If you consider the two publications, National Review Online and the New York Post to be two peas in a pod, you can easily view them as the two sides of the same mouth, with each side saying the opposite of what the other says. As it happens, this is the way that the Jewish leaders — whose insistent aim is to have it both ways each and every time — engage in conversations with the rest of humanity.
And so, the article you are reading juxtaposes an
editorial of the New York Post with an article written by a contributor of
National Review Online — two publications run by extreme Jewish fanatics — thus
demonstrates how the Jewish leaders manage to convince the politicos of the
Anglosphere that what’s given to the Jewish goose must be denied to the goyim (gentile)
gander.
The editorial of the New York Post came under the title:
“‘Living hell’ and the destruction of academic freedom, published on November
26, 2022. As to the National Review article, it came under the title:
“Antisemitism Threatens More than just the Jews,” and the subtitle: “A hesitance to
combat anti-Jewish hate endangers the liberal foundations on which societies
like ours rest.” It was published on November 26, 2022, the same day as the New
York Post editorial.
In fact, that article was analyzed by yours truly in a
discussion that came under the title: “A free Palestine would check terrorist
Israel,” published on this page just below the one you are reading.
As can be seen from the titles alone, the New York Post
editorial advocates the granting of unrestricted free speech to everyone,
especially those whom the editors claim are denied it — such as the Jews and
their supporters — whereas the National Review article advocates the denial of
free speech to those who will not praise Israel or the Jews in every sentence
they write. It is that the Jews consider the absence of such praise to mean a
hidden tendency to hate the Jews.
So then, what are the editors of the New York Post
saying? Well, you’ll not be surprised to know that the editors attributed to
the gentiles what the Jews have been doing for decades, what they do now, and what
they promise they’ll do tomorrow and forever into the future. What’s that, you
ask? It is the equivalent of the social graces that the finishing schools used
to teach young women about to enter the social milieu and act on their own to charm
the crowd. Handled by the Jewish leaders, such preparations came to be known as
the “private and behind closed door” Jewish treatment of neophytes just joining
the politico-journalistic domain.
And here is how the editors of the New York Post reversed
that reality:
“If universities
don’t protect free speech and open debate, they’re no better than finishing
schools, if not outright propaganda factories — serving not the nation or the
search for truth, but simply the dominant ideology. But that’s increasingly
what US colleges have become, routinely closing the door to dissent by
shutting down professors, researchers and students who challenge the received
wisdom”.
What the editors
of the New York Post did here, is ignore the reality that in most cases, the
universities let the debates run their course, a stance that demonstrates their
dedication to free speech. But while this is happening, the Jewish leaders work
on fabricating false claims that tie every argument they cannot defeat to
antisemitism. This is the veto power they gave themselves, the power by which
they force the politico-journalistic crowd to cancel the brave souls who refuse
to toe the Jewish line.
The editors of
the new York Post went on to cite several examples of professors and others
that were cancelled because of what they uttered verbally or in writing — yet the editors failed to mention a single one
of the numerous examples when someone was cancelled for life, as punishment for
saying something as innocuous as Egypt is a civilized country.
And here, you have it yet again, the editorial board that
railed on previous occasions about the “Equity, Diversity and Inclusion”
program being introduced in some Colleges and Universities, now lamenting that such
treatment was denied those who sought to have diversity come to their
institution. Here is how the editors expressed that thought:
“At Portland
State, Peter Boghossian became a pariah just for calling attention to the lack
of diversity of opinions on campus, a response that proved his point”.
Perhaps what the editors of the New York Post wish to
see, are campuses flooded with all shades of WASPISH-YIDDISH tints, but not a
single color that might remind them the world is diverse.
This is how the editors of the New York Post ended their
discussion:
“It’s alarming:
The last place cancel culture should flourish is on campus. Higher education is
supposed to foster fresh thinking, not enforce any ideology except the
classical liberal ideals of free and open debate. Universities can’t serve
society as a whole if fear of backlash keeps brilliant thinkers from sharing
their thoughts. Unpopular ideas won’t always prove right — but even when wrong,
they can expose faults in the previous consensus. And if they go unheard, true
progress becomes impossible”.
Weighing all that evidence as would be seen and appraised
by an impartial observer, we can only conclude that the Jews wish to have
unlimited access to free speech while retaining the veto power by which to
cancel anyone who does not toe their line.