Let’s do a thought experiment. You live in a house, and you have two neighbors, each living in his house. Watching them over the years, you notice that they commit the same violations of the town bylaws such as the use of banned chemicals on their lawns, and the alteration to their houses without first submitting a plan to the town and getting the appropriate permits.
Unhappy with what
you see, you confront both neighbors — first, you confront one and then the other. You talk to the first
gently, explaining that what he is doing is dangerous not only to others in the
neighborhood, but also to himself and his family. And you hope that your
message will move him enough to change his behavior.
As to the way
you talk to the other neighbor, it seems there is more to what you’re saying
than the words would indicate. For example, when talking about his behavior,
you don’t tell him that what he’s doing is dangerous to himself, his family and
others; you tell him that what he’s doing is criminal, and will cause people to
die sooner or later.
What do we make of
that? Why would you look at two similar acts but weigh them differently just
because they were committed by two different people? Could it be that you saw
something in the second neighbor that reminded you of someone you knew before,
who was so evil, he caused the death of others due to carelessness — and then did not show remorse for the damage he has caused?
While we can think
and guess what has motivated you to feel the way you do, we can never be sure
what it is. But because you’re not the object of our inquiry, we don’t spend much
time probing into your motivations. What we do instead is take your stance as a
signal that something is seriously wrong with the second neighbor and so, we
zero in on his behavior.
This analogy will
help us decipher a number of issues brought to light by an article that came
under the title: “Archbishop Tutu and the disturbing power of
intersectionality,” and the subtitle: “South Africa’s struggle was nothing like
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but the anti-apartheid leader’s bias showed how
easily people can be led astray by such myths.” The article was written by
Jonatan S. Tobin, and published on December 27, 2021 in Jewish News Syndicate.
The second neighbor
in this analogy is the collective Jew that the self-appointed leaders of the
Zionist movement claim to represent and protect. Jonathan S. Tobin is one such appointee
who took on Archbishop Tutu and tried to discredit him by refuting the
pronouncements that the latter made regarding Israel’s treatment of the
Palestinians. We leave it to history to decide where the archbishop ranks in
the pantheon of the people who dedicated their lives to fighting for the
freedom of those who are so crushed under the boots of their oppressors, they cannot
fight for themselves. Instead, we probe in what Jonathan Tobin, representing
the collective Jew, is trying to communicate.
Here is a passage
in Tobin’s article that looks like a treasure trove that’s promising to yield a
wealth of information about his purpose, therefore the purpose of the
collective Jew. Speaking of Archbishop Desmond Tutu, here is what Jonathan
Tobin wrote:
“There is no excuse for his confusing his own
experiences with the cause of a Palestinian national movement whose identity is
inextricably tied up with a war to eradicate Israel, and not a struggle for
justice. In doing so, he sided with hate and intolerance”.
When someone
accuses you of being at war with him, he admits he is at war with you, having
failed to prove that you’re at war with him. Thus, you’re accused of something
that was not proven, by someone who admits he is doing to you what he accuses you
of. This is how Jonathan Tobin has cracked the case open for us to decipher
what goes on inside his head and the heads of all self-appointed Jewish
leaders. So, let’s probe and decipher this valuable gift.
Jonathan Tobin said
that the Palestinians are inextricably tied up with a war to eradicate Israel.
This is his admission that the Jews are inextricably tied up with a war to
eradicate Palestine and the Palestinian people. In fact, all the evidence has
been pointing in that direction despite the official denials that Tobin has now
inadvertently admitted to.
So now that we have
Tobin’s permission to describe what we see as we see it, we can safely relate
the observation that the racist regime of the Afrikaners did not go as far as
build a wall around South Africa’s South Western Townships (Soweto) whereas the
supremacist regime of Israel did so around the West Bank of Palestine. And we
conclude that the inhumanity exhibited by the Jewish Zionists, is more
grotesque by a few notches than the inhumanity that the Afrikaners ever exhibited.
Of course, there is
more to be said about this subject, but it will have to wait for another time.
For now, there is a burning question that cries out to be answered. It is this:
Is it true that the Jews are superior to the rest of us, or is it Jewish BS
designed to hide the inferiority that has made them the eternal losers they
have shown to be over the last 4000 years? To answer this question, we look at
a revealing passage in the Tobin article. It reads as follows:
“Tutu also demanded that Jews forgive the Nazis
for the Holocaust. Yet, he never seemed capable of forgiving Jews for what he
described as oppressing Palestinians”.
The concept of
forgiveness is a characteristic of the human species; no other species can be
associated with it in any way. The flip side of this reality is that the humans
who miss out on the true meaning of forgiveness, show that their humanity has
been diminished by the inferiority of their culture. This is what Tobin is revealing
about himself and those of his ilk. Here is why:
You forgive someone
that has done wrong. That is, you forgive and forget. What you do not do is
forgive someone that is in the process of doing something wrong because if you
do this, you tell the wrongdoer that you enjoy what he is doing, thus encourage
him to double down on his crime.
Imagine what would
have happened if the young victims of the Epsteins and the Weinsteins told them
they were forgiven while the rapes were ongoing. Imagine
what would have happened if Archbishop Tutu had told the Jews they were
forgiven for their ongoing rape of Palestine.