Even though monkeys — as do most animals — instinctively accept as normal seeing their image reflected in the water of the pond to which they go have a drink, they get confused when seeing themselves in an artificially made mirror. Looking in that contraption, they tend to think they see another animal who could be a friend or a foe, thus respond accordingly.
But monkey trainers have shown that a primate as advanced
as a chimpanzee can be made to realize it is looking at a reflection of the
self. When this is achieved, the monkey is seen to experiment by touching spots
on its face, thus see the move replicated in the mirror. The question now is
this: Does the monkey believe that what it sees in the mirror, is real like the
world in which it sits? If the answer is yes, can the monkey be corrected and
made to understand that reality and its reflection are two different things?
If we can resolve these questions, we will be on our way
to resolving the mystery of human beings who can be so riveted by the power of
the fanaticism that’s imbued in them, they fail to realize there is a
demarcation line separating the real from its mirror image. The result of that
failure is that these people move back and forth between the two domains as if
they were one and the same sphere.
We happen to have an example we can work with and see how
far we’ll go trying to resolve that mystery. It is an article that came under
the title: “State Anti-BDS Laws Pass the Constitutional Test,” written by Bobby
Miller and published on February 12, 2023 in National Review Online. What we sense
in this article, is the confusion of a writer who fails to differentiate
between morality, which is the sphere of the real where nature has placed us,
and the man-made laws which make up the sphere of the artificial that’s
supposed to reflect that morality but miss the mark when morality and the law conflate
by chance or by design. How can this happen?
Having gained centuries of experience at manipulating and
exploiting the people with whom they mingle, the Jews fashioned the key they
now use to help them maintain open, the door that’s supposed to separate what’s
legal from what’s moral. Here is an example from the Bobby Miller article that
shows how the Jews do it:
“BDS seeks to delegitimize the Jewish state. The stated goal of the
movement, which frames the Israeli presence in the West Bank as an occupation
illegal under international law, is to pressure Israel to withdraw from those
lands; in reality, it aims to punish Israel, isolate it from the international
community, and undermine its security. Tennessee became the first state to pass
an anti-BDS law, calling the movement ‘one of the main vehicles for spreading
anti-Semitism and advocating the elimination of the Jewish state’; the law
described BDS as ‘deeply damaging to the causes of peace, justice, equality,
democracy and human rights for all the peoples in the Middle East’”.
As can be seen, faced with the reality that Israel
delegitimizes itself with its continued occupation of the West Bank, Bobby
Miller reversed the logic of the situation by starting his discussion with the
accusation that it is “BDS [which] seeks to delegitimize the Jewish state.” In so doing,
the real — which is that Israel is the architect of its own condition — became
conflated with the mirror image of it, which is that BDS “aims to punish
Israel, isolate it from the international community, and undermine its security.”
Thus, with the stroke of a pen, the aggressor became the victim, and the victim
became the aggressor.
This being the case, the moral sphere of the argument —
which is that everyone has the right to enjoy “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness” without interference from others — was made to conflate with the
legal sphere by asserting that BDS became a vehicle for spreading anti-Semitism. This
being a consequential matter, it created the need for Tennessee-like laws to
defeat BDS whose stated aim was said to be the delegitimization of Israel. And
this is how the demarcation line between the moral and the legal; between the
real and its mirror image, is erased, conflating the two spheres into one world
where the fanatics dwell with ease.
With the completion of the conflation, the writer gains a
lever he can use to weaken or destroy any moral stance adhered to by the
existing culture — if and when such
stance would get in the way of him making his case. All that he has to do is contend
that such stance will lead to an increase in antisemitism, and the world will stand
in attention to listen to him. But when you study what the Jews do most often
with that leverage, you’ll find them promoting a double standard whose goal is
to force a universal acknowledgement that Jews are superior to everyone else.
Consider the following passage, presented here in
condensed form:
“Anti-BDS statutes have drawn fire from
Israel’s detractors and from free-speech advocates, who claim that the right to
boycott is an integral component of the American experience that cannot be
contravened. But according to a recent academic study, anti-boycott laws are
nothing new either. Josh Halpern and Lavi Ben Dor trace a consistent tradition
of regulating boycotts back to before the Founding. Those who attack these laws
might consider how fighting against the antisemitism that underlies BDS would
be a better use of their time”.
What the passage says basically is that as long as no
one’s freedom of speech is violated, everyone has the right to boycott others
or oppose such boycotts. The trouble is that it goes on to say in a very subtle
manner that there is something exceptional about the Jews. It is that if you
oppose them, you step on the third rail of antisemitism. You are zapped out of
existence in an instant and gone forever.