Two articles published on September 13, 2013 represent the
human condition at this time in that they tell the story of an ongoing battle
between good and evil. Representing the good is the article written by Michael
Ignatieff, published in the New York Times under the title: “The Duty to
Protect, Still Urgent”. Representing evil is the article written by Claudia
Rosett, published in National Review Online under the title: “Syria's Pals at
the Chemical Weapons Convention” and the subtitle: “The treaty, 'neither
verifiable nor enforceable,' will protect Assad, not his potential victims.”
On the one hand, you have a member of the International
Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), Michael Ignatieff who
wants to do what is good for humanity. On the other hand, you have a fanatic
disciple of Dracula, Claudia Rosett, who says that to do good for humanity; you
must give to Dracula all existing keys to the blood bank, and make sure that no
one else has a duplicate key. Ignatieff who had at least one encounter with
Dracula still does not seem convinced that the bloodsucker and his disciples
are evil, completely evil and nothing but evil, which is how and why the people
who would be denied access to the bank, find themselves locked in a battle
against Dracula and his disciples.
The Ignatieff article is a lament about the difficulties of
getting the ICISS report implemented. He discusses in detail the obstacles that
have been erected in what are still referred to as the democracies. What he
does not say, however, is who are responsible for erecting those obstacles. As
to Rosett, she does not help in this area directly but does so indirectly in
that she seeks to do to the world what fanatics like herself have been doing to
the principle of free speech in what used to be the democracies of the world
but are no more.
Here is how Ignatieff starts his argument: “President
Obama's failure to get Congress to support … coupled with the vote against … in
the British House of Commons, brings home a key fact: democratic peoples are
reluctant to authorize their leaders to use force in countries far away.” And
so he laments: “It is obvious that [the] idea is facing a crisis of democratic
legitimacy.” He goes on to explain: “The core problem is public anger at the
manipulation of consent: disillusion with the way in which moral and
humanitarian arguments [are used] to extract popular support for the use of
force ... conducted in ways that betray those principles … The people are
saying they 'won't be fooled again.'”
Ignatieff then makes the mistake of suggesting ways to solve
the problem without first telling about his own experience with regard to the
ways in which people can be fooled, as they were fooled and still are. Absent
that backgrounder, the net effect of what the good man says will be to
confiscate all keys to the blood bank, and hand them over to the Rosetts of
this world – all disciples and servants of the never satisfied Dracula.
The Ignatieff experience is that he spoke of war crimes when
Israel bombed Lebanon ,
including the UN outpost that was standing at the border observing the
ceasefire. Wearing the blue helmet, Canadians were among the soldiers who
reported the Israeli aggression and were “taken out” by the Israelis. When
informed that Canadian soldiers performing their UN duty were murdered by the
Israelis, the Canadian Prime Minister who was warmly tucked inside the pocket
of the Jewish lobby, berated his own people (his country's soldiers on duty)
with a remark so demeaning, you would get angry if thrown at your dog. It was
something to this effect: What were they doing there, anyway? Don't they know
there is an ongoing war? Do you feel the chill run down your spine?
That was in contrast to what Ignatieff said – something to
the effect that war crimes may have been committed by the Israelis in their
treatment of Lebanon
and the UN soldiers. So then what happened? Well, what happened was that the
Jewish machinery which is responsible for what Ignatieff calls the manipulation
of consent kicked into gear and got him to take back (almost in tears, I am
told) what he said about Israel having possibly committed war crimes. In other
words, they got him to eat his words then shut up – which is how they see the exercise
of free speech in a democracy.
And when the Ignatieffs of this world are made to shut up in
the face of the Judeo-Israeli commission of crimes against humanity, they
inevitably advocate the Jewish agenda. And so, you see our Ignatieff write: “if
the United States
wants to stop atrocity crimes, it may have to go it alone.” But he throws in a
caveat to be on the safe side: “Democratic consent, of course, can be
manipulated.” Still, he ends with a hopeful note which, in light of the
personal experience he failed to mention, makes his plea a hopeless exercise.
This is what he says: “presidents and prime ministers will have to turn to
their people. If the case for action is made honestly, if no one's consent is
manipulated, let's hope the people say yes.” No, Michael, they will not say
yes, unless you and people like you come out and speak honestly about the
Jewish manipulation of consent. And you will have to do so despite the fact
that you now work at the Munk School of Global Affairs, that bastion of Judeo-Israeli
thought.
This brings us to the Rosett article, a collection of
thoughts and attitudes we must regard as indications of what will happen if the
Judeo-Israeli agenda is allowed to be implemented. Look at this passage: “The
organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) suffers from the
moral equivalency that besets the UN, which accords all members the same
privileges, regardless of whether they are terror-sponsoring tyrannies or open
democracies.” In other words, these people want to divide the world into the
camp of good guys and the camp of bad guys. Heading the good camp will be the
consent manipulating Jewish organizations that will go after the UN and
everyone that does not submit to their will.
So you ask, what can they do in practical terms? And the
answer is simple. They will seek to do to the world what they did to the
so-called democracies. They will try to round up the outspoken Ignatieffs in
them, make them shut up then hire them to work in their Jewish bastions. And you
can see that Rosett has already begun this process: “the OPCW has no bar to
hiring Iranians as chemical-weapons inspectors … In a phone interview, a
spokesman for the OPCW said that because Iran is a member of the
organization, its nationals have been included in the staffing. Presumably the
same privileges would be extended to Syria . Asked how many Iranians are
on staff and in what positions, he said the OPCW does not give out such
information.”
Why did she ask for this information? To take it to the American
Congress, of course, and in the name of free and democratic speech, seek to bar
people from working in positions where they will have a platform from which to
speak to the world. This is the Jewish style democracy they want to force on
the world, and the reason why Rosett laments: “The OPCW follows the UN custom
of allocating seats on its governing board and other bodies more on the basis
of geographical blocs than merit.”
And there is more lament; this time about America : “It gets worse … an Iranian outlet
reported that the OPCW members 'unanimously reelected Iran to the Executive Council' which would mean
the US
went along. I phoned the US
embassy to ask ... was told to e-mail the question, which was referred to the
State Department that did not respond.”
Everybody is bad, says Rosett, and America is going along,
which makes it a bad player too unless the Jews can fix it by getting the
American media and the Congress so worked up, they will raise the hell that
will make America devote all its time, treasure, power and prestige to collect
the keys to the blood bank and hand them over to the Jewish Dracula, his
disciples and his servants.