Two weeks may not be a long time in the affairs of a world or a nation but they are long enough to reveal a great deal about the internal workings of a movement such as the rule of theocracies. And this is what happened lately when the mullahs of Iran started to consolidate their hold on their country while the rabbinical mullahs of the New World got busy consolidating their hold on their American colony.
What makes this an exceptional moment in history is that the two groups of mullahs came as close as they can to facing off their rivalry. It happened when the rabbis, their army of lobbyists and their lackeys were caught off guard by the rapidity of the events unfolding in Iran so they immediately pulled their usual trick of calling on the President of the United States to crack the American whip loud enough for the Mullahs of Iran to hear it. In the meantime, they went on to play their other tricks which included the handling of the press, among them the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), a hand they played with the superb mastery they are noted for.
What happened here was that on June 18, 2009 the Journal ran an editorial under the title "A Palestinian Choice" and the subtitle: "Israel’s PM gets no credit for bending on a two-state solution." This is a piece that demonstrates as well as any why the Journal’s prestige has declined and why it is suited to be a metaphor for the decline of America’s own prestige. That is, the decline that has been happening up to now; all the signs being that despite the work of the rabbinical mullahs, things are beginning to change for the better.
Look at this passage in the Journal’s editorial: "The Prime Minister [Netanyahu] also called for Jerusalem to remain Israel's united capital. We have our doubts on that last score: Too many Palestinians live in East Jerusalem … for it to remain in Israeli hands after any final settlement." Clearly, ethnic purity is advocated here by what sounds like (but may not be) the entire editorial board of the Journal. In any case, this is not how you earn the respect of the public especially that the WSJ pretends to be a mainstream publication.
Now look at this other passage: "Nor should the thought of Israel as a Jewish state be controversial: That's how it was conceived by the U.N. resolution that helped bring it into existence…" What is surprising about this statement is that the WSJ said it; what is not surprising is that the WSJ said it. Let me explain. The Journal considers the U.N. to be a useless body of idiots incapable of doing anything right. For the Journal to invoke a resolution of that body to bolster its own argument is a surprising thing. What is not surprising, however, is that the Journal simultaneously rejects the UN and uses it as a crutch. In fact, to latch on and to exploit two contradictory stands in one and the same breath is vintage Talmudism as any Jewish lobby will ever display. And with this article as with many others, the WSJ is signaling that it has become a Jewish lobbyist through and through. Clearly, the WSJ is now one of the official voices barking on behalf of the rabbinical mullahs.
As such, the Journal has allowed itself to do what Fox News has done before which is to break a sacred taboo in American journalism by insulting another American publication. Here is the evidence: "And that was the reaction among the Palestinian moderates. Only Hamas and the Huffington Post were more withering." Like any Jewish lobbyist, the journal considers Hamas to by evil incarnate. Thus, to associate the Huffington Post with Hamas is to commit a sacrilege that was forbidden by journalistic norms until now. But then the mullahs decreed that the Jewish causes be exempt from the taboo and promptly they were. Like monkeys, Fox News got on the back of the New York Times and the WSJ got on the back of the Huffington Post.
And like the subtitle indicates, the June 18 editorial in the WSJ was about the June 14 speech given by the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu. As noted in the editorial, this was a speech that the Arabs -- most notably the Palestinians -- dismissed as a worthless hoax, calling Netanyahu a liar and a crook. And why is that? Because as the editorial quoted directly from the speech, Netanyahu was saying: "we have no intention to build new settlements or set aside land for new settlements."
Well now my dear friends at the Journal, look what fate does to you when it has you in its line of sight. June 18, 2009 would have been just another day in the Universe of journalistic punditry had it not been for what happened later that same day. As fate would have it, only hours after the appearance of the Wall Street Journal, Netanyahu’s foreign minister -- one named Avigdor Lieberman -- was in Washington saying exactly what the Palestinians were saying. Not only that, but he was seconded by none other than the American Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who added more juice to the revelation.
Look what happened on that fateful day. The Foreign Minister of Israel said that Israel will not accept a complete freeze on settlements, and the American Secretary of State said that the Israeli leaders often staked out positions then changed their mind. What she did not say but is known to everyone is that the Israelis changed their mind over and over to suit the moment as taught by the Talmud. Conclusion: The Palestinians were correct in saying that Netanyahu’s speech was a hoax and that the man was a liar. And this goes to prove that the Wall Street Journal was fantasizing Talmudic fantasies when it analyzed the situation the way it did; but there is more to it than that.
The Journal was more than wrong because not only did it act as a lawyer for the Israeli causes, a role that lobbyists often assume, it also became a member of the client’s organization by taking part in its activities. It is like a lawyer for the Mafia becoming a member of the Mafia then committing the same sort of crimes. Here, the Wall Street Journal not only tried to explain the Israeli position, it deliberately lied to its readers so as to mislead them and mislead the American legislators who count on the publication to report on Netanyahu’s intentions. This is a crucial point because the legislators are a busy bunch who often rely on the press to predigest the information for them before taking a stand in the Congress, a stand that they hope will serve the interests of America and not those of someone else.
But what is terrifying about the phenomenon of the press becoming a de facto lobbyist, a lawyer and a participant in the activities that serve Israel is that the phenomenon has permeated the entire politico-journalistic body and has become a plague affecting a large swath of the American elite in the Press, in the Congress and in the Executive branch. Far too many people have made it their preoccupation to speak for Israel, to lie and to mislead the American people while ruining America as if it were a disposable thing created for the sole purpose of inflating the glory of Israel and the ego of the rabbinical mullahs.
Then came the performance of Ms. Hillary Clinton on June 18, 2009 and a ray of hope was injected into the American scene. Once a proud nation then no more, America may now be rediscovering her pride under the Obama Administration and coming out of her trance at long last. She may break away from the demonic grip that the rabbinical mullahs and their cohorts have had over her, and the hope is that she will do so before they manage to make her drink from the Kool Aid they are preparing for her.
Now let’s look at the subtitle of the WSJ article again: "Israel's PM gets no credit for bending on a two-state solution." Here the Journal is complaining that Netanyahu did not get his due for doing something that the Journal knew, as much as did the Palestinians, as did Lieberman and as did Ms. Clinton that Netanyahu’s bending was a lie tailor-made for the moment. In fact, Lieberman had been in Washington for some time already saying privately what the Palestinians were saying before he showed up in public and made it official. So the question to ask is this: What would make the editorial board of a leading publication in a superpower stoop this low and drag to the bottom of the pit the pride they used to have in their profession? There can only be one answer and it is the following.
The regular editors of the Journal were not the ones to write that editorial. What they must have done was to hand the space to those who take orders from Israel and they let them do their thing. But this is like refusing to kill somebody then handing the poison to someone who does. Such behavior is called being an accessory to crime which, beside being cowardly, makes the perpetrators as criminally liable as the one committing the dreaded act. The editors of the Wall Street Journal should not be smug about what they did; they should be ashamed of themselves.
And it is this sort of attitude on the part of the American media that led to the events of June 23, 2009. On that day the American President Barack Obama gave a news conference during which a reporter asked him if he was influenced by the senators who urged him to change his stand with regard to the business of commenting on the events unfolding in Iran. The President smiled, looked at the reporter and asked: "What do you think?" But it was clear that the President was really asking this question: What do you want the answer to be?
Indeed, that response would have better reflected the kind of climate that is gripping our epoch. We live at a time when a two-bit riff raff can have a former President of the Republic "dissed" by his own Party because the riff raff is a Jew and the President is not. The riff raff then goes around and brags about his exploits to show to the world that a Jew in America can boss around a powerful political party by personal fiat alone, and then call this performance a brilliant manifestation of the rule of law. That is, rule of law Judeo-American style sometimes referred to as Jewmocracy. It was a half-baked idea whipped up during the reign of W the Bush Leaguer to stand in opposition of Islamofascism, a vision that someone planted in the head of the ruler who could not rule out handing his country over to the Israelis.
And it is that same spirit which powers the mentality of the Israelis as they go around Eastern Europe, Asia and the Middle East where they brag to the peoples there about the exploits of the Jews who act like they own America and treat it like their backyard. Up until now, the peoples of those places believed the Israelis because the latter always managed to make the characters in the American politico-journalistic core lend credence to the Israeli claim. Indeed, the Israelis and their helpers in America accomplished all this by making the characters in the Washington zoological beltway say and do the wrong things at the wrong time for the world to hear, see and be amazed as to how well the Israelis have trained them.
However, things began to change with the advent of Mr. Obama hence the need during the press conference of June 23 for a reporter to ask a question that suggested the American President knuckled under when pressured by those who are known to be in the pocket of the Jewish lobby. This was the meaning of the apparently meaningless question of that treasonous reporter but the President was adroit enough to deflect its toxic intent; and he made it clear that as President of the United States his first priority is to look after the security of America. What he did not say but was understood by everyone was that he could not care less about the glory of Israel or the ego of a riff raff who, like Rodney Dangerfield and the rabbinical mullahs, may feel he don’t get enough respect so he gets the feeble minded in the editorial rooms of the nation to compensate by inflating his ego.
Yes, things may be changing for the better but what is needed for America to get out of the rut is a massive transformation in the people’s vision. And for this to happen, there must be a wholesale conversion into believing in the nation itself because something dreadful has happened on that score and it must be reversed. What happened was that the rabbinical mullahs succeeded in blackmailing a few television pastors and got them to spread a toxic message among the public. At first, the pastors spread the message among their individual flocks then they grouped all the flocks into one organization calling itself Christians United For Israel (CUFI).
CUFI then took the message to the US Congress and to all sorts of institutions in America. And what was the message? It was to the effect that Christians must worship and obey every Jew as if he were Jesus Christ, son of God. And of course, along with this principle comes the idea of worshiping Israel itself, an act that entails the sacrifice of America and everything American for the glory of Israel, home of the new deity. Thus, it was through CUFI and other organizations like it that the rabbinical mullahs were able to convince many Americans, including members of the Congress to turn against their own country and work slavishly for Israel.
In the face of all this, it can be seen that only when a massive change comes to America will her old prestige be restored to her. Such development will give her the standing to speak once again with the moral authority that used to make the peoples of the world listen and be respectful of what they hear.
The same goes for the Wall Street Journal and every institution that has been contaminated by the toxic teachings of the rabbinical mullahs and their CUFI lackeys.