Can we say that telling half the truth by knowingly hiding the other half, amounts to lying? Here is a short scenario that will help you see the nature of the dilemma:
You are called as witness to a
robbery alleged to have taken place in the building across the street from
where you live. The prosecutor asks if you saw the suspect enter the building
at 9 o'clock that night. You say, yes you did. He asks if you saw the tenant of
the apartment that was robbed, enter the building at 10 o'clock that night. You
say, yes you did. He asks what did you see happen after 10 o'clock. You say you
saw nothing because that's when you went to bed. The judge dismisses the case
for lack of evidence.
On the surface, justice seems
to have been served because you did not lie. In fact, the eyewitness account
you gave dovetails nicely the police report that did the preliminary
investigation. It is that the kid suspected to have committed the robbery,
lives in another apartment in the same building. It was searched by the police,
and no stolen goods were found. But here is the thing: The prosecutor neglected
to ask if you saw anything suspicious unfold between 9 and 10 o'clock that
night. Had he asked –– and you being under oath –– you would have answered in
the affirmative despite the fact that you feel sympathy for the kid, and you
seriously dislike the neighbor he robbed.
Here is the story you would
have told in response to the right question, were it asked: At about 9:30 that
night, you saw the suspect come in a van with a couple of other kids. They
entered the building and came out ten minutes later carrying the pieces that
make up the home entertainment assembly reported stolen. A minute later, the
van drove away and you went to bed.
So, here is a question for you
my friend: Considering that justice was not served because you knowingly told
only half the truth, did you effectively lie by not volunteering to tell the
pertinent half of the truth; the part that would have made the judge pronounce
a different verdict?
Why is it important to resolve
this dilemma? It is important because the world of politics in the nations that
continue to call themselves liberal democratic, have made a career dancing the
fancy footwork so as to advance their agendas in such a way as to remain on the
side of deniability should something go wrong, and a can of worms, bursts open
at the most inappropriate moment.
However, whereas most
non-Jewish politicians play that game only when they must, the game remains a
permanent feature in the Jewish culture. It is played incessantly by their
politicians, pundits, self-made public relation artists and what have you, all
of whom play the game in a way that will keep them on their feet should
something go wrong and the sky falls on everyone's head.
The trick the Jews utilize to
remain safely in a permanent state of deniability, is two-pronged. Whenever
they talk about something that went wrong in the general culture and needs to
be fixed, they would mention anyone and everyone as culprit, but never
themselves even when they know they were one hundred per cent responsible for
what happened. In addition, the moment they sense something that's reviled by
society and potentially attributable to them, is about to be unmasked, they
rush well ahead of time and attribute the thing to someone else.
You can see examples of these
Jewish tricks in the article that came under the title: “President Macron
deserves credit for trying to unite France,” written by Clifford D. May, and
published on May 2, 2021 in The Washington Times.
The facts on the ground at
this time are to the effect that when it comes to coexistence and human
interaction, something has gone wrong simultaneously almost throughout the
globe where factions have turned against factions. And so, many people are
asking: who is to blame? And what can be done to fix things, thus fashion a
world where tolerating, if not celebrating our differences, becomes a virtue
once again?
Clifford May has attempted to
answer these questions the only way he knows how. It is the Jewish way that has
led him to blame everyone; more so France and what he calls “the left” in
America, but neglected to mention the Jews who nevertheless appear everywhere
there is a disturbance like the ubiquitous character you see in almost every
scene of a long soap opera that annoys rather than entertains.
Clifford May ended his article
with these words: “President Biden has expressed a desire to bring his divided
fellow countrymen together. If he's serious about translating that vision into
reality, more than the occasional rhetorical flourish will be required”.
Has Clifford May lied to his
readers by telling only half the truth regarding today’s human condition
without mentioning the Jews whose exploits have been identified throughout time
and space as being the foremost culprits in perpetually turning the human
condition into a miserable condition?
He may think he succeeded in
buying deniability for himself and all Jews, but if history is any guide, he’ll
be proven wrong as were his peers of earlier eras time and time again.
But why do the Jews keep
denying the obvious, generation after generation, when it is clear that coming
out clean and telling it like it is, would greatly improve the human condition
and save the Jews from having to pay reparation with their lives, to a humanity
they keep damaging for no good reason other than it refuses to think of them as
chosen to be its masters?
It will take an eternity and then some, before a Jew will have developed the level of honesty that would motivate him to come out and tell the full truth.