Response to this 12/26/2010 article by Edmund Connelly in The Occidental Observer.
Connelly makes some accurate observations about Zionist crime that is intrinsically tied to the supremacist and hate perpetuating ideology of Judaism, but his article is only a brushing on the dirty surface and not an exposing of the rotten core.
The article begins by clearly pointing out that the United States should in no way consider Israel an allied nation and names the Lavon Affair (with a link to the Wikipedia article, nonetheless) as the reason. From reading about such an event we can assume that most truly inquisitive readers (as are those who veer away from mainstream information) will then go on to see that the Lavon Affair was but the start of an era of hidden Israeli aggression against the United States and the West.
Connelly then suggests that there is actually a far more constant and far more subtle war going on and that is one of “laying the mental threads.” Citing several example of documentary works that have investigated the portrayal of Arabs (and all Muslims, really) in film, as well as referring to the 1998 movie The Siege, which is likely a part of this grand anti-Arab propaganda campaign, Connelly makes his point that Hollywood is actually a “Jewish fiefdom” that is working to manipulate all Americans into hating Arabs and Muslims.
Now, is Connelly genuinely concerned about the racism that is directed at these people? One would think so, but unfortunately Connelly then fumbles with the following contradiction:
“The issue is not really whether these images have a substantial element of truth. Muslims are indeed the most likely people on the planet these days to be terrorists.”
And so, Connelly has not only spotted racist propaganda, but he has also bought it hook, line and sinker!
First off, Connelly is going by the ZC prescribed definition of terrorist, which essentially means “angry looking Muslim.” If we look at the word “terrorist” with a bit of rationalism we can come to the simple conclusion that a “terrorist” is simply someone who frightens people. Fear of death is the most effective way to do this, thus they result to displays of large-scale violence and make sure that those casualty figures are well publicized. This definition fits a whole lot better with the Israeli Defense Forces than it does with a group of rebels who launch flimsy homemade rockets at their oppressors that have starved and occupied them since 1948.
However, those oppressive criminals have a well oiled PR machine and media backing them up and shifting blame, thus Connelly should have said: “Muslims are indeed the most likely people on the planet to be shown as terrorists.” This is the Zionists’ most effective weapon of mass destruction.
Connelly seems to, more or less, acknowledge this fact in the article when he shows the 2008 film Taken and the popular television show 24 to be nothing more than Jewish manipulations to get Westerners to hate Muslims. This is, by and large, true: Taken had a Jewish screenwriter and 24, a Jewish producer. They were just doing their part to get Westerners to despise Muslims. So, Connelly is back to pointing out Jewish crimes and he even points out the sly inversion presented in Taken: the slave trade is actually more of a Jewish crime, than it is a Muslim one. He uses a story from the Jerusalem Post – that’s since been taken offline, but here’s an indicator of Jewish attitudes – to point out a key aspect of Jewish racist double-standard: in Israel, slavery is legal if it involves non-Jews. The main victims are young Eastern European women who are conned into going to Israel with bogus job prospects. Connelly also mentions that Jews, a disproportionately influential minority, seem to not mention themselves in the movies and stories that they produce.
Connelly then ends his article with a bit of xenophobia by saying that the film Taken “provides a useful function by again alerting Americans, French, and other Westerners to the risk posed by the presence of alien elements amongst us.” He is back to buying the propaganda that the Jew never ceases to sell. Oddly, in the same paragraph he seems to scold many of the aforementioned Westerners for “worshipping” Jews and Israel.
In the end, Connelly’s article is an uncoordinated blast off into the general right direction – he recognizes his enemy, but doesn’t realize many of his potential allies. He also doesn’t attack the core of Jewish thinking, but rather just presents empirical observations about how Jews manipulate the world – that fact that he doesn’t attack Jewry on ideological ground is his article’s great fault. Added to the fact is that he is, in effect, using Jewry’s methods against Jewry, thus will never really change anything. Things are doomed to forever be done in the immoral and nefarious Talmudic way unless those very methods are destroyed.
Connelly is a fine example of the Boromir Syndrome – “Let’s use the enemy’s weapon against him!” That’s like saying you don’t agree with Israelite usury and then round up all your friends so as to out-compete the money-changers. Even if you win, the Beast lives on in you.
Connelly also writes, “While terrorism is one clear risk, it is not the only one, as Taken shows.” Again, not fully false, but not fully true. Even Boromir realized that Sauron must be destroyed, but he just didn’t see the correct way how to do it. “Terrorism” is a problem, yes, but does Connelly see the bulk of it as a Jewish media created mirage and/or Israeli false flags? He mentions skepticism for the official 9/11 story and the Lavon Affair, yet at the same time he still seems to believe the official hogwash stories and “explanations” – Connelly sees Taken as propaganda, but then actually buys its Jewish message.
With the examples of Jewish double-standards that Connelly provides, it is really hard to grasp why he doesn’t wrap up the article with the point that Judaism is fundamentally immoral. It is the oldest lie-to-get-ahead scheme in the World. He doesn’t mention that Jews view all non-Jews as “goys” – an exploitable resource in the form of sentient beings. He opposes the Jew, yet he doesn’t hit him where it will deal the most effective strike to the Jewish lies. From this, we can see that he is, in all probability, being led by the Jew and doesn’t even know it.
Alternate version of the rebuttal HERE