Consider the New
York Times as having transformed from eminent Gray Lady to sleazy Gray Madam
now running a journalistic whorehouse to disgust any fair minded reader. The
latest proof of that is an editorial which came under the title: “Saudi Arabia 's
Special Power Over Donald Trump,” published on November 11, 2017 in the New
York Times.
Look at the first
paragraph of the editorial. It is made of 64 words, 6 of which are adjectives
that demonstrate how little these people understand the situation they are
discussing. How much they pretend to know what they are talking about. And how
hard they work to serve a hidden agenda.
Discussing the
events that have unfolded in Saudi
Arabia , and the White House decision not to
obey the Jewish instructions of instantly popping up in from of the cameras to
run off the mouth seething disapproval of said events, the editors of the Gray
Madam described those events as being a “stunning” power play.
But why would the
king of Saudi Arabia
want to stun the editors of the New York Times? Because his desire is to cement
“domestic” control, say the editors. But he is king for life, and none of the
business leaders he detained in a luxury hotel are challenging him. The thing
is that they control fortunes ranging between half a trillion and a trillion
dollars, most of which were accumulated in Saudi
Arabia under suspicious circumstances and taken to America . What
the king has done is demand accountability to make sure that corruption is not
enriching the Wall Street gang in America at the expense of the Saudi
people.
Furthermore, the
editors have described the operation as being “mass” arrests and without “due”
process. Well, the editors better look in the dictionary for the meaning of the
word 'mass' because if they think they can fit in a hotel a mass of people, I
have news for them: no hotel can accommodate this many people at one time. And
if the editors think that detaining someone in a luxury hotel is an arrest, let
it be known that 99 percent of the people on this planet will do anything to be
arrested with or without due process.
The editors go on
telling their readers that the king of Saudi
Arabia ratcheted up criticism of a regional rival –
meaning Iran
– accusing it of “effectively” declaring war. Well, there are three problems
with this sentence. First, it is not clear whether the editors mean to say the
accusation is effective … or alternatively, the war is effective. Second, they
don't say what the difference is between a real accusation and an effective
accusation ... or alternatively, what the difference might be between a real
war and an effective war. Third, the editors of the New York Times did not say
on whom Iran
has declared war.
Continuing their
push, the editors tell of a Lebanese leader that visited Saudi Arabia
and “abruptly” resigned his post. Well, let me inform these people that some of
us heard of leaders who went on a long tour to say goodbye before leaving
office; but none of us heard of someone going on a long tour to say they are
resigning. The fact remains that resignations always come short and abrupt.
So now you wonder:
what could be the hidden agenda behind the editors of the New York Times
deciding to write the editorial they did? You look for an answer in the rest of
the article, and the first clue jumps out the title itself. There you see the
lamentation that Saudi
Arabia has special powers over Donald Trump.
But then it occurs to you that every big and small lout from Israel has had very special powers not only over
the presidency of the United
States but also the Congress and just about
every institution in the land. And yet, those same editors and others like them
never lamented.
In fact, they all
did and continue to do what they can to foster Israeli dominance of American
life. Why then lament? The answer is obvious; it is that the editors of
American publications don't care about the American people. They work to
transfer ownership of America
to the Jews of Israel. They see Saudi Arabia
as a potential rival of Israel ,
and they are not happy.
In fact, there is a
strong clue to that effect in the rest of the article. First, recall that you
know a clue is strong when someone goes out of his way to tell a lie. That's
exactly what the editors of the New York Times did. Here is their lie: “It has
not been American practice to give allies a free pass when they're
destabilizing the region, and Saudi policies have become increasingly
aggressive”.
Either the editors
of the New York Times are lying about Israel not being given a free pass when
destabilizing the region, or they consider Israel a kind of supra government
that is ruling legitimately over the American States, the way that Brussels
rules over the parliaments of the European Union.
But the inescapable
truth is that yesterday's eminent Gray Lady of American journalism has become
an aging hooker that can no longer satisfy its Jewish johns. And so, she took
on the role of madam to continue making herself useful to the oldest trade; to
those who practice it and those who benefit from it.