With all the talk about calling things what they are, when
in fact, everyone already knows who and what they are, the one group that's
missing from this treatment is the one made of savage animals in human forms, trying
to savage most of the world to serve their own parochial purposes.
Look at this thing calling itself Neil Hicks that wrote:
“Senator Graham's Recipe for Failure in Egypt ,” an article that was
published in the Huffington Post on April 5, 2016. It has adopted the mantra of
the braying jackasses that fill the editorial board of the New York Times, and
is going around echoing the refrain that when anyone from the Philippines to Afghanistan
to Iraq to Europe to Nigeria to America
deploys their military might to fight terrorists, they do the right thing …
except Egypt ,
that is.
There is that exception, they say, because when Egypt fights
terrorists by deploying its military might ... aha, that's another matter, they
bray. They explain that this is exactly how terrorists multiply. But the truth
is that when animals talk like these things do, they prove to the world they
are the animals that they are, and nothing better.
Neil Hicks, like his brethren, editors at the New York
Times, are talking animals whose mission is to savage the world because it
suits their Jewish masters to do just that. And when the world is savaged-up,
they will want to get in there and fix it just right.
Another trick these things brought into use is that they
have adopted the string of arguments which allowed the Jews to take control of America in two
or three generations. This is what the Jews did: First, they accused everyone
who contradicted them to be anti-Semitic. Second, they explained that
anti-Semitism is a bad thing because those who feel that way try to replicate
the Chrystal Night that led to attacks against the Jews. Third, when this
happens, a pogrom that is followed by a holocaust and a Final Solution will
ultimately result.
In a similar fashion, the Neil Hicks types argue that when Egypt fights
the terrorists instead of kissing them, it makes other would-be terrorists
angry. Second, these terrorists do not crop up in mainland Egypt but in the Sinai
Peninsula where they magically turn into foreigners – not
Egyptians – who get instructions, training, financing and weapons from abroad.
Third, when this happens in the Sinai, the security of the United States becomes endangered because what
follows is that alienated Americans who would not vote for Trump or Sanders
will start committing acts of terrorism in America . See how the dots connect?
Neat huh!
And guess what. The next day, on April 6, 2016, none other
than Thomas L. Friedman came up with a column that was published in the New
York Times under the title: “Impossible Missions” in which he argues against
the Neil Hicks approach; also argues against himself. How can that be, you ask?
Beats me … except to observe that this is the ambiguous Jewish way of doing
things. Go figure it yourself.
But let me tell you this: Thomas Friedman is the guy who
stood on the foreign soil of occupied Palestine
and lied to George W. Bush via television, telling him that his father was not
re-elected President of the United States
because he did not order his military to go to Baghdad . And so, Friedman warned the son that
if he does not correct the mistake of the father – now that he is the President
– he will suffer the same fate as his father and fail to get re-elected. It's
the Jewish connection of the dots, my friend. Can't you see that?
So then, what does this Friedman say now? Well, he says that
his friend Michael Mandelbaum wrote a book in which he admits that the approach
taken by America
of interfering in the affairs of the other nations has been a mistake. He
explains that it led to the disaster we now witness in the Middle
East .
But is he saying America should keep its nose out of
that region from this point forward? No, he is not saying that. He is proposing
to interfere in a different way, however. And when you look at this new way,
you find it to match the Neil Hicks way. In fact, they are all the same; all
advocating the same thing.