When and why does someone need a higher authority such as the government to protect them? Well, to answer this question falls under the rubric of human rights, and this is how the subject must be treated.
If someone is discriminated
against for whatever reason by his peers or superiors, and he suffers material
or moral losses as a result, he seeks legal remedy, and upon proving his claim,
is granted remedies specified by the law. In fact, the current laws are
adequate enough to deliver justice in this kind of cases thus, no new
legislation is required because it would be redundant.
If in the discharge of his
normal duties, someone is remunerated materially as well as his peers, but is
discriminated against because he is perceived as being different by his peers
or his superiors, two possibilities need to be investigated to determine if a
law was violated:
First, someone is not invited
to social gatherings because of something he cannot control such as the color
of his skin, his baldness, for being too short or too tall or some such
condition. In this case the peers cannot be held liable for the way they
“feel,” about that person, and must be exonerated. As to the superiors, they can
be reprimanded for failing to control their sentiment, especially in the cases
where their behavior has the potential to cause the underling serious mental
anguish.
Second, someone is not invited
to social gatherings because of something he can control such as his table
manners or the way he dresses. Here too, the peers cannot be held liable for
the way they feel, and must be exonerated. As to the superiors, we must
distinguish between two kinds of superiors. Whereas in a private enterprise,
the owners can create a code of behavior that the underlings must accept or be
terminated, having no recourse to try reversing the decision. But things are
different when it comes to a public setting.
Two examples will help us
parse that last point. In Canada, Sikhs joining the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police were allowed to wear their traditional turban while on duty. In America
both Muslims and Jews are allowed to wear their traditional headdress while
participating in the deliberations of Congress. But then, something began to
stir lately. Before we get to it, however, we need to acquire some background
about the subject, to fully understand what's happening.
The Jews grow up inculcated
with the notion that they will inherit the Earth by the grace of God. But this
is not happening, and the consensus at this time is that it never will. The
Jews have realized they were lied to, and are bitterly disappointed. They want
to be compensated, and the way they see this happening, is for the human race
to give them everything they ask for. Since the human race is not volunteering
to do any of that, the Jews have devised a practical method by which they
believe it can be done and will be done.
To explain how that works, the
Jews have employed both sides of the mouth to describe the mechanics of the
method. From one side of the mouth, they established rule number 1 by saying
that when it comes to allocating rights, they––as Jews––must not be
discriminated against. If they are, they would be singled out, and this violates
the principle of equality under the law. From the other side of the mouth the
Jews established rule number 2, saying it should be obvious to everyone that
when it comes to allocating rights, the Jews are so different from the others,
they must be singled out and given a different treatment.
Thus, when you combine rules 1
and 2 despite them being contradictory to each other, you realize that the Jews
are demanding as much as everyone gets, in addition to what they say is owed to
them for being the oddity that they are. A recent article demonstrates how the
Jews play this game in real life. It came under the title: “A New Way to Help
Jewish Students on Campus,” written by Masha Merkulova, and published on
January 25, 2021 in Algemeiner. Here, in condensed form, is the relevant
passage:
“In schools, Jewish students
are forced to defend Zionism. Our children deserve the same protection and
human dignity to freely express their Jewish identity as others. And yes,
Zionism is integral to that identity. Our classrooms are inundated with
anti-Zionism, a denial of the right to self-determination. Broad anti-hatred
legislation cannot solve this problem. These attacks are unique to Jews.
Lumping Jew-hatred together with other forms of hatred and racism will not help
address the phenomenon of antisemitism. That is why the Jewish Students Bill of
Rights is such an important development. Created in 2020, it is designed to
tackle antisemitism in high school classrooms in a way that has never been done
before”.
Masha Merkulova is not saying
how the Jewish students are “forced” to defend Zionism. But this debate has
been ongoing for a long time, and those who followed it, can tell that using
the term “forced” has allowed Merkulova to pull a dishonest trick on the
readers.
The reality is that ordinary
students have been creating safe places for themselves to avoid the Jews who
constantly disrupt them and impose on them impromptu lectures on the Holocaust,
on Zionism and other Jewish-specific topics.
The ordinary students reject
this kind of Nazi behavior, and the Jewish students go crying to the Jewish
media, asking them to pressure the government to pass laws that will force the
non-Jewish students to do the unthinkable.
In essence the Jewish media
want the non-Jewish students to psyche themselves by law into believing they
must love the Jews, and would interrupt their own business to serve the Jews
the way that the congress of prostitutes disrupts America’s business to serve
the Jews and Israel.
Now you know why Jews always end up in hot places.