The Wall Street Journal, its audio-visual affiliate; the Fox
News Network – together with a bunch of other New York publications – all of
which may be classified as being run by neocons, are getting louder in their whine
about something they started, and is now boomeranging on them.
The neocons are the new conservatives – given this name
because they once had a liberal bent but have turned coat to now look
conservative. And no one turns coat more often than the Jews, something they
do, not when they become convinced that the color of the coat no longer suits
their stance, but when they deem it more profitable to display a new color. And
they will stay with the new till such time they deem it more profitable to turn
the coat back to its original side. The truth is that these people are of the
forever-rotating turncoat variety, not of the type that adheres to a principle
of any kind.
As liberals, they stank the North American Continent with
the foul smell of an absolute sort of autocracy at which time they
indoctrinated the public to what they called Jewish sensitivities. And this
meant that (a) no one but the Jews could talk about the subjects they
monopolized; one of them being the Holocaust; (b) no one could say something
political about Israel except to praise that piece of dog poop in the
Mediterranean; (c) no one could talk about Israel's enemies except to say
something bad about them … and so on and so forth. They started a movement that
came to be known as “political correctness”.
They made their autocratic rule stick by getting the feeble
minds in the existing democratic apparatus take up their causes for them. To do
this, they convinced the suckers in the relevant institutions that they had a
glorious mission to accomplish. They added that everyone was welcome to become
a part of the effort and share in the glory of the great accomplishments to be
realized. They infiltrated the press and used it as a weapon to intimidate the
legislators, blackmailing them into coming to their side. This done they went
after the people occupying the strategic positions in the executive branch and
blackmailed them into submission.
By the time the Jews had accomplish all this, their
reputation as a people that never lose had spread everywhere in North America . They could now walk into any courtroom,
tell the judge what they wanted, and the judge would give them twice what they
asked for. As well, every televangelist with a hand in the pants of a woman
that was not his wife, or had a hand in the pants of a man or those of a child
– dropped to their knees not to pray to God but to genuflect in front of their
Jewish masters, promising to tell their flocks that the Jews were their gods.
They did that eventually on the air for their flocks to learn, and for the
world to see and hear. This is how the Jews became the exclusive owners of North America in less than three generations. Now the
Christian children of America
grow up believing that to be successful in their own country they must position
themselves to be an appendix to a Jew. Otherwise they might as well learn to
live under a bridge, and eat from garbage cans.
What the Jewish organizations running the propaganda machine
and hatching the conspiracies did not count on – given that it takes the IQ of
at least a monkey to make this kind of judgment – was that ordinary people were
going to say what's good for the Jew is good for me. In fact, the people wanted
the things that the Jew was getting, and they went after them. Thus, to have started
“political correctness” became the legacy of the Jews; one that is now the very
thing that the Wall Street Journal, its audio-visual affiliate; the Fox News
Network and a bunch of other New York publications – are whining about. It is
the story of the skunk that complains about the stink he spread everywhere on
this Continent.
You can see a sample of the moaning they do by reviewing the
Daniel Henninger article which came under the title: “Bonfire of the
Humanities” and the subtitle: “Christine Lagarde is the latest ritualistic
burning of a college-commencement heretic.” It was published in the Wall Street
Journal on May 14, 2014. After citing recent examples of people that were
barred from giving commencement speeches at universities, Henninger explains
the history of the phenomenon not as it happened but as he wishes it did.
He tells the story of a Leftist German philosopher he does
not name, one that was supposed to have taught at Brandeis University
The Jews were barring people like Desmond Tutu from speaking
in America .
They dissed at least one former President – Jimmy Carter – when he tried to
speak his mind. They were barring universities from publishing books that did
not praise the phony achievements of Israel . And they were barring the
publication of books that did not badmouth or belittle the achievements of the
Arab and Muslim countries. In short, their autocratic movement had borrowed the
worst of Nazism, Fascism and Communism, rolled all into one, and made it the
law of the land – some of which was coded into statutes, and some of which was
adhered to by force of habit and by tradition.
Now look at the gall of Daniel Henninger – that said not one
word when Norman Finklestein's application for tenure was mauled by the likes
of Alan Dershowirz – who writes the following in his current article: “The
ability of aggrieved professors to concoct ideas and words that violated
political correctness got so loopy that the phrase itself became satirical –
though not so funny to profs denied tenure. Offensive books were banned and
history texts rewritten to conform.” Do you believe that as witnesses to
history, Daniel Henninger and the Wall Street Journal as an organization have
shown they harbor even a shred of integrity?