The Jewish Knack to exploit the Suckers

The “Wild West” got its name not because it was untamed bushland that was yet to be settled, but because wild things happened while the land was being settled by newcomers.

For one thing, the trails to the West were blazed by travelers who were productive in the East, and were on their way to tame the West and make it as productive. That's when the wild things began to happen to these people. Wild men with guns, who didn't know how else to earn a living, attacked the would-be settlers on their way to their destination, and robbed them of their possessions. Later, such actions were called highway robberies.

The robbers might have been stealing horses previously, but as the towns began to defend themselves against horse thieves, the wild men had no choice but to resort to highway robbery. Now called gangsterism, the practice has served the thieves well at first. But when society organized itself, and created patrols to accompany the travelers, the thieves did badly and vanished eventually.

While this is a true story that was repeated many times during the century or so that it took the settlers to open the American West and build it, the legacy that was left behind has served as a metaphor to illustrate how some people behave when they neglect to develop legitimate means by which to earn an honest living. They live by highway robbery –– figuratively speaking –– because they don't know how else to sustain themselves and appear as normal as everyone else.

Plagued by the inability to do something for themselves, living off highway robberies, and doing well at first, only to be crushed by humanity when their luck ran out – has been the history of the Jews during the 4,000 years that they afflicted one group of people or another all over the planet. In time, the Jews got exhausted going alone, so they dragged one sucker after another to help them rob the highways of the world. The early suckers abandoned the Jews eventually, leaving America alone with them to practice the outlawed game. And the Americans were called out by the meek and the mighty to account for their gangsterism.

Now that the Jews have Israel to use as a tool in the practice of highway robbery –– thus live at the expense of others –– they do it by stirring trouble with Israel’s neighbors; trouble that threatens to drag the big powers into the fray. When Israel had a round with the immediate neighbors several times, and the neighbors got serious about defending themselves, the Jews groomed Israel to go after a more distant neighbor: Iran.

Unable to go against Iran alone, the Jews seduced America into joining Israel to create a calamity in the Middle East, of the kind that will open the door for Israel to go in and figuratively feed on the charred remains of burned out cities and dead human bodies. America said yes at first and began to move its pawns, preparing to pounce on Iran at the zero hour. But then America realized it was cornering itself – not against a wall from which it can escape if need be, but cornering itself – into a colony of lepers that is so exclusive, there will be no one in it but America and Israel.

It is that the world, including America's closest allies, saw the danger of superpower America letting none other than the avatar of perpetual horror, drag it by the nose to the edge of the abyss where its fall, if it comes, will drag the world into the same abyss from where there will be no escape. And the world, including America's closest allies, reacted by taking the measures that will nullify every foolish act America might take to bring about the end of civilization. And America began to have second thoughts about its participation in the Jewish scheme.

Needless to say, that the mob of Jewish pundits did not like America's decision. Two of the pundits that reacted to America's reluctance were Benny Avni who wrote: “Is Trump going to blink at making Iran sanctions real?” a column that was published on October 26, 2018 in the New York Post. And there was Ilan Berman who wrote: “Testing Trump's Iran strategy,” a column that also came under the subtitle: “How the administration deals with pressure to dilute sanctions will reveal US resolve toward the global menace.” It was published on October 29, 2018 in The Washington Times.

It is worth spending a few minutes reading these two articles because there is a pressing need for humanity to become aware how a handful of Jews can repeat the horror they create in Iraq … repeating it to engulf the whole world this time.

Faulty Logic producing unprofessional Work

When everything began to be politicized and weaponized in America, survey taking and statistical analysis did not escape the trend. They too were used to “prove” the validity of conclusions that were arrived at before the taking of the surveys, and before the compilation of the data.

And so, imagine someone being in charge of an agenda that is at odds with the prevailing culture. He cannot move the agenda forward using the usual method of presenting his case and letting the audience decide whether or not he was convincing. What do you think this character will do after the audience rejects his presentation on the grounds that it was based on faulty logic?

As it happens, there is an example on what someone did in response to such a situation. That someone is Wall Street Journal correspondent, James Freeman who put his idea in the form of an article under the title: “Most U.S. College Students Afraid to Disagree with Professors” and the subtitle: “New survey finds faculty often express beliefs unrelated to course work.” It was published on October 26, 2018 in the Wall Street Journal.

What is James Freeman saying? Well, speaking of a survey that was done recently, he said this: “Polling was done on behalf of a Yale program, which counts your humble correspondent among its directors.” Freeman asserts at the beginning of the article that the survey reveals: “Many college professors share their social and political beliefs in class, and their students feel afraid to disagree”.

This also being the title of the article, you think that the writer will give a detailed explanation as to the questions that were asked and the method that was used to reach those conclusions. But going through the article, this is what you discover. The survey was conducted among 800 students. The question asked was this: “Have you ever had any professor or course instructor that used class time to express social or political beliefs unrelated to the subject of the course?” According to Freeman, 52% said this happens often; 47% said not often.

First of all, given that the number of students surveyed was only 800, the margin of error can be as much as plus or minus 5%. And given the closeness of the percentages between the yea and the nay, it means that the use of the terms “most students” and “many professors” were exaggerations designed to deceive the readers. Second of all, nothing in the article indicates what discipline the professors were teaching when they went on a tangent discussing a different subject. It is crucial to know this for a reason.

For example, was the professor explaining Newton's Second Law when he suddenly decided to talk about his mother in law? Or was the professor explaining why Pearl Harbor was a serious blow to America's navy, when a student asked if something like this can happen again, and the professor said it can? Other students asked other questions, one thing led to another, and the professor remarked that one political party or the other might get in the way of passing a budget that would balance the needs of defense and those of social programs. Did the professor commit a mortal sin for which James Freeman wants to crucify him?

In addition to that nonsense, you have another set of numbers which shows how irrelevant the survey actually was. Look at this: “53% of students reported they felt intimidated in sharing their ideas in class because they were different from those of the professors, whereas 54% said they felt intimidated when their views conflicted with those of their peers.” This means prof or no prof; half the students are shy and the other half are not. Someone ought to tell Freeman this is true in every social setting, be it the classroom, the office, the shop floor or the kitchen table. Tell it to Freeman because he made the ghastly mistake of ending the article as follows:

“The free exchange of ideas is in danger on American campuses. And given the unprofessional behavior of American faculty suggested by this survey, education reformers should perhaps focus on encouraging free-speech advocates within the student body while adopting a campus slogan from an earlier era: Don't trust anyone over 30”.

Do you know what this means, my friend? It means that James Freeman wants someone (education reformers) to come up with a way to silence the bureaucracy and faculty of the colleges and universities. While this is happening, he wants to encourage what he calls free speech advocates to do their shtick, which includes swamping the campuses with the slogan: Don't trust anyone over 30 … such as the professors and the counselors.

Do you know what's behind this, my friend? Let me tell you. The Jewish propaganda machine has set-up a program to train Jewish freshmen on how to pretend being “free speech advocates,” and storm into the “safe spaces” where the students that came to learn science or the humanities gather to have some quiet.

As to what the Jewish students will do to ascertain that Jewish style free speech reigns on campus, we got a glimpse of that when stories surfaced about mobs of Jewish students imposing themselves on gentile student gatherings. They tried to force the gentiles to drop everything they were doing and listen to the Holocaust stories the Jews came to tell them about.

James Freeman has used the Jewish method of defaming someone; this time the American faculty, as a first step to the eventual control of the system of higher education. The ultimate aim is to have education in America serve Israel and all the Jewish causes.

To that end, Freeman has accused American faculty of being unprofessional. This may be true, but only in the sense that it has him as a member.

But Freeman did not have to tell us that his dishonorable performance in journalism passes for professional work at the Wall Street Journal; we've known that for a while already.

Look how natural Providence settles the Score

Jennifer Rubin, a columnist for the Washington Post, wrote about the shooting that took place in a Pittsburgh synagogue on October 27, 2018. She tried to analyze; maybe even make sense of what happened on that day. Unfortunately, Rubin failed to make her points because she neglected one crucial element.

It is that this time, the usually well-rounded Jennifer Rubin, looked one-dimensionally outward while neglecting the inward dimension of the subject she was discussing. She is Jewish, and she could have served “her people” mightily had she included somewhere in her article, words to the effect that: We, leaders of the Jewish community, should also look at ourselves, and try to identify the ways by which we help create, promote and maintain anti-Semitism … and stop doing these things.

The article was published under the title: “American anti-Semitism: It's getting worse,” and has appeared on October 27, 2018 in the Washington Post. It is composed of the usual rant about statistics that show anti-Semitic incidents are on the rise in America and worldwide. While asserting: “There is no single source of anti-Semitism in the United States,” she pointed the finger at the social media, the Neo-Nazis, the college campuses and a few others as being the culprits.

Had Rubin looked inward, she would have encountered the single source that's feeding all these other sources. It is none other than the Jews themselves. To see this, let me take you back 17 years, to a time when Thomas L. Friedman, Columnist for the New York Times, was at the pinnacle of his clowning performance. He was adding “ism” at the end of nouns and adjectives to open new opportunities for the creation of “original” vignettes. He came up with a comical routine that earned him the “ahs!” and “oohs!” of the feeble minds in the Washington Beltway, but also set the stage for the birth and rise of what is happening today.

In one of those vignettes, Friedman came up with the “bin-ladinism” routine that went something like this: Arab leaders oppress their people. The people get radicalized. They embrace bin-ladinism. In turn, this forces the Arab leaders to oppress their people even more, who then embrace bin-ladinism even more; and the cycle never ends. But from where did Friedman get this idea? He got it from the usual place where the Jews get all their “original” ideas. He looked in the mirror, saw the extreme ugliness that his Judaism was reflecting back to him, and decided to attribute all that ugliness to the Arabs and the Muslims.

Friedman got the laughs, the ahs and the oohs he craved, as well as the attention of the brain-dead zombies in the politico-journalistic establishment of America. The latter worked with total ignorance on both the national and international stages, and promoted anti-Semitism not knowing that they were caught in a cycle where the Jews misbehave, get punished by someone, gain sympathy by another one, intensify their misbehavior, get punished even more, and the cycle has never ended after 2,000 years. All the while, America settled its score with bin-Laden in less than 20 years.

This brings us to the synagogue shooter. What do you think he was referring to when he said that all Jews must die because they are slaughtering his people? Think about it: this was Saturday morning, he was at the keyboard of his social media informing his followers that he had enough of something, and was going in. What was that about? What was it that he had enough of?

Have you thought about it? Saturday morning follows Friday, the day in which the Israeli army engages in the ritualistic practice of slaughtering Palestinians in Gaza; at times those in the West Bank too. Well then, it is evident that the Jews in America –– who are given privileged treatment by politicians cum moral prostitutes –– made the “nativist Americans” feel like Palestinians in their own country. They now identify so intensely with the real Palestinians, they see them as their own flesh and blood … see them being slaughtered by the Jews.

Aside from the huge irony that comes out this real story, do you, my friend, appreciate the way that providence of whatever nature, is out there settling the score with evildoers? Look what happened. The Jews have embarked on a 2,000-year plan to create the ideal-looking Jew by converting to Judaism children they kidnapped and/or adopted, and crossbred with them to get rid of their own Semitic look.

To a large extent, the Jews replaced their old look with a Nordic appearance, and claimed to be as good as the Europeans, therefore superior to their Arab cousins who retained their old Semitic look. The Jews then tried to channel European anti-Semitism toward the Arabs, thus be certain they are free of it themselves, and will so remain as long as there are Arabs to hate.

What happened, instead was that the White Supremacist of America felt they were turned into Palestinians in their own country by the faux Nordics who invaded America and converted its leaders into shameless prostitutes, permanently in the service of their Jewish masters.

And now, they who are the authentic sons and daughters of the Aryan race, find themselves once again locked in a battle for survival with the Jews who re-engineered themselves into a beastly hybrid whose ideology remains the same old wine, now kept in a new bottle.

They are playing the Judeo-Israeli double Game

The Tel-Aviv/New-York syndicate has a delicate double-game to play, thus called on Jack-of-all-trades America to get busy. The syndicate has instructed America to use its right arm doing one thing, and use its left arm doing the opposite thing. The syndicate has also instructed its mouthpieces to use the right side of the mouth to say one thing, and use the left side of the mouth to say a contradictory thing.

Having succeeded to a large extent at isolating America and monopolizing it to exclusively serve Israel's interests in the Middle East and beyond, the syndicate now wants to use American power and prestige to accomplish a related feat; this time using Iran as a backdrop. You can see how the syndicate is doing it because it finds itself in a spot where it must run two contradictory discourses simultaneously. It is running one with the world community and running another with America's ruling coterie.

Stationed on the right side of the syndicate's mouth, Danny Danon, who is Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, is telling the world community that now is: “Zero Hour for the Islamic Republic.” This happens to be the title of an article that Danon wrote; one that also came under the subtitle: “The time has come for the world to unite against Iran's regime.” The article was published on October 25, 2018 in the right-wing American publication, The Wall Street Journal.

The next day, October 26, 2018, the editors of the left-wing American publication, The Washington Post –– who sit on the syndicate's left side of the mouth –– came up with an editorial that contained a conciliatory set of ideas designed to please Iran. To make sure that the Washington coterie will pay attention to their piece, the editors of the Post ran it under the scary title: “The worst may be yet to come in the Middle East”.

What follows is a condensed version of what Danny Danon has been telling the international community:

“Iran's regime is facing unrest at home and sanctions from abroad. Financial pressure has compounded its domestic turmoil. The rial has plummeted, its oil exports have fallen. A second round of sanctions will target its oil and gas sectors. The world must not believe that normalizing relations with Tehran will improve global security. Europe should stand fast with the US. With more sanctions approaching, now is the time to increase the pressure on Iran's rulers. I call on my colleagues at the UN to join the US and Israel in standing against Iran”.

It is clear from this passage that the syndicate is trying to isolate Iran by inciting the international community to distance itself from it. The excuse the syndicate is advancing for giving this kind of advice, is that Iran has already lost the battle, and those who stick with it will be losers. Look now what the editors of the Washington Post are telling the Washington coterie:

“A goal of the US in the Middle East ought to be promoting a balance among its powers that favors US interests. Trump chose to side with Sunni Saudi Arabia. That has enabled a series of disasters, and the worst may be yet to come. The region is moved by a conflict between Shiites and Sunnis. Shiite Iran is attempting to establish itself as the regional hegemon. It must be resisted but not by aligning the US with Sunnis. The balance is hard to strike. Trump renouncing the nuclear deal and reimposing sanctions on Iran will escalate tensions without a clear purpose. Regime change in Tehran doesn't look likely, nor does the elimination of Iran as a regional force.

The best US policy would push back against Iran in Syria, while containing the Sunni states. Trump ought to accept that US policy cannot consist of demonizing Iran and embracing its enemies”.

It is clear from this passage that the syndicate is trying to bring Iran into the America/Israel fold by calling on America to be nice to Iran. Well then, my friend, what we have here are two clear trends which –– when juxtaposed to each other –– show a classic example of the Jewish doubletalk.

It is that on the one hand, the Jews are telling the world Iran is a bad player that's going down the drain. The advice to the international community being: Stay away from Iran or you'll suffer the same fate.

On the other hand, the Jews are telling America that Iran is a robust player that will withstand any pressure America will bring to bear on it. The advice to America being: Do not antagonize Tehran by embracing the causes of its enemies.

Quacks in the World of make-believe: buzz off

Rachel Avraham, who is president of some human rights outfit and a fellow at the Haym Salomon Center, wrote a quack article for an American audience while pretending to speak to Muslims. The next day, Eli Lake of Bloomberg News wrote an article in the same vein to accomplish more or less the same goal, but looking at the issues from a different angle.

Avraham wrote her article knowing that at best, only a handful in the Muslim world will read it, and that not one of these will be impressed. So, why is she doing this? She is doing it to make her American audience believe that Jews have moral authority –– not over the Muslims who will ignore her quackery but –– over the Americans who will be impressed by her one-sided haggling savvy.

And what might be Eli Lake's motivation for writing his article? Well, whereas Avraham's article was about Muslim countries in general, Lake's article is specifically about Egypt. In fact, Egypt has been Lake's obsession since the predictions about the country's economy being on the verge of collapse, proved false. Convinced that he can still make the calamity happen, Eli Lake has used the resources of the Bloomberg organization to work on wrecking the recovery of Egypt's economy. His method has been badmouthing the country to scare away investors, as well as incite the brain-dead zombies in the American Congress to do their beastly part.

The title of Rachel Avraham's article is: “Journalists in the Muslim world speak out,” which also came under the subtitle: “Standing with the dissidents following the murder of Jamal Khashoggi.” It was published on October 25, 2018 in The Washington Times. As to Eli Lake's article, it came under the title: “Why Egypt's Exiles Are Especially Terrified” and the subtitle: “They are anxiously watching how the US responds to the Saudis' killing of Jamal Khashoggi.” The article was published on October 26, 2018 on the Bloomberg website.

The Jews being the quintessential opportunists, Rachel Avraham and Eli Lake are the latest to take advantage of the Khashoggi horror to push forward the Judeo-Israeli agenda of diminishing Israel's neighbors and augmenting Israel's stature. They joined the mob that scanned the worldwide landscape looking for Arab dissidents to put words in their mouths, and found a few on whom they could ply their demonic acts of treachery.

What the Jews want to accomplish, at one level, is give the impression that all Arab dissidents have suddenly been gripped by the fear they will end up suffering the same fate as Jamal Khashoggi. Of course, the cowardly and savage message of the Jews is to feed their audiences the steady diet that says when something happens one time in the Arab/Muslim world, it means it will happen all the time.

And the Jews are also operating on another level. In fact, they make no secret of the fact that their opportunistic tendencies motivate them to seize on the differences that exist in the societies they wish to weaken or destroy, and work to encourage those differences, or make them look bigger than they are. It is that operating in this manner, is the easier and safer way to make a prophecy fulfill itself.

Thus, when the Jews adopt the cause of an Arab or a Muslim dissident, and when this fact is publicized, the Jews alter the status of that person from dissident to traitor. When those same Jews have the power to incite the brain-dead zombies of the American Congress to sabotage every progress the Arabs make, and when they are obsessed with wrecking the Arab economies, it follows that Arab dissidents abroad who are adopted by the Jews, become a serious national security threat to the Arab countries.

The Jews know this. And so, you'd think that because they say they care about the state of journalism and human rights in the Arab world, they would be circumspect about the way they handle these matters. But they are not trying to be circumspect. Look how each of the two authors ended their discussion, and you'll realize that instead of solving what they say is a problem, they are trying to inflame the situation instead.

Here is what Rachel Avraham has said: We in the West must stand in solidarity with all dissidents from Muslim majority countries.

And here is what Eli Lake has said: It is imperative that Salman be held accountable. That's the only detail that matters to El-Sisi … For Trump and his cabinet, the response is about balancing US [not Egypt's] interests.

They want blood, and they’ll get it because they always get it when they call for it. The trouble is that most of the time the blood is their own mixed with that of others. But the Jewish leaders who are behind these schemes do not worry because they know what to do when the hour of reckoning is upon them: they bolt out on time and let the rank and file pay the price for their foolishness.

This is why the Jewish rank and file, both in Israel and the so-called Diaspora, should get on the case of their scheming leaders and tell them to find something better to do with their lives than plot schemes which end up in calamities, as they have done time after time after time.

Cannot see the World looking into a peep Hole

Here is an example of what's wrong with the kind of journalism the Jews brought to America. It is an editorial that came under the title: “The Muslim moment,” published on October 24, 2018 in The Washington Times.

Using the Khashoggi incident as a springboard, the editors of that publication sought to give a panoramic view of what they acknowledge is “1.5 billion Muslims, 22 percent of world population.” This is like looking through a peep hole and expecting to see a good chunk of the world.

A 6-year-old that tries a thing like this would make his teacher explain how big some things are, and how visual perspective works. On the other hand, a 7-year-old trying it, would make the teacher call the parents and inform them that their child will have to be sent to a class for children with special needs.

The sad part is that Journalism in America used to be as good as any in the world until a few decades ago when it was infested by the Judeo-Yiddish culture. That's the one which says truth is what you make someone believe it is, no matter how much what you say contradicts observable facts in real life.

The Jewish infestation of America's culture caused it to become imbued with the notion that repeating the lies often enough will cause you to believe your own lies. When this happens, you'll become so naturally adept at making others believe what you tell them, you'll have earned the title of honorary Jew whether or not you like it; whether or not you intend to convert to their ideology.

Look what the editors of the Washington Times did to open the gates that have allowed them to flood the marketplace of ideas with a torrent of venomous lies. They began a short paragraph by quoting Jamal Khashoggi who wrote this: “The Arab world has been seeking renaissance for the last 100 years...”

The editors cut off Khashoggi's saying at this point, and grafted on it a deadly vine of the kind that the Jewish propaganda machine produces all the time. Here is what they added: “...but the movement for reform had been blocked by authoritarian leaders and public rage at endemic corruption.” But that's not what Khashoggi has said. In fact, this is nothing more than a manifestation of the poison which the Judeo-Yiddish infestation has been infusing into the American culture.

The truth is that of all the nations that were colonized in Africa and Asia, the Arabs (Christians and Muslims) modernized faster than everyone else. They did, faster even than the Latin Americans who might have been oppressed by their “Gringo” neighbors, but were not colonized by them. In fact, the Arabs have managed to progress despite the strategies that the colonial powers continued to implement in their region to prevent them from progressing at the high rate that their talent would have allowed them to.

Not knowing what they are doing, the editors of The Washington Times came up with this piece of quackery: “Muslims are in the ascendency, if only through the early steps of the modernization of their ancient societies.” Well then, when it comes to history, these editors display a level of education so low, it would be a waste of time sending them to take a remedial course.

In fact, the editors of the Times do not know that –– unlike Assyria, Mesopotamia, Persia, Egypt, even Greece and others –– the Muslims did not have an “ancient” history to speak of. Their empire began to take shape at the start of what is called the Middle Age.

The Muslims built one of the most brilliant civilizations to ever grace this planet, and passed it on to the Europeans who had their Renaissance as a result, having lived more than a thousand years in the “Dark Age” after the fall of Rome. But when the Europeans began to rise, the Muslims declined relative to them.

However, what's happening now is that the Muslims are having their own Renaissance. It happened in less than half the time that it took the Europeans to have theirs. All of this was lost on the editors of the Washington Times who learned by rote the lessons that follow; hammered into their skulls by their Jewish masters:

When the Jews attack someone, they defend themselves. When those they attack defend themselves, they terrorize the Jews.

When hundreds of priests rape thousands of choir boys despite taking a vow of chastity, we say these priests do not represent Christianity. When a handful of Muslim kids are savagely brutalized by Jews and Christians, and the kids fight back, we say they represent aggressive Islam.

This is the new Age of Darkness that Jewish journalism is infusing into the American culture.

Managing America to micromanage the World

It took the killing of an innocent man in Turkey for Clifford D. May to write the kind of piece that illustrates with meticulous exactness the kind of relationships that America is allowed to have with the nations of the Middle East while satisfying Israel's ambitions in the region, and doing nothing but that.

The title of Clifford May's article is “Killing Khashoggi,” published on October 23, 2018 in The Washington Times. Governed by a high concentration of the spirit, and proceeding with careful steps, the writer walks a high wire as he tells America's diplomatic corps what posture it must take with regard to the Khashoggi incident. Here is how he set up the scene to instruct on how America's diplomats ought to perceive the unfolding of the drama, and what moral of the story they ought to draw from it:

“This much we know: Khashoggi, a Saudi citizen and critic of the royal family was killed by Saudi operatives inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. The dominant media narrative: Crown Prince Salman dispatched Saudi agents to carry out an assassination. Leaks from Turkish intelligence, and reports in Turkish media have provided the basis for this narrative. They are not reliable sources. Turkish President Erdogan was expected to produce evidence during a speech. He did not. He didn't even mention Turkish officials' claims that they have recordings of the killing. Instead, he posed questions”.

As can be detected, the unfolding of the drama begins with the asking of the overarching questions: Who was responsible for that dreadful crime? And how much of it can be attributed to Crown Prince Salman? These are important questions because the answers to them will determine the kind of relationship that America will have with Saudi Arabia and everyone else in the region; and how this incident will impact the current effort to bring the Sunni Arab World and Israel to talk to each other.

The way that Clifford May narrates the story, is that Turkey, which is a rival of Saudi Arabia, wants Crown Prince Salman to bear full responsibility for the crime. To this end, President Erdogan of Turkey, tried to pull a fast one. He tried to make the world believe he had proof that the crown prince was personally involved in the crime. But Erdogan never delivered the proof.

To side even more closely with Saudi Arabia, Clifford May mentioned that the Saudis acknowledged their guilt in the Khashoggi affair, which makes them believable. For this reason, he posited that it would be unfair to say that scapegoats were already chosen to take the fall for the crown prince. Instead, May has advanced the theory that the so-called scapegoats may have been guilty of exceeding their authority. He suggested that they were sent to abduct Khashoggi and take him to Saudi Arabia, but that something went wrong in the procedure, and the man was killed by accident.

Still, none of that is enough to completely absolve Salman or the Saudi Kingdom of the terrible crime. And this happens to be the “not fully guilty nor fully innocent” situation that is ideal in the eyes of Clifford May. It's because he doesn't want the Saudi Kingdom to be completely immune to the Judeo-American leverage. Thus, Clifford May has expressed glee in telling his readers that President Trump finds himself in a tough spot. He knows he must punish Saudi Arabia and the crown prince for what happened, but in so doing, must not reward the Kingdom's enemies, such as Turkey and more importantly Iran ... all that being the cure that Doctor Zion of diplomacy has ordered for this situation.

Certain that he got the tiger of American diplomacy by the tail, as well as the opportunistic windfall he has pocketed with confidence, Clifford May turned his attention to telling the rulers of Saudi Arabia what to do, now that they are in a bind and must listen to what he says:

“If Mohammed bin Salman remains crown prince –– King Salman does not appear inclined to demote his 33-year-old-son –– he would be well-advised to respond to whatever the White House and Congress do by turning the other cheek, and taking pains to make amends”.

Nothing can be more direct than that. But this done, it is now time to draw the moral of the story. Here is how Clifford May did it:

“Free nations can never be friends with regimes that maintain power through acts of barbarism. Yet there is a difference between regimes with whom we share vital national interests, and regimes with whom we don't. It's a jungle out there. Those who don't understand that end up in the jaws of predators”.

Which explains how it is that the American whale, ended up in the jaws of the Israeli minnow. It is that America never understood how the jungle out there creates the optical illusion of letting you look in the jaws of the massive Jewish predator but see an Israeli minnow. It is how America was swallowed deep inside with a single gulp, digested and pushed out at the other end.

Crocodile Tears to impress those Down Under

In North America “Down Under” refers to Australia, which is located near the South Pole, thus shown at the bottom of the global map. A single country that fills an entire continent, Australia is identified with the crocodile mascot but never associated with crocodile tears. Until now.

What happened was that during the election campaign in Australia, someone mentioned a fact about the habit of candidates in the so-called democracies to suck-up to the one-issue minorities by throwing to them a favorite bone of theirs to chew on. The intent is to distract the electors on their way to the voting booth, and while there, to absentmindedly vote for the candidate that threw them the bone.

This time, the voters happened to be the Jews whose one-issue has always been the exploitation of the country in which they live, and use what they extract from it to benefit the Jewish causes, including Israel. It happens at this time that the Jews dream about the countries of the world violating a most fundamental principle of human decency as well as international law by accepting as legitimate the Jewish thievery of a Palestinian property called Jerusalem. They want the countries of the world to legitimize this criminal act by moving their embassies from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

One of the candidates in the Australian election, promised his Jewish constituents that if elected, he would consider making that move. His opponent mentioned it publicly for the record, and this was enough for the Jews to throw their hands up in the air, jerk both knees, wail the bloody murder refrain, and accuse the politician that spoke out as well as the media that discussed the incident of “Blood Libel.” You can read all about this incident in the article that came under the title: “Media Story on Australian Election Contains Blood Libel,” written by Simon Plosker and published on October 24, 2018 in Algemeiner.

What's this about really? Well, to begin with, the incident was nothing more than a run-of-the-mill kind of talk that's spewed all the time during election campaigns in the countries that call themselves Liberal Democracies. In fact, this is the sort of thing politicians brag about, saying that only their democracy allows people to speak freely without fearing being punished for what they think or what they say.

It's not only the proponents of the system of Liberal Democracy that say these things, so do the Jews who profess to adhere to that same system. Well, to be accurate, it must be said that when they say they adhere to the system, they mean they do so in the sense that they take advantage of the rights which the system bestows on them, but make an exception when it comes to the obligations it imposes on them. This is especially true when it comes to free speech, an area where the Jews repeatedly demonstrate their strict adherence to the motto: Free speech for me but not for thee.

As a matter of fact, there are many ways to communicate that thought to the public, and Simon Plosker used one to communicate the content of his article to the readers. Here is how he did it: “It's one thing to suggest that Jewish voters have been paid off for their vote. It's another to draw a parallel with the story of Judas and the 30 pieces of silver. When applied to Jews, this is a classic antisemitic trope.” In other words, Plosker is saying that metaphors can be used when speaking of anyone, but the Jews are so special, metaphors cannot be used when speaking of them.

There is no doubt that Simon Plosker is here doing what comes naturally to Jews, which is to shed crocodile tears in the hope of getting something free of charge that will serve the Jewish causes. What can that be? You get a sense of what it may be when you analyze the following passage:

“Judas, even if uttered without the slightest anti-Semitic intent, conjures up an old and still potent image of the Jew as a Jesus Christ killer. His name has screamed 'Jew' to Christians. Indeed, he became for Christianity the prototype of the Jew: the treacherous, devilish, money-grubbing figure that all Jews were said to resemble”.

What does that say? It says that Christianity in Australia and everywhere else in the world must embark on a new program to educate their populations about the sensitivities of Jews. That's because 50 years of such education was not enough to eradicate this kind of anti-Semitic trope from being uttered by those who mean to hurt the Jews and those who don't.

With this, Simon Plosker is adding his voice to those who seek to impose teaching the Holocaust to schoolchildren, and those who seek to bring the bureaucracy, faculty and student body of universities and colleges under Jewish control.

It is always the same with these people who embrace that culture. No matter their ethnic origin, the color of their skin or the religion from which they convert to Judaism, they pounce on every little incident and try to extract something for nothing. They keep doing it till the people around them get so fed up, they pounce on them … and the rest is history.

Robert Kagan arguing for the ditching of Israel

It happens at times that a writer would show no respect for his audience, thus shells out tons of nonsense to make points that sound innocuous on the surface but in reality, serve a nefarious cause he believes will escape the detection of the audience.

The writer may get away with it, as some do at times. Still, however, in so doing, the writer risks being exposed as a fraud, and risks blowing the cause he is trying to serve. This, in fact, is what happened to Robert Kagan who wrote an article under the title: “The myth of the modernizing dictator,” published on October 21, 2018 in the Washington Post.

On the surface, Kagan seems to be discussing the Saudi/Khashoggi affair. His apparent point being that the new ruler of Saudi Arabia behaves more like a dictator than a reformer, Kagan legitimately went into history and dug up the cases he used to support his argument. Cherry picking being the prerogative of the writer, Kagan exercised that prerogative by omitting from a long list of names, Menachem Begin, the right-wing, ex-terrorist who became Prime Minister of Israel. The list contained Benito Mussolini, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Ferdinand Marcos, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Chung-hee and Augusto Pinochet.

What Kagan said about these people is that they were fundamentally bad dudes but looked good to many Americans, and were forgiven for one reason or another. Some were forgiven, said Kagan, because they looked like they were what their countries needed at the time. Others looked good, he went on to say, because they appeared to be modernizing dictators. Still others looked good, said Kagan, because they handled their country's economy in a smooth and effective manner.

Having something at the back of his mind, Kagan needed to accomplish a tour de force to bring it to the fore. He did so by mentioning two American favorites, Samuel Huntington and Jeanne Kirkpatrick. It is that Huntington once argued that “order” was the tool needed to modernize backward societies. Later, Kirkpatrick used that argument to support foreign right-wing dictators who were America's “bastards”.

And so, Kagan said that Kirkpatrick, who believed that these dudes will eventually democratize, “had it exactly backward.” He pointed out that it was the former communist countries of the Second World (Eastern Europe) that democratized, not the right-wing dictatorships of the Third World. So, here is how Kagan pulled his tour de force: “Meanwhile, authoritarianism persisted in the Middle East and elsewhere, except where the US withdrew support, as in the Philippines, South Korea and Chile; only at that point did they become democracies”.

Note that Kagan did not claim there was a cause and effect relation between the US withdrawing support, and those three countries democratizing. They seem to have evolved naturally to the political state that suited them. In fact, it happened in the Philippines after the Americans were told to vacate the naval base they had in the country. It happened in South Korea despite the fact that 30,000 American troops remain there to this day.

As well, Robert Kagan did not explain why the countries of the Middle East that did not enjoy America's largess failed to democratize as per his theory. And neither did he explain why China, Cuba and Vietnam –– three Communist countries, among others –– never democratized, along with those of Eastern Europe.

Kagan went on to blather a few more rants in an attempt to tie the loose ends of a theory that was beginning to fray at its core. Eventually, he got to the point where he could turn what he had in the back of his head into the punchline that was the reason for writing his article in the first place. Here is how he did that:

“We wanted allies against the Soviet Union; now, we want allies against Iran. We discovered during the Cold War that the supposed allies were not the bulwarks we had hoped. In Egypt and Saudi Arabia, we may ultimately find that supporting dictators in those countries produces the outcome we had hoped to avoid. Who are the fools here? We are the ones living in a self-serving fantasy of our own devising”.

So, that was the purpose for writing his article in the first place. It was to add his voice to the ongoing Jewish push to have America cut ties with the Arab World, and turn itself into a monopoly in Jewish hands.

This explains why Kagan failed to add the name of Manachem Begin to his list of bad dudes. Had he done so, the people going over his punchline would have read it as follows:

“We wanted Israel as an ally against the Soviet Union; now we want Israel as an ally against Iran. We discovered during the Cold War that this supposed ally was nothing but a bloodsucker that sucked us dry and gave us nothing in return but knife stabs in the back. By contrast, we may find in Egypt and Saudi Arabia that engaging the Arabs in an ongoing dialogue is what defines friendship at its best”.

And all that boils down to one thing: The Jews are running out of ways to live at the expense of others. Soon, they'll have to work for a living and go back to being what they were before converting to Judaism. They'll ditch Israel, shed the layers of pretense under which they have been operating, and blend with the rest of humanity. And that will be preferable to the Final Solution.

When a Culture goes weird, Rationality suffers

Can the pull of a culture become so overwhelming, it would cloud the judgment of a professional that's trained to remain objective no matter how much the conventional wisdom of the reigning culture conflicts with his empirical observations and/or reasoned judgment?

The answer seems to be yes; this can happen, and the evidence is all around us. One of these is the article that came under the title: “Return of the Balance of Power” and the subtitle: “But the problem is neither nationalism nor globalism. In today's world, the two are complementary.” The article was written by Henry R. Nau, a well-educated and experienced professional, and was published on October 18, 2018 in The National Interest.

When you read Nau's article, you get the sense that, shedding his professional training, the man had subscribed to the theory which says what happens in the world happens because America willed it. Also, when something that's supposed to happen fails to happen, it's because America neglected to make it happen. This, in fact, was the theory that began to develop right after the Soviet Union, the other superpower at the time, had collapsed, and the people of America felt they were holding “the whole world in their hand”.

And so, a new popular culture began to grow in America. What it failed to acknowledge however –– even as the evidence mounted –– was that the bipolar world that used to exist, was now becoming a multi-polar world with several new players entering the rink. What's more, America was beginning to stand alone in the world, diminished by what it was doing and what it was neglecting to do. All this was happening while the nations of the world were moving on to a new era, motivated as they were by a powerful new vision that America's political and diplomatic elites could not even begin to grasp.

Whereas America should have been able to count on the venerated members of its educated classes to guide it through the turbulent times, it was let down by them. That's because instead of playing the role of anchors meant to keep the ship of state from slugging in every direction, the educated classes chose to dance to the tunes of the new popular culture. They let America drift aimlessly into an ocean that was studied by others around the world but remained unknown to Americans.

Thus, while making certain not to step outside the boundaries of the culture that continues to sweep America, Henry Nau undertook to discuss his own theory concerning the balance of power. He says that America has gone through three stages in its quest to “strike the right balance between nationalism and globalism.” The trouble is that he defines “globalism” through the prism of the new culture, a false choice that led him astray.

Nau says that America did not turn to globalism until after World War II when –– in its second stage –– it adopted the Wilson and Roosevelt, “internationalist strategy to transform the decentralized nation-state, balance of power system into the centralized global institutions of the United Nations.” So far so good because there is nothing here that says Woodrow Wilson or Franklin Roosevelt saw the nations of the world as a mere chorus meant to accompany the lead singer that is America.

But this view has changed according to Nau. It did, he says, when during the third stage, Bill Clinton and then George W. Bush “perpetuated internationalist strategies to spread democracy and markets” across the parts of the world that didn't have them. And it was this Jewish-inspired messianic zeal that moved superpower America from seeing the world as it was, to seeing a world of delusion; one that resulted in the country going from one preposterous misadventure overseas to another preposterous misadventure.

Going further on the wrong path to harmonize his views with the political exigencies of the current situation, Henry Nau came up with a new concept; this one: “The problem is neither nationalism nor globalism. In today's world, the two are complementary.” What he did, in effect, was reinterpret history to show that Donald Trump's brand of Republicanism can coexist with the globalism that he admits is irrevocably here to stay.

Nau made attempt to redeem himself near the end of the article when he stated the following: “Respect the people [of the world...]” but he spoiled it all when he added the following: “...Give them time to absorb unprecedented political, economic and social change”.

In so doing, Nau has acknowledged that the seven and a half billion people on Planet Earth are human beings that must be respected, not pawns that were placed on a cosmic chessboard for America's political operatives to make their moves, entertain themselves and score points.

But Henry Nau forgot something. It is that the seven and a half billion human beings of the planet have organized themselves into economic and military jurisdictions. Their primary objective is to protect themselves against the nutcases that believe they have a mandate to run the world in accordance with their deluded vision. Those nutcases being America and Israel.

He tells Trump to go harder and hurt them more

What do you think happens when the weasel tells the muscular dummy to rape someone and the dummy obeys, but instead of crushing the victim, the dummy gets his testicles crushed, and the weasel gets slapped in the face? Well, what happens next is that the weasel tells the dummy––in as subtle a manner as he can––that he must try again but this time, must rape the victim harder and hurt it more.

This is the sense you'll come out with when you read the latest advice that David Makovsky, the weasel, is giving to Donald Trump, the presumptive rapist of the Palestinian situation. Makovsky gave his advice in an article that came under the title: “So Much Winning” and the subtitle: Why Mahmoud Abbas Thinks He's Beating Trump –– and Israel.” It was published on October 14, 2018 on the website of the Washington Institute.

David Makovsky says that Mahmoud Abbas is winning in three areas, which is why he is defying a Donald Trump that doesn't like being defied, especially when he holds all the trump cards, and should be winning even if he had his eyes closed and both hands tied behind his back. But he had his eyes open while dealing with Abbas, and had his hands free as well as strengthened by his aids, and yet he could not bend Abbas, let alone break him … something Trump should have been able to do in no time at all but failed. How exasperating!

The three areas that caused Donald Trump to have his testicles crushed according to David Makovsky, are these: (1) the UNRWA gambit that backfired on him despite meticulous preparations for a different outcome, (2) the Arab states that treated Trump’s request to distance themselves from the Palestinians, the way they treat a toilet paper, and (3) the Gaza situation that played well in Mahmoud Abbas's hands even if these same hands were tied behind his back, and he had no aid strengthening them.

As to the UNRWA debacle, what has unfolded there is typical of what happens when the Jews adopt an issue, and add it to their agenda. Their goal this time was to kill the UN agency that helps the Palestinians. The Jews see this as the first step in the process to damage the Palestinian identity, thus pave the way for mounting a full-scale assault to achieve the cultural if not the physical genocide of these people.

In other words, the Jews wish to achieve a Jewish style final solution of the Palestinian people. To make the achievement truly Jewish, they want the Americans to do it for them; take full responsibility for the crime and assume the cost of the consequences that will ensue. And they look upon Donald Trump as the man they can count on to begin the process of doing just that.

In fact, when the UN refused to modify the operation of its UNRWA agency, the Jews got Donald Trump to try destroying –– by rape if necessary –– the entire system which keeps the Palestinian refugees alive. Trump listened to the Jews and tried to execute their command, but what happened instead, was that his testicles got kicked so hard, it will be a long time before he tries to outwit the international community again.

As to the Arab states that Donald Trump has tried to persuade they must neglect the cause of Palestinians, Donald Trump has learned not only that blood is thicker than water, but also that Arab morality is so noble, no amount of Jewish or American bribes can corrupt it.

As to the Gaza situation, Donald Trump has learned that no one can be his brother's keeper if he cannot keep himself. Thus, if to curry favor with a bloodsucking group at election time, Donald Trump has decided to deprive the West Bank Palestinians of the necessities of life, he has by the same token denied it to those in Gaza.

The difference between the two situations is that the inhabitants of Gaza stand at the brink of a humanitarian disaster. If it comes to pass –– and the chances are good that it will –– the horror that's in the cards will hang like yet another albatross around Donald Trump's neck. It will be there for all to see, and for as long as people will want to read the history of American presidents.

This is what David Makovsky and those behind him had in mind when they started composing the advice they gave to Donald Trump, disguising it as an article analyzing the situation on the ground. In fact, this has been the Jewish pattern since the start of their takeover of America. It is how they had the Americans give the world the horrors of Iraq, Libya and now Palestine.

Leper welcoming a Newcomer into the Colony

Leprosy is a horrible disease that causes disfigurement of the human body's extremities. There is a cure for it today, which is how it has been eradicated almost completely around the globe. But this wasn't the case in previous eras when the disease was widespread in some places.

Because leprosy can be infectious, people who were not affected by it avoided coming into contact with those who were. In fact, colonies were set-up for lepers to live together as normal a life as possible without being shunned by others. The lepers accepted their exile –– self-imposed most of the time –– and the rest of society appreciated their gesture.

Because leprosy left a profound mark on the ancient cultures and those that followed, the disease became a metaphor. It is used to describe the people whose behavior is so abhorrent the rest of society avoids them as if they were lepers. This happens because societies have a uniform code of conduct where, anyone that deviates markedly from that code, is figuratively considered a kind of social leper to be shunned.

But what happens when a society experiences a cultural upheaval and begins to split into groups, each of which considers the others so out-of-line, it shuns them as if they were lepers? This, in fact, is what's happening locally in the United States of America among the various groups; and happening at the international level between the United States and the rest of the world.

Locally, the traditional conservative versus liberal split that served America fairly well for more than a century and a half, began to transform itself, half a century ago, when the differences between the two sides were suddenly accentuated. Instead of the ideologies giving the public a choice between different views on how to run the country, they became adversities that were further sharpened by a regime called “adversarial.” And in that regime, everyone became an accuser engaged in the business of prosecuting the other side.

Internationally, America that used to be invited around the globe, and asked to mediate between foreign entities to help them resolve their disputes, began to be rejected by those who used to revere it. Not only that, but in an increasing number of places around the globe, the superpower began to be viewed as a serious danger to world peace. America is so treated at this time, which means it is shunned like a leper.

The key to understanding what happened to America lies in the reality that the most prominent players involved in the country's give-and-take on both the local and the international stages, have been the self-appointed Jewish leaders. They were the ones who brought the brutal adversarial regime to the local players, splitting them irreconcilably, and making themselves and the other Jews, the bipartisan favorite in every field of human endeavor. The Jews also injected that same regime into America's international relations, forcing the superpower into the leper colony that used to shelter Israel alone. And so, what you have now in that exclusive colony of lepers, is the Judeo-Israeli weasel and his servant, the muscular American dummy.

The two seem to have fun at the prospect of being joined by what they consider a leper in the making. You can read all about it by going over the article that came under the title: “Punish the Saudis –– but not by rewarding Iran,” written by Benny Avni and published on October 16, 2018 in the New York Post.

What seems to have happened is that the Saudis took a page from the book of America's CIA and another page from the book of Israel's Mossad, and followed the instructions therein on how to eliminate someone they do not like on foreign soil. The Saudis seem to have done it in a way that is a little amateurish, and were caught red-handed, so to speak. And there has been consequences already.

Certain that Saudi Arabia will soon be shunned by much of the world, Benny Avni who speaks in the name of the Tel-Aviv/New-York syndicate, is giving out instructions to his subordinates at the White House, telling them how to handle the newcomer, thus make sure that he will be useful to them now and in the future.

Avni is advising punishing Saudi Arabia for doing once what the CIA and the Mossad do regularly with impunity. But he wants the punishment to be of the kind that will not benefit the Iranians who saw a number of their scientists murdered at the hands of what can only be American and/or Jewish agents. Go figure.

Scavenging to establish the Jewish Deep State

A scavenger is a rapacious animal that's also lazy and lacking in imagination. It has an insatiable appetite, which it satisfies by stealing the food (usually the leftovers) that other predators hunt and consume.

The tendency to scavenge exists in humans as well. You can see examples of it in every walks of life, especially in the places where stealing is done, not by transferring physical objects from one holder to another –– though it happens at times –– but by duplicating what is called intellectual property, and using it in a setting that's different from the original intent. Called plagiarism or mining, these practices are frowned upon.

However, duplicating the works of others, in full or in part, while giving full credit to the original authors, is not always illegitimate. For example, reviewers of works produced by others do that all the time, as do the creative authors who become so enamored with an original production, they produce sequels to it.

But here is the unpleasant surprise. Some people found a way to use that legitimate practice, and turn it around to make it serve their scavenging tendencies. You can see an example of that in the article which came under the title: “Michelle Obama's urgent lesson to college administrators” and the subtitle: “Foster an environment conducive to free speech.” It was written by Samuel J. Abrams and published on October 17, 2018 in New York Daily News.

In this episode, Michelle Obama is the creator of an ideal product she designed to serve a lofty purpose – as admitted to by Samuel Abrams. Having pointed that out, Abrams switched to playing the role of scavenger. In so doing, he used Michelle Obama's work to serve his own crass purposes. Look how he did that:

First, Abrams introduced the former first lady: “Michelle Obama offered a glimpse of sanity this week ... responding to Eric Holder.” He then quoted what she had said: “If we're the adults and the leaders in the room, and we're not showing that level of decency, we cannot expect our kids to do the same.” Her setting being the political discourse in which Eric Holder was participating, Abrams changed all that with a sleight of hand. He redirected the energy that was produced by Michelle Obama, and made it serve his own agenda; one that happened to be unfolding in another setting.

Here is how Samuel Abrams did that: “Just look at our college campuses. There is resistance to free speech on today’s universities and colleges. Who is to blame? The people Michelle Obama calls to lead –– college administrators,” and that's the big lie.

No, Michelle Obama was not responding to college administrators. Besides responding specifically to Eric Holder, she was responding generally to scavengers such as Samuel Abrams who make everything about themselves, their fake Jewish identity, and the illegitimate entity they call Israel.

That's what you'll find at the heart of the maneuverings the Jewish leaders never stop doing. Their never-ending goal is to use the full gamut of America's resources to fulfill the Judeo-Israeli agenda, which happens to be infinite in scope. For this reason, the Jews need to have a setting they can control as colonial masters. They need to feel they are presiding over a tame population that's raised in the belief –– however false it may be –– it has everything going for it in a world that cannot get anything right.

To achieve all that, the Jews started working on a comprehensive plan several decades ago. You can be certain that it is a plan they'll never abandon no matter how long it will take to complete, if ever, and no matter what obstacles they'll encounter along the way.

The plan consists of switching from the phase of “educating the American public on Jewish sensitivities” where they have been for a number of decades, to a new and more astounding phase. What they want to do now is take full responsibility for teaching Americans from kindergarten to graduate school. To that end, they have been working on the public to accept imposing Holocaust stories in schools to inculcate children –– from grade one till they finish high school –– with the notion that they, as Americans, owe the Jews a living.

To make certain that there will be no “resistance” to their decrees, the Jews want to take control of the bureaucracy that's in charge of the system of higher education. They figure that when this will be completed, they'll have the deep state that will bend the faculty to their will, and give them full control over the student body.

The Jews also believe that when they'll have accomplished all this, the world will be ready to welcome the promised “Rapture” that will see the coming of the Messiah.

The legend they have been dreaming about is that He will formally give them ownership of the Earth and all that's in it … including all of us, mere mortal human beings.

Doing the Groundwork for a Jewish Deep State

Thanks to Alan Dershowitz that has the Midas Touch in reverse, academia was put beyond the ability of Jews to take ownership of it the way they did other American institutions.

At first, the Jews seemed to make progress with academia as well, but it turned out that where people think, the door remains locked to Jewish absurdities, even when the latter are disguised as deep thinking.

And so, when academia took down the disguise that was masking the reality of Jewish logic, it exposed the horrific deformities of the underlying thinking, and told the Jews to take their logic and buzz off.

But the reality is that when it comes to taking control of something, the Jews never take “no” for an answer. When rebuffed, they pretend to go away but only take a few steps back. They circle the thing they covet, and look closely for the next opportunity to pounce on the thing and try to grab it and run.

That's what the Jews are attempting to do at this time. You'll be able to see for yourself by reading the article that came under the title: “Think Professors Are Liberal? Try School Administrators,” and the subtitle: “The ideological bent of those overseeing collegiate life is having the biggest impact on campus culture.” It was written by Samuel J. Abrams and published on October 16, 2018 in the New York Times.

What the Jews have discovered is that tenured and non-tenured professors are true professionals that take their work seriously. They teach their students in an even-handed manner regardless of their bent, if indeed they have one. In fact, despite the tsunami of slanderous propaganda that the Jewish organizations unleashed on the profession in general, and the individual professors that irked them in particular, academia remained serene. It kept doing the good work amid the barking and the braying of beasts demanding blood.

The Jews then decided it was time to attack the institutions of higher learning from another angle. Instead of going after the professors, they went after the administrators. The problem, they now say, is not what happens inside the classroom –– there's no problem there –– it's what happens outside of it. Here is how Samuel Abrams began to tell his story: “I received a disconcerting email from the Office of Diversity and Campus Engagement at the college where I teach, soliciting ideas from the [entire] community”.

Abrams went on to explain that, “these events are conducted outside the classroom, in the students' social and recreational spaces.” The event in question was a conference that was open to all, he says, which means that anyone that had ideas they wanted to share with others, were welcome to do so. But you wonder what was it that disconcerted Abrams? Well, combing the article, you find him saying it was the title of the conference … the thing that went like this: “Our Liberation Summit.” To him this meant that the conference would touch on progressive topics. And that was enough to upset him.

It is also what makes him say the institutions of higher learning in America are going to the dogs. It's not that the professors are force-feeding the students their point of view … an accusation that proved to be false. It's not that the conference––which is open to all––is allowing the expression of some views but not others. No; it is none of that. Rather, it is the fact that the title of the conference sounded too progressive.

Do you know what this means, my friend? It means that the Jews are telling the American people, they will be monitoring them, and will work to sensor not only what people say on any topic, but sensor the topics themselves. That is, even if you, citizen of the United States of America, are a conservative, and you participate in a conference about a woman's right to choose, for example, you'll be made to pay dearly, no matter which side of the topic you defended at the conference.

To make it sound like his suggestion has merit, Samuel Abrams did the following:

“Intrigued, I surveyed a nationally representative sample of roughly 900 administrators. I found that liberal staff members outnumbered their conservative counterparts by the ratio of 12-to-one. Only 6 percent of campus administrators identified as conservative, while 71 percent classified themselves as liberal. It's no wonder so much of the nonacademic programming on campus is politically one-sided”.

The Jews who never cease to engineer and re-engineer the society that takes them in from the cold, are doing it to America “in your face.” They no longer hide that their aim is to control as much as they can of the country. And they speak openly about the belief that America exists to work for Israel regardless of the consequences of such a posture on the American public.

And this is why Abrams has openly advocated the following: “This should give the students and their families pause. To students in their first semester, I urge you not to accept what your campus administrators are telling you.” Instead, he wants the students to accept what he is telling them. Can someone be more Jewish than that?

That's how the Jews are working to take over the bureaucracy that runs the American institutions of higher learning, intending to turn them into a deep state of Jewish logic modeled after the graveyard of human intelligence known as the Congress of the United States.