Exposing the Face they were hiding for Decades

We have reached a point where it is now possible to discuss a subject that used to be taboo. We can do it without seeing mobs of Jewish so-called journalists and pundits rise up in arms and wail antisemitism, antisemitism. The subject in question deals with the Jewish constant incitement to start wars.

Under normal circumstances, there are two ways to have peace. There is the peace of the grave, obtained when one side vanquishes the other in a war that sends him to his grave. And there is the peaceful coexistence that's implemented by those who negotiate it, codify it in a body of laws, and adjudicate it when breached by one side or the other.

But you'll also find that under abnormal circumstances, a state of no-war and no-peace can exist and can last for a period of time, be it a long period or a short one. However, if you measure the intensity of the tension that's generated by the state of neither a shooting war nor a heavenly peace, you'll find it sitting somewhere between the state of full-blown war that's at one extreme of the spectrum and the peaceful coexistence that's at the other extreme.

You'll also find that a similar kind of tension exists when you look at the relations which bind together the citizens of a nation such as Switzerland or America or any country. And you'll find that the same kind of tension exists in the relations that bring together the nations of the globe in world forums.

When you probe into these relations, you'll conclude that Switzerland, which stayed neutral during the wars of Europe and the world, maintains a peaceful society and good relations with the nations of the world. It also has a vibrant and prosperous economy that was developed, not on the back of slaves or colonies, but by the hard work of its citizens.

By contrast, you'll find that America is the murder capital of the world when it comes to the relations that bind its citizens together. As to America's performance on the world stage, it is now considered by most human beings to be the number one menace to international peace and stability.

It is important to remember these realities when reading a column such as the one that came under the title: “Making sure foreign enemies fear the United States militarily,” and the subtitle: “Strategies must cover conventional, asymmetrical or any types of 'stupid' attacks.” It was written by Clifford D. May, and published on January 28, 2020 in The Washington Times.

With that column, Clifford May has taken one step closer to speaking openly and truthfully about a glaring fact that was known to the world at a time when the Jews wanted the world to pretend it was not factual. It is that the Jews have constantly incited others to start wars, and have been behind most of the serious ones that flared since the beginning of time. Look what Clifford May is saying now that may have started the process of converting his career into one of truth and honesty in punditry:

“We'd like to believe that peace is the natural state of mankind. It's not. In 'On the Origins of War and the preservation of Peace,' published 25 years ago, Donald Kagan wrote that 'war has been a persistent part of human experience since before the birth of civilization. In 1968 Will and Ariel Durant calculated that there had been only 268 years free of war in the previous 3,421'”.

That was a clear admission that Judaism is synonymous with war. It is not surprising, therefore, to know that this has been the Jewish view all along. It is what their bible, known as the Old Testament, is all about. It represents both the history and religion of the Jews, according to them. It is what makes it impossible for ordinary people to think of the Jews –– who grow up in this kind of culture –– as not being defined by the stereotype which paints them as bloodthirsty.

Clifford May went on to make a case for America to gear up for a kind of endless “gray-zone war,” as he calls it. This would be the sort of conflict that is neither a full-blown war carried out by regular armies, nor a policing operation of the kind that exists even in peaceful countries such as Switzerland. But why does May believe this is necessary? Well, his closing paragraph tells you why. It reads as follows:

“Top of the to-do list: Discarding the delusion that 'endless' wars can be ended by waiting for tides to turn, relying on diplomatic palavers alone, withdrawing prematurely from battlefields, or waving magic wands and sprinkling fairy dust”.

In other words, Clifford May believes that the hundred or so countries of the world which are in a state of peace, must be considered an aberration because they are more like Switzerland than America. What makes them doubly aberrant in his eyes, is that they don't even have the crime rate of America.

What's this world coming to? Is it now the domain of fairy tales? Who went behind the back of Jews and gave these countries permission to be peaceful and have a low crime rate?

Waking up to the reality that they had been raping their audiences

On January 28, 2020 the President of the United States of America, Donald Trump presented to the world a plan that seeks to put an end to the occupation of Palestine by the Jewish forces of so-called Israel. These are forces that were trained, armed and financed by none other than the United States of America.

And on that same day, January 28, 2020, the mob of Jewish pundits in America came out in force to express the collective view that members of the mob had been raping their audiences for decades. They now promise to stop the rape and do something else. Actually, in their description of what they were doing, these characters did not come right out and use the word rape, preferring instead to be more subtle.

Of the many pieces that were published on that day or the following one, expressing the Jewish view, three were selected for review in this discussion. What follows are the titles of the three pieces, listed back to back for you, the reader, to look at and determine––just from reading the titles––what it is that these people are admitting they were doing to their unwary audiences.

There was the editorial in the New York Post that came under the title: “Trump plan for an Israel-Palestinian settlement is most realistic in decades”; there was the John Podhoretz column in the New York Post that came under the title: “Palestinians must wake up to the new reality in Mideast”; and there was the David Harsanyi article in National Review Online that came under the title: “The Israeli-Palestinian Peace Plan Is a Much-Needed Dose of Reality”.

So, let me ask you this, my friend. What do you see in these titles which tells you that the Jews are now admitting they have been raping their audiences for decades? Let me help you if you can't guess. Look for and find variations on the word “real.” You'll find it in every title, such as: “most realistic” and “the new reality” and “dose of reality.” But what does that mean? It means the writers are admitting that for decades, they had been feeding their audiences not reality, but dishes of unreality. Some people consider this as almost rape.

Whereas the North American audiences have been consuming the stuff like rotting food for the mind, nobody in the rest of the world believed the Jewish claims. This is why the world turned against the Jews and Israel long ago. As to the North American audiences, they are just beginning to wake up to the reality that they were being fed garbage. But you know what, my friend? There is no guarantee that those who seem to admit they lied in the past, will be telling the truth going forward.

In fact, you can tell from the tsunami of vitriol spewed by David Harsanyi what he feels. Here it is: he feels that each of Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu have plunged a long dagger into his heart. You can tell this is the case because while pretending to predict what in reality he wishes will happen –– namely that the new plan will fail as did all the previous ones, thus maintain the status quo –– Harsanyi has proved completely incapable of hiding his infinite hatred for the Palestinian people simply because who they are.

And there can be no doubt that Jews of his kind, working with gentile Neocons and Evangelicals, will mount a Herculean effort both in America and Israel, to torpedo the upcoming negotiations if there is going to be any, and blame the failure on the Palestinians, as has been the pattern during the past several decades.

If there is going to be negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis, and if the Americans are going to mediate the talks, there are a few things that America must know lest it be devilishly railroaded by the Jews, be they American or Israeli devils.

The first thing to know is that an occupation is an act of war. This means the Palestinians and the Israelis have been at war since at least 1967. And when you're at war, you rarely view your own combatants as war criminals. When they get hurt, they receive treatment. When they die, their families get compensation. Everyone does that, including America.

When peace negotiations begin, you stop talking as if the antagonists were still at war. Instead, you talk as if a state of peace already exists. That is, neither should the Palestinians tell the Israelis to punish their war criminals no matter what they did, nor should the Israelis tell the Palestinians to punish their freedom fighters no matter what they did. On the contrary, each side must assume that when peace will be reached, any violent act committed by an individual against the other side, will be considered a criminal act and dealt with accordingly through the normal system of justice.

What the Americans must watch for and be prepared to respond appropriately and immediately, is the Jewish tendency to pretend being superior to the Palestinians by telling them how they should conduct themselves or run their affairs after a peace treaty has been reached.

But because the Jews don't have the power or the standing to tell the Palestinians how to live, they get the Americans to do it in their name. And that's the kind of thing which led the Americans to attempt implementing the so-called “nation building” in several places around the Arab and Muslim worlds … an experiment that made America look like a bed-wetting childish amateur trying to play in the big league.

Another thing the Americans should be aware of, is that the Jewish incessant disparaging of the Palestinians is necessary to make their fake security argument stick. They know now that the more land they acquire, the less secure they become because those whom they fight, acquire longer range and deadlier weapons.

In fact, things have so evolved that for Israel to have security by antagonizing others, it will be necessary for the Jews to acquire the stretch of land that extends from Israel’s border to Iran. This would encompass all of Palestine, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait and Northern Saudi Arabia.

Since this is not going to happen, security for Israel can only be attained by learning to live with its neighbors. This is why America's mediators should stick to the technical aspects of the plan, and not fall for the Jewish nagging that urges them to lecture to the Palestinians, a foolish practice that did considerable damage to America's standing in the world.

The 'Never Again' Pendulum is swinging back

Poor Melissa Langsam Braunstein, she reminds me of an Egyptian saying that goes: “She is blowing in a punctured bag.” It is, in some respects, equivalent of the English saying that goes: “She is whistling past the graveyard”.

Her reaction to the events, which seem most important to her, suggests that she metaphorically stands in front of a pot of boiling water. She looks into it, and every time that someone expresses a thought she deems incompatible with the infinite love for the Jews and for Israel, she imagines –– not blobs of boiling water bubbling up to the surface –– but human beings bobbing up and down as if their feet were trying to escape the burning bottom of the pot.

This is how things were in her view, but are no more because the fire to which the feet of humanity were held, is beginning to die out. It is why she wrote an article to complain about the current situation. Her article came under the title: “Saying 'Never Again' Means Nothing If It's Not Backed Up With Actions,” published on January 27, 2020 in The Federalist.

Melissa Braunstein is so fixated on her imaginary pot of boiling water, she fails to see, and cannot imagine the existence of a pendulum that represents the development of human affairs. In fact, unknown to her, the pendulum has reached the extreme limit on one side, and has begun to swing to the other side. In the current circumstances, this means that the world is warming up to the plight of the Palestinians in the knowledge that the misery inflicted on them, is produced by the Jews and by Israel.

And so, in her ignorant pursuit of justice for people that suffered not one iota of pain due to the Holocaust that was inflicted on the Jews of Europe three quarter of a century ago, Melissa Braunstein is urging the human race to bless the horror that the Jews of America are paying and arming Israel to inflict on the Palestinian people as if they were the ones that inflicted yesteryear's Holocaust on the Jews.

In fact, she, who imagined it would have been a good idea if today's righteous people had, “taken up arms and resisted the Nazis” long ago, has condemned the fact that Britain's Prince Charles met with Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority. She condemned that meeting simply because Abbas is the leader of a people that's under occupation, and doing nothing worse than resist a form of genocide whose brutality would have impressed the Nazis.

Not only did Melissa Braunstein express unhappiness with the Brits for their stance with regard to the Palestinian issue, she also expressed unhappiness with the Germans for trading with the Iranians who stayed with the nuclear deal as long as they could, despite the fact that America had reneged on it. Contrast this stance with Israel that has violated almost every resolution passed by the United Nations, and you'll understand why the Germans have refused to stand with Israel at the UN, and why individual human beings throughout the globe are embracing the BDS movement.

And so, instead of calling on Israel to make the effort to obey the law, thus become a normal country, which is what it wants to be, and every Jew wants it to be, Braunstein has condemned the people who adhere to the BDS movement. She condemned, knowing full well that the purpose of the movement is only to make Israel comply with the law and integrate into the community of civilized nations.

If you ask if there is anything that Melissa Braunstein or those of her ilk will let go without making a fuss, if only to show willingness that they want to compromise on something, thus start the process of making Israel a normal country –– the answer is no. There is nothing that these people will do to get out of their self-inflicted misery or that of Israel.

A good example of this reality, is what happened when French President Macron visited a French Church in Israel. Despite the clear instructions that no person must ever enter the church wearing a soldier's uniform, Israeli soldiers did just that under the pretext of protecting Macron. Still, despite his respectful pleas that they leave the church, the soldiers refused. He then shouted at them to express his anger, and they left. Look now how Melissa Braunstein reported this incident:

“While in Israel, Macron yelled at Israeli officers. He insisted they respect the rules and stay outside as he visited a French Church in Israel. Considering that French Jews have fled to Israel, and that a French court declined to prosecute a Jewish woman's murderer because he was high, Macron's behavior felt callous. The French insisted that no apology was forthcoming”.

It is obvious from this kind of performances that this case is near to hopeless. It shows no sign of abating or being reduced in frequency. It means that the Jews are incapable of making even the first step toward:

(1) reducing humanity's resentment of them, thus eliminate what they call antisemitism; and

(2) help Israel understand that it will get no help from them until it learns to get along with its neighbors.

The inescapable reality is that the ‘Never Again’ pendulum has swung back in the other direction, and the time has come to hold the Jewish feet to the fire before they get themselves deeper still in hot water.

They simply don’t know how to do it by themselves.

Why do those who know deny the obvious?

Everybody knows that Elvis Presley is dead but some people deny it. Everybody knows that the Earth is a sphere but some people deny it. Everybody knows that the Twin Towers were brought down by terrorists but some people deny it. Everybody knows that Israel was kicked out of Gaza by Palestinian freedom fighters but most Jews deny it. Everybody knows that the Holocaust happened but some people deny it. Why? Why do people deny the obvious?

There are many reasons why people deny something that would cost them little or nothing if they'll just admit that it happened, and see that they are left alone. But that's precisely the crucial point in this discussion: “be left alone.” If these people were left alone whether or not they denied the obvious, they would not deny it. But if you force them to admit to something that's of little interest to them or of great interest or of no interest at all, they'll be inclined to deny it. This is human nature.

One of the events that seems to leave no one alone these days is the Holocaust. The fact that someone can get into trouble for denying it or questioning an aspect of it, no matter how trivial it may be –– makes some people want to deny it, and enjoy watching you squirm as you try to convince them they are wrong. Whereas these people are not serious in their denial but doing it to “pull your legs,” other people are serious in their denial of it because much rides on what they are asked or compelled to affirm.

This represents a conundrum for the Jews, and you'll get a sense of how massive it is for them when you go over the article that came under the title: “For Auschwitz liberation's 75th anniversary, fight Holocaust denial with education,” written by Beth Bailey and published on January 27, 2020 in The Washington Examiner.

Of the many points that were made by the writer in her article, two points [referred to below as (a) and (b)] hit the readers in the face as being more illogical than the others:

(a)        Beth Bailey's first point is represented by the complaint she made about those who “participate in revising the past for motives, which, though not anti-Semitic, harm Jews.” What she means by that, is one of two things. Either

(a-1) she says that the final version of the Holocaust history has been written, and no revision should be allowed; or

(a-2) she says that only the Jews can revise the Holocaust history.

Well then, in the case of (a-1) Bailey shoots down her own assertion a few paragraphs later when she says this: “Additional Holocaust evidence is still being uncovered today.” This being the case, the history of the Holocaust must be revised to take into account the additional evidence that keeps surfacing every day, something she admits herself.

In fact, it is the nature of history that it remains open for revision and reinterpretation till such time that it is absolutely certain everything that's there has been discovered. However, since logic dictates that we don't know what we don't know, we can never be sure we discovered everything that's there. Therefore, this requires that history remain open for revision and reinterpretation forever.

In the case of (a-2) Beth Bailey seems to say that only the Jews can revise or reinterpret the history of the Holocaust. First of all, it is not up to the Jews to make that decision. But if for some screwy reason, it is so decided by everybody, the consequence will have to be that the Holocaust must remain the exclusive purview of the Jews in every sense of the word. Well then, what does that mean? It means that the Holocaust shall be mentioned only in Jewish circles. It must never be acknowledged or referred to in non-Jewish circles of any kind, especially the mass media.

(b)        As to Beth Bailey's second point, it is the illogical complaint she voiced, which goes like this: “Traditional deniers blame Jews for the Holocaust.” Did you catch that, my friend? How could someone write a sentence like that without being alarmed and instantly hitting the delete button … Unless, of course, she was inhaling the wrong kind of fumes?

Look how this woman has mutilated logic: If someone blames the Jews for the Holocaust, it is that they are affirming it, not denying it. But if these people are affirming the Holocaust and Beth Bailey is calling them: “traditional deniers,” something must have been going screwy inside her head when she typed these words. And we are left to ask the question: What was she consuming to have been so distracted?

Because the Holocaust is playing a big part in the Jewish scheme of things these days, leaving it to them without push-back is the worst thing to do.

For this reason, everybody must speak up, and do their part to straighten these people out. It is either that or the holocaust will repeat itself again and again in one form or another.

America and Israel to the World: We conned you

Imagine someone in their sixties or younger, having spent a lifetime hearing a relentless refrain reminding them that: We are the democracies. We are transparent and honest. We tell the truth and never deceive. We respect our people and never exploit their trust in us … blah … blah … blah.

And then one day, out of the blue and without prior warning, that someone in their sixties, heard a strange noise blared at the level of a hundred decibels or more. It was a human scream that informed them: We conned you, we conned you. Ain't we smarter than you who are unthinking SOBs that trusted us, respected us, venerated us and believed in us.

Do you think this is a metaphor of some king? Maybe. But metaphors are based on a foundation of truth, and some metaphors are more ‘truth’ than they are ‘meta.’ You'll soon discover that the one cited above is as close to the truth as a metaphor can ever get. All you need to do is read the article that came under the title: “What's really behind Trump's meeting with Bibi and Gantz,” written by Benny Avni and published on January 25, 2020 in the New York Post.

Avni did not waste time before he started screaming at his readers that he and his like, have conned them royally, and did it to every audience in America as well. Here it is, in his words, encapsulated in the first sentence of his article: “Trump's reignited Mideast diplomacy will fall short of Israeli-Palestinian peace, but it may help end a political logjam that has paralyzed Israel”.

In other words, Benny Avni is now telling America's audiences that the Donald Trump White House and the mob of Jewish pundits have not been practicing democracy. Instead, they pretended to work for peace in the Middle East while intending to be dishonest and far from transparent. They simply have not been telling the truth; have not avoided deception; have not been respectful of their people and have not avoided exploiting the audiences' trust in them.

Benny Avni went on to explain that on the contrary, America and Israel have been conning their audiences every day of the week. It is a habitual exercise they employ to feel smarter than those who listen to them. They feel smarter than they who trust them, respect them, venerate them and believe in such con artists as Benny Avni and Donald Trump.

Well then, if the so-called democracy is not the basket of honorable concepts that its proponents have been singing about for the whole world to hear, what's it really about? That's a good question, my friend, and it happens that you'll find the answer in the condensed passages that make up the Benny Avni article. Here is how he put it all together:

“This is an unusual step, said Danny Ayalon, a former Israeli ambassador to the US. The peace plan is less important now, he said, adding that the trip is bound to help Bibi politically. Gantz's allies warned the trip is a political trap, laid out by Netanyahu. His partners believe it was cooked up by Netanyahu in consultation with Washington allies, timed for a Knesset hearing on Bibi's immunity from criminal prosecution. Israel is preoccupied with internal politics, anticipating a March 2 election, the third in less than a year. As in the previous two rounds, neither Gantz nor Netanyahu are likely to get enough support to string together a ruling coalition. The roll out of Trump's peace plan adds a geopolitical dimension to these internal Israeli disputes, Ayalon said. The first test is whether Israel can straighten out its politics”.

So, there it is, done once more the way they have been doing it for half a century. The Jews of Israel and America, have launched yet another trip, called it a peace trip, but is in reality nothing more than a political trap. It is just one aspect of the game they play in the name of democracy, expecting their people to consume the thing like the wino that cannot get away from his bottle. He doesn't know that taking a glass of water once in a while, can do him a great deal of good ... and they don't know that questioning what they hear once in a while, can help them stay better informed.

Is it any wonder that, having seen the bankruptcy of the democratic system of governance, the rest of the world is experimenting with other forms governance? They do so in their quest to lay the foundation for a new system that will forever vanquish the bitter experiences of conquest, colonialism, deception and exploitation on which the so-called system of democracy was erected.

Whether or not the conspirators manage to get their man elected in Israel, is of little importance for, they have succeeded in showing to the world that democracy is a con game that has run its course and is ready to be retired.

To redeem America for its Palestinian Stance

Because, to a large extent, a culture is based on the language it uses, it is at times possible to look at a single word, and through it explain the difference in the attitude of different cultures towards the same issue.

The word “redeem” in the title of this discussion is one such word. It is possible to understand the difference between the stance of the Continental Europeans in general, and that of the Americans toward the Palestinian issue by parsing what is conjured up by that word.

When an American hears that word, he thinks of “fixing” something that may or may not have been good in the first place, but can be improved on. Thus, an average American that looks at the title of this discussion, will think that America is called upon to fix a situation it had nothing to do with up to now.

But look what happens when you translate the word redeem into French. This is what you get: “racheter.” What does that word mean to a French audience? Actually, it means a great deal. The word is made of a prefix (re) which indicates a redo, and the verb (acheter) which means to buy. When you put them together, you get “reacheter,” but because you have two vowels back to back, –– which sounds bad in French –– the “e” of the prefix is dropped, and you're left with “racheter,” which means to buy back.

And so, whereas an American will think: “Here we go again, America is asked to fix something it did not break,” a Frenchman or any Continental European will think: “Finally, someone is calling on America to buy back whatever it sold in the first place.” But what could America have sold with regard to the Palestinian issue? There is only one thing that America could have sold: its own soul, no less.

But what's this all about? It's about the American President Donald Trump inviting, to the White House, Benjamin Netanyahu that may no longer be Prime Minister of Israel in a few weeks-time, and Benny Gantz that may replace him. Rumors are to the effect that Trump will tell the two Israelis what he has in mind with regard to the American armed and financed Israeli occupation of Palestine.

And so, whereas most Europeans and the rest of the world, hope that America will do the right thing this time and buy back the soul it sold to the Jews for the benefit of a handful of political rascals –– very little will change in America. That's because as much as half the people will continue to think and feel in terms of what the Jewish inspired media will tell them to think and feel.

You can see how all of this works out when you read the article that came under the title: “The White House Peace Plan Meeting: U.S. Goals, Israeli Repercussions,” written by David Mokovsky, and published on January 24, 2020 on the website of the Washington Institute. The following is a condensed version of how Makovsky sees this whole matter:

“Some argue that Netanyahu and Trump are prioritizing their potential electoral advantages even if it threatens the viability of a negotiated two-state solution. The administration may be counting on the PA to reject the plan outright. This could give Israel freedom of action to annex areas such as the Jordan Valley. Amman has reportedly threatened to suspend its peace treaty with Israel if Netanyahu annexes the Jordan Valley. The meeting may constrain Gantz politically. It may favor Netanyahu, allowing him to divert attention from the immunity issue and broader legal troubles. Netanyahu may also use the peace plan as a catalyst to apply Israeli law to the Jordan Valley or annex it outright. Netanyahu will use the media attention to claim that he brought the peace plan close to his vision”.

So there you have it my dear reader. The Tweedledee and Tweedledum of the so-called democracies are again scratching each other's back at the expense of the people they are supposed to serve and care for.

You'll see one Tweedle basically say to the other: You deliver for me my own country's Evangelical prostitutes who believe there is salvation in kissing your rear end from before they have breakfast in the morning till after they have supper at night.

You'll see the other Tweedle basically respond: And you deliver for me my own cannibalistic war criminals who use your donated money and weapons to ethnic cleanse those whom you keep permanently disarmed so as to maintain them in a weak and helpless state.

And you'll almost hear the two, break in a song that goes something like this: We’re the Tweedle pair, one indicted and one impeached. We’re the Tweedles that dare, going to where no one can reach.

The Boomerang hit them, now they are scared

Look at this headline: “An Executive Order against antisemitism Is Being Used to Justify Censorship,” and try to imagine me or someone like me writing an article under such a title. Would you, for a moment, believe that a Jewish hypnotized, formerly respected publication such as National Review would print it? Not on your life.

This is why I did not write an article under such a title, and did not submit it to National Review on Line or any publication of its ilk. But guess who wrote an article under that title. Samantha Harris did. Despite her Waspish sounding name, she is as Jewish as bagel, and says she is an attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

But what did happen that prompted Samantha Harris to write an article under such a title, submit it to the editors of National Review Online, and see it printed on January 23, 2020? The short answer is that the Jews got mugged one more time by the boomerang, which people like yours truly, told the Jews will return and whack them when they least expect it. Their response all along had been to scoff at us; apparently no more.

Now that the Jews got whacked yet again like we said they will, they seem to be doing what they should have done long ago. It is to examine what they have been doing that was wrong, and resolve never to do it again. So, the question is this: Will this exercise do them any good in the long run, or is it too late for them?

What we've been telling the Jews is that the medicine they were taking to cure the illness they call antisemitism was not the medicine they thought it was. On the contrary, it was the poison that has aggravated the antisemitism they were dreading. But how did it all start? It started when the number of Jews in America had reached a critical mass, and they did then on the national scale what we see them do now each time that they enter a new community to settle in it.

That is, the self-appointed leaders of the Jews urged the rank-and-file to report to them every discomfort they experienced, however small it may have been, as they interacted with non-Jews. The leaders then used the information to draw up a list of what they said irritated them as a group. They went to see everyone in authority they could buttonhole, and poured buckets of tears at their feet, begging them to intervene. The Jewish leaders asked those in authority to make sure that never again will they allow someone to hurt the Jews who could not forget the Holocaust even if they weren't born until half a century later, and were raised thousands of miles from where the Holocaust had taken place. Try to figure this out.

What happened after a while, was that most of those in authority detected two trends. First, they got used to the idea of Jews whining incessantly about everything and so, tended to ignore the little complaints that the Jews seized them with. Second, these same authorities discovered that when the Jews complained about something, it's because they wanted action on rights that conflicted with the rights of someone else.

Thus, what the Jews asked the authorities to do, was side with them after hearing their complaint in private without giving equal attention to the other side. Worse is what happened during the time that the Jews were alone behind closed doors with the handful of morally bankrupt politicians that wielded the power. The Jews smeared the reputation of their rivals, thus impressed the politicians who promised to give them what they asked for, and then started doing just that.

This being the Jewish medicine they have been using to try and cure what they saw as the ills of antisemitism, the ailment persisted as it has for thousands of years because the medicine was actually the poison that made the public rebel against both the Jews and the politicians who acted like servants of the Jews rather than civil servants of the society that elected them. This is how the boomerang was created each time; it is what we advised them was happening; it is the advice they ignored for a long time.

All of this transpired despite the fact that time after time, the Jews saw the boomerang return and mug them. But they failed to realize that a cause and effect relation existed between their playing havoc with the rights of people, and the anger that the people expressed as a warning to them and the politicians who sold their souls to them. Both the Jews and the politicians failed to understand that their relation could not continue to flourish at the expense of the public, which is why America’s national agony persisted as long as it did.

But Samantha Harris seems to have gotten the message at long last. It remains to be seen if the message will catch on, and if there is going to be the sea change that will be necessary for this matter to be resolved once and for all.

Distribution of Income lacking Fairness = Debt

Richard W. Rahm wrote an article under the title: “How much US debt is too much?” and the subtitle: “United States must restrain entitlement spending.” It was published on January 20, 2020 in The Washington Times. Rahm begins the discussion with this complaint: “Worldwide debt levels have reached record levels in absolute terms and as a percentage of the GDP (well over 300 percent), which is worrisome.” Why so?

The reality is that issues having to do with finance seem at times to be so convoluted, people give up thinking why things are the way they are. For this reason, we must develop the habit of creating a simple vision of what's happening in the “real economy” and go from there to analyzing the expression of it in the world of high finance. Here is a simple vision that should clarify some things:

Imagine a Feudal Lord (call him A) who owns a large piece of property that is self-sufficient in everything. The place is also inhabited by a thousand other families that work to produce all kinds of foods, clothing, housing material, modes of transportation, much of the services and so on.

Year after year, there is enough of everything for every family to live adequately, therefore everyone receives an adequate amount of what they consume. The exception is the feudal lord, his family and his entourage who live in an exclusive quarter of the property. They get one twentieth or 5 percent of everything that's produced on the property before the rest is distributed among the working families.

One day, word reaches Feudal Lord A (FLA) that his neighbor Feudal Lord B (FLB) is doing things differently. So, he decides to pay him a visit. He tells him what he's doing on his own property, and asks how different is that from what he is doing. FLB says that his system is almost identical except that in addition to getting 5 percent of everything, he charges each working family up to 3 percent more, which he turns around and gives as bonus to his children and those of his entourage.

But that's not the whole story, says FLB. He goes on to explain that while the 5 percent are mandatory, the working families have the choice of paying up to 3 percent more and be debt free. Otherwise, what they do not pay now is counted as debt that they and their children will have to pay him, pay his entourage and pay their children with interest.

FLA remarks: This is some kind of trade-off, is it not? Yes, says FLB and gladly explains that every family has to choose between lowering their standard of living by up to 3 percent and be debt free. Or living at a higher standard and carry a debt that they and their children will have to pay eventually.

FLA stops him at this point to say that he heard rumors to the effect that the 3 percent started as a one percent then went up, over the years, to the two percent level and now 3 percent. FLB says this is correct. He explains that every time new products and efficiency in production increased the GDP of the property, most of the increases went to the entourage since the working families live well as it is, and have no reason to complain or be greedy.

FLA interjects: But the reality as I understand it, is that as the efficiency increases, the working families get deeper in debt. Yes, says FLB but that's their choice. They can either maintain their standard of living and be debt free or improve their standard and be in debt. FLA pushes back: But is it not true that as efficiency increases, and new products come on the market, life becomes more complicated, requiring a higher level of expenditure just to maintain the same standard of living? FLB nods and says: Yes, there is some truth to that … which means our working families are losing ground instead of advancing; I admit to that.

FLA sighs and says this is exactly the point he was trying to make. So, FLB asks: Well then, how do you get around that difficulty on your property? FLA explains: Whenever the GDP of the property increases by a given percentage, every family gets an increase in income by that same percentage. This way everyone, including the entourage, get remunerated both equally and equitably, and no one gets in debt unless they so decide for whatever reason.

FLB goes into a deep pensive mode then says: The idea of reaping the increase in wealth, resulting from efficiency and innovation, was never mine. It started with the entourage who got wealthier as the working families got relatively poorer. There must be something I can do to rectify the situation but I don't know exactly what to do or where to begin.

FLA takes it from there and says that the name of the game is income distribution. The more unequal the distribution, the higher goes the debt level, and the riskier it is for the economy as a whole. If and when the economy collapses, everyone will get hurt, including those of the entourage who would have caused the downward spiral in the first place.

Therefore, the answer to the problems of the FLB property is a better distribution of income, which will result in less debt for everyone and a more robust economy going forward.

Call it what you will but a War is a War

Iran has proxies such as Hezbollah and the Houthis, says Clifford May, and it is using them to wage a gray-zone war against America, its friends and allies.

By the same token, Israel has America as main proxy, and through it, members of the NATO alliance who are called upon to assist when the going gets rough. Israel too is waging a gray-zone war against Iran with the use of cyber-attacks, assassinations and American hit-and-run operations.

In fact, the war between the two camps started in the decade of the 1950s when America and Britain engineered a coup in Iran, effectuating a regime change that the people of Iran considered an act of war to which they have been retaliating seriously in tit-for-tat responses since the 1970s.

Clifford D. May wrote a column, expanding on his views regarding that war. The column came under the title: “Iranian regime's 'gray-zone' war tactics are the new norm,” and the subtitle: “President Trump striking back at those attacking US does not put us on 'the brink' of war.” The column was published on January 21, 2020 in The Washington Times.

To make his points, May chose to enter into a debate with those who deemed that “President Trump's droning of Gen. Qassem Soleimani put America on the brink of war.” That's what Martin Indyk and Tucker Carlson have said, according to Clifford May. But does he agree with them or does he not? You continue reading his column to find out where he stands on the issue.

You find that he does not answer the question directly. Instead, he gives a history lesson in which he portrays Qassem Soleimani as an evil person, the intent being to say that the man deserved to be killed. Clifford May went on to explain that Iran retaliated by launching missiles at American bases in Iraq, after which the Supreme Leader, “announced he was finished –– at least for now”.

At this point, Clifford May clarified his thinking by saying that President Trump did not put us on the brink of war, but that he began to re-establish the deterrence, which the United States had lost over the years. Pretending to accommodate the anxiety of the skeptics, he speculated the following: “What if the ayatollah had decided to climb the escalation ladder?”

It was in response to this question that Clifford May began to pave the way for saying what he really wanted to say, which is that Trump did not risk a war this time, but it would have been okay if he did. May did not say it this overtly, but in the same way that he let the readers conclude Soleimani deserved to die by portraying him as an evil person, he portrayed the Iranian nation as being so evil, the readers will be inclined to conclude that it should be destroyed, that it would be easy for America to destroy it and there would be no serious consequences if this happened.

The following is a condensed version of the passages carrying that subtle message:

“Wouldn't American boots have been in Tehran by Valentine's Day? No. Mr. Trump would have considered sinking the ayatollah's navy in port, to wiping out his combat aircraft on the ground, to destroying his nuclear weapons facilities. In April 1979, Iran was declared an Islamic Republic. In the fall, the ayatollah's followers seized the US embassy and took hostage. In April 1983, a suicide bomber hit the US embassy in Beirut, killing 83 people. In October, Hezbollah bombed buildings in Beirut, killing 241 US military personnel and 58 French soldiers. In December, terrorists bombed the US and French embassies in Kuwait City. After four decades, we ought to have settled on a strategy to counter this threat. But when a scholar on the left and a television host on the right don't even grasp the reality, it becomes apparent why we have made so little progress in this conflict”.

In asking the rhetorical question about American boots being in Tehran by Valentine's day a few weeks from now, the writer is suggesting that it would be an easy thing to do. But the reality is that it will take a million soldiers stationed in Afghanistan or Iraq to do that. And the reality is that America does not have this many soldiers to fight Iran on the ground. And even if it had them, it would take 6 months to transport them there. That's assuming Afghanistan and Iraq would give permission to use their soil to invade Iran, which is hard to believe.

As to sinking Iran's navy in port, wiping out its aircraft on the ground and destroying its nuclear facilities, these make up the fantasy of someone that lives in the era of the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, the Israeli sneak attack on Egypt, and the American carpet bombing of Dresden. The trouble is that the Iranians are not going to be taken by surprise, and they are prepared to meet all these contingencies and overcome them. So do America’s friends and allies who will tell it that it must not count on them helping it.

America made little progress in this conflict, not because of Martin Indyk or Tucker Carlson, but because it knows what the Iranian response will be if caught in a full blown war.

They sabotaged America's Ability to learn

Teachers who take an interest in the ability of their students to learn, recognize that every student is a unique case that cannot be neatly placed in one category or another.

Besides, many factors in the life of a student cause his or her aptitude at learning to fluctuate between excellent and poor, several times as they go through their difficult teen years.

But if you cannot categorize the students as to where they stand during their learning journey, you can take an overall view of the learning process, and make an important observation. It is that there are two methods by which students (and people in general) learn. In fact, when you study all walks of life in society, you find that the two methods apply everywhere.

I call one method, “organized serial approach” and the other method, “random parallel approach.” The first is what every scholastic syllabus delivers. That is, when designing a course, we begin with the simplest of basics, and use them as requisites to build increasingly more complex ideas. And those ideas are called serial because they come one after the other, each dependent on what preceded it.

As to the random parallel approach, it consists of picking up bits of knowledge (some light and some weighty) from anywhere without necessarily knowing how the bits relate to each other, or seeking to know how they relate to anything else … at least not initially. But then, it happens during moments of eureka that the mind connects two or more previously acquired bits of knowledge, thus opens a new vista of wonders to explore and create works never seen before, or discover knowledge never known before.

Later in life, as we put in practice what we learned in school, we find ourselves continuing to learn by both methods. On the one hand, our supervisors would teach us sequentially how to harmonize what we learned in school with the culture of the company, so as to make things run smoothly. At the same time, however, we randomly pick new ideas here and there from society at large, as we realize how large and diverse the world really is outside the classroom and outside our place of work.

To understand an important aspect of American life, we need to point out that America is made of immigrants who left their old life behind because they are generally more adventurous and entrepreneurial kind of individuals. Because of this, they are driven by the spirit of the tinkerer, which means they are naturally creative and apt to connect disparate idea, and come up with new ones. These people would also be extremely eager to learn whatever their supervisors wish to knock into their heads, be it serially or randomly. Thus, if there is something that can be said about American exceptionalism, this is what defines it.

But there is a fly in the ointment, and the name of that fly is Jew. For thousands of years, the Jewish plan has been to win over and take control of a society that would allow the Jews to supplant its existing system of governance. Having rehearsed this plan for thousands of years, the Jews knew what to do to convince the Americans that contrary to popular belief, everything with them was not perfect but that the Jews could bring perfection to them.

So, while pretending to work on a plan that will make America more perfect for Americans, the Jews actually worked on a plan to make America more compatible with the Jewish scheme of taking over the Middle East as a prelude to taking over the world.

The Jews did that by changing the American perception of reality. They began the lesson by complaining that they were discriminated against because people did not understand their sensitivities. They asked that they be allowed to educate the American public, and got the permission in the form of editors and publishers allowing them to say and write anything they wanted. And so, the Jews did what they wanted, which was to sabotage the normal method by which people learn. They replaced it with Jewish education, which consists of loving everything that’s associated with Jews, and hating everything that’s not.

This is the lesson that America took to the Middle East, believing it was taking a winning formula. But America was eventually mugged by the reality that the Jews had emasculated its ability to get along with people. They also taught it the wrong lesson and robbed it of the ability to learn serially or randomly.

Not only has America lost the ability to tinker and come up with innovations such as those that made it the best in the world, it lost the ability to persuade foreigners it is the friend they want to have. This is evidenced by the article that came under the title: “'Saddam Hussein's hell is better than Americans' paradise,'” written by Carl J.V. Care, and published on January 12, 2020 in the Washington Examiner. Here is what Carl Care has concluded:

“From an Iraqi perspective, the US was first an invader and then an incompetent state builder. This helped pull Iraq further away from the US. From this environment, ISIS would eventually emerge. Ironically, throughout Iraq, locals often repeated that Saddam Hussein's Hell was better than the Americans' paradise. Is it any wonder?”

But if Carl Care was able to reach this conclusion, why would every American not be able to reach it given that it is based on simple common sense? Well, to find the answer, you'll have to read the entire Carl Care article.

When you do that, you'll be stunned to see the amount of knowledge that the author was compelled to gather and use to make a simple commonsense deduction. Compare this with the olden days when, before the advent of the Jews, every American in the street could make that same deduction while walking and chewing gum. This is how much America has lost at the hands of the Jews.

A new toxic moral Clarity by a different Name

Part of the human folklore that's revered in our era is that modernity brings with it a hectic life. This has many ramifications, one of them being that our span of attention becomes short. For this reason, we like to be told things in brief, and the busier we are, the briefer we want the briefs to be.

Because the Americans subscribe to the idea that time is money, not only do they see their attention span shrink, they see their capacity to acquire knowledge and retain it, diminish. The net effect of all this, is that the Americans develop a reduced capacity to think in terms of concepts which are more complex than a simple idea. In effect, they become the people of the one-liner whose conversational abilities do not exceed what can be written on a bumper sticker.

This is a cultural condition that forces those in the business of advocating principles more complex than a one-liner, to develop new methods by which to communicate with others. The method that's widely used today is to point to similarities between a known fact and what you're trying to establish. But the reality is that most of the time, such similarities are at best tenuous; even non-existent.

That's what makes the current condition ideal for charlatans. It gives them the opportunity to advocate for anything they want by drawing a false comparison with something that already exists and that's known for what it is. The most notorious of these moments came when the Jews convinced the unthinking President George W. Bush (43) that, in the name of moral clarity, he should consider the Palestinian freedom fighters who are under Israeli occupation, to be similar to the 9/11 attackers who did America in.

Once the American president accepted the comparison, it was easy for the Jews to lead him by the nose to the idea of regime change in the countries that the Jews wanted to see destroyed. Having the plans already drawn for the destruction of Iraq, the Jews had Bush give the order to invade that country. The invasion happened as planned, and the consequences have been so horrific, they continue to produce human misery to this day like a chain reaction that refuses to end.

The readers familiar with the attitude of the Jews at the time of America's invasion of Iraq, will recall that in their jubilation, the Jews let out their secret plan for the future. They put it in terms that went something like this: “Now that we got Iraq, what remains to be determined is if we should first go West [into Syria] or East [into Iran.]” Well, America did eventually go into Syria; it is there now trying to steal Syria's oil according to the White House. So, guess what else the Jews are working on now. You guessed it; they are plotting to send America into Iran, knowing full well what horror will be unleashed on the world by such action.

And it's all there in black and white. You can see the Jews unfurl a scheme designed for Iran; a scheme that's similar to the one they unfurled for Iraq and George W. Bush. The scheme, this time, is laid out in an article that came under the title: “Trump rejects the fake separation between Iran and its militias,” and the subtitle: “No longer playing Iran's game,” written by Tony Badran, and published on January 18, 2020 in The Washington Times.

In the same way that seventeen years ago the Jews conflated occupied Palestine, Iraq and Al-Qaeda, thus convinced W. Bush to commit the war crime of the century, they are now conflating Iran, Hezbollah, the Houthis and every combatant that may take on America's invaders who are operating in the region without invitation from any of the locals.

Please note and never forget that what the Jews have decided for America's young men and women is war, war, war. What they decided for America's treasury, is spend, spend, spend. And what they decided for America's current president is what they decided for George W. Bush at the start of the twenty first century: Put in harm's way the lives of thousands of Americans if it happens that a single American is attacked by someone unknown; one that may or may not be traced back to Iran.

The following represents the talking points that Tony Badran wants the warmongers of America to use when they talk to the politico-journalistic crowd that will decide on making war or peace happen:

“Previous US attitudes ranged from a decision not to hold Iran accountable for actions taken by its surrogates, which provided Iran with immunity. An example of such attitude can be seen in a recent essay by Obama's Middle East point man, Robert Malley, in which he [put his point] in the form of a question he left unanswered: 'Iran almost certainly helps the Houthis and Iraqi Shiite militias, but does it control them?' Mr. Malley wanted us to believe the answer is no. Unlike [Obama, we] reject this separation between Iran and the militias”.

This is the Jewish style moral clarity that will cost America more than 6 trillion dollars this time, tens of thousands of lives and hundreds of thousands of broken minds and bodies that will end up committing suicide.

Now my friend, ask yourself: All this for what? To please the Jewish Pocahontas in the White House? Is she worth all that squandered money and all these dead bodies?

A Lie has been killing them all these Years

There is a difference between the way that a street gangster challenges the world when standing on the roof of a building, and when hiding in the basement of the building.

Waving a gun, standing on the roof of the building, he defies anyone who might come up and challenge him.  Blustering about his strength, he warns anyone who might dare to come and get him in the basement.

These are the two extreme situations in which Israel found itself, figuratively speaking, during the last half century. In addition, its propaganda machine often found it caught in limbo between the two extremes. Such situations necessitated mouthing off the nonsensical utterances simultaneously from both sides of the mouth, which is what the machine has been doing to impress several audiences at the same time.

Israel's high point came after it conducted a Pearl Harbor style sneak attack on its neighbors, inflicting heavy damage to their fighting capability. The Jews thought of the attack as being –– not an engagement that was to start a six-year-war, which it was –– but a six-day-war that was to end all Middle Eastern wars. This turned out to be a fantasy, of course. But while it lasted, the Jews saw themselves standing on the roof of the region, challenging anyone who might dare to take them on.

Little did they know that the Egyptians, who were attacked eleven years earlier by the two colonial powers Britain and France––with Israel tagging along to learn how these things are done––had prepared themselves for this kind of surprise. They had foreseen an attack coming on the Sinai Peninsula, thus equipped a fighting force and trained it to engage the enemy in a war of attrition that should inflict serious damage on the invader, without the benefit of being protected by an air force.

In fact, that's what happened on the ground during the six years that followed the Israeli attack, but you wouldn't know it listening to the Jewish propaganda machine. Desirous to speak of big gains scored by Israel during the War of Attrition while fearful of the anticipated Egyptian counter-attack to liberate the Sinai, the propaganda machine started to spew two contradictory discourses simultaneously.

Whereas the aging rabbis in charge of the machine were turning cautious, a new mob of young pundits was taking over from them and throwing caution to the wind. Whereas the rabbis were warning the “Friends of Israel” they might be called upon to increase their contributions to Israel, and work on pressuring America to come to the rescue, the mob of young fanatics spoke of an invincible Israel that will protect itself, protect America and protect the world from the attacks of a mythical beast that is at once so powerful it can destroy the world, and so weak that Israel will crush it under its thumb.

That dual condition continues to this day but has been modified to lean more toward the cautious side. It is happening because the developments that have taken place in the Middle East during the last decade, were so overwhelming, they could not be ignored. It is that Israel is being deterred by tiny ragtag armies such as Hamas and Hezbollah, while some people continue to dream that Israel can push back against them as well as against Syria and Iran. And that's not all because the dreamers also believe that America will eventually get into the fight and obliterate all of Israel's enemies.

With the rise of antisemitism around the world, and the rise of tribalism in America, every position having to do with the Middle East, has been adopted by one faction or another in America. Thus, a typical article nowadays might contain the simultaneous assertion that Israel is invincible and that it is in danger of being defeated in the blink of an eye.

In fact, this is what you'll detect in the article that came under the title: “Hezbollah's plan for precision missile factories risks new escalation in 2020,” written by Yaakov Lappin, and published on January 14, 2020 on the website of Jewish News Syndicate.

As if Israel’s propaganda machine were standing on the roof of a building, here is what Lappin says:

“Hezbollah remains deterred by Israel's military might, but if it proceeds with the missile factories, it would be taking an enormous risk of escalation by inviting Israeli action … Israel is a powerful regional power, and its enemies understand its military might well. However, the intent of the Iranian axis to build up its capabilities is creating new potential for escalations despite Israel's powerful deterrence against its enemies”.

As if Israel’s propaganda machine were hiding in the basement of a building, here is what Lappin says:

“At the top of the list of immediate threats is the Iranian-Hezbollah plan to construct precision-guided missile factories on Lebanese soil … Giving Hezbollah and the Iranians the ability to accurately threaten strategic spots in Israel with guided missiles built on Lebanese soil looks like a step too far in the force buildup program by Israel's enemies”.

The possibility that these people are not contemplating is that the building may collapse. Instead of joining the human race in the open field of normal life, they take the risk of losing their lives whether they stand on the roof of the building or hide in its basement.

And all that because four thousand years ago, someone told them they are not of the human race and they believed him.

Grand Larceny by which to kiss Satan's Face

When someone that's known to be a good person dies, their family and friends think of them as having gone to kiss the face of God. Well then, it must be that when someone that’s known to be a bad person dies, they are thought of as gone to kiss the face of Satan.

There are many reasons why someone is considered to be bad, one of them being that they stole what belongs to others. We must, however, recognize that not all forms of stealing are equal. For example, a poor woman stealing a slice of bread to feed a hungry child, is not the same as a clerk working in a jewelry store habitually stealing items from the store to sell on the “hot” market at a reduced price.

And there are differences in the method by which stealing is done. For example, the food and beverage purchasing manager of a hotel may have an understanding with one of the suppliers, according to which the latter delivers to the home of the manager a portion of the grocery that's placed and paid for by the hotel. That's not much different from a government employee that receives a cash kickback from a contractor for awarding him a lucrative contract.

And then there is the mother of all larcenies. It is a specialty of the Jews, considered to be so adulterated, Satan frowns upon learning that someone practicing it, is coming to kiss his face. Judge for yourself, my friend for, here it is: The Jewish method consists of convincing a sucker––usually a muscular one––to give them something that belongs to someone else. In return, the Jews promise to give the sucker a piece of that something or give him a kickback of another kind.

When in the modern era, the Jews coveted Palestine and began to implement a scheme to steal it, they chose Joseph Stalin to be their partner. The man fell into the Jewish trap for a while but then woke up to the reality that he was suckered into a losing game, and got out of it in a hurry. The Jews then approached the two former colonial powers, Britain and France, and made them an offer they could not refuse. They said to them: You help us steal Palestine, and you get back all your old colonies. And the two suckers fell for the scheme. But they came out of their hypnotic stance, and faced the reality that they were suckered into a losing game, and got out of it in a hurry.

The Jews then discovered America, the mother of all suckers, and proposed a similar scheme to it. Whereas it was thought that the Americans will follow the steps taken by those who preceded them, and dump the Jews after realizing they had fallen into a Jewish trap––the Americans reacted differently. In fact, what the Jews managed to do with the Americans was implement a quid pro quo that stunned even Satan's team of Maximum Deviousness.

Here is what the Jews did: They asked the Americans to give Israel, money and weapons with which to steal Palestine and what else they could grab from the other neighbors. In addition, America was to defend Israel using its own soldiers and money. Because America is a so-called democracy, and because brain-dead politicians are elected to run it, the Jews will not have to share the spoils with the Americans. On the contrary, the deal will bring the Jews the added bonus of siphoning off more money from the American taxpayers to go to Israel. Only then, consideration will be given for a small kickback to be paid to the American politicians who betrayed their country for the glory of Israel.

You will find confirmation of all that in the article which came under the title: “The Democrat candidates have consistently ignored Israel in their debates,” written by Andrea Widburg, and published on January 18, 2020 in The American Thinker. This is an article in which the writer echoes the lamentation expressed by the Jerusalem Post at the discovery that the Democratic Party of America woke up to the reality that the country had fallen into a Jewish trap and was suckered into a losing game. And that the Democrats are now pulling out of their old nightmare. The following is a condensed version of Widburg's article:

“While the Democrat candidates had a great deal to say about Iran, none whispered the word Israel. Aaron David Miller said that, had it been a Republican debate, they would have been stumbling over one another with pro-Israeli references. The current candidates feel they have little to gain by speaking on Israel. Israel's friends haven't forgotten the way Obama treated Netanyahu at the White House; they haven't forgotten Hillary Clinton's lifetime hostility to Israel; they haven't forgotten Obama's Extortionate weapons deal with Israel. The Democrat Candidates immediately revert to Warren's trope of putting everything on the table in the service of protecting the Palestinians from Israel's depredations. Despite the Democrat Party's hostility to Israel, American Jews side with Democrats”.

While the Andrea Widburg article is a typical expression of the Jewish supplicant being insolent at the philanthropist for not giving her enough, Widburg went beyond all extremes of beastly chutzpah with this passage: “Obama's Extortionate weapons deal with Israel”.

Do you know what that is, my friend? That's the 38 billion dollars-worth of weapons that America gave Israel as a free gift, at a time when the latter was expecting more.

Whereas the Jewish media ganged up on America trying to extort more than Obama was willing to give, Widburg now accuses America of extorting from Israel –– not for getting something but –– for refusing to knuckle under Jewish pressure and give Israel more than it was willing to give. This is Jewish logic beyond flabbergasting.

Do you know what Widburg's insolence does, my friend? It makes the people who used to wonder how the Nazis could do what they did to the Jews, wonder no more. They have the answer now because it's written both on Satan's face and that of Andrea Widburg.

Highlighting a true Story with a little Tweak

Sometimes, when you have a true story to tell, you give it a little tweak to highlight aspects of it that may not be observable to all sorts of audiences. But after you've told the tweaked version of the story, and having made your point, you go back and correct what you've tweaked, thus get the story straight again.

So, imagine you're walking in the street on a nice summer day with a guy you've known for only a short period of time. You approach a restaurant that has its tables out on the sidewalk, and where the patrons are enjoying hot meals and cold drinks under the shade of the awnings. Your friend says: “See that restaurant there? I'll walk up to the light pole near it and start urinating in full view of the patrons.” You scream: “Are you crazy?” Puzzled at your reaction, he remarks: You don't seem to like the idea.

He reflects for a moment then tries a few more things on you, among them, a suggestion to push the fingers deep in his throat and force himself to throw-up. Another idea would be to blow his nose interminably while walking between the tables. Another is to pull his pants down and crap in full view of the diners. But in every case, you tell him he's a disgusting individual and will have nothing to do with his antics. Finally, it dawns on him that you don't understand him, and so he takes pain to explain himself to you.

He says he is interested in identifying the left-wing people from the right-wing people of this world, and this is one way to do it. You say, no that will not do it because people are the same across the political spectrum; they'll all be disgusted by his antics. Okay, he says, how about identifying the men from the women? And you say, no. He goes on: We'll identify the whites from the colored people and you say, no. He continues: The old from the young. But you say no, no, no … stop it here, I've had enough.

That's when he pivots around to stand face to face with you. And you stop walking. You see, he says, I really don't want to do any of these things right now, but I reserve the right to do them if and when I'll so desire in the future. However, what interests me at this time is that I want to prove one thing to you. It is that people are naturally shifty. This is why you see antisemitism manifest itself in many forms at different times around the world, and on the college campuses of America.

Well, my dear reader, the story as told here, was fiction as I warned it will be. But what it represents metaphorically is a true story whose characters are the most arrested developmentally in the fauna of Planet Earth. You can see what they do and what they miss when you read the article that was written by one of them under the title: “Antisemitism on the College Campuses Is Evolving,” written by Eitan Fischberger, and published on January 16, 2020 in the Jewish publication, Algemeiner.

In keeping with the screwy nature of Jewish logic, Fischberger begins his discussion with this assertion: “True to its chameleonic nature, antisemitism on campus is constantly changing colors.” And he goes from there to argue that humanity is wrong whether it stands on the left side of the political spectrum or it stands on its right side. This being true, in his view, he also asserts that while humanity has been shifty and wrong throughout space and time, the Jews have been steady and correct from day one.

You suggest to him that there is nothing wrong with a humanity that responds to every Jewish screwy antic the way that you were revolted by his attempt to nauseate the patrons of the restaurant with obnoxious acts of the kind which are naturally offensive to human beings. He objects to your reasoning, saying that humanity would be correct if it reacted the same way all the time and everywhere to every Jewish activity. But humanity is wrong, he says, because it reacts differently in different places at different times.

You keep trying to explain to him there are many facets to Jewish obnoxiousness, each requiring a different response. But he continues to assert that humanity is shifty, which he maintains is the source of trouble that's causing the intractable problem of antisemitism.

Tired of this game of nonsense, you come up with an idea which you hope will shut him up, and forever put an end to this kind of haggling. Here is what you do. You say: You remember what I was saying yesterday about the Nazis killing a quarter of a million Jews and not six million? Yes, I remember, he says, and adds: but when I explained the history in detail, you accepted the figure of six million.

That's the problem, you tell him. You go on to say: according to your philosophy, I shifted my opinion and that was the wrong thing to do. And so, I apologize and I go back to being steadily again by maintaining that the Nazis killed only a quarter of a million Jews.

No, no, no, he screams; go back to the ‘six million’ figure.

With an expression of incredulity on your face, and a tone of voice that drips with innocence, you ask: You want me to go back being shifty again?

Yes, yes, please do, he begs. And you say to him: Not until you start minding your f**king business, and let me mind my own. Period.