What’s the difference between the form and the content of a case?
When you make a case for something to an audience, you find yourself
dealing with two aspects of the case.
There is the principle, which is when you tell the audience what the
case is about. It would be the content of the case, something that’s inherent of
it.
But you also wrap and present the case in the manner that you choose so
as to communicate it as effectively as you can. This would be the form that you
use to present the case.
The audience gets a package from you. It is the unmistakable message that
is the content of the case. But it is also the style of presentation that can
be one of two things:
The package can be fashioned in a manner that is so clear, it does not
interfere with the content. Or the package can be so fashioned as to conflate
with the content, thus make it so that the form you use to communicate, becomes
part of the message if not the entire message.
If you had a strong message as content to begin with, it will only be
distorted. But if the content was weak to begin with, the form becomes your
entire message.
Since the form needs a medium to be transmitted, such as a letter, a
newspaper or an audio-visual outlet, that medium becomes the message. Such
things do happen at times, as shown by Marshall McLuhan.
Nowhere can you see how this plays out in real life than in the way the
Jews have been milking the story of the Holocaust, turning an industrial scale
horror into an industrial scale perpetual embezzlement.
Horror stories have happened repeatedly throughout history. They flared
up, lived their lives and were relegated to the history books where they
occupied a dignified place. In some cases reparations were made; in most cases,
they were not.
When it came to the Jews, who wanted to make of the Holocaust a
wellspring of easy money for themselves, they discovered that unless the
Holocaust was made to occupy a prominent place in the everyday life of the
public, it will be relegated to history and treated like any other event. This
will make it so that to claim compensation will conjure up a derisive laughter
and nothing else. For this reason, the Jews invented an approach to keep the
story of the Holocaust alive and kicking at all time. It is an approach that
relies mightily on the form, and little on the content. That’s because in this
case, the content is so thin, the mention of it summons nothing more polite
than a scornful shrug.
You can see how all of that was put to use in an article that came under
the title: “Cable television can help curb antisemitism,” written by Sacha
Roytman Dratwa and Russell F. Robinson, and published on December 24, 2021 in
the Washington Examiner.
As you can see, the first paragraph of that article consists of laying
out the wrapping material that will make up the form inside of which the
argument will sit. What’s avoided is a discussion of the content, which would
be to tell why things are the way they are. What you have instead, is the
rattling of statistics that become the core of the discussion, thus contrive a
message that’s empty of substance. Here is a shortened version of that
paragraph:
“The American Jewish Committee
(AJC) released the survey of Jewish Americans and the US general public on the
issue of antisemitism in America. The results were alarming. The AJC found that
9 out of 10 Jews believe antisemitism is spreading in the United States and 8
in 10 believe antisemitism has increased in the last five years. One in every 4
Jews (24%) has been a victim of antisemitism over the past year”.
Sacha Dratwa and Russell Robinson used two more paragraphs to rattle off
yet more statistics. And then, they did something sly. Aware of previous statistics
to the effect that the more that people are exposed to stories about the
Holocaust, the more they display signs of antisemitism — the writers
reversed the message of that reality by hiding it and by offering what follows
in its stead:
“Members of the general public who
said they know someone Jewish were aware of antisemitism, familiar with its
various forms, and likely to view it as a problem to be addressed. Simply put,
exposure and education about Jews and Jewish culture can serve as an antidote
to the scourge of hate and bigotry”.
What’s that about? It’s about a reality that is prevalent in the
republics of extreme dictatorship. The dictators come to believe that by having
their pictures hanging everywhere, and having the media talk about them
constantly, they will be loved. Similarly, the Jewish leaders came to believe
that the collective Jew will be loved and privileged if he is made ubiquitous
and standing prominently at the center of the public’s everyday life.
When this proved to be a false assumption, the horrified Jewish leaders
reasoned that if the media and the governments will start treating the Jews the
same as everyone else, everyone will treat the Jews as they do each other.
Antisemitism will disappear and so will the wellspring of easy money for the
Jews. And this will be worse than calamitous, the way they see things.
This is why Dratwa and Robinson came up with the sly trick discussed
earlier.
Now, the Jews are scheming to take over the system of education as well
as the cable companies which are influenced by the voice of the people who
themselves control the social media more so than do the governments or the Jewish
organizations.