Writing about the people who spoke unkindly about the choice
of Paul Ryan to run as Vice President on the same ticket with Mitt Romney, the
editors at the Wall Street Journal said the following in an August 30, 2012
editorial: “Go back to the videotape for the August 12 Sunday talk shows. Many
Republicans – some in Mr. Romney's own campaign – said the same thing sotto
voce.” So far so good, but then they added the following between brackets: (We
know who you are.)
And this is where the editors of the Journal crossed the
line, employing as they did what would ordinarily have been considered a
warning. But given the proven criminal behavior of the editors in at least one
of Rupert Murdoch's publications in Britain , the warning that is in
this Murdoch publication will undoubtedly be considered a full blown threat by
the people for whom it was intended. These people will be justified in fearing
the worst, and thus be inhibited from exercising their democratic right to speak
freely; perhaps even inhibited from exercising their right to vote for the
candidate of their choice or refraining from voting at all if that were their
choice.
The editorial in question came under the title: “The Ryan
Difference” and the subtitle: “Romney's veep choice has lifted his campaign.”
Further down that opinion piece comes this passage: “Liberals and the reporters
they dine with still can't bring themselves to believe … they and the press
corps refuses to admit...” This may be the first time that the Journal has
openly attacked reporters -- be they Liberal or otherwise -- but the habit of
attacking the “mainstream media” which they accuse of being Liberal has been
the steady diet offered by its sister television network, Fox News.
In fact, from early morning to late at night, you hear and
see nothing but whining and whining and whining, in show after show after show,
hosted by anchor after anchor after anchor, inviting guest after guest after
guest to come and moan and moan and moan about nothing and then nothing and
still more nothing but the sins of the people in the mainstream media who do
not see things the way that they see them. Were it not for the moments of comic
relief that break the monotony, it would be like spending a day watching a
sewer pipe discharge into a pond of human and animal excrement.
Luckily, there come the moments of comic relief – usually
around the middle of the day – when you see a dazzling performance of what can
only be described as the media version of the Salome Dance. This was originally
an ancient Hebrew ritual that was meant to entertain the audience with the use
of a very seductive woman performing a highly erotic dance for an atrocious
king that did not deserve what she was offering. This sort of a setting was the
secret the ancients employed to encourage the men in the audience to lust after
the dancer who pushed them to the point of frenzied excitement.
The modern electronic version, performed as it is on Fox
News, consists of inviting on a daily basis a stone-faced Israeli, or the
American Jew that used to represent the United States at the United Nations
-- now living on a stipend of fifty million taxpayer dollars a year -- to play
the role of the unattractive king. Far from being as sexually seductive as her
ancient counterpart, the Salome of the boob tube does not introduce the guest
right away but tells the audience early on about his upcoming appearance. She
then proclaims one “news alert” after another, which is the way she performs
the seductive dance. This keeps the viewers interested in the show till the
king appears and bores the hell out of them as he tells for the millionth time
that Iran
is a place so bad it should be wiped off the face of the Earth.
And guess what, my dear friend; the Wall Street Journal too
has its version of the Salome Dance. It may not appear to every viewer as being
seductive like the television version but then again, it was not meant to be.
In fact, it was never meant to address a general audience but meant to address
a more “mature” one given that a portion of its content is made of elements
reflecting a sado-masochistic culture. You can see this clearly in the
editorial that appeared on August 31, 2012 under the title “Why Israel Doesn't
Trust Obama” and the subtitle: “The U.S.
is harder on its ally than on Iran 's
nuclear program.”
What caused the editors of the Journal to write that
editorial was a remark made by General Martin Dempsey who is Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of the American Armed Forces. He was giving a response to a
question posed by a journalist; and he did it as normally as would a military
man accustomed to honesty, integrity and discipline. Yet, the Journal editors
had the gall at the end of the editorial to describe the journalistic encounter
this way: “We don't know what motivated Gen. Dempsey's outburst.”
Outburst, they call it? Who the (bleep) do they think they
are? Who do they think the General is? Their boy? Netanyahu's boy? Hey, wake up
little boys of the beastly Journal. America
is your country; Israel
is only the leach that feeds on it. Obama is your President; Rupert Murdoch is
not even your boss -- the shareholders of the corporation that owns the Journal
and owns Fox News are your bosses. And they include people who do not see the
world the way that you do or that Murdoch does.
Furthermore, instead of applauding the General for his
stance, the editors from Hell tried to go over his head by counseling that: “a
President who really had Israel 's
back would publicly (that's publicly) contradict it.” Get a load of this, my friends;
they want a public rebuke of the General by the President, his commander in
chief. And they want this done because it is what Israel wants. And what Israel also
wants is that it never be talked to or talked about in public (that's in
public) except to praise it -- never to hint at a disagreement with it or to
rebuke it. Nuts. Once more that's nuts.
What motivated the General's outburst (as they call it) is
not the only thing they say they don't know. They also profess not to “know
what exactly Gen. Dempsey thinks American non-complicity might entail in the
event of a strike.” Well, my friend, it is a good thing they inserted the word
“exactly” in there because if they had not done so, I would have told them what
it meant, and there would have been enough bleeps in what I wrote to embarrass
even Clint Eastwood.
The editors go on to play the speculation game as to what
the General may have wished to communicate, then write this: “Whatever the
case, the remarks were counterproductive and oddly timed.” And this is a crude
example of the Jewish superstitious mentality that sees a conspiracy behind the
timing of every event. It is as if they wanted to say someone or some
supernatural force has conspired to bring about two events which, in concert,
hurt Israel
and the Jews more than they would have if each event had occurred at a
different time.
What demonstrates the extent to which the masochistic
penchant has been inculcated in the American journalists, be they Jewish,
Catholic or Protestant, appears in the last paragraph as well as the two
paragraphs that lead up to it. Just before asking the President to publicly
rebuke the General, they say this: “Since coming to office, Obama
Administration policy toward Israel
has alternated between animus and incompetence.” It is bad enough to insult
their President calling him incompetent; to do so after saying he has his head
in the sand because he refuses to send America 's
children to die for Israel ,
is to express a masochism that is pushed to the level of criminal insanity.
And they don't stop here. They employ arguments by which
they attempt to justify the criminal blackmail that Israel
and her mouthpieces in America
have grumbled about for almost a year now. It is that they have been warning America that Israel
will launch a raid on Iran
just before the American election so as to commit an act of suicide that will
force President Obama to come to the rescue or be labeled the American
President who allowed the Israelis to provoke their ultimate holocaust and
perish in it.
And this is how the Journal has formulated that
justification: “The irony … is why many Israeli decision-makers believe they
had better strike … Not only is there waning confidence … there's also a fear
that a re-elected President Obama will take a much harsher line … than he would
before the first Tuesday in November.” It is masochism through and through, and
they are making the American electoral tradition a part of it.
Then, the guys at the Journal do something that is truly
bizarre. They say this: “If Gen. Dempsey or Administration officials really
wanted to avert an Israeli strike, they would seek to reassure Jerusalem ...” Jerusalem , they say? This is the capital of Palestine . Why is there a
need to drag the Palestinians into this? Crazy, mad, sick and really bizarre.
These guys are not
only masochistic, they are also a schizophrenic bunch. And this is what makes
of Rupert Murdoch the out-of-control Australian Jew in America that he
is.
He demonstrated he
was a dangerous thing for Britain
and was called to account for what he did there. Will he now face the same
music in America ?