A definition of animalism that's given in the dictionary is
to think and act like animals. An animalist, therefore, is a creature that may
look like a human being but is, in reality, an animal in human clothing. So the
question to ask: Are there creatures that fit this description? Well … see for
yourself:
We can test the validity of that saying by looking into a
couple of articles, both of which appeared in print on November 5, 2015. The
first is titled: “The Quakers, No Friends of Israel ,” also given the subtitle:
“A benign reputation masks a tough campaign to boycott the Jewish state.” It
was written by Alexander Joffe and Asaf Romirowsky, and published in the Wall
Street Journal. The second is titled: “When students cheer jihad,” also given
the subtitle: “Tracking the pro-terror campaign on American campuses.” It was
written by David Horowitz, and published in The Washington Times.
These two articles, like every article that has to do with
Jews or Israel ,
carries the only sort of message that these people will tolerate. It is that Israel and the
Jews are perfect, and anyone who believes otherwise is not fit to live on this
planet or any other planet for that matter. They will attack him or her with
the same ferocity as a dog would attack a mail carrier or a burglar – unable to
differentiate between the good and the bad the way that authentic human beings
are able to do.
The Joffe/Romirowsky article attacks the Quakers because
they used to be neutral but then became pro-Palestinian, say the two authors.
Furthermore, the fact that the Quakers started to oppose the occupation of Palestine made them a “movement that opposes Israel 's
existence,” they go on to say. Worse, the Quakers have organized a campaign on
American campuses to end the occupation of Palestine
by supporting the effort known as the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS)
of Israel .
The question we must ask at this point is this: After being
exposed to that introduction, is there any sense in reading the rest of the
article? And the answer is absolutely not. There is no sense in doing that
because once an interlocutor says – verbally in your face or in print – that
you or someone else opposes Israel 's
existence, you must consider the discussion to have ended right here and right
now.
Like a pipe that's discharging raw sewage into a cesspool,
you must know that nothing useful will come out the mouth of such characters.
When you're engaged in a debate with an authentic human being, he may throw
sand in your eyes to gain an early advantage; this is bad but the debate goes
on. In the case of the Jew, however, he'll invoke the specter of an existential
threat. He'll do so to bloody well shut you up and monopolize the debate. In
this case, the best thing for you to do is to turn around and walk away in
silence, and in utter contempt.
As to the David Horowitz article, look how he starts it: “I
was confronted by mobs of students cheering Hamas, a terrorist organization
whose declared goal is the extermination of the Jews.” He doesn't stop here but
goes on to emphasize: “And this is only the tip of the iceberg.”
Saying that someone's goal is to exterminate the Jews
qualifies as a reason to turn around and walk away in silence and in contempt.
But because the author also says this is only the tip of the iceberg, you want
to see, not what else he has to say – which you know can only be untreated
sewage – but what he believes is more severe than an existential threat. And
so, you hold your nose and continue to read his article.
And this is what you bump into: “organizations exist …
dedicated to promoting Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) whose goal is Israel 's
destruction.” So, that's it then. In the eyes of Jews fashioned in the mold of
David Horowitz, the destruction of Israel is the body of an iceberg
whose tip is the extermination of the Jews.
This means that the so-called humans – who, in reality, have
nothing in common with the rest of humanity – prefer to be exterminated than
see Israel
subjected to what they say is destruction. To explain this idiocy, they say,
that destruction will come to Israel
if it is forced to end the occupation of Palestine .