Skip to main content

The peril of divided loyalty

How do you characterize someone who betrays? A "betrayer"? No, the commonly used, and just as commonly accepted term, is "traitor". A number of social commentators have tried to make the case that the meaning of "traitor" is illegitimate when extended beyond the legal meaning. But the meaning conferred by common usage is far more frequently intended, and consequently not just legitimate, but more legitimate. The American Jewish community has been hoodwinked by the Zionist leadership into unwittingly betraying the US. The US is the country of their citizenship, the country that gave them the right to live and act and prosper, free of prejudice. Yet they have turned away from loyalty to the US in favor of a foreign country, Israel, which has pursued its own interests at the expense of the US. If Israel is not an enemy of the US, it is most certainly a ruthless predator, willing to comprehensively victimize an "ally", an ally so subverted that it has become paralyzed, unable to acknowledge its predicament and too helpless to defend itself. This is simply the latest example in the 5000-year cultural practice of using the Goyim as "cattle" for the benefit of God's "chosen" ones. When 270 million non-Jewish Americans -- I leave out 50 million evangelicals -- finally realize what has been done to them, that The American Jewish community has betrayed them in favor of Israel, how do ***YOU*** think they will feel? How do you think they will react? This is not a threat to either Israel or the American Jewish community. Rather, it's a warning. Loyalty to Israel over the US -- even unrealized and unintended -- is a mistake, a perilous mistake. [Go ahead Thomas, "moderate" this out of existence.]

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The (((truth)))) you are not allowed to tell.

Below is my reply to a “Jackie Chiles for president”  comment to this article on antiwar.com: https://news.antiwar.com/2024/05/16/zelensky-blames-the-world-for-russias-kharkiv-offensive/ Here is the "Jackie Chiles for president" comment: "Anyone that's not Russian on here, or paid by the Chinese? This place is scary, can we at least add a few pacifists, Nazi's, nihilist's and communists to balance the dialogue? RFK? I'm not even sure what he is. I'm against senseless wars and wasted national budgets to fund a war for elitist interests too but not at the cost of a world run by Xi and Putin. If you cheer lead those clowns, seek help. "What kind of an idiot are you? Where does this insane hostility towards Xi and Putin come from? ... that you've swallowed hook line and sinker?" ... and below is my response.  The issue which provokes my preserving and publishing the comment here is the series of triple parentheses, which are indications that...

"Terrorism" and other manipulations

From The Next Big Future, which I believe is Brian Wang's website/blog (I'm new at this stuff) , I find a piece entitled Terrorism is a subset of Murder http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/terrorism-is-subset-of-murder.html (asserting, if I get it right, that Terrorism is illegitimate by virtue of being criminal). One commenter, Gigi, responded: As I have already tried to say before, I consider any use of the word “terrorism” more or less pointless. In fact, reading much of the western media about “terrorism” there is almost nowhere any clear definition of the word “terrorism”, for the simple reason that for any kind of such definition many of the military actions taken by the West against unarmed civilians in, say, Iraq or Vietnam may well fall in this definition. Is this an action of terrorism? http://boingboing.net/2010/04/... Simply put it, if Hamas kills one Israeli civilian it is terrorism, if the US or Israel directly kill 10 or more Palestinian it is ...

Bradley Manning and the Nuremberg Principles

Nuremberg Principle I Principle I states, "Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment." Principle II Principle II states, "The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law." Principle III Principle III states, "The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law." Principle IV Principle IV states: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him". This principle could be paraphra...