13-glenn-no-beauty-in-the-beast-israel-without-her-mascara-zionism-exposed

THE REST OF THE STORY 77The Golden Boy of the Zionist establishment has not limited his remarks to only these mentioned. Inother writings he accuses Muslims of being parasites on society, being disproportionately engaged incriminal behavior, (most notably the crime of rape) of having unacceptable customs and seeking to takeover the country.In short, this is the stuff of the infamous Ku Klux Klan. Replace the word “Muslim” with “black” or“nigger,” and the comparison is without equal.How then is it possible for such men to possess the amount of prestige and influence as he does, withoutbeing subject to the same backlash that would result from someone else engaging in such behavior?Quite simply, he is an example of the “politically correct” racist, meaning, a racist in favor of Israel andJudaism, and, unfortunately, he is only one of many who work diligently in keeping Americans fromhearing the rest of the story.Only in a nation whose government, media, and culture have been hijacked by the interests of an ideologyso naziesque in its nature such as Zionism could such statements have been made by an individualwithout any resulting serious repercussions. In a nation where someone is attacked in an overtlycoordinated effort for merely speaking out against the verifiable history of Israeli violence and duplicity(or for that matter, simply making a film concerning the crucifixion of Jesus Christ) the fact that individualssuch as Daniel Pipes could get away with saying such things speaks volumes about what is the deplorablestate of intellectual dishonesty in American society. Thus has the ability for intellectual discourse degradedto such a point that to engage in any discussion which only slightly whiffs of criticism against the biggestpractitioner of terrorism in the Middle East results in a society of unthinking, uninterested reactionarieswho will, like Pavlov’s dogs, jump up and start barking the mantra of “anti-Semitism” for the sole purposeof quieting their opponents. Had he not been a stalwart supporter of Israel and said the same thing aboutany other group of people, (and especially if it were said against his cohorts in Tel Aviv) he would havereceived a one-way ticket down the infamous memory hole, never to return, as have all those who havecommitted the unforgivable crime of not bowing down before the Balaam of Zionism.The recent outrage over Bush’s nomination of Pipes for a seat on the United States Institute of Peace isquite a telling event as well, especially when viewed within the context of the now obvious double standardapplied to others not so favored. Consider how the Bush Administration (and in fact the RepublicanCongress in general) reacted to the media-managed frenzy swirling around former Senate Majority LeaderTrent Lott for having attended a gathering in honor of a white segregationist. They wouldn’t touch himwith a ten-foot pole for fear of the obvious tainting they would acquire by association with him. Nowcomes forth a man such as Pipes, whose overt bigotry makes the implied bigotry of Lott look pale bycomparison, and yet where are the hourly news stories? Where are the interviews, wherein Pipes andothers like him are stuttering and stammering for an answer which they hope will pacify a society nurturedon the religion of anti-racism? Where are all the individuals from the ADL and other like-minded groupscalling for Pipes’ resignation? Where is the distancing of the Republicans from such a man? In this light,the favoritism afforded to politically correct racists as well as the complicity that exists in the outlets ofmass information in the proliferation of such sentiments becomes clearer. Besides the fact that Pipes didnot get the ax (as so many others have and do to this day) whenever they utter phrases as outrageouslyracist as were his, conversely he has been rewarded for such statements, as evidenced by his recentnomination. But even more telling is the fact that Bush, who most assuredly was briefed by his advisorson what was the background of Pipes and his writings, obviously saw nothing to fear in associatinghimself politically with such a reprobate bigot, and his insistence upon putting this man in such a positionspeaks loudly not only about his own fearlessness concerning what would most assuredly be the backlash