The editors of the New York Times have given their readers a
big and pleasant surprise on this day, November 27, 2014 which happens to be
the day that the Americans celebrate to give Thanks for what they have. Here in
Canada ,
we celebrate this day 5 weeks earlier.
At long last, the New York Times has published:
“Subcontracting Repression in the West Bank and Gaza ,” an article written by Sabrien Amrov
and Alaa Tartir which presents the Palestinian side of the story. This came
after something like 10,000 articles published in the Times over the decades,
representing the Jewish side only. What the editors do not seem to realize,
however, is that they opened the window not only on the question of repression
in Palestine
but also the larger question of Jewish ideology.
To understand the significance of this article when looked
at it through the lens of that larger question, we need to stop for a moment
and reflect on the subject of “ideology.” This word refers to an intellectual
construct that is meant to use as a guide when proceeding with the
implementation of what we're doing, or we're about to do. For example, the
constitution of a country is one such construct, usually consulted when
legislators wish to know what they must do and what they must avoid as they
make new laws.
Sadly though, the intellectual gap between the people who
put together an ideological construct, and some of the people who later use it,
can be so wide as to yield two vastly different images. On the one hand, you
have the image of a group that is building the ship of state; on the other
hand, you have the image of a group that is sinking the ship of state. For
example, the Fathers of the American
Republic
Most of the time, those who do the destruction do not
realize what it is they are doing. Because these people lack a minimum of
innate intelligence, they latch-on to a construct that was put together by
someone else, and stick to it with the fervor of a religious fanatic. That is,
they take every word as if it were a dogma they cannot interpret or change even
when it is shown that the fathers of the document would have changed it given
that the circumstances have changed. These people simply lack the intelligence
to make the leap.
In America ,
for example, Ted Cruz and a few others like him are the brainless idiots who
cannot open the mouth without dropping the word “constitution” as often as a
street wino drops the “f” bomb once with every two words he pronounces. Cruz
and the others are not going to rebuild the American Republic
And there are a number of those on the editorial board of
the New York Times. One of the fanatic ideas they are wedded to is the relationship
between what they think represents non-democratic forces, and what they think
represents repression. What counts to these people is not what is being done
for what purpose or for how long; it is who is doing what to whom. For example,
in the eyes of the editorial Ted Cruzes of the New York Times, it is a
perfectly lovely thing that Jews who come from abroad are slaughtering
Palestinians by the thousands and taking their possessions. On the other hand,
it is a horrifyingly bad thing that thirty million Egyptians have marched in
the streets of the cities and towns demanding that their military restore law
and order so that ninety million civilians may again live a normal life.
The larger question of Jewish ideology begins to be defined
when you look at the difference between the spontaneity with which the events
have developed in Egypt (whatever the resulting negative side effects may have
been) and the permanence that is reflected in what comes out the Amrov and
Tartir article. There can be no doubt in the mind of anyone sane that despite
the ups and downs, the people and government of Egypt will continue to enjoy,
and continue to develop the magnificent civilization they started seven
thousand years ago and kept renewing with the passage of time.
But the question is this: What will happen to the Jews who
have been gassed and incinerated everywhere they went for all the time that
they have existed on this planet? Well, the Amrov and Tartir article yields the
answer to that question. In the same way that the fanatics of the New York
Times have latched on to the idea that whatever the Jew does is absolutely
perfect, the Jewish leaders – no matter when or why they converted to Judaism –
have latched on to the idea that the way to take over the world is to subcontract
repression to others. It is that the Jews had trained these people to do the
dirty work for them while they collected the benefits.
The article tells the story of what is unfolding in a Palestine that is fully occupied, on a Capitol Hill that
is fully occupied, and in a Europe that is
partially occupied. What the article describes both implicitly and explicitly
are the ways by which the Jews infiltrate the institutions they wish to take
over, how they work inside them insidiously and stealthily, and for how long
they do so to pit people against people till they succeed at dividing them and
ruling over them.
What is not mentioned in the article is how it all ends; in
fact, it does not even ask the question. But the fact remains that even though
the Ted Cruzes of this world – be they political or editorial – do not have the
brains to ask the question, the question has been answered hundreds of time
throughout history. When the leaders of a people are taken over by the Jews,
and the latter have begun to sell out their country to please their masters,
the masses of people punish their own leaders together with the Jews who led
them astray.