Why would a bunch of cannibals run a vegetarian diner?
Because they have a secret chamber in the basement where they lure the clients
whose appearance whets their appetite. Once there, they crush the skull of the
client with a hammer, cook the body and consume it to their hearts' content.
If you think I'm trying to be grotesque, rest assured I am
not. What I'm trying to do is create an analogy that can illustrate a real
situation that's so much in the realm of criminal insanity, the only way to
describe it is to mount a scene that approaches the extent of the horror the
real situation is about.
Think of what might be called occasional offenders of human
rights, as being meat eaters. Now think of what might be called occasional
defenders of human rights, as being vegetarians. And then think of what might
be called human right savages, as being cannibals.
Having a clear view of the three categories, it is now easy
to place most of the ordinary human beings in the category of meat eaters. A
few more can be classified as true defenders of human rights, therefore qualify
to be vegetarians. And then there are the Jewish-trained editors of American
publications who talk like ordinary human beings but are savage cannibals to the
core. They run editorials by which to trap gullible citizens in their mode of
thinking … doing it in the way that cannibals trap unwary vegetarians and
consume them.
You don't have to go too far to be filled with that horrible
sort of feeling and be overwhelmed by it. All you need to do is read the pieces
that the editors of the New York Times put out once in a while. The latest they
have in this category came under the title: “Enabling Egypt's President Sisi,
an Enemy of Human Rights,” published on April 4, 2017 in the NY Times.
Cognizant of the fact that the New York Times has a squad of
propaganda hack-writers on standby in Israel to jump-in and write articles that
water down every criticism leveled against Israel and justify its criminal
actions, you would think that in the name of fairness, the editors of the Times
would criticize non-Israeli abusers of human rights only if they abused more
than the Israelis. But no; that's not what these editors do.
To try and wrap our mind around this inconsistency, we
follow two lines of thought:
First, we ask: What infractions do the editors of the Times
see in Egypt that surpass
those of the checkpoints in occupied Palestine ?
The roads which are used exclusively by Jews and not by Christians or Muslims?
The children that spend hours walking to school and back because they are made
to take winding roads to a school that's only five minutes away?
What infractions do the editors of the Times see in Egypt
that surpass those of the pregnant women who deliver their babies on the side
of the road in occupied Palestine because they are not allowed to go to a
hospital through certain checkpoints? The Palestinian homes that are demolished
to build new roads and new settlements for newly imported alien settlers? And
the list goes on almost indefinitely.
Second, we observe that the editors of the Times have both
legitimate and illegitimate concerns. On the legitimate side, they mention the
800 people who were killed inadvertently during the double revolution that
lasted three years in Egypt .
Yes, this is a high number of casualties for a country that is as civilized as Egypt , even if
the event was a unique occurrence that may not be repeated for generations, if
ever.
Still, the population of the entire country is 30 times that
of the American city of Chicago
where 500 people are deliberately murdered year after year after year. And so,
when you consider the population ratios and do the math, it shows that Chicago would – by comparison – kill 45,000 people in
peace time against the 800 that Egypt
killed in revolution. Come to think of it, nobody does revolution in a more
civilized way than Egypt .
As to the illegitimate concerns raised by the Times editors; it is everything
else they stuffed in their editorial.
But why did the editors of the New York Times fail to see
the subject matter for what it is, and perhaps write a better editorial? The
answer is that they were programmed not to. And you can tell this was the case
by studying the frame of mind that powered them at the start … when they sat
down to write the piece.
Look at the high school mentality behind the following
opening statements, and marvel at the ability of the Jewish propaganda to stunt
the mind of aging adolescents in high positions:
“America 's
national interest doesn't require inviting foreign leaders to the White House
and lavishing them with praise. That's what President Trump did in welcoming
and celebrating President Sisi of Egypt . Mr. Trump praised Mr. Sisi
for doing a 'fantastic job.' In return Mr. Sisi expressed his 'deep
appreciation and admiration' for Mr. Trump's 'unique personality'”.