Note that the title speaks of “a final solution,” and not
“The Final Solution”.
The second locution expresses Hitler's attempt to rid the
planet of the interminable Jewish efforts to plunge the world into wars. In
fact, that's what humanity had determined the Jews were doing in the belief
that this will summon the long-awaited messiah. They were expecting him to come
down with a plan that would transfer ownership of the world to the Jews, thus
fulfill God's purpose for creating the universe in the first place.
As to the first locution, it refers to the latest trend that
the Jewish propaganda machine has adopted. Whatever literary style members of
the Jewish mob of pundits use, you'll find they are all getting on a bandwagon
that urges America to implement a final solution on Muslims by defeating them
once and for all. This is what Shoshana Bryen and Eric Rosenman are saying in
their latest article. It came under the title: “The threat that must be named,”
and was published on August 1, 2018 in The Washington Times.
In fact, the writers name what they say are threats, but
without showing how they threaten America. And when you look closely at the
names they mention, you realize these are the nemeses that Israel had clumsily
created directly (Hamas and affiliates) or indirectly (Hezbollah and
affiliates,) as well as Israel's previous ally: the non-Arab and Shia-Muslim
Iran.
It was this regional power as well as non-Arab, Muslim
Turkey that the Jews were courting in their attempt to form an alliance that
would help them crush the Arabs. What happened, instead, was that the strategy
backfired, forcing the Jews to run to the “Sunni Arabs” for immediate
protection, and to the Americans for a final solution to what they say is an
Islam bent on annihilating them.
To create an argument, they hoped will be persuasive, Bryen
and Rosenman employed the typical Jewish method of connecting irrelevant dots
to non-existent dots, and used the concoction to paint a picture that muddies
the situation instead of clarifying it. They dipped into the pool of mud they
created for themselves and brainlessly drifted to the conclusion that America
must do the following:
“Defeat Iran. Squeeze Hezbollah. Do likewise to Hamas and
Islamic Jihad. Block Iranian assistance to the Taliban. Disrupt the jihadists'
ability to indoctrinate, recruit and fund-raise online. Cooperate with Israel.
Raise the cost for countries like China and Pakistan that play a double game”.
They call this a winning strategy that must replace the failing
tactics America has been employing, costing thousands of lives and trillions of
wasted dollars. And here is how they describe what they call failing tactics:
“Psychiatrists tell patients they must name their fears. The
struggle against jihad might be finished if properly fought. Ideology and its
practitioners –– the Islamic State and al-Qaeda –– must be named. After Japan
struck Pearl Harbor, the United States went to war against Imperial Japan.
Following al-Qaeda's New York attack the United States fought terrorism, not
the ideology behind it. The end is not in sight. Tactics can supplement but not
replace a strategy. In World War II, the Allies demanded unconditional
surrender by the Axis powers. Islamism operates at trans-national levels. So, a
worldwide demand for unconditional surrender might be pointless”.
Are you confused, my friend? Of course, you are. That's
because Bryen and Rosenman are offering nothing but gibberish. If you're a
political operative or military planner searching for a practical way to
implement a winning strategy, you'll find nothing useful in those words. But
what were the writers trying to say or do, anyway?
They were saying, think strategically instead of tactically.
What's the difference? A tactic is doing something for the short term, whereas
a strategy is doing the same thing for the long term. In fact, what Bryen and
Rosenman have labeled strategy does not differ one iota from what America has
been doing for 17 years … whether it was implementing tactics or a strategy.
We must, therefore, conclude that what the writers are
recommending is that America continue to do indefinitely what it has been doing
all along. The truth is that the status quo is serving the Jews very well and
they don't want to see it changed despite what they say.
But there are serious consequences to what these two are
suggesting. We’ll understand what that is when we realize that in culture as in
psychiatry, people hide what they fear. Thus, hiding what the Jews are doing
says that people fear what Jews are doing.
And as more Jewish pundits get on the bandwagon and call for
a final solution to the Muslim question, someone will feel compelled to reverse
the call and advocate a Final Solution to the Jewish question.