|
|
| |
THE HINDUS IN ROMAN PALESTINE
|
|
Jesus said, "No man reaches the Father but
by me." In other words, according to Jesus,
you were either a Christian or you were not.
But many people assure us that when He said that,
He did not mean that it applied to the Jews. Jews
are special, Jews are an exception, and a Jewish
homeland has a right -- because of our religion
-- to claim Christian lives and money to defend
it.
Which brings up an interesting question. When Jesus
said that no man reaches the Father but by Him,
who exactly was He talking to? Those who tell us
he did not include the Jews know their Bible very
well, so obviously He was talking to somebody else
besides Jews.
That means that Jesus was talking to non-Jews. When
Jesus went through Palestine, no Jews heard Him.
The place was obviously full of Hindus and Buddhists.
Obviously, those who have made this great historical
breakthrough need to explain it to those of us who
didn't know that, at the time of Christ, Israel
was full of Hindus.
|
NATIONALIST
RULES APPLY TO ISRAEL, TOO
|
|
I was astonished at a remark one English commentator
was allowed to make on CNN about the violence in
the Middle East. She pointed out that, if the United
States had used live ammunition against WTO protesters
in Seattle, the world would be furious. In fact,
if even Milosevic had used live ammunition to put
down his protesters, even those who consider him
a war criminal would have been shocked.
But the Arabs in Palestine are shot from the get-go,
and that's taken as routine.
Such invalid distinctions are a part of our day-to-day
thinking. Any neutral observer would be completely
puzzled by many things we take for granted.
As a result, we can't understand why nothing our
dialogue produces makes sense in the real world.
Our social science is based on something like a
Flat Earth Theory, and we can't understand why its
predictions that ships will fall off the edge don't
work out.
Israel, contrary to what some preachers tell us,
is not God. The same rules work there as work anywhere
else. So, in the name of multiculturalism, Israel
has an Arab minority. They are officially Israeli
citizens. But when the shooting starts, that means
nothing. Most Arabs will take the side of other
Arabs, just as so many Mexican-Americans here tend
to take the side of the Spanish language and of
their own country.
Israel needs a nation made up of Jews if there is
to be an Israeli nation. This violates the absolute
requirement of multiculturalism, but it is the only
solution for the real world. Palestinians, as a
people, need their own, fully independent, fully
separate nation.
Period.
|
|
|
|
|
Newsmen keep asking people about something in this year's
election that puzzles them. Why, they say, is Gore having
problems when the economy is in such great shape?
There is indeed a general rule that the party in the White
House should have an automatic win when the economy is
in good shape. Nobody claims that the party in power need
prove it is responsible for the economy being in good
shape. Everybody agrees it is usually largely a matter
of luck. Nonetheless, the party in power is expected to
benefit from it.
So the wide-eyed newsmen ask how it is possible that Gore
should have a problem when Clinton has experienced eight
years of boom. Conservatives share their puzzlement. Everybody
is respectable, wide-eyed, and says "DUH!" in
unison.
Apparently I was all alone as I watched the enormous embarrassment
of the Clinton Administration in the Lewinsky affair and
the cover up. Now, the media was unanimous in agreeing
that Clinton shouldn't be impeached, but nobody outside
of Geraldo Rivera said that what Clinton did was OK. Even
the media admit it was a gigantic scandal.
At any other time in American history, that scandal would
have meant total defeat for the party in the White House
in the next election.
As I explained on May 22, 1999 in KINKY
SEX, the reason we are in an economic boom is so obvious
that it takes the combined efforts of the media and respectable
conservatives to ignore it. The reason for the present
boom would be a major embarrassment for the political
left, so the respectable right will never discuss it.
So Clinton had nothing to do with the continuing boom.
But that is not necessary for him to get credit for it.
Regardless of the reason for it, the Administration normally
gets credit for it if the economy is good, and Gore will
share in that. It isn't fair, but it is the reality.
Likewise, the scandal which I spent a year watching on
television -- all by myself, apparently -- was also not
Gore's fault. But the fact is that when you are the heir
apparent, you take both the good and the bad of your predecessor.
Gore gets a boom, and Gore gets a scandal, neither of
which he earned.
This explains another Major Media Mystery.
At the time of the Republican Convention, when Bush had
a huge lead, there was no gender gap for the first time
in decades. I saw a number of liberal women interviewed
who said that they were infuriated by what Clinton had
done and were seriously considering voting Republican
because of it.
Naturally the media said Bush's lead was all due to his
Mexican Convention and his mealy-mouthing on issues. But
his "moderation" and his "appealing to
the minority vote" doesn't explain anything about
the temporary disappearance of the gender gap, which is
what really put him in front for a while by double digits.
So let us explain all these Major Media Mysteries at once:
women were upset at Clinton's behavior and blamed Gore.
For the same reason that Gore gets credit for a boom he
doesn't deserve, he gets blame as the heir apparent to
Clinton for Clinton's misdeeds.
|
|
|
| |
Home
| Current Articles | Article Archive | About
Bob Whitaker | Contact Bob | Links
| Privacy
Policy
|
|
|