Usually, an observer who is not of the culture being
observed would be the best to judge how much the culture has deviated from its
norm if and when such deviation takes place … and there is a reason for that.
It is that an alien to a culture – no matter how long he might have immersed
himself in it – never gets to assimilate everything about it. What he absorbs
is the structure that is holding the culture together; what he misses is much
of what appears at the outer envelop; that which gives the culture its look and
feel.
For example, an alien may develop a good command of the
language, but he will speak it with an accent – however slight that accent may
be. He may learn to appreciate the foods, entertainment and sports events of
the adopted culture ... he may even develop a taste for its cuisine, and excel
at one of its sports, but he will not embrace them as tightly as would someone
born into the culture. This deficiency may only involve the decoration enveloping
the culture but being free of it, gives the alien the chance to get closer to
the structure that is holding it together. This is why he can sense every
deviation that occurs there, however small it may be.
In real life, the newcomers to a culture such as those that
settle in countries that take in immigrants develop a high sensitivity to
changes that happen at the structural level whereas the native-born develop sensitivity
to what may be called the cosmetic changes. The latter generally like the changes
they see because they would have contributed to its happening. The immigrants,
on the other hand, may like the structural changes they detect or they may not
depending on how they foresee those changes affecting their lives.
While this has been happening in general terms on the
Continent of North America, several undercurrents considered to be variations
on the main theme have run in parallel with it at one time or another. The most
pronounced has been the treatment of the native-born Blacks who felt and still
feel alienated in their own country. Less pronounced has been the treatment of
the American-born Japanese who were interned during World War II, a time when America was at war with Japan . And then
there is the odd situation of the “Middle Eastern” looking specimen – Arab or
Muslim or just looking like one – which the Jews have targeted for character
assassination, and continue to do so as if the Continent were their private
property. They behave in such manner whether they are native-born or immigrant,
hyphenated or not, speaking with an accent or speaking without one.
Well, I am one such Middle Easterner who was thrust nearly
half a century ago into the vortex of the Jewish machine of horror, and
targeted for character assassination – something that the Jews did without
letup behind my back while smiling in my face. Knowing what they were up to
without having all the details, I dedicated my life to the study of these
people because I realized early on that understanding the way they deal with me
may answer the question that humanity had been asking with regard to the
phenomenon called antisemitism. It is one that has cropped up everywhere the
Jews went – whether that was years ago, decades ago or centuries ago.
A good way to study these people is to review what they and
their hired echo-repeaters say about all sorts of subjects, especially the ones
that have a direct bearing on their interests, including the welfare of Israel . A
recent example that may pass unnoticed to a reader born into the culture but
not to someone like yours truly, came under the title: “How Not to Run a War
Coalition” and the subtitle: The Administration blames Turkey for the catastrophe in Syria .” It was
published on October 9, 2014 in the Wall Street Journal.
What I detect in this article is a structural change in the
way that the Jews view the world, a change they are imposing on America .
Superficially, they still view the world as being made of two parts: The few
nations that are with them, and the many that are against them. But what has
changed is what they include in each column. They always had friends and
enemies that went into one column one day and switched to the other column
another day. However, the American Administration was always kept in the
friendly column … until now.
It used to be that no matter how much at odds Israel was with
the American Administration, the Jews never admitted there was a difference
between the two. And so they spoke of the American President as being the best
friend Israel
ever had. Look now how the editors of the Wall Street Journal start their
piece: “President Obama … if only he knew how to lead a wartime coalition.
[His] handling of the crisis on the Syrian-Turkish border is a case study in
mismanagement.” And the rest of the editorial is based on this point of view.
It is a deviation from the line they always took – perhaps an indication that
they are about to reach the end of their cycle of involvement with America .
Where to from here? It all depends on what America does next
for, you can tell what the Jews want from reading the last sentence in the
Journal's editorial: “If Mr. Obama wants Turkey to help … he should press for a
joint military operation, reassuring that the U.S. will back up Turkish forces
… even if it means ground forces. This is what wartime leadership looks like.”
What they want is war; an endless war that will culminate in the apocalypse of
their ancient fantasy.