Did it ever happen that you were in a supermarket and your
shopping cart accidentally hit someone else's cart? Did it happen that you and
the other person turned toward each other at the same moment, and simultaneous
said something like: I'm so sorry?
Whether or not this happened to you, imagine such a scene ... and
then let me ask you a question. Do you really believe that people caught in a
situation such as that, do feel remorse for what happened? Or is it that they
say they are sorry out of a sense of chivalry to indicate that what happened
was unintended? The reality is that you would want to communicate that if the
other person was inconvenienced by the slightest, you'll consider what happened
a regrettable occurrence. This is every day chivalry we express without
thinking.
It is how things were during the decades and centuries that
America was civilized. And then America was invaded by the Jews, and they
weaponized everything in sight, including chivalry. And so, whenever their
Judeo-Yiddish culture clashes with that of Gentile America, the Jews holler the
aching in their bellies, and demand that the other side apologizes. To that
end, they mobilized the entire mob of Jewish pundits and taught it to bark the
refrain, “apologize, apologize, apologize.” The howlers attack from every
angle, thus force an opponent to apologize, which he does, if only to get the
Jews to stop barking.
But the move has always meant something else to the Jews. It meant
they didn't have to get into a civilized debate with an opponent, and explain
their point of view. In fact, they always feared getting into a debate because
they knew they would lose as surely as they have no idea what goes into a
serious exchange. But they also knew that when the howling mob forces someone
to apologize, they can later claim they won the debate that never happened by
the fact that the other side has apologized for the wrong reasons.
So then, what happens when a Jew that spent a lifetime stepping on
everyone's toes, suddenly gets gripped with the fever of running for the
presidency of the United States? Bear in mind that he'll be facing the reality
that to have any chance at winning the race, he must apologize to those whose
toes he crushed in the past. Well then, if you want to know what happens to one
such Jewish man, you'll have to look for answers in one of the most fanatic
Jewish-owned publications in America: the New York Post.
The fevered Jewish man in question, is Michael Bloomberg. He wants
the Democratic Party to nominate him as its representative, which means he
needs to win over the base of a party that's largely made of the people on
whose toes he has been stepping in the past. When you consult the New York
Post, you'll find that the story of that man up to now, has unfolded over two
weeks; from November 14, 2019 to November 28, 2019, and was told in three
articles, published on both the news and opinion pages of the Post.
The first article came under the title: “Bloomberg apologizes for
sexist remarks as he plots presidential bid,” written by Carl Campanile and
published on November 14, 2019. The second article came under the title:
“Bloomberg apologizes for stop-and-frisk policy,” written by Carl Campanile,
Daniel Cassady and Aaron Feis, and published on November 17, 2019. The third
article is an editorial that came under the title: “Bloomberg should never
apologize for NYPD's 'Muslim mapping' work,” published on November 28, 2019.
As you can see, Michael Bloomberg first apologized to the women he
offended. But lo and behold and also note that the Post's editors saw nothing
wrong with that. They did not even edit the part in which their reporter, Carl
Campanile, called Bloomberg's comments about women “boorish.” And neither did
the editors cringe at the fact that his spokesman, Stu Loeser told reporters
that Bloomberg changed his mind about disbelieving women who report rape when
there is no “unimpeachable third-party witness”.
Three days later, Michael Bloomberg apologized to an audience that
was made largely of African Americans, for the stop-and-frisk policy that went
on during his tenure. Despite the fact that the three NY Post writers who
reported on this occurrence, called it a bombshell reversal, the editors of the
tabloid did not see fit to edit that part of the article or repudiate it in a
subsequent editorial.
Eleven days after that, the editors of the New York Post counseled
Michael Bloomberg not to apologize to someone. Who was that, you ask? Well, it wasn't
the women or the African Americans or the Latinos. It was the Muslims, for what
he did to them with a project known as “Muslim mapping”.
And there is only one reason why the Post editors made that
suggestion. It is that in their view, chivalry ends, not at the water's edge
but at the Judeo-Christian edge. In fact, these editors turned chivalry into a
weapon by the suggestion that Bloomberg should be “proud, not sorry” for what
he did to the Muslims. And the editors want us to believe that this kind of
preferential treatment is not a form of racism.