The Hoaxes are the Jewish 'isms'

Matthew Continetti wrote an article under the title “Liberalism is a Hoax” and the subtitle: “Contemporary liberalism is a scheme for the already affluent and influential to increase their power.” It was published on December 6, 2014 in National Review Online.

Without defining liberalism, without telling what makes a liberal what he or she is, and without explaining what a liberal act may look like, Continetti goes on to mention incidents that have taken place in America lately, citing the names of people who were connected to them, whether directly or indirectly, and concluding that liberalism is a hoax. The readers are supposed to make deductions as to what's what without the author committing himself to any position. Why could he not do a better job?

He could not because he is hiding a mystery, not knowing he is doing just that, not knowing what he is hiding. In other words, he is operating out of ignorance, motivated only by the power of indoctrination. The early Christians debated how many angels danced on the head of a pin; the latter day Jews are debating the merits of being a Jewish liberal versus being a Jewish conservative. Both debates being hoaxes, not because they concern political orientation, but because the first debate occurred during the dark era of early Christianity whereas the second is taking place among the never enlightened Jews. And Matthew Continetti is no more enlightened than any of these people.

Before discussing the New York Times which has been identified long ago as a liberal newspaper, Continetti had written several paragraphs packed with names of people and organizations which he seems to view as being liberals, and other names and organizations which he seems to view as being conservatives. The liberals would be: the St. Louis Rams, Michael Brown, protesters and rioters, a St. Louis television station and the movement to de-militarize the police. As to the conservatives, they would be: the white police officer known as Darren Wilson, the grand jury that refused to indict him, the convenient store, a clerk at that store and the people who came up with the idea of militarizing the police.

And now that he is discussing a liberal newspaper, Continetti seizes on its moment of soul-searching to countenance his own brand of absolutism … perhaps judging that moment to be a relativistic one. He does so by first telling of the questions that the newspaper has asked but has admitted that it did not have answers for. He then makes two assertions that stand on speculation and nothing more. First, he writes: “What I do know is that the Times would be more definitive and emphatic...” Second, he writes: “What I do know is that the assertions made by liberals have a habit of being untrue.”

He tells what the liberals do that is supposed to be untrue. He does not express such ideas in specific terms but in generalities, which is a formulation that gives him the chance to define himself as a conservative opposite. Here is this part: “Liberal myths propagated to generate outrage; to organize, coordinate and mobilize grievances, often have the same relation to truth as a [television] commercial.”

This done, he cites a number of published stories which he says were put out by liberals, and turned out to be false. And he concludes: “It is the goal of contemporary liberalism to command institutions resistant to the left such as police and fire departments, fraternal societies and private clubs, the military and extractive industry – and to alter them according to theories of equality and justice.” Wow, it's like getting a ton of bricks on the head.

This prompts a number of questions: Are the liberals doing what they do for a reason? Yes, they are, he says: “Much of contemporary liberalism reeks of a scheme by which affluent people increase their margins.” But who are they? Ah ... huh … are you asking who the liberals are? Well, get ready for a surprise. They are who they are, where you can find them … like: “Liberalism, mind you, in both parties.” Both parties? Can you elaborate? Elaborate you ask? Maybe … actually yes: “The Republican elite seems as devoted as their Democratic cousins to diversity and immigration even as they bemoan the fate of the middle class.” Ouch! That hurts.

And this is where the mystery lives that young Matthew has not yet uncovered. It is that the conservatives with whom he mixes are new conservatives or neocons who were liberals in an earlier incarnation. They turned coat and changed the mask on their faces, but they remain the Jews they always were. They carried with them the old Jewish hoaxes when moving from the ism of the liberals to the ism of the conservatives. It is that the more the Jews change, the more they remain the same old Jews.