One of the tricks that the Jewish leaders made use of to impress
their audiences at the start of their conquest of North America, was to claim
that the position they took, whatever it was, rested on matters of principle.
That repeated pretense on the part of the Jews, invoked the image
of them being modern-day Moses in the eyes of the mostly Christian audiences
that grew up hearing their own priests and pastors tell them they were sinners.
Not only that, but they were accused of being proud sinners that must begin to
practice modesty or be prepared to go straight to Hell.
And one of the ways that the Christians practised modesty, was to
refrain from questioning the Jews who were anything but modest. In fact, the
Christians thought that the Jew was holding an invisible sceptre he can wave
and open the ground under them, thus dispatch them straight to hell for
challenging the Jew who was sent to speak the word of God to the immodest
Christian sinners. It was that bad half a century ago.
But those of us who lived with Jews for thousands of years, knew
better. Alas, the Jews were many in North America, and we were few. They made
the most of the advantage they had, and managed to silence our side by
slandering us behind our backs. This done, they claimed the debating field all
to themselves, and spewed enough rubbish to overflow many landfills. They were
believed by others because there was no one left to push against their streams
of quackery. After all, North America was a society that believed there are two
sides to every story, but only one side to the word of God, especially when
that word came out the mouth of a Jew.
Those days are gone, and the Jewish leaders of the second and
third generations that claimed the mantle post that era, do not seem to have
learned the tricks that allowed their predecessors to succeed so well. Unlike
the old days when the Jew did not have to explain why 2 plus 2 added up to 5 or
7, to suit the point they were making on a given day — today's Jews feel compelled to give some kind of explanation to every
assertion they make, no matter how screwy the explanation may turn out to be.
You'll detect this sort of philosophical
bedlam in the article that came under the title: “On Syria, Trump Is Wrong —
and Contradicts Himself,” written by Jonathan S. Tobin and published on
December 24, 2018 in Algemeiner. As can be deduced from the title alone, Tobin
is attacking Trump's decision to pull American troops out of Syria. He proceeds
with his analysis, believing that because Trump made numerous promises as a
candidate running to be President, it was inevitable that he should contradict
some of the promises he made and positions he took.
What is eluding Tobin is what must have eluded his predecessors.
But the difference is that the old-timers were not put to the test because
there was no one around to test them, whereas Tobin and his contemporaries must
show some level of logical cogency, or be deemed intellectual lightweights
pretending to be giants.
Here is what the Jews did not understand in the past, and do not
understand today: If your philosophy of life flows from one solid principle,
you can branch into as many directions as you need, and your promises or
positions will not contradict each other. But if you adhere to no principle
except the one of being unprincipled, your stances, no matter how few they may
be, will contradict each other, and will nullify the effect they were meant to
produce.
Not knowing this, Jonathan Tobin relied on the politically laden
talking points that were put out by the Jewish propaganda machine — of which he is one cog — to
attack Trump's Syria decision with the argument that the decision contradicts
some of the stances taken by candidate-cum-President Donald Trump. What Tobin
has produced, however, is not a coherent argument but a philosophical miasma as
opaque as the dirty waters in which the Jews go to catch their fish. The
following are 84 words that represent the essence of what took Jonathan Tobin
more than a thousand words to say:
“Few protested when Obama abandoned Iraq
in 2011. Trump understands better than Obama the danger of allowing Iran to go
unchecked. Obama began a military effort against ISIS. Trump unleashed the
military free of Obama's micromanagement. By declaring victory and pulling out,
Trump may have strengthened Iran when, for the first time since Obama, the
regime seems to be faltering. Trump's version of America First will prove to be
as weak as Obama's approach. It is a pale imitation of Obama's flawed foreign
policy”.
It is obvious that Jonathan Tobin has relied — not on a philosophical principle —
but the single stance of attacking a debating opponent, Barack Obama, to make
his thesis look like holding together.