I promised you Part II of the essay: "The Voice of an American Man" speaking out on the brainwashing of the American public on behalf of support of Israel while debating a Holocaust Enforcer:
"We, with the help of vengeful European (ostensibly) legal minds made it illegal, a hanging offense, for a group of people to send armed members from their midst into areas that do not in any sense belong to them and take land by force of arms in order to make it their own. There was and is no provision for saying, ". . . well, it's OK if you were threatened, or even attacked!" That may well be an impracticality, and it may violate some facet of human nature that, while awful, is a necessary part of existence, or at least inevitable.
That, however, is beside the point. I find it offensive beyond my powers to describe that we engage in such a blatant display of "do as I say, not as I do," and will oppose the continuance of that sorry behavior in any way that I can.
You have made much of the fact that "this is the way it's done, always has been done." I do not disagree. I address it from a standpoint of: on the one hand we demand certain behavior on pain of death from selected others, proclaiming the rules to be based on principles of absolute morality applicable to all, and on the other hand we commit the exact offenses for which we execute foreigners we don't like.
My stance on it is, I think, morally, logically and legally defensible - but every one of those is immaterial to the overriding personal consideration that I consider such behavior to be outside the pale of my own tolerance, and I have no intention to ever come to terms with such conduct!
Now, you can attempt to tell me I am without moral legitimacy and I don't give a damn what you or anyone else thinks in that regard. You can attempt to tell me I'm illogical - and I'll repeat the preceding in some manner, with more or fewer details, curious to see if you can point out some major flaw.
To date you have only made correct observations of historical precedents that America has formally rebuked, disavowed and codified as criminal behavior. I go at this one about like you do with historical truth.
It may be a bad law, but it's on the books and I am correct in insisting that my country abide by its own laws, am I not? Abide by them, and apply them equally to all - else they are not laws but formalized rationalizations for having our way with selected peoples, and thus a cancer in a central supporting element of any civilized society, the rule of law.
To have it this way is, as the deodorant ad says, utterly uncivilized.
To be candid about it, while I oppose war in the general sense, I also suspect that it is a useful mechanism for humans in ways whose discussion is far beyond the scope of this email, and that the law is therefore either bad or unworkable. In that case, I believe in the wisdom of a statement made by one of our jurists, ***that the best way to get rid of a bad law is to enforce it equally on all.*** (emphasis added)
If we adhered to the same principles that we require selected others to respect, we probably would abandon them in name as well as in deed. Instead, we continue the Nuremberg witch-hunt at the urging and insistence of Zionist advocates a half-century after the alleged crimes were committed - that in itself being a serious aberration of justice as it has been defined in this society - and we aid and abet a pirate nation that shows no signs of modifying its vicious behavior.
America is a moral whore, to put it plainly.
Perhaps you'd give that a glib, "So, what's new?" or ask me why I pick on this particular aberration to the exclusion of dozens of others whose presence I do not argue.
If the first is an argument for tolerating inequities and morally offensive behavior done in my name because they've been around for a long time, I think stating it the way I just did is all one need do to indicate: "Thanks but no thanks for that craven if not degenerate advice!" (...)
If you care to muse on whether I am motivated by negatives, such as a general dislike of all Jews - I am no longer interested in any degree in discussing that with you. I have told you that this is not the case, that my drive has a deeper root involving an inability to abide posturing bullies, which you are free to believe or scoff at as you see fit - just don't tell me about it anymore please. It grated on my nerves to begin with, and has escalated to a point of offensiveness that requires me to dismiss it from my mind in the same way I would finally rise up and eject an annoying fly from the house if I couldn't talk it into sitting still for a while."
Thought for the Day:
Snippet from the raging cyber war:
Holocaust Enforcer: "Finally, the anti-Jewish angle. I think a lot of Revisionists don't like Jews because the only Jews they know are high-profile obnoxious Jews like Marvin Hier or Elie Wiesel."
Revisionist: "Did it occur to you that some of those obnoxious Jews may became obnoxious upon encountering Revisionism?"