Thursday, June 26, 2014

J-Street and the Presbyterian Church: How Jewish Supremacists Try to Dominate “Both Sides” of the Debate

J-Street and the Presbyterian Church: How Jewish Supremacists Try to Dominate “Both Sides” of the Debate

The decision by so-called “left wing” Jewish Supremacist pressure group J-Street to join the condemnation of the Presbyterian Church (USA) for its recent decision to disinvest from Israel, has clearly revealed the inner workings of how Zionist extremists go to work to dominate both sides of the political spectrum—but work to promote essentially the same agenda.
j-street-demo
J-Street was set up by Zionist extremists as an “alternative” to AIPAC, which, it was perceived, was too “right wing” for liberal-leaning “American Jews.”
(That this perception was wrong, is another matter—J Street was even recently refused admission to the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, which represents all the most powerful Jewish organizations in America—showing that supposedly “liberal” American Jews are actually quite happy with the racist policies of Israel—even though they support diametrically opposed polices in America, such as Israel’s racially-based immigration policies, as a pertinent example).
Not only do they support the racial policies of Israel, they push for the same policies among Jews worldwide.  For instance, while Jewish organizations push for open borders and “assimilation” for all other people’s and nations, the leading organizations in the Council of Presidents of Major Jewish organizations spend millions to prevent intermarriage and assimilation of Jews with Gentiles in the nations they live in around the world.
Nonetheless, J-Street has positioned itself on the “left” of the political spectrum, hoping to gather up “left wing” or “liberal” Zionists who otherwise might be too embarrassed to associate with the Likud-supporting AIPAC.
In this way, they hope to represent both the “left” (through J-Street) and “right” (through AIPAC) spectrum of the debate on Israel in American politics.
Yet both J-Street and AIPAC both work to the identical agenda—the promotion and maintenance of the racist Jewish Supremacist state of Israel.
When they are however forced to reveal their true agenda—that of supporting Israel at any cost—their real colors show.
jstreet-website
The official J-Street reaction to the Presbyterian Church (USA) move is highly revealing in this regard:
“We do not support the decision of the Presbyterian Church (USA) to divest from three North American companies doing business in the Palestinian territory.
“We do welcome the Church’s decision to distance itself from the study guide ‘Zionism Unsettled’ . . . Rather than promote an understanding of Zionism, the document distorts Judaism, twisting it into a racist, supremacist religion, while offensively intimating that Zionism is racist, pathological, and the very root of the conflict in the region.
“Despite the vote, however, the guide is still being sold by the Church. If “Zionism Unsettled” is truly not reflective of its views, the Church should cease selling it on the PC (USA) website immediately.”
In fact, anyone who has had even a cursory study of J-Street policies, will have seen that this Jewish Supremacist organization differs only from AIPAC in the way it presents its ideology, and not in its core.
The real “difference” between these “left” and “right” wing alternatives is therefore, only in how best to advance and present Jewish Supremacy for Goyim consumption, not in whether there should be Jewish Supremacy or not.
The J-Street policy statement, on their official website, even says this explicitly:
“Israel’s supporters have not only the right but the obligation to speak out when we think the policies or actions of the Israeli government are hurting Israel’s and the Jewish people’s long-term interests.”
jstreet-core-principles
There it is, in black and white, from the horse’s mouth: J Street and the “left wing” will speak up on Israeli actions only when Jewish interests are hurt—not if they are morally incorrect or otherwise harmful.

No comments:

Post a Comment