Hundreds of thousands of innocent people are murdered all
the time in the Middle East with American-made weapons in the hands of American
or Israelis soldiers operating in the region, and in the hands of Jewish
squatters mostly from America
who go settle in Palestine
where they rob the indigenous population at gunpoint of its possessions,
including its land.
What must be mentioned is that the intruding attackers get
weapons and all sorts of other aid free of charge, courtesy of a Congress of
depraved politicians whom the Jews bribe and blackmail. These are politicians
that must share responsibility for the crimes they cause whether or not they
realize how culpable they are.
Anyway you look at it, what's happening in the Middle East
is a tragedy made possible not because America has a system of free speech but
because America's system has been hijacked by the Jews, and made to work for
them only, resulting in speech being denied to those who do not toe the line.
This development has allowed the Jews to take control of many American
institutions, most notably the Congress, making that institution serve the
agenda of Israel and the Jews at the exclusion of all the others – like the
people of America, for example.
When you think objectively about the subject of speech, you
can only conclude that there is no such a thing as implicitly hateful speech.
An example of this would be two people standing at a podium and throwing the vilest
insults at each other without the audience thinking this is hate speech that
should result in the punishment of both antagonists. On the other hand, if
someone makes a mild negative remark to the boss about a colleague who gets
fired as a result, the aggrieved party will have a “hate speech” case he can
take to court. That's because he was not given the chance to reply or to
reciprocate.
Those two examples show that damaging consequences can
follow when one-sided speech is made without giving the other side a chance to
push back. This is what's unfolding in America at this time on a grand
scale because the Jews have almost total monopoly on the means of
communication. What they put out in the public domain aims to mobilize America , urging its institutions to stand by Israel and the Jews; something that is done at
the expense of Israel 's
neighbors. And no one is allowed to push back because – it is argued – that to
do so would be to let antisemitism express itself and flourish.
An odd kind of situation is thus created in that kind of
atmosphere. It is the constant need to denigrate the already victimized weak
neighbors of Israel
– especially the Palestinians – while at the same time praising the always
belligerent Israelis, and the forever demanding Jews of America. Add to this
the fact that reciprocity is forbidden, and you have a state of affairs that
rises to the level of hate speech. It is hate no matter how mildly the speeches
are delivered because the resulting geopolitical ramifications are always
murderous.
Now, my friend, the point of the above presentation has been
to show that words can result in the murder of innocent people. The question is
whether or not the frequent killing of Jews throughout history (something that
took place almost everywhere on the planet) amounted to murder. Sara Lipton,
who teaches history, thinks so. She wrote: “The Words That Killed Medieval
Jews,” an article that was published on December 12, 2015 in the New York
Times. In it, the author blames the murder of Jews almost entirely on
Christianity, laying not one iota of blame on the Jews themselves.
Beginning with “history shows that rhetoric against a group
can incite violence against it, even when no violence is called for,” she goes
on to say: “Over 1,000 years, Christianity held 'the Jews' responsible for the
death of Jesus.” She explains that “around 1100 AD, in an effort to spur
compassion among worshipers, preachers and artists began to dwell on Christ's
pain … emphasizing the cruelty of his tormentors, the Jews.”
Things got worse, she says, when the Jews were described as
“consumed with sadism and blood lust … were accused of ritually sacrificing
Christian children … and were labeled demonic and greedy … animals and beasts.”
That was followed by large-scale anti-Jewish violence at which time thousands
of Jews were “massacred because of what someone termed 'some error of mind,'”
she goes on to say.
And so, we wonder if we should believe all that without
question. Or could it be that the Jews helped to bring about that calamity on
themselves ... doing then what they do now, which is to attribute to others the
sins they see in themselves while attributing to themselves the virtues they
see in others?
After all, why would Christians – out of the blue – start
accusing the Jews of being consumed with sadism and blood lust? Could it be
that the Jews were doing to others what they do now to the Palestinians?