by Michael Hoffman
Here is more of the same — the insufferable Talmudic double-standard which the NY Times, in its Zionist exceptionalism, regularly undertakes when self-righteously lecturing Muslims about their alleged moral failings and ethical lapses, in this case, in the realm of nuclear weapons. Pay attention, little Muslims, as the Times imparts to you its superior morality out of Animal Farm: Pakistani nukes bad, Israeli nukes invisible!
The lead editorial in the New York Times:
“..experts say, it (Pakistan) has already manufactured enough fuel for 40 to 100 additional weapons. That means Pakistan...could soon possess the world's fifth-largest arsenal, behind the United States, Russia, France and China but ahead of Britain and India. Washington and Moscow, with thousands of nuclear weapons each, still have the most weapons by far, but at least they are making serious reductions.”
—"Pakistan’s Nuclear Folly," NY Times Editorial, Feb. 20, 2011 (emphasis supplied).
The omission of “Israel” from the list is arrogant and brazen; the unwritten undercurrent being that the Judaic possession of nuclear weapons exists in such a vastly higher moral dimension of survival and security concerns with regard to the welfare of superior Israeli human beings, as to be off-limits to editorial consideration, journalistic scrutiny or analogies to other nations' WMD. It is an axiom: God’s Holy People must possess the bomb, while, for unholy Pakistanis to do so in anything other than token amounts, is “folly.”
The Times, in finger-pointing at Pakistan’s possession of weapons of mass destruction, enumerates the world’s nuclear powers (Russia, France, China, Britain and India), while the unmentionable power in possession of those weapons is rendered invisible. This outrageous omission, which demonstrates the degree to which Zionist ideologues operate the Times under a patina of liberal universalism, is in keeping with official policy of the “State of Israel,” which decrees that Israeli nuclear possession is disputed, and should neither be confirmed nor denied by the media.
Questions for the New York Times:
How many nuclear weapons are there in the Israeli arsenal? Have they increased in recent years? Are the Israelis determined to gain additional nuclear weapons? If so, is this determination any kind of “folly” or cause for concern? What are the Israelis doing with the advanced, nuclear-powered submarine Germany donated to them? Are the Israelis under any obligation to reduce their nuclear stockpile, or is the “existential threat” posed by “militant Islam” a sufficient alibi for having no limits? How does the New York Times rank the Israeli nuclear weapon stockpile: sixth-largest, fourth-largest, third-largest? Under what onerous conditions of repression is Mordechai Vanunu — the Judaic nuclear technician and convert to Christianity, who was imprisoned for 18 years for the “crime” of confirming the existence of Israeli nuclear weapons -- living? Why, after all those years in prison, does he still face police harassment and restrictions on his freedom of expression in “the only democracy in the Middle East"?
I’ll bet it is “anti-semitic” to ask these questions.
We should all just be good scouts and limit ourselves to worrying about Pakistani nukes, while awaiting a signal from our high-caste commissars in New York to indicate to us when (if ever) it would not be "anti-semitic” to ask probing investigative questions about the existential threat which the enormous Israeli and American nuclear arsenals pose to sovereign Muslim nations, given the Israeli and American record of invasion, and mass murder of civilians, in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan and Gaza.
Michael Hoffman’s writing and research is funded entirely by donations from readers, and the sale of his books, newsletters and broadcasts.
Very informative post! Keep up the good work.
It all reminds me of "The Holy Hand grenade" from Monty Python's "Holy Grail"; either that or the monkey who is unable to pull his hand out of a jar containing dates because he can't unclench his fist....
For sure they are waxen fat; as Louis Ferdinand Celine had aptly pointed out, "they are not like Ariel....they seem to be more and more like Caliban."
Post a Comment