Behold a second generation of arguments the Jews are trying
to string together, hoping to score big in the way that they did with the first
generation of arguments.
The trouble is that both strings are tenuous. Despite all
that, the first string survived and brought the Jews great success because no
opposition was mounted against it. However, the second string will fail because
opposition is already mounting against it.
The first string went something like this: When you
criticize Israel ,
you deny the Jews a place where they can flourish as Jews. This says you are
antisemitic, which means you want to see the persecution of Jews. If this
happens, a holocaust will ensue, which is the ultimate aim of your criticizing Israel in the
first place. Therefore, you must cease and desist criticizing Israel because Jews must never
again suffer another holocaust.
As to the second string, you can see it developed in an
article that came under the title: “Replacing patriotism with tribalism” and
the subtitle: “The politics of grievance and revenge divides us all.” It was
written by Clifford D. May, and published on August 22, 2017 in The Washington
Times. Stated briefly, the argument goes something like this:
“At the end of the eleventh century, the Muslims conquered
the Holy Land . Four centuries later, they lost
it to the Christians. Even if the modern Arab governments do not care about
that history, the kids who take up jihadism do, and they want their sweet
little revenge, so we call them revanchists. But those kids want to go beyond
that, and conquer the whole world; and so we also call them supremacists.
Because the neo-Nazis and Klansmen of America seek revenge, they resemble the
jihadi kids, thus become revanchists and supremacists in our eyes. And while we're at it, we must lump the
Antifa kids with those two groups because they too seek to achieve the same
things in their own way”.
What's wrong with this? What's wrong is that Clifford May
made use of mutilated history to advance a contorted, Pretzel-like and
atrocious logic to fabricate arguments that are full of holes big enough to
drive a truck through them. Here is one example. To make the point that “the
killers are revanchists,” Clifford May cited two events of history, and made
them sound like the Muslims lost on both occasions. The first event unfolded in
Palestine (the Holy Land) the second unfolded in
Andalusia (better known as Spain ).
Clifford May is correct in speaking of Andalusia
as a win for the Christian side after almost 800 years of Muslim rule. However,
no crusaders, authorized by the Church, were involved in this war. As to the Holy Land , the story there was much different. Seven
major crusades were conducted during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries in
addition to a number of smaller ones; and they all failed to defeat the Muslim
defenders of Palestine .
In the end, the Holy Land remained in the hands of Muslims
till 1923 when the League of Nations made Palestine
a British mandate. Here too, no crusaders were involved in this operation.
Thus, the overall net result was one win for each of the Muslim side, and a
Christian side that was not of crusaders. Put together, all of this demolishes
May's theory of Muslim kids turning revanchist because of events that happened
centuries ago.
The reality is that most of these kids are motivated by the
condition in which they find themselves here and now. Treated as second class
citizens in the Western countries of their births, they see the countries of
their ancestors shredded by the war machines of the same Western countries
treating them so badly. Rightly or wrongly, the Muslim kids conclude that the
West has declared war on their race and their religion. They respond by
fighting back any way they know how, using any weapon they lay their hands on.
As to Clifford May's assertion that the neo-Nazis, Klansmen
and Antifa kids resemble the jihadi kids in their revanchist and supremacist
attitude, the argument defeats itself by the fact that the author fails to tell
what was taken from these kids that they wish to take back. Who took it from
them, against whom they seek revenge? Over whom do they wish to assert their
supremacy?
For a moment, you might think that Clifford May is saying America is
divided into a right-wing and a left-wing, each of which wants to fight the
other and take the country back. If so, it means that no one in America feels
they own their country.
You know what, my friend? There was a time that we,
Canadians, felt the same way about our country, and we had a serious debate
about selling Canada to America . We
estimated that each of us would receive something like a million dollars, an
amount at the time that would have been sufficient for us to live royally for
the rest of our lives. But then something happened, and we changed our
collective mind.
Is this happening to America at this time? If so, anyone
interested, China ?
Anyone interested, Germany ?
Anyone interested, GCC?