The mercurial nature of the Jewish culture is at the basis
of the ambiguities that pop up and baffle you when you conduct business, or you
engage in give-and-take, or you do any sort of exchange with the Jews. It is that
they sit on the fence to have easy access to both sides; a position that allows
them to have it one way when you're so distracted you look on the other side of
it – and they have it the other way when you look on this side of it.
The Jews play this sort of ambiguous game with the big
geopolitical issues such as to claim that Israel will cease to exist if any of
its neighbors is allowed to possess nuclear energy, while advertising that it
may or may not itself possess an arsenal of nuclear weapons. They also play the
ambiguous game when tackling issues of lesser importance. A favorite of theirs
is to call someone anti-Semitic if he says A instead of B; and call him
anti-Semitic if he says B instead of A.
This is a version of the old game which goes: “Heads I win;
tails you lose.” It is an important game for them to play because it leaves
everyone else speechless. Disheartened, the people that had originally come to
take them on, almost always cede the debating floor to them where they gladly
promote their own agenda in full. The Jews manage to accomplish all this
without encountering a meaningful opposition to push back, which is how and why
they have it both ways more often than not.
We must understand, however, that the playing of the
anti-Semitic card does not happen in a vacuum. It is invoked when the Jews see
something they covet and wish to take possession of it without giving something
in return. In other words, they play the ambiguous card the moment that they
start scheming to have it both ways.
You can see how all this comes together in the article that
was written by William Kristol under the title: “Borderline Anti-Semitism” and
the subtitle: “Mike Pompeo takes on Jim Slattery.” It was published on August
31, 2015 in the Weekly Standard. As suggested in the subtitle, the Bill Kristol
article is about another article (actually a statement) that was released by
Mike Pompeo.
The story in a nutshell is this: Jim Slattery was a
congressman for the state of Kansas
where Mike Pompeo is now the congressman. Slattery has been campaigning for the
nuclear deal that the Obama administration and five other nations negotiated
with Iran ... and Pompeo did not like this idea one bit. And so, he issued a
written statement in which he attacked Slattery. When this came to the
attention of Bill Kristol, he loved the idea so much he wrote an article in
which he did more than praise Pompeo.
What Kristol did was suggest that Pompeo should enter the
ongoing race where an already large number of candidates are seeking the
nomination to run in the upcoming presidential election, calling Pompeo: “a
well-qualified dark horse.” But why is that? Why the honor? Why the desire to
see Pompeo become President of the United States ? Simple; it is that
Pompeo took it upon himself to promote the Judeo-Israeli agenda. This and this
alone, qualifies the man to be President of the American Republic
But you ask: Where is the ambiguity in this saga? Where is
the attempt to have it both ways? Well, you get the answer to these questions
when you read a passage that quotes Pompeo. It is one that William Kristol
agrees with wholeheartedly, and goes as follows:
“Slattery suggested that opponents of the deal were doing so
to 'move the Jewish vote and campaign contributions to the Republican column.
This suggestion is disgusting, borderline anti-Semitic and deeply repugnant.
Slattery should apologize for even hinting that those of us against this are
doing so to curry favor with the Israeli [Jewish] lobby.”
And there is more: “This kind of language, hinting that Jews
are in control of American policy, has a long, nasty history and Slattery knows
it. Using such terms as a political weapon is beneath the dignity of a
Christian like Slattery.”