When the spin doctors do routine stuff, spinning the news of
the day to make them serve the causes they promote, they may take chances once
in a while and say or do something without being too careful. They usually get
away with it unless there are gadflies out there waiting for them to make just
this kind of mistake. When it happens, they pounce on them and sting them as
hard as they can. Well my friend, I ask you to believe what I am saying because
I know what I'm talking about, having stung a few of them on this website.
The Wall Street Journal has been one of the publications
that kept me busy almost continuously. It did it in two ways. First, it
published articles by a large number of crackpots, many of whom are out there
waiting for a sucker to pay them for the trash they whip up without thinking.
Second, it published pieces written by its own Jewish editors whose approach to
the business of thinking logically makes the moves of a raging bull – let loose
in a china shop – look like a monk meditating in his study room.
What a gadfly normally does to sting someone who is less
than careful, is to search for a weakness in the argument, of the kind that
looks like a contradiction. It can be a contradiction with the self, or one
with known facts, or one that looks like an affront to logic. Of course, the
spin doctors know all that, and when they speak or write with care, they seize
on the nuances of the subject matter they are discussing to stretch the points
they wish to emphasize, and compress those they wish to hide. This leaves room
for disagreeing with the opposite side without being disagreeable … and
everyone would have earned his keep. At the end of the day, the work looks
professional, and everyone moves on.
Where the gadfly will have a field day attacking a
publication, is when the spin doctor makes a mistake of logic that leaves a
hole in his argument. The bigger the whole, the more enjoyable the gadfly's
field day, and the bigger the embarrassment of the spin doctor. You know what,
my friend? Let me tell you a secret. The Jewish writers are the most notorious
at making mistakes of logic that leave not just holes in their arguments but
massive craters in them.
There is one now like I never saw before. It came in the
editorial that was written under the title: “What happens to Palestinian
Moderates,” and the subtitle: “Shot in the streets with a pistol to the head
after midday prayers.” It was published on August 25, 2014. I would have given
the piece a title like: Postmortem Defense in Absentia. But that would have
been beside the point, because the essential point here is much bigger than
that.
So now you want to know what the big hole in the argument
is. Okay, here it is in the form of a comparison. Imagine America at war
against an enemy that has already killed 400,000 Americans ... a quarter of
them soldiers and three quarters civilians. The war is still raging, and a
network of 20 spies or so is caught red handed sending information to the enemy
concerning high value targets that did the most damage to America when
they were bombed by the enemy.
How serious is that offense? Well, everywhere in the world
and in every war that was fought, people like these have been judged summarily
and shot without delay. You can argue about the case all you want, and there
may be merit in some of what you say but the one thing you cannot do unless you
are a Jew that is mentally disturbed to a horrible extent, is to call these
people moderates for what they have done. And yet, this is what the Jewish
editors of the Wall Street Journal have done. You just cannot be more disturbed
than that unless you're someone that hires people of this caliber, or one that
keeps them on the job.
In case the readers believe that the editors made an
inadvertent mistake but do not really mean what the text sounds like, the
editors went out their way to reinforce that point of view. First, they say
this: “The public killings show anyone who dissents...” They called them
moderates, now they call them dissenters.
And there is more. In fact, what comes next is more
revealing than all the previous examples put together. Here it is: “The
Palestinians will never have peace as long as they keep murdering anyone who
wants it.” What they are saying here is
that the peace the Palestinians will ever get from the Jews is the peace of the
grave which comes with the betrayal of country.