Sometimes, when you have a true story to tell, you
give it a little tweak to highlight aspects of it that may not be observable to
all sorts of audiences. But after you've told the tweaked version of the story,
and having made your point, you go back and correct what you've tweaked, thus
get the story straight again.
So, imagine you're walking in the street on a nice
summer day with a guy you've known for only a short period of time. You
approach a restaurant that has its tables out on the sidewalk, and where the
patrons are enjoying hot meals and cold drinks under the shade of the awnings.
Your friend says: “See that restaurant there? I'll walk up to the light pole
near it and start urinating in full view of the patrons.” You scream: “Are you
crazy?” Puzzled at your reaction, he remarks: You don't seem to like the idea.
He reflects for a moment then tries a few more things
on you, among them, a suggestion to push the fingers deep in his throat and
force himself to throw-up. Another idea would be to blow his nose interminably
while walking between the tables. Another is to pull his pants down and crap in
full view of the diners. But in every case, you tell him he's a disgusting
individual and will have nothing to do with his antics. Finally, it dawns on
him that you don't understand him, and so he takes pain to explain himself to
you.
He says he is interested in identifying the left-wing
people from the right-wing people of this world, and this is one way to do it.
You say, no that will not do it because people are the same across the
political spectrum; they'll all be disgusted by his antics. Okay, he says, how
about identifying the men from the women? And you say, no. He goes on: We'll
identify the whites from the colored people and you say, no. He continues: The
old from the young. But you say no, no, no … stop it here, I've had enough.
That's when he pivots around to stand face to face
with you. And you stop walking. You see, he says, I really don't want to do any
of these things right now, but I reserve the right to do them if and when I'll
so desire in the future. However, what interests me at this time is that I want
to prove one thing to you. It is that people are naturally shifty. This is why
you see antisemitism manifest itself in many forms at different times around
the world, and on the college campuses of America.
Well, my dear reader, the story as told here, was
fiction as I warned it will be. But what it represents metaphorically is a true
story whose characters are the most arrested developmentally in the fauna of
Planet Earth. You can see what they do and what they miss when you read the
article that was written by one of them under the title: “Antisemitism on the
College Campuses Is Evolving,” written by Eitan Fischberger, and published on
January 16, 2020 in the Jewish publication, Algemeiner.
In keeping with the screwy nature of Jewish logic,
Fischberger begins his discussion with this assertion: “True to its chameleonic
nature, antisemitism on campus is constantly changing colors.” And he goes from
there to argue that humanity is wrong whether it stands on the left side of the
political spectrum or it stands on its right side. This being true, in his
view, he also asserts that while humanity has been shifty and wrong throughout
space and time, the Jews have been steady and correct from day one.
You suggest to him that there is nothing wrong with a
humanity that responds to every Jewish screwy antic the way that you were
revolted by his attempt to nauseate the patrons of the restaurant with
obnoxious acts of the kind which are naturally offensive to human beings. He
objects to your reasoning, saying that humanity would be correct if it reacted
the same way all the time and everywhere to every Jewish activity. But humanity
is wrong, he says, because it reacts differently in different places at
different times.
You keep trying to explain to him there are many
facets to Jewish obnoxiousness, each requiring a different response. But he
continues to assert that humanity is shifty, which he maintains is the source
of trouble that's causing the intractable problem of antisemitism.
Tired of this game of nonsense, you come up with an
idea which you hope will shut him up, and forever put an end to this kind of
haggling. Here is what you do. You say: You remember what I was saying
yesterday about the Nazis killing a quarter of a million Jews and not six
million? Yes, I remember, he says, and adds: but when I explained the history
in detail, you accepted the figure of six million.
That's the problem, you tell him. You go on to say:
according to your philosophy, I shifted my opinion and that was the wrong thing
to do. And so, I apologize and I go back to being steadily again by maintaining
that the Nazis killed only a quarter of a million Jews.
No, no, no, he screams; go back to the ‘six million’
figure.
With an expression of incredulity on your
face, and a tone of voice that drips with innocence, you ask: You want me to go
back being shifty again?