Accusing people who disagree with them of antisemitism, and
using the Holocaust as a backdrop to warn that when you disagree with the Jew,
you help pave the way for the next holocaust, has served the Jewish leaders
well and has strengthened their organizations for something like three quarters
of a century.
But like the bullet which comes out the muzzle of a gun, the
Jewish choice of treating humanity with ballistic aimlessness has hit a snag,
and is in the process of flattening out. Accusing someone of being antisemitic
for saying A instead of B, and accusing him of being antisemitic for saying B
instead of A, has confused people, has forced them to shut up and has allowed
the Jew to monopolize the public square in which he spoke alone for himself and
spoke alone for everyone else.
This is how the ballistic bullet eventually meets its match
which is the inevitable random wall of steel against which it crashes, melts
and flattens out. You can see this happen in the column that was written by
Thomas L. Friedman under the title: “A Bad Mistake,” published on February 4,
2015 in the New York Times. Having benefited from the setup just describe,
perhaps more than any other Jew, Friedman is beginning to realize that coming
out the muzzle of a gun with high energy and nothing more than a fantasy to the
effect that there will be a salutary Armageddon at the end of the journey –
will take the Jews nowhere more pleasant than the practice has taken them
during the past few centuries … nowhere but the same old proverbial holocaust.
And so he counsels: “If Netanyahu wants some intelligent
advice, he should listen to ... the widely respected Michael Oren who said that
the whole gambit was creating the impression of a 'cynical move.'” Well, my
friend, that's a loaded sentence because it shows how the Jews have been
operating, why their approach has failed, and what makes them retain the old
habit which keeps crashing them against the walls of steel.
The fact is that the Jews never listened to a counsel that
was not their own because they always believed it was the most intelligent
counsel on the planet. That was an idea they fanatically inculcated in their
own young and in the young of an American public on which they spent a huge
effort to “educate.” But what is it that Oren and Friedman worry about? It is
that “the gambit was creating the impression of a cynical move.” As you can
see, they do not worry about the cynicism of the gambit; they worry about the
impression it is creating. This is so typical of the Jewish culture; the world
must understand that they consider kosher the commission of any crime as long
as they can make it look like it was committed to serve the greater good. The
Palestinians know this well because they have been at the receiving end of
Jewish criminal conduct … always whitewashed in America .
So you ask: Who was doing the whitewashing? And you get hit
in the face with a reality that dizzies you long enough to miss the
significance of this: “Netanyahu; his ambassador; the pro-Israel Aipac; Sheldon
Adelson, the huge donor to Bibi and the G.O.P.; and Boehner all live in their
own self-contained bubble.” Okay, but who was doing the whitewashing, and who
is saying this now? Brace yourself, my friend, because here comes the answer:
Tom Friedman of the New York Times spent his career up to now whitewashing
every Jewish and Israeli crime; and he is only now talking about the
self-contained bubble where Jewish decisions are made before they are shoved
down the throat of the American people.
But like the kid who may someday become a late bloomer – but
remains for now among the least intelligent – Tom Friedman who learned all
those things by rote and by having them hammered into his thick skull over the
decades, still cannot see the uselessness in choosing to stick with the form
rather than the substance of what needs to be done. Look what he did when he
tried to give advice to Netanyahu: “this speech to Congress is in poor taste …
the anti-Semites, who claim Israel
controls Washington ,
will have a field day.”
As you can see, he is not concerned that an unhealthy
relationship has developed between the American Congress and the Jewish
organizations; he is worried that someone will have a field day pointing out
this reality. And then, to argue that it is illegitimate to even see this truth
or to reveal it to the world, he calls it an act of anti-Semitism. It is
hopeless.