Why
is it that by questioning and cross-examining a witness to an event, you can
deduce what the truth is? Why is it that by questioning a number of people, and
cross-examining them about one and the same event, you can deduce what the
truth is?
You
can make those deductions because the truth is a single integrated story. When
a witness is willing to tell what happened accurately, and you come at him with
several questions from several directions, you'll get several pieces of the
truth, and they'll all fit together like a perfect jigsaw puzzle.
But
if the witness is bent on distorting the truth about one or several aspects of
it, the pieces of the puzzle will not fit together, and this will tell you the
witness is lying.
Well,
you can use those same principles to find out if the Jewish propagandists ––
who never submit to examination or cross-examination –– are lying. But if they
will not tell “their side” of the story in one sitting, they tell it in several
sittings conducted at different times. That's when you bring the pieces
together to see if they'll fit or if they will not … if the witness is lying or
he is not.
The
fact is that the Jews never lacked witnesses, each eager to come out and tell a
piece of the Jewish history. The trouble is that each of them chose a subset of
the pieces that make up the overall integrated plot, and used it to embellish
the subplot that he or she was describing. When you get all the pieces
together, and they fit into an integrated whole, you’ll know you've been given
the true story. But if the pieces do not fit, you’ll know the Jews have lied to
you.
The
two areas where history that's told by the Jews, crumbles, relate to the way
that their ancestors fled Europe and settled in Palestine. What happens usually
is that they tell story (A) at one time, and then tell story (B) at another
time, but never tell (A) and (B) at the same time. What we can do, however, is
bring the two pieces together long after they have been told, and see if
they’ll fit together.
In
so doing, here is what we usually encounter: There would be a time when the
Jews will tell the story of their ancestors being so weak and helpless, they
were beaten up and chased out of the neighborhood by the local Palestinian
farmers who were powerful and well trained. They outmatched the Jews who could
not defend themselves, thus saw many of their people killed or wounded.
And
there would be a time when the Jews will tell the story of their ancestors being
advanced compared, not only to the Palestinians, but to the well trained and
well-equipped armies of five Arab countries which they beat with ease. Because
these two pieces of the puzzle will not fit together, you conclude that the
Jews have been trying to feed you bull manure.
This
brings us to the story that has appeared in the Jewish online publication
called Algemeiner. It came under the headline: “Israeli UN Envoy, Top US Jewish
Group Call Out Tlaib Over Holocaust Comments.” It was written by the staff of
the publication, and published on May 15, 2019.
The
writers speak of meetings during which Israel's UN envoy, Danny Danon, as well
as Chairman Arthur Stark, and CEO Malcolm Hoenlein of the Conference of
Presidents of Jewish Organizations, criticized Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib for
what she had said when discussing the Holocaust.
Danon
accused Tlaib of spreading lies, and of rewriting history, vowing, “not to
remain silent in the face of those who try to do so.” As to Stark and Hoenlein,
they accused Tlaib of historical revisionism and distortion. To make their
point, they quoted Rashida Tlaib and refuted what she said.
Here
is part of what the Jewish honchos quoted Tlaib as saying: “Palestinians lost
their land; their lives, livelihood, human dignity, and their existence. All of
it was in the name of trying to create a safe haven for Jews, post-the
Holocaust, post-the tragedy, and I love the fact that it was my ancestors that
provided that right, but it was forced on them”.
And
here’s how the Jewish honchos refuted what Tlaib had said: “The Arabs in
Palestine during the Holocaust did not provide a safe haven for Jews … The
authenticity of history is vital, not only in ensuring a proper understanding
of the past, as it provides guidance for the future”.
Do you see it? The honchos quoted the good woman as saying: “Post
the Holocaust,” and they complain she was saying “during the Holocaust.” Also,
they quoted her as saying: “to create a safe haven ... forced on them,” and
they insinuate she said the Palestinians provided safe haven voluntarily, and
complain about something she didn't say.
After all that, they muster the gall to moralize this much: The
authenticity of history is vital, not only in ensuring a proper understanding of
the past, as it provides guidance for the future.