Some pundits continue to try having it both ways. They say
President Obama was under so much pressure at home, he has accepted the deal
with the Iranians prematurely to divert attention from his domestic failures. At
the same time, they say that the Iranians knuckled under, and came to the
negotiating table at this time because the sanctions were inflicting great
damage to their economy ... which is why the regime of sanctions must be
strengthened rather than relaxed to make sure that the Iranians will negotiate
in good faith. Are these pundits trying to have it both ways, or is it that
their behavior is a curious oddity?
What's it really about? And why is it that you get this kind
of punditry only in America ?
Well, you get it in America
because that's where you have the greatest concentration of Jewish so-called
pundits – whatever they are in reality. You see, built into any culture that
develops naturally is a sense that everyone has his place under the sun. We may
step over each other's territory inadvertently or even deliberately thus create
conflict between us, but we end up resolving our differences through a process
of give-and-take where you give some of what you have in order to receive some
of what the other guy has.
And when this round of conflict-cum-resolution is done with,
both parties go on with their lives as normally as possible till they find
themselves mired once more in some other conflict with someone else. This
compels them to go through the whole process once again which is why all
cultures have come to recognize the process as being an integral part of life.
In fact, some people view it as adding spice to life, and have come to accept
it – but only as long as it does not degenerate into acts of violence.
This, however, is almost never the case with those who
appoint themselves leaders of the Jews; and it's not what they imbue into their
followers. That's because these people start life with the view that their stay
on this planet is permanently under existential threat because they think that
humanity does not now nor will it ever allow them to have a place of their own
under the sun. Thus, having nothing that they can legitimately give away for
what they want in return, they cannot resolve a difference they may have with
someone by using the path of the give-and-take.
This being the case, what the Jews are taught at a young
age, is that they can obtain what they want only by employing fear to force the
side that has it to relinquish it. This means that if a Jew sees something he
wants, he must first work on discovering a reason to blackmail the owner of the
thing, then use the discovery to pressure the owner to hand it to him. And if
it so happens that a so-called Jewish pundit sees two sides (such as the
American and the Iranian) do the thing that humans normally do by going to the
negotiating table because it is in their mutual interest to do so, the Jew will
have a weird sort of interpretation. He will say that both sides have knuckled
under because each must have feared something.
So you ask: How do the people who are equipped with this
sort of mentality interpret history? As it happens, there is an example we can
look at – courtesy of the Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens. His latest
column comes under the title: “Worse Than Munich” and the subtitle: “In 1938,
Chamberlain bought time to rearm. In 2013, Obama gives Iran time to go
nuclear.” It was published in the Journal on November 26, 2013.
He says that in 1938 Britain
and France
took the option of capitulating to Nazi Germany, an act he characterizes as
being a byword for ignominy, moral and diplomatic. He goes on to explain that
the British and the French took this option because: “Neither had the military
wherewithal to stand up to Hitler … appeasement bought the West a year to
rearm.” So then: Why was this a shameful option? Stephens does not answer the
question, and neither does he mention that the “West” won the war as a result
of the lull that allowed it to rearm. Would the Brits and the French have been
less shameful had they attacked a year earlier and lost the war? The answer to
this question is buried inside the brain of Stephens, and I doubt that he'll
ever reveal it.
But he goes on to give a second example. He says that the U.S. betrayed
its South Vietnamese ally by abandoning the effort for which 58,000 American
troops had given their lives. He then praises that decision with these words:
“Yet it did end America 's
participation in a war that neither the Congress nor the public could
indefinitely support.” But he goes on to lament the victims of Cambodia 's
Killing Fields.
Whoa! Whoa! Do you know what this means, my friend? It means
that in their eagerness to extol the virtue and glory of war, some Jews – Bret
Stephens included – are inching towards the saying that it was the American
troops, not the Nazis, who set up the concentration camps, the gas chambers and
the crematoriums of Europe where the Jews were exterminated. Yes, that's what
they are inching towards.
People writing in the Wall Street Journal, the National
Review Online and similar publications are mutilating history so badly in their
attempt to “rehabilitate” the Vietnam War, they are using the Vietnamese
invasion of Cambodia
to make their case. What these super ignoramuses of the Jewish kind cannot
understand, precisely because they are mentally deficient to grasp history, is
that the world begged – yes, begged – the Vietnamese to go into Cambodia and
end the Holocaust that the Khmer Rouge of Pol Pot were inflicting on the people
of Cambodia.
Still, you see these characters turn history upside down,
and you cannot help but ask yourself: How can someone allow them to continue
mulling current issues by analogy with a history that their miniscule brains
can never be brought to understand?
For now, you brush them aside, look at the work that the
Permanent Five plus Germany
have done together with their Iranian counterpart, and say to yourself: Thank
God there are non-Jewish people on this planet keeping it sane and safe.