If you ever thought there is no harm in mouthing off a few
words to keep the Jewish leaders happy and off your back, the examples that
follow will make you think twice before you say yes to people whose malicious
intent has now been revealed to be deadly. These leaders approach honest people
like you and ask them to utter this harmless thing or express that noble
sentiment but mean to accomplish evil things based on what you utter.
In a moment, you will see how a word, a thought or an
expression can be made to haunt you in ways you never expected. And you will
see that someone you never heard of before or someone you will never hear of in
the future, can be made to pay for what you say today. Those who approach you
and ask that you say this or that abuse the gift of speech not to free the
human spirit but to bind people like you to an agenda they prepare years or
even decades ahead of time so as to achieve purposes that would horrify you if
only you knew.
The first example is that of an article written by Michael
Oren who is Israel 's
ambassador to the United
States . It is titled: “What happened to Israel 's
Reputation?” and has the subtitle: “How in 40 years the Jewish state went from
inspiring underdog to supposed oppressor.” It was published in the Wall Street
Journal on May 15, 2012. Four days before that, on May 11, 2012, there was an
article published in the National Review Online, written by Elliott Abrams
under the title: “Obama, Carter, and the Missing Words on Iran .” It had
the subtitle: “Our current president's rhetoric on Iran doesn't even stand up to Jimmy
Carter's.”
What is remarkable about the Oren article is that it begins
with a lengthy quotation from a piece that was written in Life magazine in 1973.
In fact, it was more than a piece; it was an event that Oren describes like
this: “In a 92-page special issue 'The Spirit of Israel,' the magazine extolled
the Jewish state...” He then goes on to tell how Israel was viewed then as opposed
to how it is viewed today. And what is remarkable about the Elliott Abrams
article is that he compares the saying of President Crater when he was
President with the saying of President Obama, now that he is President.
What is astonishing about the two articles is that instead
of learning something from the change they see and so aptly describe, the two
authors fail to draw the proper conclusions. You look closely and you discover
that such is the case because these people suffer from a mindset that does not
allow for the evolution of thought. They remain frozen in biblical times which
is the reason why Jews have suffered throughout history and will continue to
suffer till we help them change.
With nostalgia he cannot restrain, Oren tells of the way
that the magazine described Jewish Israel: “enlightened, robustly democratic
and hip, a land of 'astonishing achievements.'” Juxtaposed with this comes the
writings of the editor of the magazine who said this about the
Arabs/Palestinians: “'The Arabs' bloodthirsty threats' … 'Arab terrorist
attacks' … The word 'Palestinian' scarcely appeared.” After listing a few more
of the superlatives that were used to describe the Jews, and a few more of the
denigrations that were hurled at the Arabs, Oren asks this question: “Would a
mainstream magazine depict the Jewish state like this today...?”
He answers the question with one word: “Unlikely” but then
elaborates by describing a few realities that exist on the ground: “Israel 's brutal
conduct in warfare and eroding democratic values – plus the Palestinians'
plight and Israeli intransigence. The photographs would show … soldiers at
checkpoints and religious radicals.” He then does something that tells you he
is totally dissociated from reality. It is that he asks the question: Why has Israel 's image
deteriorated?” Hell, you exclaim to yourself, he just answered the question
even before asking it. But this is not how he sees the matter as he goes on to
elaborate: “After all, Israel
today is more democratic … even more committed to peace.”
And you cannot help but ask yourself if this man is a mental
case or what? He just belied the superlatives that were uttered in Life
magazine while describing Israel ,
and thus hinted at the reasons why the Palestinians resisted the Jewish
occupation of their motherland. If, as he says, Israel was worse then than it
is today, and if what people see today has turned them against Israel, imagine
how you would have felt if you were a Palestinian living under occupation. Yet,
these were the people that the editor of Life magazine has described as
bloodthirsty Arabs; an image that the Jewish propaganda machine in America has
injected like moral syphilis into every aspect of the culture: from the news
and the commentaries to the scenes of entertainment, to the laws and the
politics of the land, and more ominously into a military that is supposed to
protect the republic not implement an alien agenda.
And the man keeps amazing you with his absolute, infinite
and total inability to see what is wrong with him, his mentality, his religion,
his politics and everything he stands for both as an individual and a
representative of the Jewish state he calls Israel . What he does to convince
you of this is that he repeats the false old narrative about the situation in
the Middle East , a narrative he keeps refuting
-- not knowing what he is doing -- whenever he tries to have it both ways.
It is like someone saying: I deny doing
this but I am sorry for what I did.
Look at this piece of nonsensical Jewish filth: “Few
countries have fought with clearer justification, fewer still with greater
restraint … Whereas Israelis in 1973 viewed the creation of a Palestinian state
as a mortal threat, it is now the official policy of the Israeli government.”
So you ask yourself: What the hell did the Jews expect the Palestinians to do
between 1973 and now? Kiss and thank their oppressors for oppressing them?
Thank them for maintaining the occupation? For describing them as bloodthirsty
Arabs to the Americans who armed them, financed them and protected them in
world forums and on the battlefields?
For several more paragraphs, he goes on to tell how bad Israel was
then, and how good it is now. But he does this at the same time as he describes
Israel
and the Jews as being impeccable saints while describing the Palestinians as
being entirely flawed demons. As if this were not enough, he astounds you with
something that renders you so numb, you feel for a moment like floating in the
zero gravity of outer space. Look at this passage: “In 1993, Israel recognized
the Palestinian people ignored by Life magazine.” Did you get it, my friend? He
blames the American magazine and by extension all of America not for what they did but
for what the Jews have concocted and have injected onto the American scene: the
crime against humanity that was the denial of the existence of a people called
Palestinians.
Having done this, why not go all the way and blame the
change of heart now taking place in America not on the fact that the people see
the truth they were denied seeing before, but blame the change of heart on the
“anti-Israel libels once consigned to hate groups becom[ing] media mainstay.”
This done, why not stuff the list with more complaints, and mention the
culprits who are responsible for it. In short, why not say this: “It burgeoned
through the boycott of Israeli scholars, artists and athletes, and the embargo
of Israeli products. It was perpetuated by journalists...”
And so you ask: Any sign of remorse or penitence? Nope.
Instead, this is what he throws at you to end the dissertation: “Israel must
confront … delegitimization … 'The Spirit of Israel' has not diminished … The
state that Life once lionized lives even … today.” For a moment you wonder how America allowed
itself to be imbued with the philosophy of these people and remain under their
influence for this long. To gain insight as to how it could have happened, you
go back and analyze the Elliott Abrams article.
You get a sense at the start of this article what is wrong
with the thesis you are about to read because the author makes an assertion he
neither explains nor elaborates but takes for granted that you will
automatically agree with. Here it is: “American interests and allies in the Persian Gulf are threatened. What's needed is a clear and
tough statement right from the top...” Even if you accept the notion that a
threat exists, you still need to know how it is that a tough statement from the
top will change things given that the more America
escalates the rhetoric, the more the opponents in the Persian
Gulf respond in kind.
As you continue to read, you realize that even if you had
the explanation and the elaboration you seek, the thesis would remain
nonsensical because it is stuffed with contradictions throughout. Look what the
author writes: “...the president starts making speeches. What does he say? That
depends on whether it's Jimmy Carter in 1980 or Barack Obama in 2012 … Carter
was a lot tougher.” Thus, according to the thesis, Carter must have had better
luck in 1980 but that's not what the author says. In fact, he says nothing
about how well or how badly Carter has fared with his foreign policy. But after
making comparisons throughout the article between the two presidents, he ends
the dissertation like this: “...we are left longing for the comparative clarity
and toughness of the Carter policy.”
But if the Carter rhetoric was tougher than the Obama
rhetoric, and if nothing good came of it, why is it that Elliott Abrams and
those like him insist that harsh rhetoric be used against everyone they call
enemy which happens to be the whole world as they pick on one country after
another? The answer is that they do not believe the rhetoric will scare the
people who stand up to America .
They insist on harsh rhetoric because it isolates America in the world, and this
allows them to control the individuals at the top of the various American
chains of command. This is how America
has allowed itself to be imbued with the philosophy of these people and remain
under their influence for this long.
After telling how weak Jimmy Carter was at the start of his
presidency but then had a change of heart and a change of policy, Abrams makes
this comparison between the two presidents: “...he stated ... the Carter
Doctrine: 'Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside
force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault
on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault
will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.' … President
Obama's statements do not meet these standards.”
He goes on to describe the intellectual wrestling that
President Obama lived through with regard to the Iran question then says this:
“...Obama faces a world that is not what he had hoped for … But his rhetorical
response has been markedly weaker than Carter's ... During Israeli prime
minister Benjamin Netanyahu's March 2012 visit to the White House, Obama said
the following...” And you stop here because you begin to get a sense that the
thesis he is building is based on words that were spoken in a different context
by people that were living under different circumstances. And he is trying to
hold Obama's feet to the fire based on this rhetoric alone. He goes on and on
and on doing more of the same till you have it up to here and your mind shuts
down.
You start to draw your own conclusion which is this: Never
say anything that these people can invoke at the wrong time or in the wrong
place or for the wrong reason. Like children they will hang on to every word
you say, and throw it back at you or at someone else if and when it will suit
them to do so.
The best way to deal with these people and prevent them from
provoking the pogroms and holocausts such as they suffered during the time that
they lived in the West, is to treat them the way that the Arabs have treated
them and kept them out of trouble. It is never to allow them to throw nonsense
at you without you telling them off. This is how you help these people change
their mindset and live like normal human beings.