When we see a lion go after a prey, catch it and feed
on it, we think of the lion as predator. Actually, we shouldn't do that because
what the lion did was sustain itself the way that nature organized things. If
the lion or any species that hunts to eat, stopped hunting, they would go
extinct in less than a generation.
Well then, what's the difference between predation and
what the lion did? Predation applies only to the act of hunting members of
one's own species or another species for the pleasure of the hunt. If the
predator ends up consuming the prey, this should be seen as an added bonus or
an act of savagery depending on who is consuming what, or consuming who.
In any case, that was the view of predation as it
looked through the zoological angle. The same can apply metaphorically in the
sociopolitical arena of a normal society where some of the people hunt —
not
to feed on a prey or hunt for pleasure — but
to “go after” and discipline those that break the rules which stand in their
way to achieving their goals … whatever they may be.
However, a normal society can sometimes deteriorate.
When this happens, its sociopolitical predation gets to be suppressed in favor
of something that goes back to, and approaches the zoological kind. This
happens when savage human predators wear a saintly mask and go after preys of
the same species for the pleasure of the hunt. They metaphorically cannibalize
their preys and confiscate the possessions that the latter leave behind. This
is what you see happening in America at this time. When you look closely at the
factors that brought this condition to the country, you'll find it to be the
pessimistic Yiddish culture of the Jews.
A recently published article, written by Jack Crowe,
shows how sophisticated the Jews have become at injecting their form of
predation into the American sociopolitical culture so as to make America serve
the things that Jews care about the most, which are themselves and Israel,
their current pet project. The article came under the title: “Rep. Ilhan Omar
Likens Israel to Jim Crow South,” published on February 1, 2019 in National
Review Online.
To fully understand the workings of the game that the
Jews are playing in America at this time, we need to recall how they developed
that game over the past few decades. It all started with the rabbis gaining
access to the print and electronic media outlets, which they used to spread
contradictory and confusing messages in the effort to “educate” the public
about what they used to call, “Jewish sensitivities”.
The messages were cobbled together in such a demonic
fashion, you had to nod acceptance of them, and said nothing or if you
responded by saying A, you would get a punch in the nose informing you that you
should have said B instead. On the other hand, if you had said B, you would get
a punch in the nose informing you that you should have said A instead. And the
way that the Jews delivered a punch to your nose, was to rebuke you publicly
and demand that you apologize for something they accused you of doing, but
without explaining what exactly that was. And you could not even ask for the
explanation because you were drowned in cries that demanded: Apologize!
Apologize! Apologize!
Having no clout at the time, except the ability to
create confusion and the management of it, the Jews depended on your apology —
whether or not it was warranted — because an apology was
absolutely the most important gift to themselves that the Jews could extract
from someone. In fact, they wanted the apology to be done publicly because they
dressed it as a recognition on your part that you did something wrong. This
being the case, you owed them restitution they reserved the right to demand and
collect when it will suit them to do so.
Early on, the Jews were quick to ask for such apology,
and quick to receive it from people that were so stunned by the turn of events,
they didn't know how to respond except to knuckle under and do as they were
told. In time, the public began to turn against the practice, and the Jews cut
down on openly demanding for an apology.
Shortly thereafter, the rabbis handed the operation of
the propaganda machine to Jewish laymen and their non-Jewish lackeys. By then,
the mention of someone apologizing for things they didn't do, took on the
subtler and more sophisticated form you see at the end of the Jack Crowe
article.
Here is how Crowe put it: “Omar was forced to
apologize after initially defending a tweet in which she accused Israel of
hypnotizing the world”.
The truth is that Ilhan Omar offered no such apology.
Recognizing that her words may have offended some people does not constitute an
apology, especially in the newly forming culture where political correctness is
taking a hit every day of the week.
But there is more to what Jack Crowe has said. Look
closely and you’ll see that he wrote: Omar was ‘forced to apologize.’ This
indicates that Crowe was instructed in the Judeo-Yiddish school of predation
where motivating others is done by forcing them to do something, and not by
reasoning with them.