Part Two of Two Posts on this issue
Since 1945 (and the revelations about the Holocaust and what Jews in the free world failed to do to stop it) a disproportional percentage of every country's well known controversial columnists have been of Jewish descent.
At first glance, it may appear that the children and grandchildren of that generation of free world Jews who failed to ACT UP or OCCUPY WALL STREET during WWII, are simply being very confrontational and controversial now, in a catch-up effort to negate the meek and mildness of their forefathers' generation.
I argue this is simply not so.
While the voters are usually pretty evenly divided between voting for parties of the left/green or the right/libertarians ,well known Jewish controversial columnists are not evenly divided left and right in their viewpoints.
Most of them, by far, are very right wing and write for very right wing media.
In doing so, they are merely carrying on an old family tradition: being as cowardly today, as their forefathers were during WWII.
The WWII generation of free world Jews was determined not to undermine what little they had already achieved in the anti-Semitic democracies of the Allies, by being seen as loud ,public, pushy and 'Jewish' in expressing their concerns over the fate of Europe's Jews.
"The way to get ahead is to get along" (work quietly,politely) was their motto.
This even when it was well known, by ordinary members of the Gentile community, that millions of Jews, polish and russian, were already dead at Nazi hands by the Spring of 1942 ----- before the infamous mass gassings began.
Brown-nosers, Jewish brown-nosers.
And their hard-hitting, opinionated, controversial children and grandchildren ?
Still Jewish brown-nosers: like grandfather, like grandson.
Courage then is what it would have taken to get yourself arrested by chaining yourself to the White House walls protesting inaction on the fate of Europe's Jews.
Courage today, for a columnist, might simply consist of writing in a trade union newspaper while defending the rich and assailing the poor - or by assailing the rich and defending the poor in a rich man's newspaper.
But defending the rich and assailing the poor and minorities in the rich man's media isn't brave or even controversial - it is called brown-nosing, or if you wish to go upmarket, being a 'HO' for Pay.
Doubt me ? Ask yourself how many of the well known controversial columnists of Jewish origin airily dismissed ACT UP ("homos") or OCCUPY WALL STREET("eco-criminals") calls for acts of civil disobedience ?
Grandpa did not approve of PETER BERGSON's calls for acts of civil disobedience during WWII and his gutless grandchildren are just carrying on his tradition.
When Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr ruled that "three generations of imbeciles is enough" in the case of BUCK versus BELL, legitimizing eugenics in America and in Nazi Germany ,he was wrong on both the facts of the case and on its morality.
I am not wrong on either in this case: "three generations of Jewish cowards is more than enough".
Civilian courage in non-combat zones during WWII might consist of stealing government-issue penicillin in an effort to save the lives of the poor, deliberately sentenced to death by neglect by that same government. The courageous Dr Martin Henry Dawson did just that - I know the courageous --- and Jewish brown-nosers you ain't it.
So - please ! - bugger off the pages of our newspapers and screens of our TV and do something truly courageous before you dare to show your brown-nosed faces around here again.....