Imagine you live in a small community such as a remote town where life is generally pleasant except for a peculiarity that sometimes annoys the townspeople, and sometimes amuses them.
The
peculiarity is a wino who never encounters someone without criticizing them
about what they wear, say or do … even things he alleges they fail to do. The
townspeople have learned that the only way to get him away from you, is to drop
a few coins into his pan even if the rumors, swirling about him, are to the
effect that he is the heir to a fortune he uses to bribe the town’s officials
from the mayor down to the street sweeper, thus keeps them from locking him
into a suitable facility.
Instead
of doing that, the townhall has commissioned a study to determine how badly the
townspeople treat the wino who always nags about being treated unfairly by the
people who should love him if only because he was once beaten up so badly, he
took to the bottle to alleviate the pain, thus became the wino that the people
say is annoying.
Because
none of this makes sense as far as you’re concerned, you think of a way to get
to the bottom of what you see as an abnormal situation. What you do is get into
journalism and become an investigative reporter. Working on the case for many
years without revealing what you know, but writing and publishing other stories
to earn a living, you finally have the whole story concerning the wino’s
relationship with the townhall politicos. You reveal it, and the story explodes
like a big scandal, not only in the small town where it originated, but on the
national level as well.
Here
is the truth: The wino is no wino but pretends to be one. He is no heir to a
fortune but lives on what he collects panhandling in the streets, on the aid he
receives from the charitable organizations, and the welfare money that the town
pays him. Despite the complaints which are regularly filed against him by ordinary
folks, he is tolerated by those in charge of the town because he knows the
sordid details of what goes on in the corridors of power. It is the story of
the man at the top who is more than a regular womanizer. He is a groping maniac
and a rapist whose closet is filled with stories of women who are afraid to
tell the despicable encounters they had with him; the creep that’s protected by
underlings who fear him as much as do the women.
Now
my friend, does this sound to you like the story of several groups of
blackmailers blackmailing each other into silence? It is what politics has
become in America, so rendered by the whiners who want you to believe they
cannot stop drinking from the bottle of money-gushing Holocaust. They know who
keeps what skeleton in what closet, and who gropes whose body parts when no one
is watching. Thus, they live by the power of the blackmail while dangling the
Benjamins in front of the politicos as a promise of a big payout come election
time without ever keeping the promise.
Finally,
there is one question you might want to ask at this point: How do they do it?
Well, you’ll find the answer in an article that came under the title: “This
report on online antisemitism looks bad,” and the subtitle: “Could reality be
worse?” It was written by Melissa Langsam Braunstein, and published on August
6, 2021 in The Washington Examiner.
As
can be seen, the title of Braunstein’s article is a signature of Jewish
arguments. It is a form that’s never definitive. It goes like this: Here’s what’s
there now but there should be more beyond what you see. It is so because to the
Jews, only one thing is definitive. It will happen when the messiah will come
and hand them Planet Earth and all its content. But don’t be surprised that if
this unlikely event happens, the Jews will ask: Should we not expect to be given
the entire solar system?
In
any case, here is Melissa Braunstein latching on to a report that was issued by
yet another self-styled organization calling itself Center for Countering
Digital Hate (CCDH) in which, according to Braunstein, the “report spotlights
the incredibly lax enforcement of community guidelines regarding antisemitism”.
Typical
of what you would expect from a Jew, Braunstein pointed to the gift that CCDH
has given her and to all the Jews like her —
spotlighting and quantifying the antisemitism that exists in the social media — but instead of thanking the Center, she complained
that it did not do a thorough job, and neither did the tech companies that
failed to enforce their own guidelines, the way she sees things. And here is
the excuse she gave for seeing what she sees:
“These
numbers are notably low, but reality may actually be grimmer for two reasons:
First, the search terms CCDH used skewed away from the far-left and Islamist
antisemitism, which is just as much an issue as the far-right extremism the
CCDH examined. Second, the content Facebook largely ignored violated the
social media giant’s own tailored antisemitism guidelines”.
And
then Melissa Braunstein ended her presentation by doing what you would expect
her to do. She complained that the CCDH report mentioned only the antisemitism
of the right, leaving out that which is inspired by Muslims and by the left.
She also complained that the report did not condemn the Palestinians for
wishing to live freely in their own country. And she urged the adoption of the
International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism.
But she said not a single word about what the Jews need to do to end the tradition of being the architects of their eternal misery.