When Pro-Zionist is Actually Just Pro-Profit, and Anti-Zionist is Actually Just Anti-Jewish

Why it's not the CTO or CEO or CFO the one, you know, making the decisions of the company, right, or directing it? Or like, why would this statistic if there's even a representation overrepresentation of Jews in these positions, why would it not translate into some dominance or of this specific individual or this is the group, if you want to Well,

I I think we've we've kind of talked about it already. And and again, anyone's own common sense and anyone's experience in the business world should understand and and already know the answer to that. Which is that if you're not making money for the shareholders, you're not gonna keep your job. It's very simple. You can't actually be ideologically motivated if if your ideological motivation results in lower shareholder dividends.

That's the that you're not gonna make it in the corporate world. You're dealing with something that's much bigger than that. We're not talking about now, you know, the Johnson Corporation or the, you know, the the the Franklin factory that's owned by old man Franklin, and he can do whatever he wants because it's his factory. That's not the way it works now. Like we've been talking about, you have institutional investors, you have publicly traded companies, you have shareholders.

You don't even know who owns the company because they're being constantly traded. So you don't even know who the owners are. If if like, you can look at you can look at for example what happened with Starbucks a few years back. Howard Schultz, he was the the CEO of Starbucks and he took it upon himself to implement very pro LGBT policies for Starbucks. And having like, you know, rainbow cups or whatnot and so forth.

And and I think they even saying that they were gonna have bathrooms for trans people or something like this. But it's very overt support for LGBT. Sales dropped and he lost his job. The CEO of Starbucks lost his job, he was fired because of of making an ideological decision. And you could argue that you would and I'm sure that he thought that by virtue signaling in The United States as being pro LGBT was going to help them.

Because, you know, of the market in America. But just like sister Wahida was talking about, these companies are are global and the economy is global, and Starbucks is global. And and America's LGBT foolishness doesn't play in Asia. It doesn't play in China. It doesn't play around the world.

So their sales dropped. And when their sales dropped, Howard Schultz who was heralded as and applauded as this great wonderful CEO with all these brilliant ideas and who made Starbucks what it is today, got booted. He got canned because he's not making any money for the company. He's making the company lose money. That's what it comes down to.

So if if if you see and this is also very important to understand. If you see, like especially when you talk about the media. Because I was thinking about it when we were talking about it earlier that there would probably be people who would say, yeah, but you can't deny that the media is pro Zionist. No, of course not. The media is pro Zionist.

Absolutely. And always and and and always has been. But that's not because the American media is pro Zionist. It's because the American media is pro America. It's pro American interest.

It's pro the interest it's pro the interest of American power. It's it's always been pro colonization. It's always been pro the subjugation of the global South. It was it was pro the the brutality of of America in Central America, in Latin America, South America, so called Latin America. It's always supportive of American policy.

That's the only thing. They're they're supportive of Ukraine now. That's not because they're pro Ukrainian, it's because it's American policy. So if you find that a company is doing something that is pro Israel or pro what have you, that's because it's making money. So your your your issue has to be with why is it making money?

And that's what you have to try to understand. Because if they were doing something that was pro Israel that was making them lose money, then they will change that. And the only thing that would prevent them from changing that, because I can anticipate comments, the only thing that would make them or that would prevent them from changing a pro Zionist policy even when it is causing them to lose money because we're seeing that happen now with Starbucks. We're seeing it happen with McDonald's. We're seeing it happen with a number of companies that are being boycotted and yet they're not changing their stance.

What's the reason for that? Well, reason for that is because that change of stance is being demanded by the public. And they don't want to give the public what they want. They don't want to be dictated to by the public. That's the whole point of having power in the private sector is that it's supposed to be undemocratic.

They're supposed to be free from having to have the consent of the governed. That's the whole point of moving power from the public sector to the private sector. So that you can rescue it from democratic accountability and they can act as they like. So the only reason that they would be willing to suffer any sort of a financial loss because of their position. The only reason that they would be willing to suffer that is because it's more important to them to maintain their ability to evade public outcry.

The same reason why they bust unions, or the same reason why they don't allow unions and so forth. But the fact of the matter is, going back to the original point, anyone anyone on any level, any executive, even a top level executive like a Howard Schultz, like a like the CEO, if that CEO is not making money for shareholders, he will lose his job. All of his decisions or her decisions have to be profitable for the company, meaning profitable for the owners of the company, meaning the shareholders. And if they are not, then he will lose his job. It's very very simple and it's very straightforward and actually everyone already knows that.

Everyone actually already knows that, but that's what I was talking about earlier. The only reason that you're willing to suspend your own life experience and your own what is common knowledge, the only reason that you're willing to suspend that is because you are you you have your own motives, your own personal motives to believe this false narrative. That if there's a Jewish CEO, then that means that that company is necessarily serving Israel because he's Jewish. Because you have a whole lot of companies that also have connections with Israel that have nothing to do with any Jewish executives. They're doing it because it makes money.

And the only way to ever change that policy is for it to not make money to the extent that they can't bear it anymore. But again, just to reiterate, anyone who works in the company whether they're working in the mail room or they're working in the executive suite, only gets to keep their job if they're making money for the company. It's very simple. When you're talking about, you know, the people can do the research, as I was talking about earlier, they have no inclination to do the research in the first place. Because again most of this, it shouldn't really even need research to debunk, it just takes a few seconds of honest thinking to know that this claim makes no sense in on any level.

It doesn't make sense on any level. And I think that you'll find that a lot of the people that we think or have thought for the last year, more more than a year. A lot of the people that we have thought for the last more than a year, we thought that they were pro Palestinian, but actually all they are is anti Jewish and hate Jews. And they're using the genocide in Gaza as an excuse for them to ramp up their anti Jewish hatred and making it acceptable because after all look at how horrendous it is, what's happening there. So they're not actually pro Palestinian at all.

They're not pro Muslim at all. They're not pro Arab at all. All they are is anti Jewish. And we know that that's true because also, we've As I talked about many times, a lot of these same people like for example, take a Candace Owens who has just come out, you know, recently as suddenly pro Palestinian or anti Israel after having worked for the the daily liar, Ben Shapiro. She's not pro Palestinian at all.

She's not pro Arab, she's certainly not pro Muslim at all. She's just using this as an opportunity to rehash all of this old, you know, Rothschild's nineteenth century anti Jewish hatred. All this anti Jewish Nazi bigotry. That's the only thing she's doing. She's not pro Palestinian at all.

And I think that you're gonna find that there's a lot of them that are like that. Just like that Armenian that I did a video about who went viral few weeks back. You're not mad about what's happening in Gaza. You're happy about what's happening in Gaza because it gives you an opportunity to be as anti Jewish as you want to be without anyone blaming you. And and you can be anti Jewish in the context of the genocide in Gaza and make it look like you're being virtuous.

So this is the the genocide of our brothers and sisters in Gaza is the best thing that ever happened to you. Because anyway, you've been supporting it all along. You you support your government, don't you? And the very fact that you are trying to shift the blame over to the Israelis, over to the Zionists exclusively shows how much you support your government and your government is the one who is actually responsible for the genocide in Gaza. And your government is actually the one who's been responsible for the occupation of Palestine ever since it's been occupied.

Your government is responsible for that. It's a genocide by veto. We've talked about that many many times. So these people are not pro Palestinian at all and they're not interested in doing any sort of research that would debunk their opinion because they're not people who care about facts in the first place. You know, again, we like talk about Candace Owens.

I saw I saw a clip of her talking about how, yeah, before I was working with Ben Shapiro, so I was believing the the Zionist propaganda, I was believing the Zionist narrative, but now that I'm seeing everything in Gaza, seeing everything that's happening, well, it changed my mind and now I'm I'm talking against it. Okay. All that she just said is that she very comfortably and freely talks about things she doesn't know about. That's the only thing she just said. Because you just now found out about what's going on in Gaza.

You just said that. You just now found out about what's going on in Gaza. But this isn't when you first started talking about it. You've been pro Israel from before. That means you were pro Israel comfortably without any information, without any education, without understanding the issue at all, without doing any research at all.

So what makes anyone think that she's doing research now? What makes anyone think that she cares about the rightness or the correctness of her position now? These are people who are just saying whatever they wanna say according to their own internal bigotry, their own internal hatred, their own internal ideology, and frankly their own internal white supremacy. Anyone can research this very easily. So it's already known that the people who spout this conspiracy theory, who who spout this kind of narrative are not people who care about the truth anyway.

They're not people who are gonna research anyway. And you can probably see, I haven't looked at it, but you can probably see by the by the replies that we have on this space that we're dealing with a lot of people who are very triggered by anyone trying to tell them the truth. Anyone trying to tell them factual information that makes it very difficult for them to continue spouting the lies that they're spouting. So, you know, yes, you can you can do the research if you want to, but we already know you won't. It's a very strange argument to make that America's policy towards Israel I mean, about it.

This is the argument that they're actually making, the people who say this. The argument that you're making is that America's policy towards Israel is because Zionists, the the APEC lobby or the Jewish lobby, collective is pro Israeli lobby, is able to buy your politicians. So actually, you're already saying that your government is corrupt. You're already saying that all of your politicians just are for the highest bidder and have no morality anyway. So what on earth makes you think anyway that your government is so moral that the only way they could ever possibly support a brutal regime and a brutal colonial project, the only way they could ever do that is if they were just pressured by the Jews.

You just said that they're corrupt. You just said that they're immoral. You just said that they're evil. You just said that they're just they'll do anything for money. What kind of a defense is that?

How how does that absolve you or your government in any way of its actions? Your your your argument is that our government is corrupt. That's your argument. But at the same time, you're saying that they wouldn't do something that is corrupt and evil because they're so good. This is illogical.

You're contradicting yourself. And then, if you're going to follow that logic, like just what brother was talking about now, if you believe that they will only implement policies according to how much money they can make or whoever gives them the most money, well then you have to accept the fact that the Jewish collective Jewish lobbies don't give them the most money. China gives them more money than the Jews. China gives them more money than the Zionists. Why don't you say that China controls your government?

Why don't you say that? Because because according to the logic that you are trying to convince yourself of, then your politicians are just being bought off by lobbies. So they're gonna go to the highest bidder and statistically, actually, in terms of money that they spend, the lobbies are not the the the Jewish lobbies are not the highest bidder. So I mean, there's no there's no leg for your argument to stand on.