Capitalists know very well that if there is a market for
something, there will always be someone to make the thing and sell it. This is
true not only for goods and services but also for ideologies … believe it or
not.
In fact, there is the saying that if Napoleon had not
existed, someone would have had to invent him. That's because Napoleon stood
for many of the things that fill the gap in the narratives which are repeated
in political and diplomatic quarters. But the one thing that the capitalists
didn't count on was that the Jews will grow so dependent on the benefits they
derive from playing the “victimhood” game––which they play incessantly––they
nurture and take good care of the hoax of antisemitism as if it were a
one-of-a-kind cash cow they have in their possession – fearing they may never
duplicate it if they lose it.
Two articles dumped on the North American marketplace of
ideas on the same day, March 12, 2018, illustrate these realities as bluntly as
can be done. One article came under the title: “Hey, Putin: Don't pin this on
the Jews,” written by Catherine Rampell, and published in The Washington Post.
The other article is actually an editorial that appeared in The Washington
Times under the title: “The blood libel revived”.
Rampell's beef is that while defending the Russian state
against the accusation of interfering in the American election of 2016,
Vladimir Putin said to an interviewer that anyone could have committed the
alleged acts. He proceeded to give three examples as to who might be the
culprits. He cited the Ukrainians, the Tartars and the Jews who could be
identified as Russian citizens but have no affiliation with the government,
said Putin.
And so, unlike the Ukrainians and the Tartars who did not
put out a single word in spoken or written form, Catherine Rampell, the Jew,
wrote an 800-word essay and fired it off to the Washington Post that promptly
published it. The first thing the writer did in her article after mentioning
what Putin had said was to moan that: “The White House has so far remained
silent on Putin's anti-Semitic scapegoating”.
Note what the writer did in one short sentence. She packed
the qualifier “so far,” the misnomer “anti-Semitic,” and the fake descriptor
“scapegoating” into the sentence. Why did she do that? She did it because, as a
Jew, she would not pass up the opportunity to raise the storm that the Jewish
Establishment told her will disgust most of her readers, thus raise the
anti-Semitic sentiment that's vital to the continued financial well being of
the Jews.
And of course, as a Jew, she could not help but put the
Jewish stamp on what she had accomplished. She did it by leaving behind two
very Jewish markers. First, she attributed to herself the feeling of disgust
that she stirred up in her readers. She did it with this remark: “As a Jew, I
find Putin's attempt to implicate my people to be disgusting and offensive.”
This is so very Jewish.
Second, she shot herself in the foot trying to have it both
ways. She did it with this: “Let's be frank: If the Jews had rigged the
election, it would have had a way different outcome.” Thus, having expressed
disgust at Putin for trying (only trying) to implicate the Jews, she actually
implicated the Jews (and forcefully so) by saying they are better than anyone
when it comes to interfering and rigging elections. This is so very Jewish.
As to the editors of the Washington Times, their adviser
must have been a Jewish juvenile on his first assignment. He seems to have told
a bunch of good-for-nothing editors –– basking in the burnout zone of their
eternal ignorance –– how to write the words that exposed them as third rate
journalists who failed to see what serious damage they imposed on the cause
they are championing.
Here is what they did. They began the discussion by accusing
the Palestinians of reviving the blood libel, which had it that the Jews of
Medieval times, were “using the blood of Christian babies in their recipe for
matzos.” The next thing they did was to backtrack, saying that the Palestinians
“accused only of the massacre of children.” The next thing was to explain how
the Israeli occupying force did that. Here is how the editors put it:
“Palestinian voices accuse Israel
of executing children for throwing rocks at passing cars. These are considered
war crimes”.
What is it that these editors are missing? Well, they think
of the occupation not as an ongoing act of war but a video game. Thus, they do
not realize that when an occupation goes on for half a century, massacres do
happen. They are documented by the media, and are reported to international
investigators as well as tribunals that authenticate the claims. This is why
the Palestinians want to take their case to the International Criminal Court
(ICC), and why Israel and America are
trying to block the move.
Whether or not the case reaches the ICC, public opinion
around the world believes these accusations. And the more the case is prevented
from reaching the ICC, the more the world believes that Israel has something
to hide.
Now, my friend, guess what this does. Because the low-life,
ignorant and disgusting editors of The Washington Times have established a
connection between the blood libel of Medieval times and the massacres of
today, every belief in the massacre leads to a belief in the blood libel.
Thus, instead of letting sleeping dogs sleep, the editors
have added credibility to a libel that was discredited and forgotten long ago.
With friends like these, the Jews need no enemy of any kind.