I do not remember a single instance – before the rabbis
started braying: you can't compaaare – when the chattering classes of North America confused between what must remain a package
deal, and what must be handled as separate issues. The rabbis then brayed their
horrible cry, and the confusion started happening. As a result, much of what
should have come as a package deal was broken up, and much of what were
separate issues were lumped together in a single package.
As time passed, it became clear that the braying of the
rabbis was not something they devised on the spur of the moment. It was a trick
they learned about through centuries of experience; a skill they mastered
thoroughly, and used as a weapon to deliver achievements they could never have
delivered otherwise. To see how potent this weapon has been in the hands of the
Jewish leaders that took over from the rabbis, think of the thousands of
articles and talk shows in which no subject written about or spoken by a Jew or
a gentile sycophant – escaped being packaged together with the idea that Iran
is a threat to world peace.
Think also of the beastly pressure that the Jewish lobby in
America is putting on the feeble minds of the American Congress to have it
torpedo the deal that the Administration is about to conclude with Iran, unless
the latter agrees to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. And while you're at
it, do not fail to reminisce the time when Netanyahu tried to pull a similar
trick on the Palestinians, thus torpedoed the peace deal that the two sides had
reached moments before, and was ready for signature.
Now contrast those realities with what the rabbis have
managed to pull off decades ago. It used to be that when a Jew or a running dog
advocated something that was in the interest of Israel , the neutral interlocutors
would mention this fact. The rabbis responded by complaining bitterly;
demanding that the issues which pop up during a discussion be analyzed
separately and apart from the effects they will have on Israel . This
was the genesis of the idea that the Jewish/Israeli gander required a sauce
different from that of the goose because when it comes to Jewish matters, you
simply cannot compaaare.
Today, we live in the aftermath and the consequences of those
Jewish achievements. You can see them at work in the piece that was written by
the editors of the Wall Street Journal under the title: “Sorry, Charlie Hebdo”
and the subtitle: “Western writers abandon their support for free speech,”
published on May 5, 2015 in the Journal.
The editorial is about the members of PEN who expressed
their unhappiness with the fact that their organization is honoring Charlie
Hebdo for the work it has been doing; work that the editors of the Journal do
not necessarily approve of, they say, but would defend because they revere the
concept of free speech. To explain all that, they enumerate some of the
objections voiced by the PEN members but do not respond to them directly or
indirectly. They simply characterize them as being “extraordinary – almost
comical.”
And there could be a good reason why they refrained from
responding to the objections. Take for example Teju Cole's position: “He
lamented that the concern for Charlie Hebdo won't be matched by concern for the
young men killed by U.S.
drones.” Do you see what's happening here? Teju Cole sees all human life as a
package deal. To him, if it is bad to murder someone in Paris ,
it is bad to murder by drone someone in Pakistan or elsewhere. But this is
not what the editors of the Journal believe because the rabbis brayed to them:
You can't compaaare.
The irony is that the Jewish lobby used the Teju concept to
convinced George W. Bush that “moral clarity” dictated the classification of a
Palestinian group as terrorist in view of the decision to attack the Taliban.
As it turned out, this was a Jewish moral clarity of dubious validity because
the Taliban were harboring someone that attacked the American homeland whereas
the Palestinians were resisting the occupation of their homeland.
As if this were not enough confusion already, the editors
speculate that the motive of the terrorists has been to attack “the foundations
of liberal democracy” because in their view: “you don't get to murder people
who insult or offend you.” Well, what the editors should have done was package
the notion of the hate campaigns that lead to the destruction of countries like
Iraq and potentially Iran – together with the notion of the terror
that America
has been raining on the Muslim World as dictated by the Jews.