As if to atone for the decades of complicity that the New
York Times has dedicated to the destruction of millions of lives among innocent
Palestinians and other Arabs – all butchered by the world original and so far
only plague known as the Judaist ideology – and doing it using American
weapons, American financing and American encouragement, the Gray Lady has at
long last decided to tell it like it is.
No, the editors did not write an editorial in which they do
the mea culpa; they spoke instead in the form that editors use at times to
express themselves with clarity. It is to juxtapose a number of writings done
by others which (viewed together) tell a story that has a greater value than
the sum of its parts. In this case, the editors of the Times published on the
same day an article by Tomis Kapitan, and another article by Israel 's
minister of intelligence, Yuval Steinitz. Together, they expose the Jewish
creation of a new euphemism by which the Jews hope to sustain the perpetual war
they launched against a human race they despise so very much.
The Tomis Kapitan article has the title: “The Reign of
'Terror'”; that of Yuval Steinitz has the title: “Don't make a Bad Deal With
Iran” both of which were published in the New York Times on October 20, 2014.
In this work, Kapitan shows conclusively how the creation of a single euphemism
such as the word “terrorist” makes it possible for an actual terrorist to
commit acts of terror against innocent victims he labels terrorists, by
convincing others to join his crusade and fight the terrorists that are not,
using acts of terror that are real to the victims but not to the duped
participants who believe they are doing God's work.
Tomis Kapitan does not come out and says openly that the
Jews are the real terrorists, the Americans are the ones that were duped, or
that the Palestinians are the victims. But the narrative which describes the
events he uses as examples to make his point, speaks for itself. Thus, even
though the writer's comments and conclusions are meant to paint a general sort
of picture, the resulting canvas identifies who is who in the story being told.
He ends his article by mentioning the idea of doublethink
that George Orwell made use of in his novel 1984. Kapitan says this about it:
“in sanctioning the use of modern weaponry to achieve this end, we are
effectively advocating the very thing we condemn, and this is closer to
doublethink than we should ever be.”
Perhaps stirred up by the sense of the mea culpa, the
editors of the New York Times use their newly discovered wisdom to juxtapose
the Steinitz article with that of Kapitan. In his work, Steinitz uses a newly
minted euphemism to do to the innocents in Iran what the use of the word
“terror” did to the Palestinians. The new euphemism is this: “No deal with Iran is better
than a bad deal.” Its purpose is to preclude any possibility of ending the
perpetual war now raging, and go from there to implement the long term Jewish
agenda.
In fact, this is the notion that comes in the title of the
article he wrote. He wrote it, yes, but where was he when he wrote it? He was
in occupied Jerusalem .
That flagrant, huh? Yes, occupation being the culmination of a string of
terrorist acts, the Jewish doublethink apparent in the description of Iran as
having an “infamous track record of [terror], abusing human rights, calling of
[someone else's] destruction, and lying unabashedly about its nuclear program,”
is astounding, and out there for the whole world to see.
Steinitz ends his article with this plea: “The Islamic
Republic of Iran remains the world foremost threat. We must guarantee that it
never obtains nuclear weapons.” The good thing is that the world knows how to
treat every utterance that comes out of occupied Jerusalem . Turn the thing around and rephrase
it like this, for example: “The presumed Jewish State remains the world's
oldest, foremost and only threat. Humanity must guarantee that the Jews never,
ever again take control of a country the way they took control of America .
This being the sensible thing to do to find a humane
Ultimate Solution to the Jewish problem rather than be presented with the same
old Final Solution, it is up to the editors of the New York Times – who
contributed so much to the making of the current situation – to reverse
themselves and openly advocate the destruction of the apartheid regime in
Israel, and the ending of occupation in Palestine.