traitorwatch

I picked up a copy of Newsweek today in the doctor's surgery at Kilcullen.
Newsweek is most famous for publishing a false story which mendaciously claimed that American soldiers at Guantanamo Bay had flushed Korans down the toilet.
Newsweek published this story at the height of the Jihad terror in Iraq when Iran, Syria and their proxies in Al Qaeda were working together to sabotage the American, British and Allied liberation of that country from Saddam Hussein.
Newsweek later admitted its story about Korans being flushed down the toilet at Guantanamo Bay was fiction.
The story was quite in keeping with Newsweeks's reportage of the The War On Terror generally though.
It was not an exceptional piece of crass traitorous quisling incompetence.
It was the rule.
The article displayed nothing more than the normal, the standard, level of crass traitorous quisling incompetence that every edition of Newsweek has displayed since the Jihadis attacked us.
I believe Newsweek consciously and by omission has been cheerleading for the Jihadis since Day One.
You all know I believe this.
I have withdrawn my consent from Newsweek as have many other people.
Still it survives.
Barely.
How does it survive?
Who is financing it, if not its declining readership base?
Let us look closer.
This week's issue of Newsweek is dated August 9th 2009.
The edition no longer carries full details on a separate page of its editorial team.
It's almost as though they are ashamed.
The name of the editor appears only at the bottom of an article he has written.
He is Fareed Zakaria.
The name sounds Muslim doesn't it?
Interestingly enough Fareed Zakaria now presents a news programme for CNN, another media entity which I consider to have aided and abetted the Jihadis throughout The War On Terror.
CNN is owned by Time Magazine which is supposed to be Newsweek's major competitor.
Funny sort of competition, isn't it?
Very clubby.
Quite quite chummy.
Why it's almost sexual.
Time Magazine, like Newsweek, has also been to the fore in succouring the Jihadis by strenuously endeavouring to criminalise President Bush.
Equally importantly Time Magazine has displayed arrant partisanship in promoting the election of the peacenik appeaser-in-chief President Barack Obama.
Obama's election was Al Qaeda's greatest victory since Nine Eleven.
Ah yes.
People can be fooled.
But people aren't fools.
Eventually we figure it out.
The media traitors may weaken us and secure the election of a groovy buffoon.
But none of them are making a profit.
They're all going bust.
I'm not joking or speaking loosely when I say CNN, Time Magazine, Newsweek, The New York Times and The Washington Post are going out of business.
All of them.
Going bye byes.
It's happening before our eyes.
Yes.
It is interesting to speculate as to how Newsweek, like CNN and Time Magazine, has managed to survive even thus far the collapse in its readership.
But Newsweek first.
The cover of the current edition of Newsweek has the slogan: America Rules. Why The US Will Emerge From The Crisis On Top.
You might be forgiven for thinking this was pro American sentiment.
It isn't.
The cover has a picture of America, incarnated as Uncle Sam, wearing wrestling trunks depicting the US flag, and standing triumphant in a wrestling ring.
He has knocked out similar wrestler incarnations of Great Britain and Japan who are lying on the floor of the wrestling ring.
Let me hasten to explain.
This is not Pro Americanism on Newsweek's part.
This is a crypto Marxist perspective on the free world which implies one country can only do well at the expense of its partners.
It is another deliberately false blatently misleading Newsweek slant.
In truth when America, Britain and Japan do well in partnership together, we all do well.
And I don't mean to champion the large corporations who are basically dysfunctional eructations on our freedom.
The banks and the stock exchanges and the oil companies are nothing.
They should all be in jail.
I mean the ordinary small businessmen, farmers and citizens of the free world who are the emblems of our freedom, the guarantors of it, the provisioners of it, its soldiers, its moral examplars and its spiritual guardians.
Our countries do well because of the freedoms accorded to those citizens.
The freedoms stemming from the Judaeo Christian tradition and nowhere else.
It is the same with all free countries.
We do well together.
Not at one another's expense.
The rising tide lifts all boats.
Why would Newsweek imply that it believes America will emerge from economic recession only by clobbering its best friends in the international world?
This is divide and conquer analysis by Newsweek.
It is as malign as it is untrue.
Inside Newsweek another main article consists of an interview and assessment of a new Taliban terrorist leader.
His name is given as Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradur.
He is described in terms that are imposing, deferential, mythic and menacing.
It is as though Newsweek is trying to build him up.
I hope they didn't pay him money for the quotes.
Paying money to Nazis is not a good idea, even for a low rent little traitor rag like Newsweek.
But I digress.
Newsweek has never written in such elevated terms about an American general.
In fact, they have not given President Bush any credit for finally finding his General Patton in the form of General Petraeus.
We have been allowed to have no heroes in The War On Terror.
Dan Rather's snivelling on CBS about the death count among our soldiers is not giving us heroes.
Newsweek's snivelling amounts to the same thing.
It's attempting to break morale on the home front.
Heroism is reserved for Jihadis, eh Newsweek?
Eh Time Magazine?
Eh CNN?
President Bush finally found Petraeus after years of trying to fight The War On Terror with Clinton era appointee Generals.
The Clinton Generals were much more sensitive to groovy workplace issues than they were to kicking Al Qaeda's arse all over the battlefield.
Petraeus showed them how it's done.
And Newsweek, Time Magazine, CNN, the New York Times and The Washington Post, tried to stop him every step of the way.
Our soldiers have been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan with one hand tied behind their back.
A continuous stream of propaganda from the media about every supposedly civilian death among the native populations of those Nazi countries.
Our soldiers have gone into battle with the tightest most restrictive rules of engagement any army has ever been hog tied with.
And those rules of engagement are allowing Al Qaeda and the Taliban to detonate roadside bombs and then walk whistling past the soldiers they have just murdered, walk cheerfully up the road as long as they're not carrying weapons, laughing happily at the slaughter our rules of engagement allow them to perpetrate time and time again.
Remember this.
Those rules of engagement have been constructed by the left wingers of the media and their friends in our own political and legal establishments.
Newsweek and its liberal pals have killed more of our soliders than Al Qaeda, the Taliban and Iran put together.
In spite of this and in spite of them, Petraeus has been giving the Jihadis the war they still can't quite believe.
Not for him the juvenile talk about the impossibilty of defeating an asymetric enemy.
None of this building up of enemy commanders.
Petraeus quietly told President Bush: "If you give me the forces to do the job I can do it. As long as you let me use the weapons at my disposal, I can ensure that any Jihadi who wants to walk down Main Street Iraq has to ask my permission. After that it's over."
So Petraeus is the first great General of The War On Terror.
Our first Patton in fifty years.
And Newsweek, CNN, Time Magazine, The Washington Post and The New York Times have laboured to prevent you from knowing it.
And President Barack Obama in withdrawing from Iraq and closing Guantanamo Bay prison has laboured to anull the Petraeus victory lest it make President Bush look good.
There is no mystery about any of this.
Newsweek thinks we should all be shaking in our shoes before the great Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradur.
I wonder does the new Mullah on the block believe his own publicity.
Here's a prediction for Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradur.
Pain.
Much pain.
And goodbye.
Newsweek won't save you where you're going.
And there's more.
Editor Fareed Zakaria's own piece in the current edition of Newsweek is entitled On Iran Do Nothing Yet.
These things go by contraries.
If Fareed Zakaria says do nothing, then I'm pretty sure that means we're in the last chance saloon and the only hope of preventing an Iranian nuclear first strike would be an all out attack on Iran immediately to stop the Iranian Islamist government from detonating nuclear weapons throughout Europe, Israel and America.
It's just a hunch I have.
If Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek and CNN and Time Magazine, are collectively advocating a wait and see policy on Iran, this is the best intimation we're going to get that it's pretty much time to act.
We'll find out eventually whose analysis was closer to the mark.
Of course you know Fareed Zakaria never writes in a vacuum.
He is singing from the Obama administration song book.
This week US Foreign Secretary Hilary Clinton has announced that America will protect countries which fall under Iran's nuclear umbrella.
What she means is, that the current American government now accepts Iran will have nuclear weapons.
This is the mindshift Fareed Zakaria is signalling.
Iran is to be permitted to develop the atomic bomb.
It's already got it.
But you know what I mean.
You can see why Newsweek has no readers.
No public mandate for what it does.
Because it is little more than a propaganda pamphlet for our enemies, and a public relations machine for the Clintons and Barack.
So I ask again, why does it still exist?
Here is the news.
Newspapers have been surviving for decades on declining readerships.
They have produced this miracle, falling readership and rising revenues, through corporate (and, in Europe, state sector) advertising.
Like CNN, Time Magazine, the New York Times, and The Washington Post, our appeaserish friends at Newsweek are almost devoid of any public endorsement in terms of readership.
Old media is dying.
It's not dying because of the internet.
It's dying because they forgot who their audience were.
You don't spend World War Two publishing articles about how invincible the Nazis are and calling for the impeachment of Winston Churchill.
You don't spend the War On Terror trying to ensure our soldiers go into battle with their hands tied behind their backs through ridiculous rules of engagement that leave them unable to fire on Al Qaeda and the Taliban because Al Qaeda and the Taliban carry children on their convoys.
You don't use your newspapers and magazines to get our soldiers killed and question our fight against Al Qaeda out of existence.
You don't try to criminalise President Bush who courageously led us through Nine Eleven the cowardly sneak Muslim terror attack on the free world.
You don't do any of this and retain an audience in the Free World.
If you do, you go bust.
All these near defunct media entities have colluded to misrepresent the heroism of President Bush and to champion the defeatism and incompetence of President Obama.
All these media entities have indulged in the reporting style I call Rooting For The Jihadis.
All these media entities are held in low regard by those of us who recognise the Al Qaeda threat.
They have no revenues from their readership.
They survive only on advertising.
And perhaps on unspecified forms of financial assistance from the likes of Billionaire leftist George Soros.
Certainly we are aware that in the case of The New York Times the entire company has been propped up by a most unwholesome Mexican card sharp millionaire called Senor Slim.
Senor Slim recently divvied up no less than 250 million dollars to keep The New York Times afloat. I wonder why he did that. He must appreciate loss making newspapers.
We might also wonder have foreign governments, agencies or even terrorist groups contributed to some of these quisling media groups.
The Saudis have a lot of money.
Maybe when they're not financing the Jihad, they're putting a few oil dollars into the western traitor industry.
By which I mean Newsweek, Time Magazine, CNN et al.
Particularly al.
I hate him.
In any case we can clearly see the money flow from Newsweek's advertisers.
The paper trail this week is as follows.
The first ad in Newsweek is a full page from Rolex featuring golfer Lorena Ochoa.
Then there's an ad for Louis Vuitton bags featuring astronauts Sally Ride, Buzz Aldrin, and Jim Lowell.
After that we have an eight page ad for a solar energy company called Sharp.
Towards the back of Newsweek there's a page size ad for Lexus cars.
Then there's another page for HP computers.
There are also a series of smaller ads for supposed educational institutions namely: The American University of London, The European Institute of Purchasing Management, The College Du Leman, and the Antwerp International School.
Finally there are smaller ads for entities styling themselves Imperial Express Travel Services and International Projects 101.
Bold readers here's what we can do.
If you agree with me that Newsweek has been working against the interests of the free world in The War On Terror, then let's all boycott the above named advertisers.
If you think, as I do, that Newsweek has manipulated the news in an attempt to criminalise President Bush and row back from his victories, then let's take action.
Let's not buy a Rolex and let's not support Lorena Ochoa.
Let's not buy Louis Vuitton bags and let's have a word with the ex astronauts who clearly need a buck and aren't being careful enough about how they earn it.
Let's not buy a Lexus.
Let's not buy a HP computer.
Let's not allow our governments to contribute to the Sharp energy company.
Let's not sign up for courses at any of those high falutin fly by night pseudo colleges.
Let's not respond ever to a single ad in Newsweek.
The rules of the game are changing folks.
Now for the record, let's take a brief cursory look at Time Magazine, cover date August 10th 2009.
Our cursory look reveals the usual shenanigans continuing there.
Copious slavishly laudatory assessments of President Obama.
And an article warning about what Time Magazine calls the rise of the Far Right in Europe.
This article lousily and improperly and mendaciously attempts to link hero Dutch politician Geert Wilders to the British National Party and the French National Front.
Dear oh dear.
Geert Wilders has courageously highlighted the dangers of Islamist culture and the violence of radical Muslims within Europe.
Apparently Time Magazine wants to shut him up.
Who is finacing their agenda?
It ain't the general public.
Let's see.
Advertisements in Time Magazine this week were as follows.
Rolex had a two page advertisement.
IBM had a one page advertisement.
Lexus had a one page advertisement.
The Shell oil company had a one page advertisement.
Allianz, the financial services company had a one page advertisement.
Tag Heuer the watchmaker had a one page advertisement.
Ah yes.
We can see a pattern emerging.
Support none of these.
There were no smaller ads in Time Magazine.
The names of the editorial team, like those in Newsweek, are no longer being published.
What are they ashamed of?
Okay okay.
We know.
Well folks.
If you agree with me that Time Magazine has been rooting for the wrong side in The War On Terror, if you agree with me that Time Magazine has crassly campaigned to elect Barack Obama as President, if you agree with me that Time Magazine has been responsible for emboldening the Jihadis with its malign reportage, why then let's hold them accountable.
Just like with Newsweek.
Do not buy from any of their advertisers.
Not from Rolex.
Not from Lexus.
Not from Tag Heuer.
Not from IBM.
Not from Allianz.
Not from Shell.
Let's send out a message.
Let's let the b-st-rds know there's a price for betraying our soldiers.
Let's tell em plainly that we do not accept their representation of Jihadis as the heros in The War On Terror.
Let's make em pay.