do the explaining by saying and doing the very things which add to the
intensity of the antisemitic feeling normal people experience. You can see him
doing it again in the column he wrote for the New York Times under the title:
“How to Fight Anti-Semitism,” published on March 24, 2015.
As indicated by the title of the column, Brooks assumes that
antisemitism can only be fought against when it appears, where it appears. He
makes this assumption having given not the slightest consideration to the
possibility that the phenomenon can be prevented from happening entirely, or that
it can be nipped the moment it rears its head. In his view, antisemitism
remains dormant till the moment it appears. It quickly grows to menace the
Jews, and when that goes too far, people of goodwill stand up and fight it.
And so, in the absence of even a recognition that
antisemitism has an origin; David Brooks obligates the readers to accept the
conclusion that the phenomenon is a disease endemic to the human species. The
way he perceives the entire subject matter is that antisemitism is here; it is
real and has become the fist of the non-Jew who would harm a Jew for no reason
but that he is a Jew.
It is not a random coincidence that this Jewish author wrote
this article at this time. It is that an old process has started to unfold yet
again in the same old way. And so, the Jewish writers were summoned to attack
it like a swarm of drones called to defend the beehive against an intruding
beetle. That old process is the story of the “friend” who repeatedly got stung
by the Jew and decided to respond by reconsidering their relationship. The
friend is the America
against which the Jew is now spewing the kind of visceral hatred he normally
reserves for those who rebuff his attempts at controlling them. And the Jewish
hive is now attacking the Obama beetle.
The difference between David Brooks and those other Jewish
writers is that he works for a publication that will not allow him to attack America by
attacking its president. Attacking a nation by attacking its head being a trick
that the Jews employ against the enemy they hate for the day, Brooks was forced
to abandon it, and use another trick to put his views out there without being
fired from a publication that is aligned with the current administration. What
Brooks did, instead, is attack those he sees as being Obama's proxies standing
for him and representing him morally and spiritually if not legally.
Thus, while the other Jews are busy nitpicking and savagely
attacking every personal habit, idiosyncrasy and manner they see in Barack
Obama, David Brooks attributes visceral antisemitism to the people in the Middle East whom he views as projecting the image of:
“derangement, a flight from reality even in otherwise sophisticated people”.
Thus, even if Barack Obama is a sophisticated legal scholar that has managed to
become President, he could be deranged given that he rejects what Israel and the
Jews throw at him. Brooks does not have to say so openly but the analogy speaks
for itself.
As to the anti-Semites of Europe, their problem is
alienation, says David Brooks, because he does not dare say what the other
Jewish writers claim to be true, mainly that Obama is practicing the politics
of division by using such divisive issues as rich and poor, men and women,
white and colored citizens of the Republic. Here too, Brooks avoids adding his
voice to those of others by letting the analogy speak for itself.
All this boils down to the fact that politics in America is
divided into a right wing and a left wing, where people develop opposite views
even when they look at the same thing. Thus, where there is moral certainty on
the Right; there is relativism on the Left. Where good is good, and bad is bad
on the Right; there are shades of good and bad on the Left. Where no comparison
is allowed on the Right between Israel
and anyone else, the comparison is made regularly on the Left (but with a
twist) between Israel
which is said to be a paragon of virtue, and its enemies who are said to
represent the depth of moral degradation.
And this is the point where a few observations must be made,
and a few questions asked. The truth is that the American son of David Brooks
has enlisted in the Israeli army at a time when those who go to train or to
fight in the Middle East are considered to be
terrorists. Does David consider his son to be a terrorist?
Also, given that the Jews consider lineage to pass from
mother to children, does David Brooks consider his son to be a Jew given that his
mother is a Christian who converted to Judaism as a convenience to marry David?
What if the son decides to stay in Israel after
the military service? Will David condone the throwing out of his home an
indigenous Palestinian to make room for the non-Jewish “Jew” that came from America and decided to make occupied Palestine his home?
Does the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews allow the affliction of
that form of Jewish savagery on the Palestinians? Is David Brooks a sane American
or is he a deranged Jew calling deranged the Palestinians whose only crime is
to wish remaining in the homes where they lived since the beginning of time?
What these observations and these questions demonstrate is
that David Brooks is no different from the other Jewish authors who write on
subjects related to the Middle East by attacking anyone they can, to avoid
writing about the realities on the ground which involve them and their
families.
If these people had the courage to face reality, they would
know they form a part of the problem, and in many cases, the entire problem.
Their activities evoke the antisemitism which they call on America to
fight for them using its own finances and risking the lives of its own
children.