Dear reader, the school year has started afresh and on a great note. The war on terror is officially over. This wonderful news I found plastered across my Google home page one summer morning and I just had to share it with you, of course! The Obama administration said so candidly to the National Journal in an article entitled, “The Post Al Qaida Era.” An administrative official stated, “the war on terror is over,” and as we already know, anything His Highness says necessarily means means that it is so. This is certainly contrary to everything that former President Bush said when he stated in 2001, “You’re either with us or against us in the fight against terror.” This is a monumental change, as it alters the way cards are dealt and played on the international poker table that is the glorious UN.

In fact, it’s no longer a poker table heads of state will be playing on.
Prior to this recent development, heads of state played their cards beautifully. A little diplomacy here and there, with the necessary irrelevant resolutions containing the opinions of fellow policymakers pumped out of the once noble, but now mostly useless, United Nations, was what made up that poker table. There, it was as if everyone wanted us, you and me, dear reader, to believe that this was all just some friendly game where no one would ever get hurt. In a “united” front, policy makers all came together and declared a resounding NO to inflicting fear into citizens; now they’ve really solved the problem, because that terror, that fear, no longer exists. This is monumental, dear reader, truly monumental.

Constructivism, which is that cute little term used in international political circles and cuddly college classrooms, means that there is no global governing ruling body because we as a collective human species say there is no global governing ruling body. The important part to understand is, “because we… say it is.” There are states because we accept that there are states. There are rules of engagement because we follow those rules of engagement, and recognize them as rules of engagement. But now we are completely redefining the terms at play, and as we will see, our newly formed Orwellian perspective on how the world functions will help to create a utopia of sorts. Alas, dear reader, it is possible!

You see, all of this is important in understanding the constructs of the issue at hand, this thing called terrorism, that suddenly has vanished from the known world. Now that terrorism no longer exists, there is no such thing as a terrorist. Here we get to discuss fun, semantical, dribble that relegates, what otherwise would be a maniacal, fiendish madman, to a, wait for it — “militant.” Yes, dear reader, now we have no ambivalence whatsoever. The stone-throwing, violence inciting, blood libel spitting “militant” is now morally equivalent to the proud soldier defending his people from that same “militant.” All important distinctions that had been previously used are now false and, “politically incorrect.” Indeed, to call a militant a terrorist is now akin to issuing a racist diatribe against a poor innocent who simply felt that the best solution to ensuring that a caliphate be established in his neck of the woods was to, for example, murder seven tourists in Bulgaria. A terrorist? Oh no, no, no, dear reader, not at all. Simply misunderstood. And the enlightened media concurs with me, I assure you.

After the heinous attack on Israeli tourists riding a bus in Bulgaria on July 18, the BBC responded by categorizing the incident as merely an “awful accident.” The Associated Press responded to the incident by writing the following headline:

THREE DEAD IN ‘ATTACK’ ON ISRAELIS AT BULGARIA

You see, dear reader, now that terrorism is dead, we find ourselves in a very uncanny position, having to come up with new ways to describe what would usually be called an attack. Now, when a suicide bomber blows himself up, it is simply a self perpetuating force that propels itself at so high a magnitude that it takes apart the vehicle by twisting it in intricate pieces, as well as casting asunder the bodies of the surrounding individuals so as to make them, well, extinct. It’s not an attack, no, no. It’s just a quite painful, um, sort of, psuedo-assault resulting in the eternal rest of persons who never requested it. Yes.

Of course, this absurdity is now made manifest in many forms. For example, the Muslim Brotherhood which, among other things, cosponsored a rally in Cairo in 2011 where chants of ‘One day we will kill all the Jews’ were wholeheartedly bellowed from the bellies of insatiable anti-Semitic beasts, is rendered merely moderate. Yes, dear reader, it is now moderate to call for another Holocaust.

And it is completely racist to refer to those who attended the rally as racists, so I retract my statement. They are simply, ‘racists.’ Please note the difference.

Idiocy, it seems, is very fashionable these days. The European Union, in its infinite wisdom, has decided that Hezbollah — an organization whose leaders in 2009 stopped the issuing of the diary of Anne Frank to its people because it reflected a “Zionist invasion of education” — is not a terrorist organization. And of course, Hezbollah just so happens to have been involved in the Bulagaria ‘attack’ on Israeli tourists. Quite the coincidence, wouldn’t you say?

Thus, dear reader, we have ourselves a complete Orwellian Renaissance. To murder a particular group of people is now portrayed as not particularly offensive; indeed, it is morally acceptable, and to describe the perpetrators of such heinous acts as odious is to employ the most egregious form of maliciousness. We have on our hands a role-reversal.

Should we rejoice then, now that terror directed at a people has been wiped from the pages of history, and, at that same token, those who would disagree with this position have aptly been deemed guilty of a great sin at the behest of the International community?

I will not mince words with you, dear reader. This status of perpetrator, villain, devil has been conferred upon the Jew yet again. The Jew has now been demoted to subpar status. To realize his self-determination in the land of his ancestors was his original sin. To defend his land is akin to Nazism. To murder Jewish persons who are participants in that Jewish state is justice. To inform the world of Jewish history is an affront, an insult to academia. In the ultimate act of betrayal, the world has now deemed the survival of the Jewish people to be offensive to certain groups of people, and as such, unfit to remain in society.

It matters not if this form of anti-Semitism — which, simply put, is the vindication of anti-Semitic terrorists by heads of state — is apparent to all those who employ it. Malfeasance, whether it is inspired by ignorance or malicious intent, yields only one result. If the Jew is like the Nazi, as these terrorists have contended, and the actions of these same radicals are not routinely, unanimously condemned by the leaders of the free world, but are instead seen as actions taken by misunderstood, dejected people, where then lies the fate of the Jews?

We owe this people a great deal. This people, being largely responsible for the sunrises of civilization, must not be left to burn while hypocrites and well meaning, self-absorbed statesmen ruminate on the nature of murderers and brutes, seeking to describe their barbaric disposition in politically correct, cute, endearing terms. We cannot afford to be asinine.

There was a time relatively recently when it was socially acceptable to kill the Jew. Must we go down this road again?