Treat America like a Toddler and take his Toys

If you think that toy stories are told only by writers of children's books, think again. You'll find that toy stories are also told in real life by adults who treat other adults like toddlers.

Imagine yourself a teenager that grew up having very few toys to play with, now seeing the neighbor's toddler surrounded with enough toys to fill a basement, and still have more toys to keep in the garage. You inspect the collection and see remote controlled cars and flying saucers, puzzles and board games, electric trains and robots, as well as enough Lego sets to build a city ... and much more.

You allow your imagination to run wild, thinking of the empire that you could build using a fraction of these toys. So, you decide you must get your hands on some of them. You think up a story you can tell the toddler; one that will convince him to let you take what you need and not tell his parents. What do you tell the child?

You tell the child that the world is full of bad people who steal toys from children. This is why he should let you take some of them to hide in your house. The toddler accepts your story and lets you take as much as you want. But you, dear reader, are now asking: Who are the adults that play this sort of child game?

The answer to that question can be found in an article that came under the title: “Prevent Iran from creating more Hezbollahs across the Middle East,” and the subtitle: “Escalating tensions with Iran should be a warning that Tehran's strategy of training and arming proxy terror groups throughout the Middle East is not being countered aggressively enough.” The article was written by the retired Israeli Major General Yaakov Amidror, and published on September 27, 2019 on the website of Jewish News Service.

In this analogy, Yaakov Amidror represents the effort that the Judeo-Israeli ‘sucker-America-machine’ has been doing for half a century to acquire all that it could from America to work on realizing the ancient Jewish dream of building an empire that will serve as a prelude to the arrival of the messiah who is thought will hand the Jews the ownership deed to the planet and all its content.

Looking back at what was accomplished after half a century of diligent labor, it appears that the machine has managed to sucker America alright, but otherwise failed to accomplish any of what it set out to do. On the contrary, the machine's effort has only served to make matters worse for Israel and the other Jewish causes.

The reason is that, conditioned by their culture to start something and not think of the consequences of their action, the Jews poked the ribs of their neighbors as if the neighbors were inert punching bags that will not move to protect themselves. But the neighbors did move, and they built a war machine of their own that now deters Israel despite all the war toys that America has been lavishing on the pompous little thing.

Here is how the retired Israeli Major General has described that situation: “Hezbollah has grown in manpower and firepower to the extent that Israel is careful not to attack it inside of Lebanon. Today, there is mutual deterrence, which is a strategic accomplishment for Hezbollah.” All of which means that whatever war-making toys Israel has acquired from the American toddler, they proved to be useless. This being the reality of the situation, what can the Judeo-Israeli machine do now –– if not to build the empire of the ancient Jewish dream, now conceded as a lost cause –– at least to prevent Israel from being crushed decisively?

To answer that question, here is what Yaakov Amidror came up with: “Iran's military buildup in Lebanon is far advanced. World powers should take heed. What Iran has accomplished in Lebanon with Hezbollah offers a vision of the future. The same thing will happen in other parts of the region if the international community fails to stop Iran's development of proxy militaries across the Middle East”.

Will that work? Well, it all depends on how the international community will respond to that appeal. If pressured by America to do what Israel has been doing, the Israeli failures will only be compounded, and the world will be facing an even bigger mess. Here is why this will happen in the words of Amidror: “The Israeli Air Force has carried out hundreds of airstrikes on Iranian-backed targets in recent years. [Despite all this] Hezbollah now holds a diverse arsenal of weaponry of a quantity and quality befitting a modern army.” The obvious conclusion is that more air strikes will do nothing to deter Iran or those it is backing.

Well then, if that will not work, what else is there that can be done? The answer to this question is obvious. It is this: Treat Iran with the respect that it deserves, and treat the Judeo-Israeli sucker-America-machine with the contempt that it has earned. Do that, America, and watch the level of enmity in the Middle East come down as fast as you can silence an incessantly barking dog. That should muzzle the pompous little thing.

The old Order fights the Rise of a new World

It happened that with the rise of Civilization, the tribes in the same neighborhood got together and formed a nation. Seeing that the move served its constituent tribes well, the nation decided to go on the conquest of other lands, thus added more power and riches to its possessions.

This is how empires rose, became masters of the known world at the time, reached the zenith of their glory, started the process of decay and were destroyed eventually. When this happened to the last of the ancient empires, and with the subsequent discovery of the Americas, it looked like this episode of human history had come to an end. The general belief was that everyone will henceforth remain where they are, and mind their own business. But that belief was soon shattered.

Something unexpected had taken roots. It was the burgeoning and sudden rise of a scientific, technological and industrial revolution that began to sweep Europe. In no time at all, a whole new paradigm was opening up, offering more to the Europeans than the discovery of the Americas. It offered them the previously neglected resources of Africa, Asia and Australia in addition to the gold and silver they were already looting in the Americas. Now hungry for the base metals and other resources that fed the Industrial Revolution, a new era of inter-European wars and overseas colonization began; one that lasted a couple of centuries.

With a world that was made smaller by the new modes of transportation and communication, it was inevitable that the European wars spread to other parts of the world and become World Wars. With two of them happening in the twentieth century, a brand-new paradigm had imposed itself on the world. It looked at the end of the Second World War that the entire planet had become America's turf to police and maintain in a peaceful state.

Whereas America was technologically, militarily and economically capable of doing the job, she was culturally and diplomatically not up to it. Aware of this deficiency in the American establishment, the old colonial powers of Britain and France stepped in, led America by the nose, and had her spend wealth and lives fulfilling their respective agendas while still believing she was carrying on with the task of maintaining the world in a peaceful state.

Whereas America was hanging on to that false belief, it became evident to the world, including Britain and France, that the belief was more than a farce; it was a danger that threatened the whole world, including everything they had achieved at a very high cost. All of this was happening because America was being sucked into the vortex of a new wannabe colonial power that latched-on to America's body like a leech. It was the worldwide Jewish movement that was sucking America's blood and turning the superpower into a war machine dedicated exclusively to serve the Jewish dream of world conquest.

This being the new paradigm that took roots in the Middle East at the start of the twenty-first century, it was from this region––most notably the Persian Gulf––that the challenge to America's policing status was to be flagged more so than anywhere else. Whereas the Chinese and North Koreans are now challenging the American navy in the Far East, and whereas the Russians are challenging the American navy in the Eastern Mediterranean, there is no sign that the situation in those places is about to explode. Not so in the Persian Gulf where the entire region is beginning to look like a powder keg liable to explode at any time.

This brings us to the article that came under the title: “Iran is surviving in spite of Trump's 'maximum pressure,'” written by Simon Henderson and published on September 25, 2019 in The Hill. Here is how Henderson began his presentation:

“Tensions in the Persian Gulf remain high. The Iranian leader is repeating a position of the Islamic regime: The security of the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz and the sea of Oman is indigenous. In other words, there is no role for the United States Navy”.

Iran being a developing country, you might think it would not dare challenge superpower America. But Iran is doing just that and getting away with it. Why is that? Well, according to Simon Henderson these are the reasons: The US policy to force Tehran to make concessions by curtailing its oil exports was labeled maximum pressure. Tehran's response to the policy merits the same title. Just who is winning is not clear. There are several fields of combat: diplomatic, economic, military and political spin.

This means that the old adage: “might makes right” can no longer be relied on to make things happen for America. Getting its nose bloodied and its reputation tarnished fighting wars that served the old colonial powers, and continuing to fight so as to serve the Jewish lust for possessing the world, the American establishment is beginning to ponder the idea of retrenching.

The haggling is ongoing right now inside that establishment regarding the choice that the country must make between staying in the current paradigm or jumping into that of retrenchment.

Guess what the American public wants. Guess what the Jews want. Guess which way the American establishment will go.

How Free Speech can be invigorated on Campus

When you see someone showing signs of illness, how do you know that he is suffering from a Jewish disease? You know it when you see the self-designated experts consider every possibility except that the disease could be Jewish. This being an analogy, let me give you an example that's taken from real life.

When young women in North America started wearing the burka, the media got filled with criticism to the effect that these women were being forced by their male elders to wear the symbol of servitude and inferiority to comply with their culture, a trait they imported to the Continent instead of adapting to the culture into which they came, having fled the system of oppression they could no longer stand.

But then, it was revealed that the young women in burka were born in North America to mothers who never wore a burka even in the old country, and did not like their daughters wearing that thing. The truth was that the young women, who grew up in a culture that discriminated against them for being who they were –– having associated them with the false stereotypes that the Jewish media created about their elders –– decided on their own to wear the burka. They did it to protest the ignorance and real oppression that was brought to them by media screwballs, and taken up by a society that was totally misled.

This is what happened a few years ago, a situation that materialized due to the unrelenting Jewish portrayal of the Arabs and the Muslims as oppressors of women. But having lasted long enough to irritate many good people, the false criticism was debunked eventually. Unsurprisingly, however, those same Jews have now organized themselves to pull another trick, having put together a new plan to control something else.

Now, the Jews have their eyes on the colleges and the universities. They began devising a scheme they hope will lead them to the control of those institutions and so, they started to throw false accusations to the effect that the students were going down the abyss, not because of something they started, but because their elders –– meaning the professors and the administrators –– are pushing them over the cliff.

You'll find an account of this nonsense in an article that came under the title: “Killing free speech on campus,” and the subtitle: “Why silencing students is a recipe for disaster,” written by Cliff Maloney, and published on September 26, 2019 in The Washington Times. Here is the passage that reveals the writer's state of mind: “If you ask an everyday American to describe what they think when hearing the word 'censorship,' you'll hear about college administrators using intimidation, tricks and managerial red tape to silence students”.

To illustrate his point, Cliff Maloney who is president of an outfit calling itself Young Americans for Liberty, cited the example of Mike Brown who was, “dragged into the office of the campus police chief” because he violated the Assembly Regulations section of the school's handbook which “requires that students obtain administrative approval and wait a minimum of three days before gathering for any purpose on campus”.

Guess who Mike Brown is? “He is an activist with Young Americans for Liberty's National Fight for Free Speech campaign,” says Cliff Maloney, president of that same outfit and author of the article that's doing the complaining. And why is Maloney complaining? He is complaining because, “Mike Brown was gathering and talking with other students about criminal justice reform.” But why did Brown not follow the school procedures by first obtaining administrative approval and waiting three days before gathering on campus?

Neither Cliff Maloney nor Mike Brown gave a good answer to that question. But a rash of incidents that happened almost two decades ago –– a time when those two were toddlers –– can explain Mike Brown's behavior. It is that right after the tragedy of 9/11, rules were proclaimed that prohibited air travelers from carrying weapons and other such items in their luggage. No regular passengers were caught violating those rules at any airport, but a number of journalists were.

Their excuse was that being journalists, they had the right to check the adequacy of the airport security, therefore must not be punished for doing their job. And the response they got was that a smart Aleck journalist can never be considered smart for breaking the rules, and for hiding behind his profession. The same goes for Mike Brown and Cliff Maloney who believe they did the right thing violating the rules of the school for what they say were good reasons. Here is how Maloney put it:

“With half a million Americans incarcerated for drug-related offenses and $47 billion spent every year in the war on drugs, issues like this are what we should be encouraging young people to talk about. The students of today will tackle these issues tomorrow, but stripping them of the opportunity to have these conversations robs society of the solutions that might one day come from them”.

And this is precisely why people like Mike Brown and Cliff Maloney need to be kept under adult supervision. They could not reason that they would have been better off respecting the rules of the school. Had they done that, they would have accomplished all that they wanted three days later, with the blessings of the school administrators who would have contributed to their effort materially and a number of other ways.

Come to think of it, the editors of The Washington Times, need someone to tell them they are contributing to the unhealthy division on campus by publicizing only one side of the debate. This is what scares the group of students on the other side, and the reason why they want to be left alone, free from the harassment of the Browns and the Maloneys who are rebellious ignoramus that believe they are the smartest thing to grace the Planet since Moses, simply because they are encouraged by the Jewish controlled media.

Brown and Maloney were the two who failed to see that the rules of the school did not prohibit talking about the drug problem in America; the rules only required that a permission be obtained three days in advance so that the school may prepare for the successful and peaceful unfolding of the event.

Mike Brown and Cliff Maloney made a mistake, and the editors of The Washington Times anointed them for it. What a messed-up country, America has become under the tutelage of the Jews!

The sustained Haggle that's killing Democracy

A consequence of the Jewish hate and destroy machine thrusting itself into my life, trying to win me over to their side or––failing that––silencing me forever, has been that I was given both the opportunity and the motivation to study the Jews, which I did more than they could figure me out. And the most disturbing thing I take from this experience, is the detailed knowledge I gained as to how the Jews have managed to kill the American Democracy.

The immediate lesson I learned from watching the Jews in operation during an ordeal that lasted more than half a century, is that overuse of a privilege is a form of abuse of power. Unfortunately, this is happening because it relates to the traits we inherited from our evolutionary legacy. In fact, even before we became human, we knew instinctively that there was safety in numbers. It is why the birds and the beasts congregate as a flock or a herd lest they be pursued individually and done with by a predator.

It is on the basis of this sort of ideas that the Jews organize themselves when they tackle the issues of concern to them. They devised a system that proved extremely effective. It goes like this: isolate the individual, and attack him or her when they are defenseless. For the trick to succeed, the Jews rely on their scouts to go out and look for a target that's worth going after. When they spot one, they call on the Jewish mob of journalists, pundits and heads of other organizations to join the attacking team. Where possible, they also try to convince the non-Jewish journalists, pundits and other organizations to jump on their bandwagon and gang up on the victim.

That modus vivendi must have been conspicuous to anyone that watched the Jews tackle issues pertaining to Israel, for example. This is when they usually use the print and electronic media to address the public, thus impress the legislators and other officials from government and public institutions, putting them under intense pressure to take measures that will advance the Jewish agenda.

What is not conspicuous to the public is what the Jewish hate-and-destroy machine does behind the back of their victims, and away from the cameras and the eyewitnesses. To get an idea what this is, you must know that for every Jew that promotes the Jewish agenda in public, there are 10 or 20 other Jews operating in the shadows, pressuring officials in high places to help them destroy the life and career of the individual they feel has the potential to grow and challenge their supremacy.

And so, the thing to do to get an accurate perspective on what he Jews are plotting at any given moment, is to read what they write, or listen to what they say on the electronic media, and visualize 10 or 20 other Jews and lackeys –– some calling themselves lobbyists –– walk into the offices of highly placed officials. The latter being of a kind that can easily be corrupted, individuals whom the Jews go to and badmouth their victims.

And of course, these characters never give their victims the chance to know what is said about them, let alone give them the opportunity to defend themselves. And the bone chilling part is that when an official has taken this road once, it is like the young girl that is forced into prostitution once. She never leaves the profession, and neither do the officials who never leave their corrupt ways behind.

With this in mind, read the more than 2,000-word of haggling that came under the title: “Iran Is Testing the Trump Administration,” and the subtitle: “Tehran Thinks There Are No Rules, No Limits, and Anything Goes,” written by Dennis Ross and published on September 24, 2019 in Foreign Affairs.

Although the thrust of the article seems on the surface to have been designed to badmouth Iran, another undercurrent runs parallel to that thrust. It is the badmouthing of the current American administration which claims to apply maximum pressure on Iran. But according to Dennis Ross, the pressure has been restricted to economic matters only without considering a military option.

Those who are new to the business of watching the Jewish propaganda and badmouth machine pull the strings that make America's moral prostitutes play the roles assigned to them –– will have the opportunity to witness for the first time, how the story of a Jewish campaign starts and develops. They will see it happen, as more Jews enter the fray and start attacking the White House for what it is not doing to trigger a war and go bomb Iran into the Stone Age.

The consequence of all this will be that the administration will continue on a path which seeks a peaceful resolution to the dispute with Iran, forcing the Jewish machine to intensify its attacks on the White House.  Or the White House will publicly declare that the Jewish machine has embarked on a path that's harmful to its goals because it stiffens the administration's resolve to proceed with the peaceful option.

In the offing is a live drama that will highlight the concept of haggling as a right that must not be overused lest it become an abuse of power, therefore unacceptable.

Exciting days are ahead because the ending of this drama is unpredictable.

Come try to navigate a Piece of May Gibberish

Maybe someone out there speaks the Gibberish language, and can figure out what is communicated by a piece of writing that sounds to ordinary mortals like a mishmash of contradictory assertions.

The piece came under the title: “Why making deals with despots is difficult,” and the subtitle: “Fanatical ideologues tend not to be 'win-win' kind of guys.” It was written by Clifford D. May, and published on September 24, 2019 in The Washington Times.

You look at the title, and see that it promises to explain why it is difficult to make deals with despots. You then look at the subtitle, and see that it gives a hint as to what the argument will sound like. It is that fanatical ideologues tend not to be win-win kind of guys, says Clifford May. This assertion suggests that the fanatics are of the all-or-nothing kind of guys who do not speak the language of negotiation or compromise.

So now, you wonder who these people might be. And you discover that Clifford May is pointing the finger at the usual suspects. They are Bashar Assad of Syria, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran, and Kim Jong-un of North Korea. You go over what the writer is saying about them that might explain why he considers them to be fanatical ideologues, but he disappoints you by the dearth of information he gives out on them.

You are disappointed because all that Clifford May does, is accuse the three foreign leaders of wanting to negotiate an all-or-nothing proposition, or they'll stay away from the negotiating table. Aside from that, you see no effort exerted by the writer to explain what makes those three gentlemen the fanatical ideologues, he says they are.

But then, as if by chance, you bump into the following passage, and it is like a sudden tornado lifted you up and turned you upside down:

“Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt held fast against those who argued for a diplomatic solution with Nazi Germany. They insisted on unconditional surrender. And President Reagan said: We win, they lose. Today, Americans and Europeans believe that the distinction between winning and losing should be hazy; that detente is a good-enough goal; that all the children should take home a trophy”.

This sounds like if there were three fanatical ideologues, satisfying Clifford May's definition, they must have been Winston Churchill of Britain as well as Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan of the United States –– not Bashar Assad, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini or Kim Jong-un as per Clifford May’s earlier claims. This being an upside-down logic that contradicts his assertions, you wonder what else is upside down and contradictory in his article.

You go over the article one more time, and discover that Clifford May is complaining about three agreements negotiated between America and foreign governments. He repudiated them, not because they were negotiated on the basis of an all-or-nothing proposition, which he said would irk him, but because they were forged on the basis of meticulous bargaining that took years to negotiate, which he said he would favor. So, here is how he repudiated the three agreements:

“The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that Obama concluded with the Islamic Republic of Iran provided that country with hundreds of billions of dollars in exchange for a promise to slow-walk or terminate their nuclear weapons program. That deal was modeled on the 1994 Agreed Framework under which President Clinton gave North Korea aid in exchange for a promise to cease or delay its nuclear weapons program. And there was the 2013 Framework for Elimination of Syrian Chemical Weapons, a deal that was intended to ensure that Bashar Assad surrendered his chemical weapons stockpiles”.

You reason that however messy the article has proven to be, Clifford May must have written it to convey a message. That message did not come out clearly throughout the piece, but you figure that maybe the conclusion at the end of the article will shed light on what the writer was trying to communicate. So, you look at the end of the article, and see the following:

“It would be nice if we could convince Khamenei, Jong-un, the Taliban, Putin and Jinping to the liberal, rules-based order, and prefer commerce over conquest. Can we help them see what we see –– that peace and prosperity are the only sensible objectives? Until Western negotiators come to terms with this reality and adjust their policies and negotiating strategies accordingly, the chances of achieving good deals are none”.

And you give up. You give up because for a guy –– whose country of America tramples on the rule of law and drops out of international treaties left and right –– to write words like these, is akin to the son of Vito Corleone (to use his own analogy) complaining that everybody is refusing the hard-to-refuse offers that his father is making to them.

Also, for a guy whose other country of Israel murders the Palestinian people it loots day and night –– to write words like these, is akin to the godson of Vito Corleone complaining that everybody thinks of him as being a thieving member of an organized crime syndicate.

 Give up or not, are you making sense of any of this, my friend? If you are, count yourself lucky.

Behold a tiny Weasel winding-up a massive Hulk

Go back into your memory to your high school days. Think of the big and muscular boy who was nevertheless as immature and naive as a tween. Now think of the two or three weasels that used to hang around him all the time, telling him what to do, which happened to be what served their purpose for the day.

Do you remember or can you imagine the weasels urging the big boy to do one risky thing or another because it stood as a matter of principle for him to do? Or that doing such a thing would add to his dignity and power while deterring the rival gang that never stops plotting to pull a prank on him? If you remember any of that, the title of a published article should ring the bell inside your head.

That title goes like this: “US Foreign Policy: No Principles, No Dignity, No Power, No Deterrence.” It sits atop an article that was written by Yigal Carmon, and published on September 23, 2019 in the online Jewish publication, Algemeiner. The article is a Jewish voice urging muscular America to do the things which they say are meant to deter the evil regimes that never stop planning to pull tricks on America (read Israel).

Look what that weasel Yigal Carmon is saying in his first paragraph. He is saying that Iran, Russia, China and Turkey have principles and dignity, which are the essential elements needed to project power. These are tools in the hands of odious and deplorable people, he says, and they are effective at giving the bad guys such power, the latter can “treat [muscular] America with constant verbal contempt and actual provocations in the knowledge that they can bait the United States with impunity”.

Now that he got America's bile stirred up, Carmon cherry-picked events, and used them to stitch together a narrative whose psychological component is meant to impress and shame Donald Trump––if that's possible to do––but also impress and shame every American who would read the following words:

“The attacks on Saudi Arabia's oil plants could well have been American CENTCOM targets. Donald Trump asked Lindsey Graham, 'How did going into Iraq work out?' One would have expected the man in the Oval Office to consider how Chamberlain's appeasement policy worked out. The understanding that the American economy will also tank is beyond the qualifications of a hotelier and real estate mogul. The attacks, referred to as 'an act of war,' are a humiliating blow dealt to the United States”.

Yigal Carmon's intent behind putting together that narrative was to divert attention from the fact that America had been respected and loved by friends and foes alike for decades, not because it projected power, but because it acted like the big brother who was fair to everyone, and was never swayed one way or the other by a weasel badmouthing someone that is near or far.

But when something changed in America, causing it to come under the influence of the weasel and those like him, the world noticed an alarming difference in America’s comportment, and adjusted its views of that country. Where there used to be love and respect, now there was deep contempt. And this is why Carmon came up with a host of reasons to place the blame, not on what the Jews were doing to America, but what he wanted the world to believe America was doing to itself. This is what Yigal Carmon said:

“There was a failure of deterrence and of US intelligence. The successful Iranian attack also represented an American technological and political failures. The attack was about US sanctions on Iran, which is trying to ease the sanctions by applying force. What can be expected now? Further Iranian attacks will take place in the future as a result of continued US sanctions. Any future president will have to address the Iranian threat and restore America's power, deterrence, principles and dignity, albeit at a much higher price. The real threat is Iran's quest for regional domination and nuclear weapons”.

Notice the last sentence. It expresses the Jewish paranoia to the effect that Israel is not alone trying to dominate the Middle East. In fact, the Jews have a morbid fear of an Iran achieving that goal before them, in addition to developing an arsenal of nuclear weapons, something that Israel can never have, and the Jews desperately trying to make the world believe Israel has it.

All of that indicates that the Jews have not dropped or even altered the scheme of maneuvering America into helping implement the Judeo-Israeli plan. In fact, they no longer even keep their plan secret. Whereas they used to throw the accusation of antisemitism at the people who saw a connection between what America's Jews were advocating for the Middle East, and the steps that Israel was taking in that neighborhood, they now demand that Israel be congratulated for what it tries to accomplish in that part of the world.

Meanwhile America keeps paying a heavy price in terms of its standing in the world for endorsing everything that Israel does, be that good, bad or ugly.

Despite all this, Jews of the Yigal Carmon variety keep accusing America of not doing enough of what would please Israel as well as America's dual-citizenship and/or dual-loyalty Jews.

This is called doubling down on the horror and getting paid twice for it.

Anti-Human Steven Emerson disgorges Nonsense

If you want to know what happens to someone when he combines extreme hatred for humanity and no understanding of the history he is talking about –– you need to read Steven Emerson whose hatred for the human race surpasses Hitler's hatred for the Jews. And you'll be amazed how far into fake history an addict to fanaticism will go to look for and gather the hate he'll want to spew at every event.

Once again, Steven Emerson has expressed himself, this time in an article that came under the title: “Antisemite Billoo Lashes Out After Being Dumped by Women's March,” published on September 20, 2019 in the Jewish online publication, Algemeiner.

The story on which he reported and about which he pontificated, would have been told in a short paragraph were it not of a kind that attracts the attention of a Jew who is motivated by extreme fanaticism the way that Steven Emerson is. And so, he took an abnormal approach and told a twisted story when he could have simply reported that Zahra Billoo was appointed to the Board of the Women's March. When other members of the board discovered that her views were at odds with theirs, they rescinded their earlier decision. She tried to meet with them and discuss what just happened but they declined the invitation. And so, she took to the tweeter and made her views known to the public.

Instead of doing that, Emerson dragged into the discussion other names, other topics and other false accusations with the intent of associating what's happening today with what happened centuries ago, and associating what's happening in America to what could happen to Israel someday. In so doing, he propagated the false view that since the beginning of time, humanity has been motivated by an evil streak called antisemitism, which continues unabated to this day. His remedy is that the human race must accept Jews as they are because non-Jews were wrong all along, whereas Jews were right.

To stress that point, Steven Emerson dragged Linda Sarsour into the discussion and accused her of pushing blood-libel. This is such a horrendous thing to say in the twenty-first century, it is proof that Emerson knows not the history of blood-libel. And so, for his benefit, here is that history in brief. When the Romans kicked the Jews out of Palestine they had occupied for a short period of time, the Jews settled in Europe. They bragged to the Europeans about their importance, claiming to be the chosen children of a God that got them out of Egypt. They also claimed He allowed them to kill the children of the land and loot its treasures. But for the divine scheme to succeed, the Jews had to hurry-up and not wait for the bread to rise before baking it.

At first, the Europeans did not see anything wrong with that story. But after a while, they began to suspect that the disappearance of their own children had something to do with the Jews who lived in impenetrable ghettos. They put two and two together, and came up with the theory that when in Egypt, the Jews must have used the blood of children to make the unleavened bread, and that they are repeating the gruesome ritual with the children they are kidnapping in Europe.

That theory was false. The truth is that the Jews kidnapped Nordic-looking children to raise as Jews in the ghetto. Discriminated against because of their Jewish appearance, the Jews crossbred with the European specimen they kidnapped, thus produced new generations of Jews that had more of a European look; one that was acceptable to the locals. This is the story of blood-libel that Emerson is falsely accusing Sarsour of propagating. In fact, the woman said nothing of the sort, but Emerson’s accusation goes to prove that when it comes to history, Emerson like all Jews, is incapable of grasping the reality of a historical event.

Another lie that Emerson and most Jewish propagandists are pushing, is that of accusing the people who criticize the status quo, of encouraging the wiping of Israel off the map. But the truth is that nobody wants to wipe Palestine-cum-Israel off the map. Palestine is still Palestine though occupied, and these people want to see it remain on the map. They also want to restore to it the status quo ante, which consists of a free Palestine stretching from the river to the sea, a sovereign Arab state that contains within it a self-governing homeland for the Jews as mandated by the United Nations.

And then, there is this bizarre complaint by Steven Emerson: “Billoo, who compares American Jews who move to Israel and join its army to ISIS terrorists.” In fact, this view applies not only to American Jews fighting for Israel, but to any Jew or gentile that volunteers to fight for the Jewish State or the Islamic State.

The practice of enemy combatants joining a foreign legion, has been a fact in every war since the beginning of time. And the reality has always been that one army's hero is another army's enemy or terrorist.

There is nothing in that definition which exempts American Jews from being seen for what they are: Mercenaries engaged in a foreign war that was not declared by America against the people of Palestine or any of the frontline states from Lebanon to Gaza. These characters may be heroes to the Israelis and their friends; they are terrorist enemies to those they came to kill and their friends.

All in all, the sad reality is that Emerson and company are missing much of what’s real, yet remain unrestrained when it comes to regurgitating nonsense, which they do without regard to the grossing effect it has on the rest of us. They need to be told that we are growing sick of them.

End of America's hothead foreign Policy Plays

Life is fragile and fraught with danger, yet life on Planet Earth is thriving in all kinds of organisms that are begotten, that live out their lives by sustaining themselves, and that reproduce before dying. This cycle is continuous because organisms are genetically programmed to protect life.

Still, there are millions of reasons why life cannot be protected at one hundred percent level of security. It's because security is compromised by the fact that the organisms can sustain life only by taking a risk when they forage for sustenance or when they seek opportunities to reproduce.

What all this means is that a balance exists between the effort to sustain life and the risk that's taken when making such effort. All organisms are genetically programmed to instinctively play the balance between the effort and the risk in a manner that advantages the preservation of life. But in addition to instinct, the human species was endowed with a brain that has the power to override the instinct –– which it does for a host of reasons –– and re-calibrate the effort versus risk equation.

In fact, different people play games that engender different levels of risk because they enjoy the thrill of cheating death, so to speak. Also, people get into professions that engender higher levels of risk because they offer higher levels of remuneration. Policing is a profession that engenders a high level of risk, so does the experience of soldiering. When you combine the two by enlisting in the military, and be asked to participate in policing a foreign quarrel, you take a risk that makes a mockery of the balance between engaging in a worthy effort and taking a risk on your life.

And yet, this is what America has been doing for more than a century. It did it for worthy causes and for unworthy ones. But most of the time, America did it, not because it chose to do it after considering, pondering and questioning the morality of getting involved in other people's business, but because weak foreigners saw an opportunity in prodding mighty America to do the heavy lifting for them … and America just could not say no.

But then, two things happened that forced America to slow down on what seems to have become an addictive habit for it. One is that the American taxpayers got fed up paying for the inclination of commanders in chief to take instructions from foreigners, and almost bankrupting the country. The other is that the nations which are most at risk to being bullied by America's military, organized themselves in such a way as to make an attack on them a very unwise proposition both for America and the foreigners who would prod it.

The result of that development can be seen in the editorial that appeared in the Washington Post under the title: “Should US troops put their lives on the line for Saudi Arabia?” It was published on September 21, 2019. If you want an example that illustrates the meaning of the saying: “Doing the right thing for the wrong reason,” this is it.

What the editors did was ask two questions that reveal a frame of mind which is removed from both reality and morality … but is leading America to doing the right thing, and that’s a positive thing. Here are the two questions: Is it a vital US interest to defend Saudi Arabia or its petroleum infrastructure from attack? Should US soldiers or pilots put their lives on the line for the regime of Mohammed bin Salman?

Well, the only time that America fought a war that was in its vital interest, was to go after Japan in response to the latter's attack on Pearl Harbor. Other than that, every war that America fought came as a result of its addiction to war, or because the adventure was meant to serve the interests of colonial Britain, colonial France or the colonially minded and empire seeking Jews. In fact, most of the serious wars that America was prodded to fight came at the behest of those entities.

As to the question concerning US soldiers putting their lives on line for a foreign entity, the Americans––like the Canadians––have always been the least concerned about the lives of the youngsters they put in harm's way. To wit, a Canadian Prime Minister almost celebrated Israel's murder in cold blood of Canadian peacekeepers that were stationed on the Lebanese border. As to the Americans, they neglect their wounded veterans so badly, the desperate among them kill themselves. And if they don't, they find themselves out on the street, dying like stray dogs. Why all that? To save money, which the authorities then turn around and send to Israel where they look after their own veterans like precious human resources.

The American public took note of these horrific realities, and said enough is enough. Finally, someone like the editors of the Washington Post, began to hear the voice that has managed to cut through the wilderness of politics as usual. And those editors, however confused they may still be, seem ready to join the chorus that says: No more foreign wars that benefit foreigners while hurting us in more ways than we can imagine.

The Virus that killed the Anglo Democracies

When future historians will put their minds to analyzing and understanding how Democracy died in the twenty first century, they'll find a treasure trove of instances in the English-speaking democracies, into which to delve and trace the step by step dissolution of a system of governance that was overwhelmed by factors beyond Democracy's ability to handle.

First, the historians would be cognizant of the reality that the development of human society has mimicked the evolutionary process of the gene that sacrificed itself when necessary to assure the survival of the family; the family that sacrificed itself for the survival of the tribe and the tribe that sacrificed itself for the survival of the species. But something caused the English-speaking democracies to reverse the natural trend. What happened was that people in power began to sacrifice the interests of the nation to score political victories for their party; sacrifice the party for the political victories of their faction, and sacrifice the faction for their personal gains.

This resulted in the gradual weakening of the bond that binds a nation together. With that, the English democracies caught all kinds of socioeconomic and sociopolitical diseases they could not overcome. And so, they adapted and treated as normal what used to be unthinkable only two or three generations earlier. This stance accelerated the further degeneration of the democracies to the point where they became the “sick man” of the rising powers everywhere else on the planet, be they big powers or medium and small powers.

These discoveries will bring future historians to focus on one of the archetypal viruses that contributed mightily to the decomposition of the American system of governance. He is Ted Cruz who was reputed in his time, to sell his own mother into prostitution if asked to do so by the Jews who promised not to destroy his career, and may even have promised to contribute Benjamins to his campaigns if he would trample on the interests of America to satisfy the interests of Israel.

Well, my friend, this being the month of September of the year 2019 –– just about 400 days before the next presidential election –– and sensing the possibility that the current President Donald Trump, may be fatally wounded and out of the race before then, Ted Cruz, who was crushed by Trump the last time they ran against each other, is preparing to step into the race and have his moment of glory under the glaring lights of the magnificent catchword of come-back-kid.

The first step that Ted Cruz took in the long journey that's ahead, was to write a missive to his Jewish masters, signaling his intention to try his luck once again, and reassuring them that he is as devoted to their causes as he has always been. The missive came in the form of an article he wrote under the title “Time for Trump to trigger the UN snapback on Iran,” published on September 20, 2019 in the New York Post.

Knowing exactly what the Jews expect of their moral prostitutes, Ted Cruz delivered it to the letter, obeying their command which goes like this: If you have the power to serve our interests, exercise it. If you don't have the power, you must do two things. You attack our enemy of the day, and you tell those who have the power what to do that will serve our interests.

And you, my friend, will find that this is exactly what Ted Cruz has done in his piece of writing. The Iranians being the ones that the Jews chose to make their enemy of the day, and former President Barack Obama being their permanent bogeyman, Ted Cruz attacked them both as follows:

“Iran is hindering an investigation into a nuclear facility. Its proxies in Lebanon attacked Israel. Its military committed an act of war against Saudi Arabia to harm our economy. Their Javad Zarif threatened an all-out war. The catastrophic Obama-Iran nuclear deal flooded the Iranians with hundreds of billions of dollars, thus contributed to the recent attacks. The Iranians continue to launch attacks across the Middle East and continue to block access to the suspected nuclear facility”.

And the following is the manner in which Ted Cruz chose to tell his Jewish masters how he'll serve their interests if he gets elected President of the United States. Addressing them, he adopted the style of pretending to advise President Trump how he can serve the interests of America, which has become euphemism for saying how to serve the interests of Israel:

“New sanctions were imposed on Iran's banks. Unless we take additional action, this will be drowned out. The structure of the nuclear deal was locked in by a security council resolution that will terminate the restrictions as per a sunset clause built into the deal. There is a way to reverse course: the so-called snapback mechanism. Meanwhile, we must continue to pressure the Iranians economically. Last Congress, a bill I introduced would fully cut off Iran from the global financial system. I plan to introduce an updated version in the coming months”.

Continuing with the charade of speaking about America using the language of the Israelis, Ted Cruz went on to scare the American public the way that Netanyahu scares the Jews of Israel. He ended his article with these words: The Iranians seek weapons that could incinerate (as in Holocaust) American (read Israeli) cities with a single flash of light. It is time to tear up that deal (quintessential Netanyahu talk).

Contrary to that, it must be said that the time has come for the American public to tell the Ted Cruzs of their Republic that if they want to serve the interests of Israel, they should go to Israel and engage in the pornographic practice of kissing Jewish asses out there, not in America. And when they do that, they should just stay there.

Take Note, Michael Bloomberg and act on it

Four days ago, on September 17, 2019, I published on this site (see below) an article under the title: “How do you fix a pitiably hopeless Situation?” It was a response to an article that Michael Bloomberg had published two days before, in which he lectured about civility to both sides of the campus divide, as if the two quarreling groups were equally culpable for the situation deteriorating as badly as it did.

What I said basically was that Bloomberg was accomplishing nothing with his kind of lecture because he completely ignored the fear factor that is generated by the group which pretends to be motivated by rightwing ideology when in reality, it is motivated by the desire to advance the Judeo-Israeli agenda of annexation, apartheid and colonization.

As if eager to buttress my argument, the editors of the Jewish publication, Algemeiner, printed two articles that will answer any and every question Michael Bloomberg or anyone might have about this subject as well as every subject that's closely or remotely related to it. The two articles also bring into focus the notion that the most hurtful kind of violence that can be inflicted on a people, is the one legislated by ignorant or blackmailed or hypnotized lawmakers.

To show how fear was generated on campus, I said that the Jewish side had the habit of running to the authorities and ask for their intervention by making laws, rules or regulations that favor the Jews, and impose the hurtful measures on those who only wish to pursue their studies and engage in normal and civilized debates. As if on cue, on September 19, 2019, the editors of Algemeiner printed an article written by Sasha Chernyak under the title: “New Jersey Makes Strides to help Pro-Israel Students on College Campuses,” in which the author reported the following:

“New Jersey lawmakers proposed an amendment extending protection to Jews in schools, colleges and universities. It would prohibit making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or allegations about Jews or their power as a collective, especially about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government, or other institutions; and accusing Jews or Israel of exaggerating the Holocaust. The amendment also includes anti-Zionist manifestations, such as demonizing Israel, drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis, or blaming Israel for all inter-religious or political tensions.

Deny Israel the right to exist by denying Jews their right to self-determination. Requiring behavior of Israel not expected of other nations, or focusing peace or human-rights investigations on Israel”.

Now, my friend, imagine this amendment going into effect, and think of the blanket of fear that will descend on the schools, colleges and universities. The amendment is so exhaustive, it will muzzle the students who are there to learn by expressing themselves; and muzzle the professors, counselors and others who are there to teach the students how to express themselves.

The mandate of the schools, colleges and universities, is to prepare a new generation of citizens to take over the nation and run it as a free people who are not afraid to say what's on their mind, and not afraid to be exposed to what others have on their mind. This is what Michael Bloomberg says he wants for America; but did he think through the ramifications of what he was lecturing when he wrote his piece?

In case some people believe that what Sasha Chernyak has described cannot happen, the editors of Algemeiner are saying, they have news for these people. To make their point, they ran another piece on the same day, which came under the title: “We Must Fight BDS Lies and Manipulations on Campus,” written by Melissa Landa.

The purpose of the new piece is to educate those who believe that for something like the one described by Chernyak to happen you'd have to hypnotize a large segment of society. As it happens, a good part of that segment would be the legislators who are (1) too dumb to know what they are doing; (2) too much under the influence of blackmail to break free of their blackmailers’ clutch or (3) too hedonistic to reject the pleasures of the bribe, and do their duty instead. Look here, says Melissa Landa, she has a real-life story to tell, she goes on to assert. However, being Jewish, Landa will tell the story in reverse. That is, she will attribute to the Palestinians what is proper to the Jews, and vice-versa. Here is how that came out:

“Jewish students have been seduced and manipulated by a dangerous cult that has stripped them of the opportunity to think and reason independently, and interact with whomever they choose. Proponents of the BDS movement use the practices of cult leaders, illustrated by the Steven Hassan's 'BITE' model of mind control. Hassan, an American Jew, created the model, used to describe Behavioral, Information, Thought and Emotional controls. Groups like Students for Justice in Palestine try to control the minds of their followers. A student expressing a different opinion is ridiculed under the ‘if you're not with us you're against us’ umbrella of thinking. Pro-BDS speakers deliver the same message, using the same mantras as if they were reciting a psalm or an edict.” What can be more Jewish than that, yet attributed to Palestinians?

In response to that load of disinformation, let me say this: Michael Bloomberg is familiar with the quote that says you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

He is smart enough to figure what’s what. But is he smart enough to reverse that which has been the source of Jewish misery for thousands of years?

Why today's Cavalry failed to drain the Swamp

In the old days of the American wild West, people used to settle their differences much the same way they do today; with the use of the gun. The difference between then and now is that the aggrieved people could then count on the cavalry making the effort to rescue them from the siege of the highway robbers. Today, however, no one can be certain whether the authorities are with them or against them.

In time, the West was tamed, and some kind of rule of law reigned in the American colonies, which then federated into a republic called the United States of America. But after a few decades of civilized living, and during the time that it took America to grow and become a superpower, something happened that revived the backward spirit of the old West.

And so, while the Americans are back shooting each other to death like they used to do it during the uncivilized old days, the foreigners-at-heart who precipitated America's return to the past, are preparing an even more ominous transfiguration of the superpower. Of the dozens of articles that were written by the Jewish mob of pundits to bring about that transformation, two were selected for review in this discussion.

One article came under the title: “Trump's sanctions on Iran won't work without threat of force,” written by Michael Makovsky and published on September 16, 2019 in The New York Post. The other article came under the title: “Stand up to Iran's oil market terrorism,” written by Mark Dubowitz & Brenda Shaffer, and published on September 17, 2019 in The Washington Examiner.

Near the end of his article, Michael Makovsky spelled out what he wants America to do for Israel. He said this: “The United States could reinforce its position by more materially and conspicuously supporting Israel's campaign against Iran. This should include a mutual defense pact, enshrined in a congressionally endorsed treaty.” To get this far, Makovsky tiptoed over a whole bunch of fantasies, false interpretations and psychological pressure. What follows are a few examples of that:

“The president's posture for four months has only encouraged Tehran to escalate its strikes against energy infrastructure around the Gulf. This policy of self-deterrence against Iran needs to end. Iran has mostly acted with impunity against US targets. Trump has limited himself to economic tools. Tehran requires willingness to confront it militarily, as Israel is doing. Economic sanctions have not induced Iran to meet Trump's demands”.

So here, you have it. Makovsky is saying that economic sanctions have not induced Iran to meet Trump's demands. For this reason, he wants America to follow Israel's example and use military force. This implies that Israel has succeeded in deterring Iran. But this claim is contradicted by the fact that Makovsky and those like him are blowing their entrails out of their bellies hollering that Iran is making steady progress supplying its friends in Syria and Lebanon with more weapons that are increasingly becoming more sophisticated. What kind of Israeli deterrence is this?

In fact, that is the reason why the Jews have been asking America to remain in the Middle East, thus be in a position to rescue Israel when it gets into trouble. And so, despite these glaring realities, Makovsky continues to spew two contradictory discourses. One is that Israel is so strong, America should emulate it. The other is that Israel is so weak, America should remain in the Middle East to protect it. In fact, Makovsky has now raised the stakes by asking for the drafting of a mutual defense treaty between America and Israel; one that will be guaranteed by the Congress. Imagine the gall.

As to the Mark Dubowitz and Brenda Shaffer article, we must recall that Dubowitz is the CEO of the outfit calling itself Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and the architect of America's decision to both pull out of the Iran nuclear deal, and the decision to implement maximum economic pressure on Iran. The argument that Dubowitz used to advance was that nothing nefarious will happen. He even predicted that Iran will capitulate and give America what it asks for. Well, here is what that same Dubowitz is saying now:

“The global market lost more supply than any time in history. Prices spiked more than any day since 1991. All of this from a single attack on a Saudi Arabian oil facility. The US cannot afford to ignore the security of the Gulf. Oil prices are likely to remain elevated for several weeks if not more, benefiting Russia. Looking ahead, the lessons to learn are that critical infrastructure of oil installations is vulnerable. The US is not immune to the effects of higher oil prices, including global recession. A global recession will hit the US economy hard”.

Regardless as to who is responsible for the attack on Saudi Arabia's oil facilities, it is clear that Jews such as Michael Makovsky and Mark Dubowitz pushed America to create a global climate that resembles the old American West where differences were settled by the gun.

And given that America devoted its wealth and moral authority to serve Israel at the expense of its own people, the domestic situation has so deteriorated, people are increasingly settling their differences by the gun the way they used to do it in the bad old days of the wild West.

With friends like those Jews, who needs enemies like those Iranians!

Warmongering by nostalgic Reverie

A popular Egyptian proverb goes like this: The hungry dreams of bread. The saying is used to describe someone that covets something tangible and cannot have it. It is also used to describe someone that longs for something to happen but is not happening.

Of course, it is not unusual for human beings to want something so badly, they dream of it in their sleep. It can also happen that they'll dream of it when they are not asleep. This is called daydreaming. But what might happen if in real life, someone that used to covet something badly, almost saw it realized but then lost it at the last moment, never to see it again? Well, we figure that the poor fellow must now be inclined to fall into moments of nostalgic reverie.

This, in fact, is what's happening to Clifford D. May who wrote about his condition in a column that came under the title: “If John Bolton still had the president's ear, he'd counsel against appeasing Iran,” and the subtitle: “Iran's rulers continue to attack and threaten.” The column was published on September 17, 2019 in The Washington Times.

When you read the Clifford May piece, you get the sense that he is doing more than daydream. He feels that even if John Bolton's presence in the White House has died, the man lives on as a ghost in the afterlife, and that his spirit has taken possession of his own (Clifford May's) body. Enchanted by the symbiotic relationship, May is allowing Bolton to live through him, and continue to give advice to President Donald Trump.

So now that Clifford May has written a piece for us to use as portal through which to enter his dream and share it with him, we take a tour throughout his mental landscape and see what makes this man tick.

We find that he thinks the world is made of two kinds of people. They are the progressives who believe that America has no enemies, and the conservatives who believe that if we leave those enemies alone, they'll return the favor and leave us alone. But he, like John Bolton, is wise enough to know this is nonsense, which is why he counsels that America must be strong militarily as to daunt its enemies.

Unlike the recent past when people, like himself, used to counsel that America adopt a Pax Americana policy, and spend its energy and wealth planting Democracy everywhere on the planet where Democracy did not exist, May has altered his thinking. Like John Bolton and H.R. McMaster, he has converted to believe in the Americanist model. It means America must not do nation-building abroad, but have a military presence everywhere, to project power and daunt the enemies, thus ascertain the security of America and its allies.

With regard to recent events, Clifford May believes that Iran was behind the attack on the Saudi oil facilities, and John Bolton isn't there to tell the President how to respond. But with or without Bolton in the White House, he believes that the Iranians sense America will respond in some fashion. For this reason, they warned that, “American bases and their aircraft carriers in a distance of up to 2,000 kilometers are within the range of our missiles … Iran has always been ready for a full-fledged war”.

And this is the moment when Clifford May let the spirit of John Bolton take full possession of his faculties and give advice to Donald Trump as if Bolton were still in the White House. He is counseling that America must inflict pain on the theocratic regime. The wisdom behind this advice being that “If we reward aggression, we'll get more of it,” one consequence being that the Iranians might go ahead and “acquire nuclear warheads and missiles that can deliver them anywhere on the planet,” according to the May-Bolton symbiont.

May comes out his daydream for a brief moment to explain that he'd “sleep better if Ambassador Bolton were still on the job,” but realizes he is not. Still, Clifford May takes comfort in that Mike Pompeo, Mark Esper and Gina Haspel are there in the White House substituting for him.

He slips back into his state of reverie and visualizes John Bolton being “the loudest and most vehement voice opposing both appeasement and isolationism.” He can even hear Bolton's voice warn the President that “America cannot become great again by submitting to Islamist bullies”.

Finally, we are able to trace Clifford May’s problems back to the time when in real life, John Bolton and H.R. McMaster were in the White House. May almost saw the Jewish plan of using America to deliver the Middle East to Israel, materialize then evaporate at the last moment, never to be seen again.

This is why Clifford May says he is not cheering their departure from the White House. And he wants us to understand that. We do, poor fellow. We do.

They defined Sin, then named the big Sinners

A trick that has served the Jewish slander-and-hate machine at some point in the past, was that of defining new sins and pinning them on the sinners that the Jews wished to defame or intimidate or destroy.

At first, the Jews created a category of sins that only they could use to attack their chosen enemy of the day. The sins sounded something like this: “Anti-Semite”, “Holocaust denier”, “Jew hater” and what have you. When these designations ceased to make an impression on the public after endless repetitions, the Jews started to accuse their enemies of being opposed to American values such as love of freedom, or opposed to American institutions such as the police, the military and everything else this side of motherhood.

The Jews pinpointed men and women they turned into bogeymen, and called them so extremely evil, no one should want to associate with them. But these people were and are in reality, outstanding American citizens that never hurt anyone or ordered the bombing of someone or occupied someone’s territory. The good people range from the likes of Louis Farrakhan to a group of women that happen to be Muslim and/or of Palestinian origin, and beginning to acquire fame due to their dedicated service to their fellow Americans.

On the other hand, seeing their effectiveness at persuading people diminish by the day, the Jews now scan the sociopolitical landscape to see who is new on the scene, and who is moving on from one position to another. They contrive a reason to attack these people by attributing to them one of the sins they have defined, or by associating them with one of the outstanding personalities they marked as evil sinners.

You can see examples of that in two recently published articles. One came under the title: “Bernie Sanders's Anti-Semitic Surrogate,” written by Jonathan S. Tobin and published on September 16, 2019 in National Review Online. The other article came under the title: “Newly Appointed Women's March Board Member Accused FBI of Recruiting for ISIS,” written by Zachary Evans and published also on September 16, 2019 in National Review Online.

Jonathan Tobin wasted no time hitting his readers with a volley of insults and unfounded accusations directed at the people he does not like. Here is his first sentence: “The Vermont senator's [Bernie Sanders] embrace of Linda Sarsour shows that the Left's problem with Jew-haters isn't going away.” Tobin went on to drag into the pool of anti-Semitic sinners, the Women's March, the Democratic Party and what he calls the movement that is, “dominated by radicals who profess hard-core opposition to Israel's existence and openness to being allied with anti-Semites such as the nation of Islam's Louis Farrakhan.” A mouthful this is. Don’t you think so?

Now focusing on Linda Sarsour, here is what Jonathan Tobin has said:

“She is an open advocate for the BDS movement, which is drenched in anti-Semitic invective, and unlike some of those who flirt with BDS, she isn't coy about her objectives. She opposes the existence of a Jewish state no matter where its borders might be drawn and refers to all of Israeli territory as occupied. She has made a habit of personally attacking Jews who support Israel”.

Note that Tobin is accusing Sarsour of opposing the existence of a Jewish state, to divert attention from the reality that Jews like him are the ones opposing the rise of a Palestinian state. He also accused Sarsour of personally attacking Jews who support Israel, to divert attention from the reality that he is the one that personally attacks Palestinians and all those who support the rise of an independent Palestinian state. And the reader does not have to go far to verify these truths, Tobin's current article testifies to that.

As to the Zachary Evans's article, which is a ‘news item’ rather than an opinion piece, here is the news that Evans and the editors of NRO thought was fit to print in a magazine that wants to be treated like a serious publication for scholars, and not a supermarket tabloid:

“The Women's March announced the introduction of 16 new members to its board, one of whom accused the FBI of recruiting for ISIS. Zahra Billoo made the accusation in a 2015 tweet. The news comes as the Women's March announced the departure of Linda Sarsour, Tamika Mallory and Bob Bland following allegations of anti-Semitism. Mallory appeared with Louis Farrakhan, the anti-Semitic leader of the Nation of Islam. She also claimed that Jews were leaders in the African slave trade. Carmen Perez, is staying on despite the fact that she too blamed Jews for the slave trade. Sarsour, a supporter of Farrakhan, is active in the BDS movement. She was hired by Bernie Sanders to work on his presidential campaign”.

It is amazing to see these people fool themselves to the point of believing they are doing the right thing, therefore winning whatever game they think they are playing.

It is even more amazing to see these people complain of discrimination when the people they drowned in the pool of hate they have been spewing into for decades, come out the pool and give them a taste of their own medicine.

Will these Jews ever learn?

How do you fix a pitiably hopeless Situation?

When you have someone you call A who is afraid of a neighbor you call B, and the situation gets so bad between them that the entire neighborhood becomes affected by the quarrel of the two, there is a right way and a wrong way to approach the problem if you're called upon to help solve it.

You listen to A who tells you what B is doing that frightens him. You listen to B who tells you he is only doing what he has the legal right to do, and nothing illegal. So now, you need to decide what approach to take to solve the problem. Well, the worst thing you can do is dismiss the fear that A is experiencing simply because he has no legal standing, given that he isn't even accusing B of illegal activities. What do you do now?

What you need to do cannot be explained in the abstract because there is not one model solution that will work in all the circumstances. So, let's take an actual case and analyze it. A good one to discuss is that of the prevailing situation on America's campuses. Here, in a nutshell, is what's going on: When it comes to engaging in campus activities, one group favors the aggressive exercise of every activity that's permitted under the law. Another group is invoking its legal right to being shielded from someone's activities even if they are inherently legal.

Over the years, the situation has escalated to the point where the aggressive group started to accuse the passive one of infringing on its legal right to express itself. On the other hand, the passive group accused the aggressive one of violating its legal right to be free of harassment. So, there you are, faced with two equally compelling rights that will not even land in court under the current circumstances.

If you are a journalist or a prominent person with easy access to the media, you may leverage your position and try to do something that could solve the problem, or at least alleviate it. In fact, this is what happened when Michael Bloomberg, owner of a publishing empire, got involved. He wrote, “Rage has free speech under siege on the American campus,” an article that appeared in Bloomberg Opinion, and was reprinted on September 15, 2019 in the New York Post. What follows is a condensed version of the article's content:

“Without engagement, liberal democracy can't survive. The question is whether Americans can live and work without being intolerant of diverse viewpoints. Democracy is about living with disagreement. A disturbing aspect can be found on college campuses. Students stated the following: 'Free Speech as a term, has been co-opted by all sides as a discursive cover for racism, xenophobia, sexism, anti-Semitism and homophobia.'

The University of Chicago affirmed that debate may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought to be offensive, unwise, immoral or wrong-headed. Not long ago, this would have been seen as uncontroversial. Today, the lack of support for the Chicago Statement has helped allow intolerance to seep deeper into the culture. It makes little difference whether intolerance of disagreement is based on a desire for safety or grounded in a theory of speech-as-violence. An approach that demands silence will fracture the country. Restoring the ability to disagree without becoming mortal enemies is an urgent civic imperative”.

Will this do it? It is doubtful it will. The proof is that this kind of lecture is given out all the time, but very few people if any are moved by it. In fact, some people may even consider the lecture a deliberate insult. That's because when someone is hurting from a pain called “fear,” which can be as intense as a physical wound, and you lecture them about a morality they may have violated, you add insult to injury.

Literally speaking, speech will not cause the kind of physical pain that a violent act will. But speech can work on the human mind in such a way as to cause anguish that will engender pain as real as a physical wound. As a rule, an “academic” debate on any subject must never be of a kind that has the potential to hurt. But some debaters violate this rule as if by habit, and the question is how did this situation come about?

The habit was injected into the American culture decades ago when the Judeo-Yiddish invasion overpowered the immune system of the early Euro-American culture. The Jews made early gains, and had things go their way. In time, the nativist population found an antidote to the Jewish onslaught, and began to push back. The Jews escalated by resorting to another habit: running to higher authorities, and asking that they be treated with special care. By then, the Jews had also secured monopoly over the media.

Playing the authorities and the media like a fiddle, the Jews were able to slander, disgrace and vanquish anyone that stood in their way. This being the ultimate form of violence that can be inflicted on someone, the Jews have been using it to deter anyone who would stand in their way. The adults of America took note and were intimidated. The campus folks decided to resist.

So, while the aggressive Jews keep running to the media and the politicians to acquire more leverage on society, especially the campus, the passive others seek safety where they can find it.

That’s where things stand now, and Michael Bloomberg isn't helping to solve the problem.