If you accept the definition of anti-Semitism to be: “The sustained engagement in a discourse or activity that aims at wiping from the face of the Earth all the Semite people or a distinct sub-section of them such as the Jews,” then you may have something to sink your teeth into with regard to the possible surfacing of one case of anti-Semitism in Egypt.
The perpetrator of this outrage would be the English version of a publication called Al-Masry Al-Youm which translates into: The Egyptian Today. And the victimized individual would be Max Strasser, a Jew who says he is an editor at the publication. No, he is not complaining about his employer, perhaps because he does not realize what the latter is up to. But the fact that Strasser does not even know what is happening to him is what makes me suspect that the employer is practicing anti-Semitism.
To explain this, I must refer the reader to an article I published on this website on December 7, 2009 under the title: “He used to say light up the oven”. It is about a Jew I met who thought that the worst enemies of the Jews were the self-appointed leaders who do dumb things and thus endanger the people they pretend to protect. When the man saw the leaders do such things, he used to despair and would throw his hands up in the air as he shouted: “light up the oven!” He hoped that with this response, he would signal to the leaders that their activities will inevitably lead to the lighting up of the ovens and the extermination of the Jews by holocaust.
If the theory of this man holds water, then we must conclude that by allowing Max Strasser to do what he is doing, Al-Masry Al-Youm is not doing him a favor but is using him with the expectation that the dumb things he is committing will eventually lead to the lighting up of the ovens and to what comes after that as a consequence. What is certain, however, is that if this happens, it will happen outside the Arab and the Muslim worlds because a pogrom or a holocaust never happened there and never will.
You will get an understanding of what is going on when you turn to an article titled “Celebrating Police (State) Day in Mubarak’s Egypt” written by Max Strasser and published on January 25, 2010 not in Al-Masry Al-Youm but in fastertimes.com.
Strasser begins his article with a paragraph in which he tries to show how smart he is but misses the mark. He then goes into the second paragraph in which he tries to back up his claims by quoting Human Rights Watch which held a press conference to criticize the human rights record of Egypt. And where was that conference held? Believe it or not, it was held in that very same police state, says Max Strasser. Some police state, that is!
Strasser then explains that his dissatisfaction with Egypt stems from the fact that the country has been under emergency law since the assassination of President Anwar Sadat. And what the law does is that it permits the indefinite detention of terrorism suspects without trial. It also permits the trial of civilians in military courts. I suspect that Strasser, who is an American, is a bit too young to remember an Egyptian official telling the Americans right after 9/11 something to this effect: Now you will know why we do things the way we do because you will soon be forced to do the same thing.
The kid then takes a few more paragraphs to rehash old allegations about police brutality. What he does not say is that some of these allegations were substantiated and dealt with by handing jail terms to the offending police officers, and that the other allegations were proven to be baseless and were thrown out of court. Max Strasser then drops this jewel: “This is not a secret. Stories of abuse and torture appear daily in the local independent press.” And this is when you throw your hands up in the air and shout: A police state with an independent press that does not keep the abuse of the police a state secret? What kind of a police state is this? And if my Jewish acquaintance were standing beside you, he would throw his hands up in the air and shout: Light up the oven!
The reason why my acquaintance would be dismayed is not because of what this one kid is doing but because of what he represents. He stands as the product of a system of culture and lifelong education that constantly shapes him, shapes all Jewish kids and shapes all Jewish adults so as to become and to remain loyal soldiers of the cause. And this means that as long as they live, they are expected to fight somebody – anybody -- with lies, deception, insult, denigration and defamation. Nothing can be more Jewish than that.
In fact, the kid rambles on a bit more through several paragraphs of old lies and bad jokes before he drops this other jewel: “Plainclothes police are ubiquitous.” Given that you cannot be in plainclothes and be ubiquitous at the same time, someone should tell him he needs to carry a dictionary at all time to look up the words before using them or take a course in logic to learn how to think like gentiles do. In any case, it is obvious that he is an amateur propagandist with a desire for recognition that exceeds his talent. But then again, is there a self-appointed leader of the Jews that is any better than this? Yes, the kid is primitive but so are his teachers whose knowledge has not advanced one inch since biblical times.
Reading this article I was jolted so many times that I decided to check Al-Masry Al-Youm to see what sort of articles Max Strasser has been writing or editing. The reality is that I had been reading Al-Masry Al-Yom for at least a year and I could not remember seeing his name. There was an original Arabic version of the publication that was maintained as they launched a second Arabic version on a trial basis along with the English version. And I kept reading all of them but no Max Strasser ever caught my eye.
My checking on the kid resulted in the discovery that he is not an editor of Al-Masry Al-Yom and that he has not written a single article. His name appears on a directory with several dozens of other names, all listed under: Writers. And this is what reinforced my view that whoever is keeping him is engaged in a ruse. In my view, the people at Al-Masry Al-Yom are encouraging him to stay in Egypt so as to make the kind of mistakes that will prove costly to all Jews. If this theory is correct and if what these people are doing is intentional, then it must be that they are anti-Semites.
Now all those who have been dreaming of ways to monetize the next accusation of anti-Semitism or better yet monetize the ensuing holocaust can begin to rub their hands and fantasize about what they will do with all the dollar signs now dancing in their heads.
Time to sing: “We’re in the money.”
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Sunday, January 24, 2010
The Hillary-WSJ Doctrine Of Evil
Evil in America has a distinct signature and when it comes, its arrival is announced with the tune of a fanfare that is known to the people who understand Jewish propaganda. These people know that evil is coming when the “Left” and the “Right” in America begin to send each other kudos. This act, more than anything else, says to the people of knowledge that the Jewish organizations are in the process of mixing another KOOL AID potion to serve to the American people who are always left in the dark as to what is being done behind their backs.
On January 23, 2010, the rightwing Wall Street Journal sent kudos to the well known lefty, Hillary Clinton in an editorial that was titled: “The Clinton Internet Doctrine” and the sub-title: “An Attack on one nation’s networks can be an attack on all.” And the first words in that editorial were “Kudos to Hillary Clinton…”
Apparently what happened was that hackers in China attempted to read the emails of individual citizens by attacking Google’s servers there. Ms. Clinton’s plea to the Chinese government to investigate the incident did not sit too well with the Journal but overall, the new Clinton doctrine was welcomed by the editors of that publication.
The idea that did not impress the Journal very much was that by asking the Chinese government to investigate the matter, Hillary Clinton was, in their words, placing in the hands of the fox the keys to the henhouse. And fox is the keyword here because the reader will find in the archive of this website an article that was published on March 27, 2008 under the title: “The day the Foxman dropped the mask”.
I wrote that article in the wake of an incident I thought by then was already behind me for close to a decade. It used to be that after I wrote an article of a certain kind for an Arabic publication in Montreal – and I used to write for many of those -- someone would contact me to say that I was finished because the Jewish establishment had prepared something to see to it that I was silenced for ever. And they would tell me what to do to ascertain that the warning was real and that it was authentic.
In a similar fashion, I was contacted in March of 2008, warned in the same old way and told to check an article written in some publication in Israel whose name escapes me now. I checked the website, found the article and read it. It was about Abe Foxman, the head of the American anti-defamation League, who had gone to Israel to tell his cohorts out there that they must invent a new powerful way to censor the internet. He wanted the highway of information to be censored and blocked not in Israel which is, after all, a “vibrant democracy” but in America and worldwide because there are people like yours truly who dare to challenge what his people spew on the internet and elsewhere.
Ms. Clinton was then the junior senator from New York, the hub of Abe Foxman’s empire, and she was running to be President of the United States. She was parachuted into New York from Arkansas and the District of Columbia where she had spent most of her life. I did not expect her to give Foxman a tongue lashing because I knew she was busy and because of something else. Like everyone else in America, she had to pay her dues to get the obligatory pat on the back from the likes of Foxman to be considered for the job she was seeking. And the way people pay Foxman et al is to promise them the treasure or the blood of a third party, usually that of the Palestinians, the Arabs, the Africans, the Muslims or even the symbols of Christianity. Even people who are not parachuted from another place must pay this sort of blood soaked dues.
Thus, what the lady had to do when she was running for the New York senate seat was to go to Israel and tell the people there that God gave them the Torah. She did so at a time when these were the code words to mean that “God gave the Jews the land of Palestine.” This was her way to promise that she will spare not a drop of Palestinian blood, an inch of Palestinian land or a shred of Arab or African dignity to buy from the war criminals in Israel and the hungry beasts of the American Jewish syndicates the US Senate seat she coveted so much.
I do not know what Hillary Clinton is running for now and I could not care less. But she is back to her old ways of paying for what she wants with the blood and treasure of third parties. And in teaming up with the Wall Street Journal, she could not have found a more suitable soul mate at the Right side of the political spectrum with who to make this bipartisan endeavor a true work of unreserved cowardice. For, like her, the Journal constantly seeks to gain credit in the eyes of someone by discrediting a third party and, according to the Journal, she has named China, Tunisia, Uzbekistan, Vietnam and Egypt to discredit so as to gain credit in the eyes of God knows who this time around.
The problem with this approach is that it has gone stale. It has been used and abused so much that the world knows who the hens are and who the foxman is. The people all over the planet know who makes the KOOL AID and who drinks it. They know who is constantly attacking someone in order to attack all. No one is impressed by the uttering of a Hillary or the advice of the Journal anymore, and everybody just wishes that they both shut up and mind their own business.
At this time America has more problems than it can solve or stomach without having to run around looking for problems that do not exist and pretend to fix them because the foxman and his henchmen have so ordered. When America has found a way to make political sausage without being pornographic, when it has given every American a health coverage that almost everyone else has, when it has learned to live within its means, when it begins to protect its citizens from being denigrated and/or blacklisted on orders from a little fart of a country called Israel situated thousands of miles away, then Hillary and the editors of the Journal will sound a little more credible when they utter words like freedom and democracy.
Right now, they and the Jewish syndicates have so closely associated those two words with gutter and cesspool that authors who want to speak or to write about them avoid using them directly. Instead, the serious authors take pains to express their thoughts in different ways, and wish that those idiots would stop debasing the language any further.
On January 23, 2010, the rightwing Wall Street Journal sent kudos to the well known lefty, Hillary Clinton in an editorial that was titled: “The Clinton Internet Doctrine” and the sub-title: “An Attack on one nation’s networks can be an attack on all.” And the first words in that editorial were “Kudos to Hillary Clinton…”
Apparently what happened was that hackers in China attempted to read the emails of individual citizens by attacking Google’s servers there. Ms. Clinton’s plea to the Chinese government to investigate the incident did not sit too well with the Journal but overall, the new Clinton doctrine was welcomed by the editors of that publication.
The idea that did not impress the Journal very much was that by asking the Chinese government to investigate the matter, Hillary Clinton was, in their words, placing in the hands of the fox the keys to the henhouse. And fox is the keyword here because the reader will find in the archive of this website an article that was published on March 27, 2008 under the title: “The day the Foxman dropped the mask”.
I wrote that article in the wake of an incident I thought by then was already behind me for close to a decade. It used to be that after I wrote an article of a certain kind for an Arabic publication in Montreal – and I used to write for many of those -- someone would contact me to say that I was finished because the Jewish establishment had prepared something to see to it that I was silenced for ever. And they would tell me what to do to ascertain that the warning was real and that it was authentic.
In a similar fashion, I was contacted in March of 2008, warned in the same old way and told to check an article written in some publication in Israel whose name escapes me now. I checked the website, found the article and read it. It was about Abe Foxman, the head of the American anti-defamation League, who had gone to Israel to tell his cohorts out there that they must invent a new powerful way to censor the internet. He wanted the highway of information to be censored and blocked not in Israel which is, after all, a “vibrant democracy” but in America and worldwide because there are people like yours truly who dare to challenge what his people spew on the internet and elsewhere.
Ms. Clinton was then the junior senator from New York, the hub of Abe Foxman’s empire, and she was running to be President of the United States. She was parachuted into New York from Arkansas and the District of Columbia where she had spent most of her life. I did not expect her to give Foxman a tongue lashing because I knew she was busy and because of something else. Like everyone else in America, she had to pay her dues to get the obligatory pat on the back from the likes of Foxman to be considered for the job she was seeking. And the way people pay Foxman et al is to promise them the treasure or the blood of a third party, usually that of the Palestinians, the Arabs, the Africans, the Muslims or even the symbols of Christianity. Even people who are not parachuted from another place must pay this sort of blood soaked dues.
Thus, what the lady had to do when she was running for the New York senate seat was to go to Israel and tell the people there that God gave them the Torah. She did so at a time when these were the code words to mean that “God gave the Jews the land of Palestine.” This was her way to promise that she will spare not a drop of Palestinian blood, an inch of Palestinian land or a shred of Arab or African dignity to buy from the war criminals in Israel and the hungry beasts of the American Jewish syndicates the US Senate seat she coveted so much.
I do not know what Hillary Clinton is running for now and I could not care less. But she is back to her old ways of paying for what she wants with the blood and treasure of third parties. And in teaming up with the Wall Street Journal, she could not have found a more suitable soul mate at the Right side of the political spectrum with who to make this bipartisan endeavor a true work of unreserved cowardice. For, like her, the Journal constantly seeks to gain credit in the eyes of someone by discrediting a third party and, according to the Journal, she has named China, Tunisia, Uzbekistan, Vietnam and Egypt to discredit so as to gain credit in the eyes of God knows who this time around.
The problem with this approach is that it has gone stale. It has been used and abused so much that the world knows who the hens are and who the foxman is. The people all over the planet know who makes the KOOL AID and who drinks it. They know who is constantly attacking someone in order to attack all. No one is impressed by the uttering of a Hillary or the advice of the Journal anymore, and everybody just wishes that they both shut up and mind their own business.
At this time America has more problems than it can solve or stomach without having to run around looking for problems that do not exist and pretend to fix them because the foxman and his henchmen have so ordered. When America has found a way to make political sausage without being pornographic, when it has given every American a health coverage that almost everyone else has, when it has learned to live within its means, when it begins to protect its citizens from being denigrated and/or blacklisted on orders from a little fart of a country called Israel situated thousands of miles away, then Hillary and the editors of the Journal will sound a little more credible when they utter words like freedom and democracy.
Right now, they and the Jewish syndicates have so closely associated those two words with gutter and cesspool that authors who want to speak or to write about them avoid using them directly. Instead, the serious authors take pains to express their thoughts in different ways, and wish that those idiots would stop debasing the language any further.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Let Evil Fight Its Wars Alone
On the occasion of receiving the Nobel Prize on December 10, 2009, President Obama of the United States of America said he recognizes the fact that he is at the beginning and not the end of his labors on the world stage. It is a good thing that the President recognizes this reality because there is much that he needs to iron out with regard to his views on evil. He also needs to work on the means by which he plans to stand up to that evil and defeat it.
First and foremost, President Obama needs to work on the concept of the “just war”. He says that launching a war would be justified if and when it is fought as a last resort or in self-defense; when the force used is proportional and when care is taken to spare the civilian population. These are nice things to say but they come as no revelation to us who live in the Twenty First Century. Yes, the man is President and his word carries weight but he is also a lawyer, therefore he knows that millions of nice words are said everyday which, in the end, mean nothing because in this day and age, only the insane would say the wrong thing and stand to be condemned in a court of law or the court of public opinion. Even criminals who are caught red handed are instructed by their lawyers to say nothing that may prejudice their case, and to plead not guilty when entering a plea, and thus put the onus on the prosecution to prove the case against them.
What this leads to is that Mr. Obama’s nice sounding words need to be illustrated with examples if he wants them to rise above being just rhetoric. He needs to tackle difficult examples such as the following two. First, what if someone comes from afar and butchers your family and friends using the deadliest of weapons when you have nothing with which to defend yourself or your loved ones but crude homemade weapons whose use is admittedly revolting but not more revolting than the weapons used by the invader? Would you be justified to use such weapons when you have nothing else? Second: Suppose you do not have the ticking time bomb that the enemy believes you have and for which he is torturing you to give up or to tell about. On the other hand, you have the means to pull a Samson on the two of you and bring down the house in a suicidal act that will put an end to your misery and to his. Does the President consider this suicide to be part of the just war or does he consider it to be part of the unjust war?
Now consider the ongoing situation in Palestine where the Palestinians have been occupied by the Israelis for several generations and where the occupier is armed to the teeth while the occupied has nothing with which to defend himself but his bare hands and the stones of his demolished home around him. Yet despite this shockingly unbalanced situation, more Palestinian civilians than combatants are killed in every clash while more Israeli soldiers than civilians are killed. What does this say to the President of America, the country that supplies the Israelis with the weapons to kill and the money to live on as they murder with impunity and murder with biblical savagery? Who, in the eyes of the President is fighting a just war and who is fighting an unjust one?
Even though he did not address these questions directly in his Nobel speech, Mr. Obama made reference to a situation that could be thought of as analogous. He said this: “And while it is hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.” Well, I can only say that the President must have misunderstood the intent behind these words because he is not the kind of person who would associate with an idea as evil as this. It must be that the words were inserted stealthily into the speech by a speechwriter, and the President read them innocently. This is business as usual seeping back into the Washington scene with possible nefarious consequences.
What the speechwriter did was to serve notice that you can kill civilians all you want but only if you do it for a strange reason that applies to some people and not to others. Those of us who spent a lifetime studying the insidious propaganda done in English by the Jewish organizations recognize this approach as coming right out of the Talmud. When such words are uttered by the President, a situation is created that is picked up by the princes of darkness and utilized to justify evil activities like those routinely conducted by Israel. And there is an example that corroborates this observation. Some thirty or forty years ago Alan Dershowitz told the world that Israel had the right to commit any evil that was previously committed by someone; and Israel has been doing just that ever since. Now that the American President seems to have given the “green light” to kill more civilians than combatants because the thing was done before, Israel will have a field day killing civilians to ethnically cleanse the occupied territories which is something that the invaders have wanted to do since they invaded Palestine.
Still, we must recognize that the notion of uneven distribution of rights resonates not only with the Talmud but also the English culture which asserts that “might makes right”. According to this state of mind, if the Nazis had won the war, everything they did would today be called just; and everything the Allies did would be called evil. And so I ask: What does Mr. Obama say about that? The notion of might occupying a high place in a culture is a phenomenon I regard as being a cultural deficiency and I trace it to the Common Law which hangs on to tradition no matter how ugly a particular custom may be. The most striking example of this sort is the American civil war where those who adhered to the idea that slavery was a good thing were persuaded to let go of it only over the dead bodies that littered the battlefields of the nation. When nothing else could do it, the might of the North was the force to convince the South that slavery was a bad thing.
This does not mean that the entire body of the Common Law ought to be rejected but that parts of it must be neutralized by an antidote. This will be the Civil Code which is also known as the Napoleonic Law. In reality, Napoleon did not invent this law and neither did the French legal establishment. What we have in the Civil Code is the codification by the French of thousands of years of human wisdom calling on reason to transcend our animal nature and see things the way they can be without being overly idealistic. Consequently, physical force was given a lower status in the Civil Code than it occupies in the Common Law, and reason was given a higher status in the Civil Code than it occupies in the Common Law.
What happens when we introduce reason into the discourse is that we come to see the weakness in the argument which says might makes right. The reasoning goes like this: When might is the thing that counts, we go back to the law of the jungle; and the social compact which compels us to treat each other with civility is trashed. To someone who has nothing with which to fight back but his bare hands, the temptation is strong to use them in the most effective way to defend his people and bring relief to them. This leads to a free for all where everything is fair but the complaint that the other side is not adhering to the rules. Savagery of biblical proportion on both sides becomes the order of the day and humanity sinks to the level of the animals. And this is where the Common Law is trumped by the Civil Code.
Now, having a military might that is superior to the Palestinian military, the Israelis and their cohorts in America have a different interpretation of the subject matter. To explain the strange reason by which they should be allowed to kill all they want while denying the same right to the Palestinians, they invented a circumstance which they say applies to them and to no one else. They claim they are the chosen children of God, a reality that makes of them the saints who were created with good intentions while the Palestinians are the devils who were created with bad intentions. The Israelis and their cohorts then go on to argued that Jewish killing is more kosher than Palestinian killing can ever be halal.
Yes, life is complicated and made more so by the masters of confusion especially when they are versed in the ways of the Talmud. But sometimes when things get complicated and it is difficult to see our way clearly, those who are lucky enough to live the simple life employ what we call the horse sense, and they usually provide clear answers to the difficult questions. In fact, we were introduced some 30 years ago to something called “inner strength” by people who appeared to be so low on the totem pole it was thought they will never amount to anything. Well, my dear friends, these were the Chinese and the other people of the Asian cultures who have risen to prove that inner strength is a force that can challenge traditional might and win big time.
But what is this inner strength? It seems to me that the ancient civilizations which are now going through a renaissance have managed to combine the empirical method as reflected in the Common Law with the analytical method as reflected in the Civil Code. It is a philosophy of transcendentalism where the two parts combine not as antidotes that neutralize each other but as complementary parts of system where the value of the two exceeds the sum of the parts. And this combined value is the inner strength to which the Asian people refer with pride. They baffled those in the West who had no clue what it meant or what its potential was; and many people today wish they had paid more attention to it 30 years ago.
Can we, in this part of the world, adopt that philosophy and make it work for us? “Yes we can,” as Mr. Obama used to say when he was a candidate running for office. The first item on his agenda must now be to make it clear that the power of America shall only be deployed to defend America and to promote her interests, not those of Israel. In doing this, the President will alleviate the confusion that comes in the form of noise and that is deliberately injected into the discourse. One source from which confusion comes like a gusher is the Jewish lobby where everything that these people do is done at the expense of America and to the detriment of her children. The reality is that by the twisted logic of their ideology, these people are allowed to do only the things that benefit Israel and the Jewish causes.
And the confusion they inject into the discourse bites harder when they speak of America as if it were Israel, and speak of Israel as if it were America. This is the intellectual Kool Aid that is concocted and mixed in hiding by the agents of Israel working under the protection of the syndicate known as AIPAC. The witch’s brew they make is then handed to the media and to the televised churches for dissemination throughout the land. Those who understand Jewish propaganda recognize these activities as being the slow indoctrination of the American people to accept going broke or even die for the glory of Israel. Ultimately, the American people are made to believe that America is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, and that Israel was chosen by God to rule over them and rule over the world.
To remove the confusion and restore the sense of normalcy, the American President must tell the Israelis and their cohorts that from now on they are on their own. They must earn what they want in life and must learn to live with their fellow human beings as equal. But if they insist on being treated like Gods, America will no longer emasculate itself to procure this impossible gift for them. If they cannot change their desires or change the way they go about obtaining them, they should look for miracles elsewhere because America will not deliver anymore. Simply put, America has quit the business of inflating the coffers, the arsenal and the ego of the war criminals in Israel and their cheerleading clowns in America. All of humanity is saying enough is enough, and because change has come to America so says America too.
This is the second installment in a trilogy relating to Mr. Obama’s speech. The final installment will appear some time in the coming weeks.
First and foremost, President Obama needs to work on the concept of the “just war”. He says that launching a war would be justified if and when it is fought as a last resort or in self-defense; when the force used is proportional and when care is taken to spare the civilian population. These are nice things to say but they come as no revelation to us who live in the Twenty First Century. Yes, the man is President and his word carries weight but he is also a lawyer, therefore he knows that millions of nice words are said everyday which, in the end, mean nothing because in this day and age, only the insane would say the wrong thing and stand to be condemned in a court of law or the court of public opinion. Even criminals who are caught red handed are instructed by their lawyers to say nothing that may prejudice their case, and to plead not guilty when entering a plea, and thus put the onus on the prosecution to prove the case against them.
What this leads to is that Mr. Obama’s nice sounding words need to be illustrated with examples if he wants them to rise above being just rhetoric. He needs to tackle difficult examples such as the following two. First, what if someone comes from afar and butchers your family and friends using the deadliest of weapons when you have nothing with which to defend yourself or your loved ones but crude homemade weapons whose use is admittedly revolting but not more revolting than the weapons used by the invader? Would you be justified to use such weapons when you have nothing else? Second: Suppose you do not have the ticking time bomb that the enemy believes you have and for which he is torturing you to give up or to tell about. On the other hand, you have the means to pull a Samson on the two of you and bring down the house in a suicidal act that will put an end to your misery and to his. Does the President consider this suicide to be part of the just war or does he consider it to be part of the unjust war?
Now consider the ongoing situation in Palestine where the Palestinians have been occupied by the Israelis for several generations and where the occupier is armed to the teeth while the occupied has nothing with which to defend himself but his bare hands and the stones of his demolished home around him. Yet despite this shockingly unbalanced situation, more Palestinian civilians than combatants are killed in every clash while more Israeli soldiers than civilians are killed. What does this say to the President of America, the country that supplies the Israelis with the weapons to kill and the money to live on as they murder with impunity and murder with biblical savagery? Who, in the eyes of the President is fighting a just war and who is fighting an unjust one?
Even though he did not address these questions directly in his Nobel speech, Mr. Obama made reference to a situation that could be thought of as analogous. He said this: “And while it is hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.” Well, I can only say that the President must have misunderstood the intent behind these words because he is not the kind of person who would associate with an idea as evil as this. It must be that the words were inserted stealthily into the speech by a speechwriter, and the President read them innocently. This is business as usual seeping back into the Washington scene with possible nefarious consequences.
What the speechwriter did was to serve notice that you can kill civilians all you want but only if you do it for a strange reason that applies to some people and not to others. Those of us who spent a lifetime studying the insidious propaganda done in English by the Jewish organizations recognize this approach as coming right out of the Talmud. When such words are uttered by the President, a situation is created that is picked up by the princes of darkness and utilized to justify evil activities like those routinely conducted by Israel. And there is an example that corroborates this observation. Some thirty or forty years ago Alan Dershowitz told the world that Israel had the right to commit any evil that was previously committed by someone; and Israel has been doing just that ever since. Now that the American President seems to have given the “green light” to kill more civilians than combatants because the thing was done before, Israel will have a field day killing civilians to ethnically cleanse the occupied territories which is something that the invaders have wanted to do since they invaded Palestine.
Still, we must recognize that the notion of uneven distribution of rights resonates not only with the Talmud but also the English culture which asserts that “might makes right”. According to this state of mind, if the Nazis had won the war, everything they did would today be called just; and everything the Allies did would be called evil. And so I ask: What does Mr. Obama say about that? The notion of might occupying a high place in a culture is a phenomenon I regard as being a cultural deficiency and I trace it to the Common Law which hangs on to tradition no matter how ugly a particular custom may be. The most striking example of this sort is the American civil war where those who adhered to the idea that slavery was a good thing were persuaded to let go of it only over the dead bodies that littered the battlefields of the nation. When nothing else could do it, the might of the North was the force to convince the South that slavery was a bad thing.
This does not mean that the entire body of the Common Law ought to be rejected but that parts of it must be neutralized by an antidote. This will be the Civil Code which is also known as the Napoleonic Law. In reality, Napoleon did not invent this law and neither did the French legal establishment. What we have in the Civil Code is the codification by the French of thousands of years of human wisdom calling on reason to transcend our animal nature and see things the way they can be without being overly idealistic. Consequently, physical force was given a lower status in the Civil Code than it occupies in the Common Law, and reason was given a higher status in the Civil Code than it occupies in the Common Law.
What happens when we introduce reason into the discourse is that we come to see the weakness in the argument which says might makes right. The reasoning goes like this: When might is the thing that counts, we go back to the law of the jungle; and the social compact which compels us to treat each other with civility is trashed. To someone who has nothing with which to fight back but his bare hands, the temptation is strong to use them in the most effective way to defend his people and bring relief to them. This leads to a free for all where everything is fair but the complaint that the other side is not adhering to the rules. Savagery of biblical proportion on both sides becomes the order of the day and humanity sinks to the level of the animals. And this is where the Common Law is trumped by the Civil Code.
Now, having a military might that is superior to the Palestinian military, the Israelis and their cohorts in America have a different interpretation of the subject matter. To explain the strange reason by which they should be allowed to kill all they want while denying the same right to the Palestinians, they invented a circumstance which they say applies to them and to no one else. They claim they are the chosen children of God, a reality that makes of them the saints who were created with good intentions while the Palestinians are the devils who were created with bad intentions. The Israelis and their cohorts then go on to argued that Jewish killing is more kosher than Palestinian killing can ever be halal.
Yes, life is complicated and made more so by the masters of confusion especially when they are versed in the ways of the Talmud. But sometimes when things get complicated and it is difficult to see our way clearly, those who are lucky enough to live the simple life employ what we call the horse sense, and they usually provide clear answers to the difficult questions. In fact, we were introduced some 30 years ago to something called “inner strength” by people who appeared to be so low on the totem pole it was thought they will never amount to anything. Well, my dear friends, these were the Chinese and the other people of the Asian cultures who have risen to prove that inner strength is a force that can challenge traditional might and win big time.
But what is this inner strength? It seems to me that the ancient civilizations which are now going through a renaissance have managed to combine the empirical method as reflected in the Common Law with the analytical method as reflected in the Civil Code. It is a philosophy of transcendentalism where the two parts combine not as antidotes that neutralize each other but as complementary parts of system where the value of the two exceeds the sum of the parts. And this combined value is the inner strength to which the Asian people refer with pride. They baffled those in the West who had no clue what it meant or what its potential was; and many people today wish they had paid more attention to it 30 years ago.
Can we, in this part of the world, adopt that philosophy and make it work for us? “Yes we can,” as Mr. Obama used to say when he was a candidate running for office. The first item on his agenda must now be to make it clear that the power of America shall only be deployed to defend America and to promote her interests, not those of Israel. In doing this, the President will alleviate the confusion that comes in the form of noise and that is deliberately injected into the discourse. One source from which confusion comes like a gusher is the Jewish lobby where everything that these people do is done at the expense of America and to the detriment of her children. The reality is that by the twisted logic of their ideology, these people are allowed to do only the things that benefit Israel and the Jewish causes.
And the confusion they inject into the discourse bites harder when they speak of America as if it were Israel, and speak of Israel as if it were America. This is the intellectual Kool Aid that is concocted and mixed in hiding by the agents of Israel working under the protection of the syndicate known as AIPAC. The witch’s brew they make is then handed to the media and to the televised churches for dissemination throughout the land. Those who understand Jewish propaganda recognize these activities as being the slow indoctrination of the American people to accept going broke or even die for the glory of Israel. Ultimately, the American people are made to believe that America is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, and that Israel was chosen by God to rule over them and rule over the world.
To remove the confusion and restore the sense of normalcy, the American President must tell the Israelis and their cohorts that from now on they are on their own. They must earn what they want in life and must learn to live with their fellow human beings as equal. But if they insist on being treated like Gods, America will no longer emasculate itself to procure this impossible gift for them. If they cannot change their desires or change the way they go about obtaining them, they should look for miracles elsewhere because America will not deliver anymore. Simply put, America has quit the business of inflating the coffers, the arsenal and the ego of the war criminals in Israel and their cheerleading clowns in America. All of humanity is saying enough is enough, and because change has come to America so says America too.
This is the second installment in a trilogy relating to Mr. Obama’s speech. The final installment will appear some time in the coming weeks.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Teaching Daddy How To Make Babies
The Americans are fond of saying that their country is not at war with the Muslim Arabs, the Christian Arabs, Islam itself or anyone that has not declared war on them. And all indications are to the effect that this is a true statement. But the statement is true only in the sense that America is not at war with these people under American command. It can be demonstrated, however, that America is at war against all these people and against the Africans too under Jewish command.
When a factory producing pharmaceuticals is blown up in Sudan by an American cruise missile as ordered by an Israeli operative masquerading as an American national security adviser, America starts a war against the Arabs and the Africans. When the Iraqi people are shocked and awed into kingdom come by the hundreds of thousands with an attack that was pre-planned by Jews calling themselves children of Holocaust survivors, America continues its war against the Arabs. When America bankrolls Israel, arms it and protects it from the consequences of its criminal activities at the Security Council with the veto, America thumbs its nose at the Arabs, the Africans and the whole world. And the list of examples goes on endlessly.
Furthermore, these are only the hot wars inflicted on the individuals that they maim and murder. In reality, the range of methods utilized to wage war against the Arabs and the Muslims is much larger than those examples would suggest. The fact is that a hot war is always preceded by a propaganda war which is fought in a manner so insidious, it neither shocks nor awes the observers who lack the training to understand its significance. But when the hot war explodes at the end of the propaganda war, the pieces fall into place and the public begins to understand what it was being led into. And it has been the role of the Israeli agents and the Jewish organizations in America to manage the propaganda campaigns that led to each and every military intervention undertaken by that country in the Middle East.
An example in this vein is the cry that then Prime Minister of Israel, Yitzhak Shamir let out in his Yiddish accent two or three decades ago when he visited America and blurted out: “Zey know nossing about za damacracy.” This was the cry that launched America into a suicidal quest to turn the Arabs into client states of Israel, to go broke and to die in the sands of the Middle East under the guise of democratizing the Arabs and the Muslims. Shamir’s cry was picked up by Israel’s agents in the American Congress, the media, some of the institutions of higher learning and the septic tanks that masquerade as think tanks. And all these characters and institutions participated in the refrain that made America kill Arabs of the Christian and Muslim faiths to carry out the most absurd of missions as ordered by the Jewish gods of America. And this is but one example on a list that goes on endlessly.
One recent example to come to my attention showing how a propaganda war presages the hot war is an editorial published in the Washington Post on January 4, 2010 under the title: “Free to speak out” in Egypt. The editorial is part of the insidious war that Israel and the Jewish organizations are now waging against Egypt to get the American Congress all riled up and push for a hot war against that country. And this would only be the beginning because the intention is to lead to a wider war against the Arabs, the Muslims and the Africans who refuse to bow to Israel and worship the Jews in the manner that the American people were taught to worship them by the pastors of the televised ministries.
Let us analyze that editorial and see how evil works when it works insidiously. The editorial begins by citing a question posed by a student to the American ambassador in Cairo: “What is the U.S. position on democracy in Egypt?” to which the ambassador replied: “In my time in Egypt, I have noticed that many Egyptians are very free to speak out. The press debates so many things." These were the words of Ambassador Margaret Scobey who is fluent in classical Arabic and is making good progress mastering the Egyptian colloquial.
Needless to say that the editorial writers at the Washington Post did not like the answer of the ambassador, and so they undertook to set the record straight the way things are done in the Talmudic style. The writers told the good woman what she ought to have noticed which would have entailed that she reject what she actually noticed. Then, in a typically cowardly manner, these same characters hid behind the young to make another point. The method they used here was to speculate, which they did like this: “The assembled students must have wondered if Ms. Scobey was talking about some other country.” Obviously, the Post had no one in Cairo to ask the students what they were thinking but this did not deter its editors from speculating that the students were puzzled as to which country the ambassador meant.
This mentality makes me wonder if the Washington Post characters gave themselves the right to ascribe thoughts to the students as much as they gave themselves the right to tell the ambassador what she ought to have noticed just because they worked for the causes of the godly Jews. If this is the case, I have news for the Post: I knew a Jew who feared and hated this mentality because it led to the misery and horror that Jews have suffered throughout the ages. The man used to say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions but the road to the incinerator is paved with the grand illusions of the little ignoramuses.
The editors at the Post go on to cite a few things about Egypt that do not amount to a hill of beans. For example, it happens everywhere that politicians would launch a lawsuit from time to time against the people who defame them. Even the royal family in Britain is forced to resort to this method so as to throw the chill factor at the sickly journalistic habit when things go too far. It happens in Egypt also that politicians launch a law suit at times against the practitioners of yellow journalism who defame them. And like everywhere else, the courts in Egypt usually rule in favor of the defendants. But to the editors of the Washington Post, the very fact that the suits are launched in Egypt is a sign that freedom of speech is curtailed there.
Sitting in their chairs in Washington DC, the people at the Post go on to mention an Egyptian dissident who is esteemed by them more than he is by the Egyptians who may have a cause in Egypt. For example, there is a problem in Egypt which exists everywhere else on the planet; it is called regional disparity. It is that when a country progresses, not all the regions progress at the same pace. The people who live in the regions that lag behind become dissatisfied with their situation and take their concerns to the politicians. If they fail to get satisfaction soon enough, they draw attention to their demands by going public.
It so happens that in Egypt parts of the South and parts of the Sinai have not developed as fast as the rest of the country. The people who live in those places organized themselves to make their concerns known to the government, the press and the rest of the country. All the while, to build a base for himself, the dissident mentioned by the Post tried to take up the cause of one group and then the other. When he got in touch with the organizing committees, the people welcomed him with open arms and invited him to speak at their gathering. Each time, however, something funny happened to the man. The moment he opened his mouth to discuss the cause he came to champion, the people judged him unfit to take it up or articulate it. And so, they politely told him what amounts to: “Hit the road Jack and don’t you come back no more.” These people must have been familiar with the hit songs of Ray Charles.
So, guess where the road took the guy after that. It took him somewhere in Europe where he associated himself with the likes of Anatoli Sharansky of Israel and George W. Bush of America to try and liberate Egypt the way that the Washington Post and the Jewish organizations want to liberate the Arabs, the Muslims and the parts of the world that do not yet worship the Jews the way they are worshiped in America. And to think that all these characters want to liberate the Egypt that has survived for 7000 years and has seen as many idiots come and go as there is sand in the Sahara Desert and defective neurons running the editorial board of the Washington post! This is so amazing I can only say: Get off your grand illusions, guys, and find something else to do because you were never meant to be in this line of work.
But what did the Bush people do after their man met with the Egyptian dissident? Well, we do not have to go too far to find the answer because it is right there in the infamous editorial we are discussing. This is how the writers of the pitiful rag put it: “…the Bush administration … pressed Arab governments for democratic change, and it made some headway in Egypt before retreating in its final years.” No reason was given as to why the Bush people retreated but I have news for the Post: Bush listened to the Jewish organizations and rushed to obey their command by sending people to Egypt to fix something that ain’t broke. When the people realized how idiotic their mission was, they reached the same conclusion that Ambassador Scobey did and they retreated, leaving it to the running dogs of Israel to bark their sorrows and shed their tears. By the way, running dogs is a holdover expression dating back to the cold war years and before.
The conclusion to draw here is not that there is a problem in Egypt because the country is governed by a sturdy, steady hand Egyptian but that there is a problem in America because the country is governed by weak traitors working for a foreign power that does not even amount to a hill of beans. And there is another serious point to be made here which is the following:
The Americans say they have the best system of governance because their founding fathers gave them the best constitution that the world has ever seen. And they assert that the glory of this constitution resides in the fact that it was instrumental in setting up a system of checks and balances which forbids anyone from abusing the political powers vested in them. Thus, bearing in mind that the United Nation is a super-structure that may someday seek to dominate the sovereign nations of the world including their country, the Americans resent that body and wish to see it disappear.
Indeed, the Americans point to the balancing act that goes on inside their own country which the Supreme Court is asked to deal with almost every year. The Court looks into the competing rights of the sovereign states as they regularly come into collision with the powers conferred on the federal government. And this preoccupation with the right to govern and to dominate the lives of people is what explains the antipathy that the Americans have for the European Union which they view as another super-structure already dominating the local jurisdictions of Europe. The Americans are just horrified by the thought that their country may someday be governed in the style of Europe.
But like they say, the proof is in the pudding. If it is true that an American style constitution is the best thing a country can have to defend it against domestic and foreign abusers of power, how come the Jewish organizations have in two generations succeeded in setting up a super-structure that has subjugated, indeed enslaved the American Congress, the Administration, the press, many of the institutions of higher learning and the two main political parties? Where have the aspiring liberators of the world gone when their own country is kept in shackles by a few Jewish organizations and a handful of individuals? Are the liberators so busy liberating the world that they have no time to liberate their own country? Or is it that they are using the pretext of liberation to bring the world to worship the Jews the way they do in America? Whose side are these liberators on, anyway?
Until the editors of the Washington Post can answer these questions without pouring out the usual nonsense, they should be reminded of one more thing. In view of the fact that America has not yet been around for 250 years while Egypt has been for 7000, they must not try to teach daddy how to make babies even if the godly Jews whisper in their ear that they have this obligation.
When a factory producing pharmaceuticals is blown up in Sudan by an American cruise missile as ordered by an Israeli operative masquerading as an American national security adviser, America starts a war against the Arabs and the Africans. When the Iraqi people are shocked and awed into kingdom come by the hundreds of thousands with an attack that was pre-planned by Jews calling themselves children of Holocaust survivors, America continues its war against the Arabs. When America bankrolls Israel, arms it and protects it from the consequences of its criminal activities at the Security Council with the veto, America thumbs its nose at the Arabs, the Africans and the whole world. And the list of examples goes on endlessly.
Furthermore, these are only the hot wars inflicted on the individuals that they maim and murder. In reality, the range of methods utilized to wage war against the Arabs and the Muslims is much larger than those examples would suggest. The fact is that a hot war is always preceded by a propaganda war which is fought in a manner so insidious, it neither shocks nor awes the observers who lack the training to understand its significance. But when the hot war explodes at the end of the propaganda war, the pieces fall into place and the public begins to understand what it was being led into. And it has been the role of the Israeli agents and the Jewish organizations in America to manage the propaganda campaigns that led to each and every military intervention undertaken by that country in the Middle East.
An example in this vein is the cry that then Prime Minister of Israel, Yitzhak Shamir let out in his Yiddish accent two or three decades ago when he visited America and blurted out: “Zey know nossing about za damacracy.” This was the cry that launched America into a suicidal quest to turn the Arabs into client states of Israel, to go broke and to die in the sands of the Middle East under the guise of democratizing the Arabs and the Muslims. Shamir’s cry was picked up by Israel’s agents in the American Congress, the media, some of the institutions of higher learning and the septic tanks that masquerade as think tanks. And all these characters and institutions participated in the refrain that made America kill Arabs of the Christian and Muslim faiths to carry out the most absurd of missions as ordered by the Jewish gods of America. And this is but one example on a list that goes on endlessly.
One recent example to come to my attention showing how a propaganda war presages the hot war is an editorial published in the Washington Post on January 4, 2010 under the title: “Free to speak out” in Egypt. The editorial is part of the insidious war that Israel and the Jewish organizations are now waging against Egypt to get the American Congress all riled up and push for a hot war against that country. And this would only be the beginning because the intention is to lead to a wider war against the Arabs, the Muslims and the Africans who refuse to bow to Israel and worship the Jews in the manner that the American people were taught to worship them by the pastors of the televised ministries.
Let us analyze that editorial and see how evil works when it works insidiously. The editorial begins by citing a question posed by a student to the American ambassador in Cairo: “What is the U.S. position on democracy in Egypt?” to which the ambassador replied: “In my time in Egypt, I have noticed that many Egyptians are very free to speak out. The press debates so many things." These were the words of Ambassador Margaret Scobey who is fluent in classical Arabic and is making good progress mastering the Egyptian colloquial.
Needless to say that the editorial writers at the Washington Post did not like the answer of the ambassador, and so they undertook to set the record straight the way things are done in the Talmudic style. The writers told the good woman what she ought to have noticed which would have entailed that she reject what she actually noticed. Then, in a typically cowardly manner, these same characters hid behind the young to make another point. The method they used here was to speculate, which they did like this: “The assembled students must have wondered if Ms. Scobey was talking about some other country.” Obviously, the Post had no one in Cairo to ask the students what they were thinking but this did not deter its editors from speculating that the students were puzzled as to which country the ambassador meant.
This mentality makes me wonder if the Washington Post characters gave themselves the right to ascribe thoughts to the students as much as they gave themselves the right to tell the ambassador what she ought to have noticed just because they worked for the causes of the godly Jews. If this is the case, I have news for the Post: I knew a Jew who feared and hated this mentality because it led to the misery and horror that Jews have suffered throughout the ages. The man used to say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions but the road to the incinerator is paved with the grand illusions of the little ignoramuses.
The editors at the Post go on to cite a few things about Egypt that do not amount to a hill of beans. For example, it happens everywhere that politicians would launch a lawsuit from time to time against the people who defame them. Even the royal family in Britain is forced to resort to this method so as to throw the chill factor at the sickly journalistic habit when things go too far. It happens in Egypt also that politicians launch a law suit at times against the practitioners of yellow journalism who defame them. And like everywhere else, the courts in Egypt usually rule in favor of the defendants. But to the editors of the Washington Post, the very fact that the suits are launched in Egypt is a sign that freedom of speech is curtailed there.
Sitting in their chairs in Washington DC, the people at the Post go on to mention an Egyptian dissident who is esteemed by them more than he is by the Egyptians who may have a cause in Egypt. For example, there is a problem in Egypt which exists everywhere else on the planet; it is called regional disparity. It is that when a country progresses, not all the regions progress at the same pace. The people who live in the regions that lag behind become dissatisfied with their situation and take their concerns to the politicians. If they fail to get satisfaction soon enough, they draw attention to their demands by going public.
It so happens that in Egypt parts of the South and parts of the Sinai have not developed as fast as the rest of the country. The people who live in those places organized themselves to make their concerns known to the government, the press and the rest of the country. All the while, to build a base for himself, the dissident mentioned by the Post tried to take up the cause of one group and then the other. When he got in touch with the organizing committees, the people welcomed him with open arms and invited him to speak at their gathering. Each time, however, something funny happened to the man. The moment he opened his mouth to discuss the cause he came to champion, the people judged him unfit to take it up or articulate it. And so, they politely told him what amounts to: “Hit the road Jack and don’t you come back no more.” These people must have been familiar with the hit songs of Ray Charles.
So, guess where the road took the guy after that. It took him somewhere in Europe where he associated himself with the likes of Anatoli Sharansky of Israel and George W. Bush of America to try and liberate Egypt the way that the Washington Post and the Jewish organizations want to liberate the Arabs, the Muslims and the parts of the world that do not yet worship the Jews the way they are worshiped in America. And to think that all these characters want to liberate the Egypt that has survived for 7000 years and has seen as many idiots come and go as there is sand in the Sahara Desert and defective neurons running the editorial board of the Washington post! This is so amazing I can only say: Get off your grand illusions, guys, and find something else to do because you were never meant to be in this line of work.
But what did the Bush people do after their man met with the Egyptian dissident? Well, we do not have to go too far to find the answer because it is right there in the infamous editorial we are discussing. This is how the writers of the pitiful rag put it: “…the Bush administration … pressed Arab governments for democratic change, and it made some headway in Egypt before retreating in its final years.” No reason was given as to why the Bush people retreated but I have news for the Post: Bush listened to the Jewish organizations and rushed to obey their command by sending people to Egypt to fix something that ain’t broke. When the people realized how idiotic their mission was, they reached the same conclusion that Ambassador Scobey did and they retreated, leaving it to the running dogs of Israel to bark their sorrows and shed their tears. By the way, running dogs is a holdover expression dating back to the cold war years and before.
The conclusion to draw here is not that there is a problem in Egypt because the country is governed by a sturdy, steady hand Egyptian but that there is a problem in America because the country is governed by weak traitors working for a foreign power that does not even amount to a hill of beans. And there is another serious point to be made here which is the following:
The Americans say they have the best system of governance because their founding fathers gave them the best constitution that the world has ever seen. And they assert that the glory of this constitution resides in the fact that it was instrumental in setting up a system of checks and balances which forbids anyone from abusing the political powers vested in them. Thus, bearing in mind that the United Nation is a super-structure that may someday seek to dominate the sovereign nations of the world including their country, the Americans resent that body and wish to see it disappear.
Indeed, the Americans point to the balancing act that goes on inside their own country which the Supreme Court is asked to deal with almost every year. The Court looks into the competing rights of the sovereign states as they regularly come into collision with the powers conferred on the federal government. And this preoccupation with the right to govern and to dominate the lives of people is what explains the antipathy that the Americans have for the European Union which they view as another super-structure already dominating the local jurisdictions of Europe. The Americans are just horrified by the thought that their country may someday be governed in the style of Europe.
But like they say, the proof is in the pudding. If it is true that an American style constitution is the best thing a country can have to defend it against domestic and foreign abusers of power, how come the Jewish organizations have in two generations succeeded in setting up a super-structure that has subjugated, indeed enslaved the American Congress, the Administration, the press, many of the institutions of higher learning and the two main political parties? Where have the aspiring liberators of the world gone when their own country is kept in shackles by a few Jewish organizations and a handful of individuals? Are the liberators so busy liberating the world that they have no time to liberate their own country? Or is it that they are using the pretext of liberation to bring the world to worship the Jews the way they do in America? Whose side are these liberators on, anyway?
Until the editors of the Washington Post can answer these questions without pouring out the usual nonsense, they should be reminded of one more thing. In view of the fact that America has not yet been around for 250 years while Egypt has been for 7000, they must not try to teach daddy how to make babies even if the godly Jews whisper in their ear that they have this obligation.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
The Made-up Evil And The Maker
In his December 10, 2009 speech on the occasion of receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, President Barack Obama of the United States of America said this: “…make no mistake: evil does exist in the world.” Beyond making a vague allusion to Hitler, the President made no attempt to discuss a method by which to identify that evil or a way to reduce its effectiveness once it has been identified. The following is an attempt to do just that.
Be they religious or something else, most philosophies subscribe to the idea that because there is sin in the world there must have been an original sin from which all sins derive. If you formulate this idea in a slightly different way, you could say that if there is evil in the world, there must have been an original evil from which all evils derive. And the logical thing to do after that is to try and identify this original evil then think of ways to reduce its ill effect on the world.
Generally speaking, to identify something you need to find out as much as you can about it so that you may define it properly. This done, you search for that which fits the definition you just worked out, and when satisfied that you have it, you call it by a name that describes it best. In this case, the name that suits the thing will have to be: Mother of all evil. You now search for ways to mitigate the efficiency of this mother, and you try to reduce the effectiveness of the evils that she spawns whatever form they take.
With this in mind, we ask: What did we observe that has beset the human condition in the worst possible way since the beginning of time? And we answer that we saw suffering everywhere then conclude that the forces responsible for this condition must be the ones that define evil most accurately. But we must also recognize that this is the simple answer because evil is a complex thing given that it takes many forms and manifests itself at different levels of virulence. Thus, our designation of those levels will dependent on the variables we encounter as we discover how deliberate the evil was and how artificial were the excuses that led to it.
A parable should help to illustrate these points. In trying to control a crowd of protesters, a policeman is said to have panicked and to have fired a shot that killed someone. It is further said that a few of the other policemen guarding the same crowd reflexively pulled the trigger and killed a number of protesters. The police department set up a panel to investigate the incident and has determined which of the policemen did fire their guns and which did not. But the panel failed to determine with absolute certainty which of those that fired the guns did kill and which did not. The panel then concluded that, in any case, the shootings were the result of involuntary reflexive responses on the part of the policemen, and it closed the file without holding someone responsible for anything.
On the surface, this incident appears to have been a tragedy that can happen to any society anywhere. But a subsequent independent investigation was able to prove beyond any doubt that the firing continued past the time that normally falls within the realm of the reflexive responses. Because this meant that some firing was done deliberately in order to kill, the tragedy came to be called a massacre by the public. The notion was planted in the mind of some observers that a great evil was committed, and each player in the tragedy was associated with a different level of the responsibility. Thus, the public assigned responsibilities in this order: The highest responsibility went to the state followed by the police department, the individual policemen that fired with the intention to kill and those that fired to frighten but not to kill.
To help them make the determination on a sound legal basis, the independent investigators raised two important questions and sought answers for them. First, why were the armed policemen deployed to control a crowd that was on the whole a peaceful one? Second, why did the policeman who fired the first shot panic and pull the trigger when he was dressed in full riot gear, protected by a shield and a mask as he faced a crowd that was unarmed?
Unable to connect the dots or to develop definitive answers, the investigators questioned the motivation behind the police department’s decision to send a massive force to control a peaceful crowd. In doing this, they extended the search to the department and to the government itself as they continued to investigate the individual policemen. Lucky for them, the breakthrough came when the government inadvertently rendered the incident easy to investigate. What happened was that in the wake of mounting criticisms, the government responded by unleashing a verbal offensive accusing the world of disregarding the predicament in which it finds itself. It complained of an existential threat that comes from the outside and another threat that comes from the inside both of which, it said, it had to deal with decisively.
Besides exposing the true motivation behind the government’s behavior, this response gave the investigators an inkling as to the degree to which the police department had been working hand in hand with the government to suppress the public protests. Looking at the facts from a fresh angle, the investigators deduced that a tacit understanding and a kind of shared operation existed between the government and the police department to achieve several goals simultaneously. For one thing, the intent behind this and the other operations was to terrorize the protesters to put an end to the protests that used to flare up once in a while. Also, the idea was to conduct the operations in such a way as to make it impossible to trace the acts of state terrorism to the police department or to any branch of the government. More importantly, the government wanted to be in a position to call the protesters terrorists thus hide the fact that it was itself the only terrorist entity around.
Indeed, a number of whistleblowers later came forward and told their individual stories which, when pieced together, painted a revolting picture in two parts: First, subtle means were used to incite ordinary people from among the public to start the protests and to lead them without let up no matter how badly the scenes developed. Second, the government employed professionals who trained the impressionable young policemen to respond harshly “on their own” when the public protests began. These policemen were also brainwashed into believing that they had the solemn duty to take the fall and say nothing if and when things went badly. And so, on that fateful day, the two parts of this diabolic scheme came together and worked so well that a number of innocent people were killed, and the government almost got away with it.
Another startling development happened when the world woke up one morning to the news that in the interest of moral clarity, a handful of other nations were standing by the murderous government, lending it full support and encouragement for fighting terrorism and for ridding the world of it. This development brought to light the fact that the clandestine operations were not only an internal operation carried out by the murderous government but were a massive plot that extended beyond the borders of the state.
In fact, using bribery and blackmail, the agents of the terrorist state were able to infiltrate the highest echelons of the world’s superpower. Once at the helm and in control of this much power, the agents arranged for money, weapons and political support to be transferred to their real government back home. Furthermore, they asked for and received the kind of backing that made it impossible to hold their government accountable in the world forums for the crimes against humanity it has been committing almost on a daily basis. Worse, those agents used the power, the prestige and the veto of the superpower to shift the blame onto the protesters whom they called terrorists when their own government was the quintessential terrorist state, and for that matter, the only remaining terrorist state on the planet.
Finally, consider this, dear reader: Anyone who is so driven as to work locally and work internationally to fend off a threat that starts in his own imagination and ends up being the obsession of his life must suffer from a delusion of grandeur that exhorts him to believe he was chosen to rule the world. Sooner or later it will happen that this stance will prompt a would-be rival to challenge him at his game. And when the duel begins between these two, the clock will start to tick and thus announce the coming of the next apocalypse. This is how the cycle of “evil begets evil” has gone on for ages, and this is how it continues to go on even now. And it is that delusion of grandeur which defines the mother of all evil, the original evil we set out to discover and to identify at the beginning.
Let us now get back to the speech of President Obama. Like the man remarked, we can say that yes, evil does exist in the world. But we must add that evil is an ideology practiced by those who hijacked a defunct religion once called Judaism and renamed Zionism. Hitler who was also deluded by his own style of fantasies toyed with the idea of grandeur but, like the sorcerer’s apprentice in Goethe’s poem, he got his act all wrong to end up being deluged by what he feared the most. This happened because, as it he turned out, Hitler was only the made-up evil and not the all powerful maker of evil. On the other hand, the Zionists whose ideology keeps producing the Hitlers of the world, are getting away with butchering the people of Palestine, a policy they have adopted to clear the land of its inhabitants and set up an evil empire which has been a Zionist dream for as long as half the recorded history of mankind.
In their quest to achieve their repugnant objectives, the Zionists have infiltrated the superpower that is America of which Mr. Obama is President. And that is where they have managed to make it possible for themselves and their cohorts to continue the pursuit of the most abominable of crimes against humanity unhindered by any checks or balances. And there lies the irony of Mr. Obama’s speech in which he affirmed the existence of evil but failed to mention that his country was the food upon which that evil sustains itself and gets fortified.
Thus, if the President wants to rid the world of the evil that is gripping it, he should talk to his people and explain how he plans to free his country and theirs of the evil influence to which the country has surrendered. Failing this, he should go before a world forum and ask for help after admitting that America the superpower has been taken over by ideologues whose ideology was formed nearly four thousand years before Hitler was even a sperm in his father’s testicles. With nothing left to restrain them, these ideologues have paralyzed the country with venom so powerful it keeps the superpower completely incapacitated. And this is why he needs the assistance of everyone in the world to save his country and save the world.
This is the first installment in a trilogy relating to Mr. Obama’s speech. The next two installments will appear from time to time over the coming weeks.
Be they religious or something else, most philosophies subscribe to the idea that because there is sin in the world there must have been an original sin from which all sins derive. If you formulate this idea in a slightly different way, you could say that if there is evil in the world, there must have been an original evil from which all evils derive. And the logical thing to do after that is to try and identify this original evil then think of ways to reduce its ill effect on the world.
Generally speaking, to identify something you need to find out as much as you can about it so that you may define it properly. This done, you search for that which fits the definition you just worked out, and when satisfied that you have it, you call it by a name that describes it best. In this case, the name that suits the thing will have to be: Mother of all evil. You now search for ways to mitigate the efficiency of this mother, and you try to reduce the effectiveness of the evils that she spawns whatever form they take.
With this in mind, we ask: What did we observe that has beset the human condition in the worst possible way since the beginning of time? And we answer that we saw suffering everywhere then conclude that the forces responsible for this condition must be the ones that define evil most accurately. But we must also recognize that this is the simple answer because evil is a complex thing given that it takes many forms and manifests itself at different levels of virulence. Thus, our designation of those levels will dependent on the variables we encounter as we discover how deliberate the evil was and how artificial were the excuses that led to it.
A parable should help to illustrate these points. In trying to control a crowd of protesters, a policeman is said to have panicked and to have fired a shot that killed someone. It is further said that a few of the other policemen guarding the same crowd reflexively pulled the trigger and killed a number of protesters. The police department set up a panel to investigate the incident and has determined which of the policemen did fire their guns and which did not. But the panel failed to determine with absolute certainty which of those that fired the guns did kill and which did not. The panel then concluded that, in any case, the shootings were the result of involuntary reflexive responses on the part of the policemen, and it closed the file without holding someone responsible for anything.
On the surface, this incident appears to have been a tragedy that can happen to any society anywhere. But a subsequent independent investigation was able to prove beyond any doubt that the firing continued past the time that normally falls within the realm of the reflexive responses. Because this meant that some firing was done deliberately in order to kill, the tragedy came to be called a massacre by the public. The notion was planted in the mind of some observers that a great evil was committed, and each player in the tragedy was associated with a different level of the responsibility. Thus, the public assigned responsibilities in this order: The highest responsibility went to the state followed by the police department, the individual policemen that fired with the intention to kill and those that fired to frighten but not to kill.
To help them make the determination on a sound legal basis, the independent investigators raised two important questions and sought answers for them. First, why were the armed policemen deployed to control a crowd that was on the whole a peaceful one? Second, why did the policeman who fired the first shot panic and pull the trigger when he was dressed in full riot gear, protected by a shield and a mask as he faced a crowd that was unarmed?
Unable to connect the dots or to develop definitive answers, the investigators questioned the motivation behind the police department’s decision to send a massive force to control a peaceful crowd. In doing this, they extended the search to the department and to the government itself as they continued to investigate the individual policemen. Lucky for them, the breakthrough came when the government inadvertently rendered the incident easy to investigate. What happened was that in the wake of mounting criticisms, the government responded by unleashing a verbal offensive accusing the world of disregarding the predicament in which it finds itself. It complained of an existential threat that comes from the outside and another threat that comes from the inside both of which, it said, it had to deal with decisively.
Besides exposing the true motivation behind the government’s behavior, this response gave the investigators an inkling as to the degree to which the police department had been working hand in hand with the government to suppress the public protests. Looking at the facts from a fresh angle, the investigators deduced that a tacit understanding and a kind of shared operation existed between the government and the police department to achieve several goals simultaneously. For one thing, the intent behind this and the other operations was to terrorize the protesters to put an end to the protests that used to flare up once in a while. Also, the idea was to conduct the operations in such a way as to make it impossible to trace the acts of state terrorism to the police department or to any branch of the government. More importantly, the government wanted to be in a position to call the protesters terrorists thus hide the fact that it was itself the only terrorist entity around.
Indeed, a number of whistleblowers later came forward and told their individual stories which, when pieced together, painted a revolting picture in two parts: First, subtle means were used to incite ordinary people from among the public to start the protests and to lead them without let up no matter how badly the scenes developed. Second, the government employed professionals who trained the impressionable young policemen to respond harshly “on their own” when the public protests began. These policemen were also brainwashed into believing that they had the solemn duty to take the fall and say nothing if and when things went badly. And so, on that fateful day, the two parts of this diabolic scheme came together and worked so well that a number of innocent people were killed, and the government almost got away with it.
Another startling development happened when the world woke up one morning to the news that in the interest of moral clarity, a handful of other nations were standing by the murderous government, lending it full support and encouragement for fighting terrorism and for ridding the world of it. This development brought to light the fact that the clandestine operations were not only an internal operation carried out by the murderous government but were a massive plot that extended beyond the borders of the state.
In fact, using bribery and blackmail, the agents of the terrorist state were able to infiltrate the highest echelons of the world’s superpower. Once at the helm and in control of this much power, the agents arranged for money, weapons and political support to be transferred to their real government back home. Furthermore, they asked for and received the kind of backing that made it impossible to hold their government accountable in the world forums for the crimes against humanity it has been committing almost on a daily basis. Worse, those agents used the power, the prestige and the veto of the superpower to shift the blame onto the protesters whom they called terrorists when their own government was the quintessential terrorist state, and for that matter, the only remaining terrorist state on the planet.
Finally, consider this, dear reader: Anyone who is so driven as to work locally and work internationally to fend off a threat that starts in his own imagination and ends up being the obsession of his life must suffer from a delusion of grandeur that exhorts him to believe he was chosen to rule the world. Sooner or later it will happen that this stance will prompt a would-be rival to challenge him at his game. And when the duel begins between these two, the clock will start to tick and thus announce the coming of the next apocalypse. This is how the cycle of “evil begets evil” has gone on for ages, and this is how it continues to go on even now. And it is that delusion of grandeur which defines the mother of all evil, the original evil we set out to discover and to identify at the beginning.
Let us now get back to the speech of President Obama. Like the man remarked, we can say that yes, evil does exist in the world. But we must add that evil is an ideology practiced by those who hijacked a defunct religion once called Judaism and renamed Zionism. Hitler who was also deluded by his own style of fantasies toyed with the idea of grandeur but, like the sorcerer’s apprentice in Goethe’s poem, he got his act all wrong to end up being deluged by what he feared the most. This happened because, as it he turned out, Hitler was only the made-up evil and not the all powerful maker of evil. On the other hand, the Zionists whose ideology keeps producing the Hitlers of the world, are getting away with butchering the people of Palestine, a policy they have adopted to clear the land of its inhabitants and set up an evil empire which has been a Zionist dream for as long as half the recorded history of mankind.
In their quest to achieve their repugnant objectives, the Zionists have infiltrated the superpower that is America of which Mr. Obama is President. And that is where they have managed to make it possible for themselves and their cohorts to continue the pursuit of the most abominable of crimes against humanity unhindered by any checks or balances. And there lies the irony of Mr. Obama’s speech in which he affirmed the existence of evil but failed to mention that his country was the food upon which that evil sustains itself and gets fortified.
Thus, if the President wants to rid the world of the evil that is gripping it, he should talk to his people and explain how he plans to free his country and theirs of the evil influence to which the country has surrendered. Failing this, he should go before a world forum and ask for help after admitting that America the superpower has been taken over by ideologues whose ideology was formed nearly four thousand years before Hitler was even a sperm in his father’s testicles. With nothing left to restrain them, these ideologues have paralyzed the country with venom so powerful it keeps the superpower completely incapacitated. And this is why he needs the assistance of everyone in the world to save his country and save the world.
This is the first installment in a trilogy relating to Mr. Obama’s speech. The next two installments will appear from time to time over the coming weeks.
Friday, January 1, 2010
The New And Disproved Jewish Narrative
To those who follow the teachings of the Talmud, foremost among them being the rabbis, adapting the old concept of Jewish supremacy to the contemporary scene is of utmost importance because without it, they cannot hold together the narrative that will appeal to the people they wish to influence and bring into the belief that the Jews are a people so exceptional, they stand superior to all the other races and other religions.
What is most vexing about this style of narrative is that it relies as much on putting down the “other” as it does on self-aggrandizement. The Yiddish language which is not really a language but a compendium of insults, calumny and defamations is the iconic offshoot of this mentality. Those who speak it use it to defame everyone else while those who do not speak it concoct a similar construct in the other languages and use that for the same purpose. And all this effort is aimed at establishing what has come to be viewed as a demonic form of political rule appropriately called Jewmocracy. This name was given to the rule when it was discovered that its invention was meant to fool the good people of the earth into converting to the worship of the Jews as a form of political suasion. Powered by the belief that every Jew is a God in his or her own right, many people succumbed to the ritual of sucking up to them whether or not they expected to get something in return.
It is therefore not surprising that in pushing America to hang itself in Iraq then do the same in Afghanistan, the followers of the Talmud came up with successive reasons for the invasion of Iraq and for the return to Afghanistan. The reasons they gave for starting the Iraq adventure filled the gamut from the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in that country to the need to transform the Arab world into an Anglo-Saxon style Jewmocracy. As for the reasons to leave Afghanistan then return to it, the excuses they gave ranged from the completion of the mission in Iraq to the folly of neglecting Afghanistan to the need to liberate the women of that country the same way that the feminists are said to have liberated the women of America.
But having succeeded in dragging America into all those misadventures, what do you do for an encore if you are a dedicated Talmudist and you want to do more for the causes you are championing? Simple, you choose the path of least resistance which is to drag America into another misadventure. And this means you must stitch together a whole new narrative. To this end, you rake your brains long enough until you get lucky and remember that before you recruited the Christian hoaxers of the televised church to do the dirty work for you, you were blaming Christianity for the persecutions that the Jews have suffered throughout the ages. Aware of the fact that the Christians held you responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus, you considered Christmas, which is His birthday, to be a sad day for you and your kind not a day for celebration. And so you fought savagely to do away with Christmas.
As the thing turned out, however, your plan was met with stiff resistance from the good people of the Christian faith who refused to part with their most cherished of traditions. And so you thought to yourself that in the same way you succeeded in making the characters of the televised church teach their flocks you are the new God of America and the Western Jewmocracies, you must now succeed at using Christmas like a tool to stir up and wrench the guts of the Christians whenever you can. You will make these people hate the Muslims, hate the Christian Arabs, and hate everything and everyone that is not dedicated to the glory of Israel and to all the Jewish causes. And voila, you will have put down the foundation for a new narrative which will fit nicely with the contemporary scene and help you implement your demonic scheme. How do you say Eureka in Yiddish!
To put your plan into action, you mobilize the network of agents you have planted in the Jewmocracies of the world especially the English speaking ones, and you instruct them to come up with stories that speak of the hardship which the Christians have encountered at the hands of those god-awful Muslims as the good Christians tried to celebrate what you now call the wonderful day of Christmas. But as your agents get busy fabricating the lies that will perpetuate your brand of hypocrisy, you must remember to instruct them that they must be careful not to lead their audiences by accident to a truth they may not even know exists.
And the truth is that the Christian leaders of Palestine, both Arab and non-Arab, got together and wrote a document they called “Kairos Palestine-2009: A moment of truth.” In it, they appeal to Christians everywhere to wake up and pay attention to the dismal way that Israel treats the Palestinian people and treats the holy places in occupied Palestine. The religious leaders of Palestine sent a copy of the document to all the churches in the world, including the televised churches where the flocks are told to worship the Jews as their gods, in addition to viewing Israel as heaven on earth and to seeing the Palestinians as terrorists. And why were the Palestinians so savagely defamed? Because they refused to move over and cede the place to the converts that are brought into the Judaic fold by the low life preachers of the tube. This is more than the dismal treatment of people; it is a crime against humanity.
But there is a twist in this saga that we must not overlook. Being the ones who taught the low life preachers the nonsense they spew every Sunday, the Talmudists knew they could not trust these characters to do the right thing without further instruction. And so they instructed them to shut the hell up and let the professionally trained agents in the media handle the matter with the finesse that it requires.
And the matter is that these agents must now come up with a contemporary narrative that will use Christmas as a tool to help them drag America into another misadventure in the Arab and/or Muslim world. To accomplish this feat via the Yiddish method which is their preferred way to operate, the agents will throw insults, calumny and defamations at the people they set out to destroy while getting everyone under their influence to create the appropriate background noise that will accompany their activities. In this way, they will all stir up and wrench the guts of the gullible Americans, and will get them to adopt the Judeo-Israeli mentality of killing the innocent for the glory of Israel and for all the Jewish causes.
But will the plan work? Some people say it will work because it has been so nicely orchestrated up to now. And there is no doubt in the mind of these people that everything will fall into place on time and on cue. And when all is said and done, and the plan will have accomplished what it set out to accomplish, the planners will cover their tracks as neatly as they have orchestrated the scheme. And there is no reason to think they will fail in this endeavor because they never failed in similar endeavors before. After all, they have managed to convince a gullible world that the Protocol of the Elders of Zion was a fake document because the Jews never had elders who thought they were of Zion, let alone elders who wrote a protocol advocating the takeover of the world. Thus, in the same way that the old planners left no paper trail that was authentic enough to be traced to them, we must assume that the new planners will do the same thing and succeed.
But there lies a false assumption because we now live in the age of information; and when you live in this age, the thing you do meticulously is record the information that is generated at every moment. In fact, this is the age where everything about everyone is recorded and left for posterity not just because people are fascinated by each others’ antics but because everyone is fascinated by their own antics. As for those who appoint themselves to lead the Jews, they have the added handicap of believing that their work is inspired by God and must, therefore, be given a prominent place in the great Hall of the Antics. Thus, the correct assumption to make is that the deniers of the Protocol will not be able to deny the Scheme which was put together by the Jewish organizations to take over the world by taking control of America. Indeed, it will be easier for someone to deny the Holocaust than for them to deny the Scheme.
Still, in a world that is made of billions of individuals, opinions are generated on every topic and they fall into several categories; and this topic is no exception. Moreover, lost among the multitude of categories, there exists at least one group of people who prefer to sound the alarm and let the innocent Jews know what their self-appointed leaders are doing in their name. Being a member of this group, I can testify that the intention here is to have the ordinary Jews rise up and tell the charlatans that enough is enough, and take control of their own destiny. What I and the other people are battling, however, is a group that believes the Final Solution is a welcome thing as much as it is inevitable. And so, these people want to speed up the process by giving the Jewish leaders all the rope they want to hang the little people they pretend to protect. And this being the age of information where nothing will be lost to posterity, no one will be able to claim that the “Jews” did nothing to merit the punishment which was heaped on them given that everything will be in the record. Not only that, but the record will show that the punishment was brought on them by those who knew exactly what they were doing as they were warned beforehand.
And then there is a group of Jewish leaders who derive comfort from the thought that they can get the gullible suckers in the media and elsewhere to do the dirty work for them while they remain in hiding. But what this group does not understand is that when something is not orchestrated, it falls into a pattern that is recognized as being random. Thus, when a number of things happen and they do not fit the random pattern, they reveal not only that a hand was behind them but also give clues as to the identity of that hand. A little more investigation will then determine whose hand that was. And what these characters are doing is so relentless and ubiquitous nothing can scramble it enough to make it look random. In short, these people will not escape their fate and will be hunted down like they hunted the Nazi criminals.
In consequence of all this, the savage media blitz of sick lies that was made to explode this Christmas season to harm the Muslims and the Christian Arabs is something that will undoubtedly affect the intended victims but the blitz will also help to speed up the advent of the Final Solution because savage media blitzes of sick lies are the stuff that final solutions are made to stamp out. And this solution will not come at the hand of the Muslims or the Arab Christians who are by nature a forgiving lot, but will come at the hands that hand the hanging rope to the Jewish leaders.
You have been warned, people. Don’t come and cry on my shoulder when it happens.
What is most vexing about this style of narrative is that it relies as much on putting down the “other” as it does on self-aggrandizement. The Yiddish language which is not really a language but a compendium of insults, calumny and defamations is the iconic offshoot of this mentality. Those who speak it use it to defame everyone else while those who do not speak it concoct a similar construct in the other languages and use that for the same purpose. And all this effort is aimed at establishing what has come to be viewed as a demonic form of political rule appropriately called Jewmocracy. This name was given to the rule when it was discovered that its invention was meant to fool the good people of the earth into converting to the worship of the Jews as a form of political suasion. Powered by the belief that every Jew is a God in his or her own right, many people succumbed to the ritual of sucking up to them whether or not they expected to get something in return.
It is therefore not surprising that in pushing America to hang itself in Iraq then do the same in Afghanistan, the followers of the Talmud came up with successive reasons for the invasion of Iraq and for the return to Afghanistan. The reasons they gave for starting the Iraq adventure filled the gamut from the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in that country to the need to transform the Arab world into an Anglo-Saxon style Jewmocracy. As for the reasons to leave Afghanistan then return to it, the excuses they gave ranged from the completion of the mission in Iraq to the folly of neglecting Afghanistan to the need to liberate the women of that country the same way that the feminists are said to have liberated the women of America.
But having succeeded in dragging America into all those misadventures, what do you do for an encore if you are a dedicated Talmudist and you want to do more for the causes you are championing? Simple, you choose the path of least resistance which is to drag America into another misadventure. And this means you must stitch together a whole new narrative. To this end, you rake your brains long enough until you get lucky and remember that before you recruited the Christian hoaxers of the televised church to do the dirty work for you, you were blaming Christianity for the persecutions that the Jews have suffered throughout the ages. Aware of the fact that the Christians held you responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus, you considered Christmas, which is His birthday, to be a sad day for you and your kind not a day for celebration. And so you fought savagely to do away with Christmas.
As the thing turned out, however, your plan was met with stiff resistance from the good people of the Christian faith who refused to part with their most cherished of traditions. And so you thought to yourself that in the same way you succeeded in making the characters of the televised church teach their flocks you are the new God of America and the Western Jewmocracies, you must now succeed at using Christmas like a tool to stir up and wrench the guts of the Christians whenever you can. You will make these people hate the Muslims, hate the Christian Arabs, and hate everything and everyone that is not dedicated to the glory of Israel and to all the Jewish causes. And voila, you will have put down the foundation for a new narrative which will fit nicely with the contemporary scene and help you implement your demonic scheme. How do you say Eureka in Yiddish!
To put your plan into action, you mobilize the network of agents you have planted in the Jewmocracies of the world especially the English speaking ones, and you instruct them to come up with stories that speak of the hardship which the Christians have encountered at the hands of those god-awful Muslims as the good Christians tried to celebrate what you now call the wonderful day of Christmas. But as your agents get busy fabricating the lies that will perpetuate your brand of hypocrisy, you must remember to instruct them that they must be careful not to lead their audiences by accident to a truth they may not even know exists.
And the truth is that the Christian leaders of Palestine, both Arab and non-Arab, got together and wrote a document they called “Kairos Palestine-2009: A moment of truth.” In it, they appeal to Christians everywhere to wake up and pay attention to the dismal way that Israel treats the Palestinian people and treats the holy places in occupied Palestine. The religious leaders of Palestine sent a copy of the document to all the churches in the world, including the televised churches where the flocks are told to worship the Jews as their gods, in addition to viewing Israel as heaven on earth and to seeing the Palestinians as terrorists. And why were the Palestinians so savagely defamed? Because they refused to move over and cede the place to the converts that are brought into the Judaic fold by the low life preachers of the tube. This is more than the dismal treatment of people; it is a crime against humanity.
But there is a twist in this saga that we must not overlook. Being the ones who taught the low life preachers the nonsense they spew every Sunday, the Talmudists knew they could not trust these characters to do the right thing without further instruction. And so they instructed them to shut the hell up and let the professionally trained agents in the media handle the matter with the finesse that it requires.
And the matter is that these agents must now come up with a contemporary narrative that will use Christmas as a tool to help them drag America into another misadventure in the Arab and/or Muslim world. To accomplish this feat via the Yiddish method which is their preferred way to operate, the agents will throw insults, calumny and defamations at the people they set out to destroy while getting everyone under their influence to create the appropriate background noise that will accompany their activities. In this way, they will all stir up and wrench the guts of the gullible Americans, and will get them to adopt the Judeo-Israeli mentality of killing the innocent for the glory of Israel and for all the Jewish causes.
But will the plan work? Some people say it will work because it has been so nicely orchestrated up to now. And there is no doubt in the mind of these people that everything will fall into place on time and on cue. And when all is said and done, and the plan will have accomplished what it set out to accomplish, the planners will cover their tracks as neatly as they have orchestrated the scheme. And there is no reason to think they will fail in this endeavor because they never failed in similar endeavors before. After all, they have managed to convince a gullible world that the Protocol of the Elders of Zion was a fake document because the Jews never had elders who thought they were of Zion, let alone elders who wrote a protocol advocating the takeover of the world. Thus, in the same way that the old planners left no paper trail that was authentic enough to be traced to them, we must assume that the new planners will do the same thing and succeed.
But there lies a false assumption because we now live in the age of information; and when you live in this age, the thing you do meticulously is record the information that is generated at every moment. In fact, this is the age where everything about everyone is recorded and left for posterity not just because people are fascinated by each others’ antics but because everyone is fascinated by their own antics. As for those who appoint themselves to lead the Jews, they have the added handicap of believing that their work is inspired by God and must, therefore, be given a prominent place in the great Hall of the Antics. Thus, the correct assumption to make is that the deniers of the Protocol will not be able to deny the Scheme which was put together by the Jewish organizations to take over the world by taking control of America. Indeed, it will be easier for someone to deny the Holocaust than for them to deny the Scheme.
Still, in a world that is made of billions of individuals, opinions are generated on every topic and they fall into several categories; and this topic is no exception. Moreover, lost among the multitude of categories, there exists at least one group of people who prefer to sound the alarm and let the innocent Jews know what their self-appointed leaders are doing in their name. Being a member of this group, I can testify that the intention here is to have the ordinary Jews rise up and tell the charlatans that enough is enough, and take control of their own destiny. What I and the other people are battling, however, is a group that believes the Final Solution is a welcome thing as much as it is inevitable. And so, these people want to speed up the process by giving the Jewish leaders all the rope they want to hang the little people they pretend to protect. And this being the age of information where nothing will be lost to posterity, no one will be able to claim that the “Jews” did nothing to merit the punishment which was heaped on them given that everything will be in the record. Not only that, but the record will show that the punishment was brought on them by those who knew exactly what they were doing as they were warned beforehand.
And then there is a group of Jewish leaders who derive comfort from the thought that they can get the gullible suckers in the media and elsewhere to do the dirty work for them while they remain in hiding. But what this group does not understand is that when something is not orchestrated, it falls into a pattern that is recognized as being random. Thus, when a number of things happen and they do not fit the random pattern, they reveal not only that a hand was behind them but also give clues as to the identity of that hand. A little more investigation will then determine whose hand that was. And what these characters are doing is so relentless and ubiquitous nothing can scramble it enough to make it look random. In short, these people will not escape their fate and will be hunted down like they hunted the Nazi criminals.
In consequence of all this, the savage media blitz of sick lies that was made to explode this Christmas season to harm the Muslims and the Christian Arabs is something that will undoubtedly affect the intended victims but the blitz will also help to speed up the advent of the Final Solution because savage media blitzes of sick lies are the stuff that final solutions are made to stamp out. And this solution will not come at the hand of the Muslims or the Arab Christians who are by nature a forgiving lot, but will come at the hands that hand the hanging rope to the Jewish leaders.
You have been warned, people. Don’t come and cry on my shoulder when it happens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)