How do you create a Jewish narrative you can use to sucker
and roll the American Congress of idiots, thus begin the process of forcing the
administration to hand the foreign policy of the nation to the New-York/Tel-Aviv
axis of state terrorism? Well, you tell the story of what could not have
happened, compare it with what did not happen, and lament about the lost
opportunities that were never there to be had. That's how you do it, and that's
what Bret Stephens has done.
Stephens did it this time in a column he published in the
Wall Street Journal on September 24, 2013 under the title: “Striking Deals With
Despots” and the subtitle: “Stalin played FDR in 1945. Iran 's Rouhani
now attempts to do the same with President Obama.” He started the column with
this question: “Why are democratic leaders so easily suckered and rolled by
dictators?” which says that I mimicked him by starting my article the way I
did. But why did I do that?
The reason why I did it stems from the fact that the writing
style known as parody – which I am using here – is well suited to highlighting
the absurdities contained in a narrative if and when such absurdities exist. In
our case, I use the parody to help me highlight the absurdities that make up
the very foundation upon which most Jewish narratives are constructed. And you
can see this reality in the way that Stephens has formulated the rest of his
opening paragraph. Just look at this: “...Obama, fresh from getting rolled by Russia … now
tempts getting suckered by Hasan Rouhani...”
When someone starts a discussion by asserting something as
forcefully as this, you expect him to spend the rest of the discussion proving
the points he just made. In the absence of such proof, you try to assess the
veracity of the assertions only to realize that the only way the author could
have proved them, was to have the Russians come out and openly brag about
rolling the Americans, or have Rouhani come out and openly brag about suckering
the Americans. And yet, nothing like that happened.
So then, how does he go about buttressing his arguments?
Good question, easy answer. He does it the Jewish way which is to use smoke and
mirrors. To answer the question, therefore, he tells the story of what he says
happened at Yalta
shortly after WW II. He does so to prepare for using his version of history as
an example to compare against his version of the current situation, thus draw
the parallels he hopes will prove his points.
To this end, Stephens sets up a scene with two main
characters, Stalin and Roosevelt. Also present is a third character, Churchill,
that does not play a major role in this scene. The three sat down to negotiate
the future map of Europe, says our columnist, but what they did according to
the Poles and to other Europeans was betray them. Not so, says Stephens because
“Yalta is more
complicated” than that. To explain this, he describes a deal that historians
have called the best that could be obtained under the circumstances, to which
he agrees.
But Bret Stephens is a Jew and as such, he wants to have it
both ways. Having said the equivalent of “tough luck” to the Poles and to the
Europeans who had to live under Soviet domination as a result of Yalta , he now wants to
attack Roosevelt and the other “democratic leaders.” How can he do that? Well,
what he wants to do really is change gear. This will happen if he can start a
new paragraph like this: “It didn't turn out like that.” But how does he go
from the notion that asserts Roosevelt was
correct to the notion that asserts he was incorrect, without someone telling
him he is full of whatever?
Well, the way to do it is to insert between the two notions
what you might view as the blower of blue smoke. Think of the correct Roosevelt
as being one mirror, and Roosevelt the incorrect being the other mirror. To
prevent the image of one mirror from reflecting in the other, you insert the
blue smoke between them. But who is well placed to be the blower of blue smoke?
It would be Harry Hopkins, Roosevelt 's closest
aide, the one who wrote these words: “The Russians proved they were reasonable,
and neither of us had the slightest doubt we could get on peaceably with them.”
And that's where Stephens came up with his: “It didn't turn out like that.”
But what is the significance of this? Here is the
significance: “Yalta
typified a style of American diplomacy that combined idealism with fatal naïveté.” You see, my
friend, the Jewish writer has managed to have it both ways using the trick of
playing with mirrors and throwing blue smoke. He talked about one thing by
talking about another thing to make the reader believe that the two are one and
the same. This is so very Jewish! But having done this, he now asks: “Sound
like any American president you know?”
Yes, he means to tell the reader that he has Obama in mind
but before he gets to him, he clobbers Roosevelt for being naïve and
overconfident at the same time, the reason why he trusted Stalin when he
shouldn't have. Our writer then relates these realities: “Millions of Americans
wept for FDR when he died because he had given them hope. Millions of Russians
wept for Stalin when he died because he had given them terror.” What he failed
to mention was that no one wept for Stalin as much as did the Jews who
affectionately called Joseph Stalin, Uncle Joe. Did the Jews love Stalin's
terror? I don't think Bret has the brains to tell one way or the other.
And so the columnist comes to a point where he can draw a
parallel with the present: “President Obama has given evidence of his desire to
reconcile with autocrats … A deal with Iran's Rouhani is a temptation he is
incapable of resisting … Should it happen, as with Yalta, it won't take long to
learn who is betrayed, and what is lost, in the service of an illusion.”
What illusion is he talking about? He started
saying that Roosevelt got the best deal
possible under the circumstances. And yes, in any negotiation, you win some and
you lose some. But that's no illusion; it is reality. The illusion is to give
the impression you can have it both ways; that you can have your cake and eat
it too; that you can have it all.
No you can't. Only a Jew would dream such dreams; and he would chase
them for thousand years, never catching any of them. This is pathetic, and the
rest of humanity knows better than that. Wake up, Bret.