For those who still believe in the absolute innocence of the
Jewish leaders – past and contemporary, and still question the authenticity of
such works as the Protocol of the Elders of Zion, there is a new case that should
prove to them not only the correctness of the view that the Jewish approach is
destructive, even genocidal toward the cultures that allow it to infiltrate
them, but also show the recidivist character of the Jewish leaders as well as
the people who follow them.
The case is actually an article that was published in the
May 20, 2013 edition of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ). It was written by Arthur
Herman, was given the title: “A Refuge for Charlatans” and the subtitle: “The
median pay for public-college presidents is now $441,392, with four presidents
being paid more than $1 million a year.” It is this title, this subtitle and
the juxtaposition of the two that tell the story of the Jewish tendency to
annihilate the cultures that welcome it in their midst.
Arthur Herman, the writer of the article had nothing to do
with the choice of the title or the subtitle. And neither did William Bennett
or David Wilezol who wrote the book that Arthur Herman is reviewing in his
article. The choice of that title and that subtitle was made by the editors of
the Wall Street Journal, and they are the ones responsible for the ongoing
genocide of the American culture. Yes, the phrase that makes up that title; and
yes, the sentence that makes up that subtitle came up both in the Herman
article and the book he is reviewing but the two ideas were never juxtaposed.
So then, what's the problem?
The problem is that when you read that title – which is a
headline in bold characters, then read the subtitle just below it, you are led
to believe that the author is saying college presidents use the colleges as
refuge because they are overpaid charlatans. This is completely false. In fact,
speaking of the students who go to college and have no business being there,
the wording for the title came in the last paragraph of the article in this
form: “the American university … has become a refuge for timeservers and
charlatans.” As to the subtitle, it came before that, in the middle of the
article, and came between parentheses like this (From 1993 to 2007, per-student
administrative costs leapt more than 61% … the median pay for public-college
presidents is now $441,392...)
If you do the math, my friend, you find that when something
goes up by 61% in 14 years, it means that the thing has increased at an average
rate of 3.46% a year – hardly an increase of charlatan dimensions. In fact, I
would say show me a charlatan that is satisfied with this sort of increase and
I'll show you a charlatan that's qualified to be an investment banker or even
the editor of a so-called business newspaper.
So then, what could have motivated these people to do what
they did? Well, you will find the answer to that question by looking at this
incident and a few similar ones to see a pattern. You could, for example, look
at an article I published on May 19, 2013 under the title: “The Lee Habeeb War On Common Sense” which
itself mentions an article I published even before that, on May 9, 2013 under
the title: “Where A False Title Becomes The Editorial”.
When you do that,
you will clearly see the pattern of deception that the editors of the Journal
employ to make the readers believe they are seeing something different from
what the contributors intend to communicate. In fact, Fox News, which is the
audio-visual sister publication of the Wall Street Journal, is engaged in the
same sort of deception. That is, the hosts of every show are trained to do one
thing only – to put words in the mouth of the contributors that these people
generally do not intend to utter.
Is this happening only to WSJ/Fox-News, or is it a practice
that can also be detected in other publications? In fact, there is a history of
twists and turns to this phenomenon that goes back several decades. It is that
before any Jew had owned a publication, the rabbis, the other Jewish leaders
and their organizations hammered at the existing print and audio-visual
publications, demanding that they get off the annoying habit of presenting the
facts as they were, and get on with the business of promoting the Jewish point
of view while suppressing everything that did not toe the Jewish line.
While this was happening, and while the Jewish leaders were
making progress in their endeavor, a second group of Jews were infiltrating the
profession. They got to the point of becoming editors and publishers of some
print publications as well as directors and producers of audio-visual
publications. As well, a third group of Jews began to buy publications of both
types. And they all played the good-cop, bad-cop game. That is, while the
non-Jewish publications were made to express a harsh Jewish point of view, the
Jewish publications remained moderate, even accommodated points of view that
were critical to the Jewish line.
Whatever strategy was behind that approach must have failed because
there arose a bunch of Jewish hot heads who became dissatisfied with the
arrangement, and they tried to do something about it. I know of an example that
unfolded here in Canada well enough to discuss it. As to the United States, I
detect signs that something similar is unfolding there too because Jewish
matters always replicate themselves across the continent.
The Canadian case started when a Jewish big wig in the
Liberal party of Canada, named Israel (Izzy) Asper decided to buy what was then
the Toronto based Global television station. He got all sorts of grants and
loans from all sorts of places in government and in the private sector to
conclude the deal, and to expand the empire by buying up other television
stations as well as print publications throughout Canada. He was fair, even
handed and accommodating to points of view that were opposed to the Jewish
line.
This is when the hot heads infiltrated the Asper empire, and
pushed it to carry extreme Jewish points of view while suppressing all opposite
views. Not only did they control the editorial content of the publications,
they also controlled the business side of it. Their motto went something like
this: “Yesterday was Canada; why not the world today.” And so they borrowed
like crazy to open shop in Australia. More importantly, they targeted that
other place; the one that was so sweet to their hearts – all the more so
because it is a Muslim country that was in love with Israel and in bed with it.
That, of course, was the lovely and beautiful Turkey; the apple of their eye –
their Turkey, their sweet Turkey, the love of their life.
Alas, before they were able to consummate all that love and
all that desire, their finances cracked up, the old man died of a heart attack
– certainly a broken heart – and the company went bankrupt. A Greek tragedy
played in the Yiddish style. If that's not multi-culturalism, what is?
What I see play out in America at this time is a similar
scenario in that the WSJ/Fox-News may be run by a bunch of hot heads against the
wishes of Rupert Murdoch, and I see it play out in Bloomberg News against what
I am sure would be the wishes of Michael Bloomberg because I know he is a fair
and even-handed man.
May these two avoid the fate of Izzy Asper and his Global
empire.