Alan Dershowitz is again spreading Confusion

 By now, everyone alive must have heard of the saying: “You can’t shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.” It was coined about a century ago by the US Supreme Court to assert that when it comes to freedom of speech, there are limits as to how freely you can use the privilege or deny it to others.

 

The reason why it’s important not to lose sight of this saying, is that Jews of the Alan M. Dershowitz variety, fiddle with the subject at every occasion that presents itself, and exploit it to their advantage. The trouble with this situation, however, is that three characteristics of the Judeo-Yiddish culture make the Jews ill-equipped to handle a subject as consequential as free speech.

 

First, the Jews suffer from the propensity of seeing things and evaluating them with the yardstick of absolutes and superlatives. This makes them stand perpetually on the fringes of acceptable norms of behavior. And so, when it comes to evaluating a situation that requires the drawing of a fine line between the demands of two competing rights, one of which may be their own, the coarseness of the Jewish approach prevents them from imagining what a fine line looks like, let alone abide by the rules that forbid them from encroaching on the neighbors’ rights.

 

Second, the Jews gave themselves the proverbial “get out of jail” card that allows them to describe someone as being extremely evil for saying or doing one thing, whereas a Jew saying or doing the same thing, is described as engaging in normal behavior. When called upon to explain this double-standard, the Jews flash the get out of jail card. That is, they call the request to explain their stance, an act of antisemitism. The net result of this state of affairs, is that Jews get to use free speech beyond the most extreme limit you can imagine, whereas non-Jews get cancelled for saying or doing a fraction of what the Jews are allowed to say and do.

 

Third, Jews have the habit of looking at themselves in the mirror where they see the full ugliness of what they stand for. When they get too nauseated by what they see and they cannot stand it anymore, they turn around and accuse others of being what they saw in themselves.

 

To hide the reality of that odd situation, thus maintain it in force at perpetuity, Jews such as Alan Dershowitz, fill the marketplace of ideas with phony arguments by which they pretend to defend free speech for all, when in reality, they defend absolute free speech for themselves and none for everyone else. You can see an example of that in the article that came under the title: “Supreme Court Cheerleads for First Amendment,” written by Alan Dershowitz, and published on June 28, 2021 on the website of the Gatestone Institute.

 

Here is a passage in the article that reeks of the stink which reveals the floating of a typical Alan Dershowitz effort to turn reality upside down. The passage reads as follows: “Free speech for me, but not for thee” has become a common mantra of the hard left, and of those institutions that kowtow to the most radical elements of society.

 

Alan Dershowitz wrote that passage right after a preamble that went as shown in the following paragraph. It is here reproduced in condensed form:

 

“The Supreme Court is still in the business of protecting offensive speech, even as big tech, universities and progressives have tried to justify pervasive censorship of speech with which they disagree. Contemporary censorship comes not from the government, but from private parties who themselves have the First Amendment right to censor speech with which they disagree. What we are experiencing is an attack on the culture of free speech that the First Amendment is designed to protect. Today institutions punish students for social media statements they may have posted when they were young”.

 

But what is it that has prompted Alan Dershowitz to accuse big tech, universities and progressives of pervasive censorship of speech? And what is it that gave him the opportunity to falsely assert that this ruling of the Supreme Court has served to send a powerful message to the effect that the Court is in the business of protecting free speech from the likes of big tech, universities and progressives?

 

Well, you won’t be surprised to know that bigmouth Alan Dershowitz has once again made a mountain out of a molehill to serve his own purpose. Here is how he described the case that the Court has tackled: “A 14-year-old made the mistake of sending a rant to a few friends, one of whose mothers was a coach.” The school disciplined the girl, and the case went to court.

 

When the Court came up with a verdict, it said nothing about big tech, universities or progressives. The message that came out of its pronouncement, is that a private organization can have a code of conduct that is reasonable, and the courts will enforce it. This case was not eligible because kids ranting among themselves the way that kids normally do, is neither protected nor prohibited by the First Amendment. It simply has nothing to do with it.

 

Despite the trivial nature of the case, it is clear that Alan Dershowitz has once again taken advantage of the situation to maintain both the condition of total freedom of speech for Jews, and the accusation of antisemitism for the non-Jews who invoke the right to free speech and use it to push back against the Jewish line.

Between the nitpickings and the warts-and-all

 If you believe that something is so perfect, it must not be reproduced into an image that suffers from the slightest imprecise stroke of the brush, or cannot be verbally described with the slightest slur of the speech, you develop the habit of looking into every reproduction and every description of the thing, and nitpick whatever you believe does not express the highest form of perfection.

 

But what happens if someone that’s looking at what you’re doing, discovers there is something weird about your perceptive abilities? What if he discovers that your eyes have been re-engineered to make them see, not what’s there, but see what fits a preconceived false narrative? To correct the distortions, you’ve been injecting into the subject, he describes the thing the way it really is, warts and all.

 

Believe it or not, this happened to what may be described as the Judeo-Satanic distortion machine of the modern era. In real life, the founders’ machine named it, “Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis.” It has different chapters throughout the United States, one being the Israel Office whose director, Tamar Sternthal wrote an article under the title: “Israel, Palestinians, journalists and the truth,” published on June 25, 2021 in the New York Daily News.

 

What prompted Stenthal to write his article is that a multitude of American journalists got sick of the Jewish propaganda machine continually distorting the truth when discussing Middle Eastern affairs. They wrote an open letter to all other journalists, asking them to reconsider the uncritical manner with which they represent the events happening in that region of the world. They pleaded with their colleagues to be more balanced in their treatment of reality, thus be more accurate in their reporting.

 

Instead of tackling the content of the letter and start a serious debate, Tamar Sternthal did what Jews always do, which is to run to a higher authority and ask them to kneecap the signatories of the letter. But given that journalism is recognized as being the topmost arbiter of all occurrences, and the most powerful influencer of all events, where do you find an authority that’s higher than journalism? Well, if you’re a Jew, you invent a higher authority, you appoint someone to it, and you ask them to kneecap those who fail to see things the Jewish way. That, in fact, is what Sternthal did. The following is a condensed version of the passages in which he made the usual Jewish request:

 

“The Columbia Journalism Review’s (CJR) mission is to be the intellectual leader in the world of journalism. It shapes the ideas that make media leaders and journalists smarter about their work. It is regarded as the profession’s elite academic institution. CJR aims to represent the very best of journalism. One would therefore expect the journal to issue a forthright, absolute rebuke of a published open letter, ‘From journalists to journalists: Why reporting on Palestine has to change’”.

 

Having done this, Tamar Sternthal did another thing that Jews do habitually. He told his readers why Jews and/or Israel should be given special consideration. When making such requests, the Jews normally cite two reasons: One is that Israel is the ooonly democracy in the Middle East. The other reason is that Israel is the ooonly Jewish state in the world. This time, however, Sternthal skipped the democracy part because he is aware that people get disgusted hearing the Jews speak those words. It is that a consensus is forming around the idea that Israel is an insult to democracy, and it has been the main reason why the American democracy was dragged into the Judeo-Trumpian sewer.

 

Here, in condensed form, is the explanation that Tamar Sternthal has given as to why Israel should be treated preferentially for being a Jewish entity that’s pretending to be a state:

 

“The Code of Ethics urges caution and precision. The media, in contrast, embrace toxic language that demonizes the world’s only Jewish state, even as Jews on the street and Jewish institutions across America are under attack at alarming levels. The letter [points out that] apartheid, persecution, and ethnic supremacy, are increasingly gaining international recognition, and we, as journalists, need to examine whether our coverage reflects that reality”.

 

In other words, Tamar Sternthal says that the American media must pity Israel and the Jews, and must stand with them because they are attacked in America. He contends that such attacks are happening, simply because Israel — with the consent and encouragement of Jews almost everywhere — is known to practice apartheid, persecution, and ethnic supremacy in occupied Palestine. So what! Israelis are not the first to engage in such practices, and get away with it … and they will not be the last, the author of this infamy seems to say.

 

What Sternthal is trying to do here, having mustered as much subtlety as he could, is impress upon the journalists of America the need to whitewash Israel’s practice of apartheid, persecution, and ethnic supremacy, so that Jews in America will live in peace, and not be attacked ever again by disgusted ordinary citizens. It follows from this, that the journalists are asked to view the Israeli practices, not as abhorrent criminal behavior that must change or be prosecuted, but a welcome attempt to rid humanity of its inferior races.

 

If this is not taking a page out of the Josef Mengele playbook, ask the Evangelicals what they think it is. They are, after all, the ones so convinced of the supremacy of Jews, they do all that’s in their power to uproot the Palestinians and throw them out of Palestine so that the Jews can get in their places and start the process of exerting dominion over the planet and the human species as ordained by the Almighty.

They sought it both ways and got neither

 Who might have thought that Jewish style accuracy in reporting would open the door to demonstrate the illegitimacy of the entity they call Israel? Thanks to Chloe Greenfield of the so-called Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting, this is what happened.

 

To argue her case, Chloe Greenfield wrote an article that misfired. It came under the title: “The push to ‘other’ the identities of Israeli Jews,” and the subtitle: “Anti-Semitic groups on college campuses level accusations that Israel is some kind of white, colonialist endeavor, neglecting the fact that the country is primarily composed of people of color.” It was published on June 23, 2021 in Jewish News Syndicate.

 

Greenfield’s point is that “Israel’s founding is a story of liberation, not of colonialism.” Well, liberation means conflict that leads to combat. Carried to extreme, this means terror carried out by armed groups against mainly unarmed civilians in an effort to steal their properties. Greenfield has skipped telling this part of the story, and went on to say the following:

 

“Jews and Arabs lived in what was the British Mandate of Palestine. This territory included what is now Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, and not a country named ‘Palestine.’ No such country ever existed. With the impending expiry of the mandate, in November 1947 the UN General Assembly recommended partitioning the land into two states—one for Jews, encompassing areas of a Jewish majority, and one for Arabs in an Arab-majority area”.

 

Beside omitting the role that terrorism has played in her story, the above passage contains an irrelevance that’s born out of intellectual dishonesty of the kind that only Jews are capable of committing. The irrelevance is this: “No such country [Palestine] ever existed.” The intent here is to fashion a tailor-made rule on the spot; one that would serve the interests of Jews and only the Jews for this occasion.

 

The idea behind it all is this: Because it can be falsely alleged that no independent country in modern time was called Palestine, terrorists from Europe — organized under the names, Irgun and Hagenah — had the right to invade the territory which, Greenfield admits was called “Mandate of Palestine,” and rename it Israel against the will of the indigenous population that lived there since the beginning of time. What can be more intellectually crooked than this? What can be more Jewish than this?

 

And so, to inject a modicum of honesty in the debate, we factor into the discussion the historical reality that White European terrorism has played a decisive role in getting the situation in occupied Palestine to where it is today. To that end, we need to recall that since the beginning of recorded history, the number of Jews in any country has never exceeded the one or two percent level of the population. The same was true in Palestine where the majority of the population was Muslim and Christian.

 

It then occurred to someone named Ze’ev Jabotinsky that the world was in such a mess, it was ripe for a Jewish terrorist organization to go fight both the Brits who were in charge of the Mandate of Palestine, and the indigenous Palestinian farmers who never saw a gun or knew what it was used for. And so, Jabotinsky formed the Irgun terrorist organization because in his view, “Only Jewish armed force would ensure the Jewish state.” His terror organization later splintered into several other groups, chief among them, the savage Hagenah.

 

But take note of this, my friend, take note of this: None of the terror groups were composed of Palestinian Jews, or any Arab, Asian or African Jews. They were mostly Yiddish-speaking White European Jews with a few who spoke unaccented European languages. Realizing that they were a small minority in Palestine, the Jewish terrorists implemented a two-pronged plan. One, they called on Jews everywhere in the world to come settle in Israel. Two, they killed or chased the Palestinian farmers out of their lands, forcing them to seek refuge in the neighboring Arab countries.

 

From the outset, the White European Jews established themselves as bosses in every field of government and public affairs. To this day, they are making it impossible for other Jews to occupy a position of authority, however small it may be.

 

When there came a time during which the debate concerning the human condition rested on the idea that the world was divided into two halves, one being the industrious North, and the other being the backward South, some commentators began to make the point that the division was pitting the White North against the Colored South. Amid the uproar, two self-identifying voices pierced through the noise, and made a claim that shall remain tattooed on their foreheads forever.

 

One voice was that of the Soviets that had invaded Afghanistan by invitation from the local government. The criticism of the Soviets in America was so intense, the Soviets asked the Americans to tone down that criticism if only because they were the White people of the North trying to tame and civilize the colored people of the South.

 

This happened at about the same time that the Palestinian resistance against the occupation was intensifying. In response, the Israelis adopted tactics that were criticized by the Europeans. When some American media began to echo the Europeans, America’s Jews reminded the politico-journalists of the Beltway that Israel was made of White European Jews who must not be criticized. In making that statement, the Jews ignored the existence of other groups in Israel the way that you would ignore how many pieces of furniture were present in a dance hall containing a hundred human guests.

 

So now that the glossy image of the industrious White has been replaced by the terror of White Supremacists, the forever shifty Jews — Chloe Greenfield among them — have changed their mind about who they are. No, no, no, says Chloe; we are not White, we are colored.

 

Just imagine Ivanka Trump wearing a black face, appropriating an African hairdo, and pretending she was never a White woman.

 

And what about Chloe Greenfield? Does she see herself as a white-skinned Jewish Palestinian from the no-name land of the Philistines? Or what exactly is she?

 

Pray tell in the name of accuracy in reporting.

The evil that inadvertently spawned the good

 There is the saying: “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” Well, let me tell you this is a mouthful because aside from the classic interpretation, which is that revanchism is not a good thing, you can interpret the saying in one of many ways depending on your mood.

 

For example, someone that believes in the saying: “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,” would say, it’s enough for him to take one eye, without having to give up one of his own. Another would say that reciprocating the wrong he did to us should be avoided, but he reserves the right to do it to us once again.

 

And then, there is the reality of those who can never get it right. It is that they throw more than one false accusation at someone they hate, and in so doing nullify the effectiveness of their message. You can see that in the article which came under the title: “Iran just elected a mass murderer — so naturally Team Biden wants to negotiate,” written by Liel Leibowitz, and published on June 22, 2021 in New York Post.

 

Already, the title alone contains one attack on Iran that just elected a very bad person, and one attack on Team Biden that is by nature so retarded, it wants to negotiate, says Leibowitz. And when you go down to the first sentence which makes up the first paragraph of the article, you see an attack on the Biden administration too, which Liel Leibowitz accuses of insanity and the commission of folly in lieu of foreign policy. And why is that? Because, says Leibowitz, the Biden administration does not see mass murder committed by Iran on a scale that would equal the mass murder of say, Israel for example.

 

As if this were not enough to fill you with suspicions about the veracity of an account given by an author who cannot mention an event without twisting it to the maximum extent to reflect badly on the object of his hatred, Liel Leibowitz goes on to say the following about the Biden Team: “…watched as another unfree election in Iran resulted in Ebrahim Raisi taking the reins as president … a regime now governed by a man known for executing thousands — the female ones raped to preemptively keep them from reaching paradise.” Make what you want of that; I have no idea what goes on in the place behind the Barrier of the Final Frontier where no man has gone before and returned to tell his story.

 

Having asserted that Ebrahim Raisi is taking the reins of government in Iran, Leibowitz went on to complain that the White House is justifying negotiating with Iran by telling, “the same old story,” which is that, “we negotiate or risk a total, all-out regional war.” But then, guess what happened, my friend. What happened is that Liel Leibowitz admitted that so far, he was engaged in idle sophistry to blow off steam while pretending to discuss a grave subject that has real war and peace ramifications.

 

The truth of the matter, said our esteemed author, is this: “The Iranian election, the Smart Set in Washington insists, changes nothing, largely because it’s the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and not the president, who really pulls the strings,” in Iran. So, there we are, back to square one. Not so, says Leibowitz, because now, we start the same music all other again, except that this time, we aim our fiery insults at the ayatollah instead of Raisi. Here is a taste of that:

 

“What the Smart Set misses is that Ayatollah Khamenei himself is an intransigent theocrat who will never, ever surrender his regime’s hatred for the West and designs on the region. And given Khamenei’s age and ailing health, the regime is sending an unmistakable signal about its future direction by selecting a hard-liner in Raisi”.

 

If that’s the case, how should the Biden administration handle the Iran issue, we ask? Good question, says Liel Leibowitz because he has the right answer to this most important question. Here is his answer: Do as Donald Trump did, he explains. And this takes us right back to the moniker at the start of his article. It went like this: “Doing the same thing and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.” Is this guy, Leibowitz insane, or what?

 

The truth is that the Judeo-Israeli propaganda machine, which includes the mob of Jewish pundits in America, has been attacking the (P5+1) negotiations for several months before the signing of the deal. So did Donald Trump during his election campaign. He followed through after his election by getting out of the deal, and by instituting a maximum pressure campaign against Iran. So we ask: What did that accomplish beside exposing the insanity of those running the Judeo-Israel propaganda machine, the mob of Jewish pundits, the Donald Trump advisors and Liel Leibowitz?

 

The answer is that nothing was accomplish for America or Israel or World Jewry. The only ones who seem to have gained something from that ill-advised gambol, were the Iranians who were forced by necessity to spawn a great deal of the inventions that turned their country into a formidable science and technology center.

 

It is too bad that all the inventiveness went into producing war equipment, but now that the Arab countries have heeded the Obama advice, and have accepted to share the Middle East with Iran, the latter’s science and technology can be converted to peaceful uses.

 

Something good will most likely come out of the evil that was committed by a madman who once occupied the White House.

There will not be another full-blown Cold War

 To have a Cold War, you must have at least one party willing and able to sustain it for a long enough period of time to make the rest of the world feel its impact.

 

The only country that fits this description at this time, is the United States of America. But we must ask whether or not America will have the ability to sustain a Cold War against China –– let alone a China-Russia alliance –– for a sustained period of time.

 

When it comes to harboring the desire to poke other nations in the rib for a good reason, the wrong reason or no reason at all, America has armies of advocates who continually produce arguments by the tons to justify taking such useless actions. But when it comes to having the means to sustain such actions for a period of time as it did in the past … well then, that’s another story altogether.

 

I’ll discuss in a minute or so why I believe America will no longer be in a position to sustain a Cold War for an extended period of time. But before we get to this, we should take a look at what Joschka Fischer says about the same subject. He wrote an article under the title: “The Last Thing This Century Needs,” and had it published on June 21, 2021 in Project Syndicate.

 

“The West views China as a civilizational alternative. A military confrontation seems to have become a possibility. But on closer examination, the Cold War comparison is misleading. The rivalry between the US and the Soviet Union was preceded by a catastrophic hot war. As soon as the war was over, the faceoff between Soviet communism and Western democratic capitalism resumed. The nuclear age made war for global hegemony impossible. The situation between the West and China today is totally different. China does not define its difference from the West according to its position on private property. It simply does and says whatever is necessary to maintain one-party rule. The Chinese system’s hybrid character is what accounts for its success. What should a Cold War II be about? Perhaps the issue is more about power than economics. But I will venture a prediction that the experience of the pandemic forces us to take a long and wide view. The looming climate crisis will force the great powers to embrace cooperation for the sake of humankind, regardless of who is Number One. The question of who is on top will be decided by which powers step up to provide the leadership and competence that the situation demands”.

 

There is no doubt that all the factors mentioned by Joschka Fisher in his article, will play a role in determining the relationships that will be forged as the twenty first century rolls on. But I see two other major factors which are so obvious, everyone must be seeing them, but for some unexplained reason, no one seems willing to talk about them in the open.

 

One factor is that, for political and cultural reasons, America’s friends and/or allies in Europe, the Middle East and Asia, will put some distance between themselves and America as they began to do already. The other factor is that the financial clout that’s currently in America’s hand, will gradually diminish in concert with the relative shrinkage of its economy, and the reduction of the dominance it has over the world’s financial institutions.

 

The current situation is such that foreign analysts around the world have determined, America is no longer governed by rational people who wrestle with the issues alone or collectively before taking a decision. These foreigners watch and read the American media where they pick out the loudest voice that’s rising from among the mob in the echo chamber of the day. They guess what will impress the American politicians who are too busy raising funds to get serious about what they were elected to do. And the foreigners wait with trepidation to see what America’s politicians will end up doing that will surprise and shock the world.

 

Time after time, foreign leaders have been dismayed by the promiscuous ways that America has slapped sanctions on nations that do not deserve being sanctioned, but were because the loud voices of the echo chamber so demanded.

 

In turn, the foreign leaders have decided that they cannot trust America reforming and going back to being a good citizen of the word. In response, the big and small nations of the world, began the process of constructing new financial systems that will replace what America has monopolized for too long already, and has lately been misusing flagrantly.

 

Parallel to that, the nations of the world are coming together in ways that oppose the advice America’s politicians are getting from the echo chamber. The latter are told to pit nation against nation, and exploit the differences between them. In fact, America’s State Department has ben geared to do just that over the decades, and seems incapable of getting rid of the old and destructive habits.

 

For example, Saudi Arabia and Iran are talking rapprochement. Egypt, Turkey and Qatar are becoming friends again. Most of the Arab nations, and many others are opening embassies in Syria. China and Russia are becoming strategic allies. The Western Europeans are seeking and doing vigorous business with Russia and Iran. And the list goes on.

 

As it happens, each of these moves takes America down a notch because it opposes them instead of joining the new world that’s emerging –– not to seek confrontation –– but to cooperate with the others in the noble quest to advance human Civilization.

When Actions speak louder than Words

 Because no one sane will dispute an observation that was made by all kinds of people in all kinds of places around all kinds of time periods, we must declare an absolute truth the saying that goes: Actions speak louder than words.

 

This being the case, it is perfectly appropriate to tell a short story, a fable if you wish, that will illustrate the wisdom inherent to that saying. Here is the story:

 

Once upon a time, there was a shopping mall containing all sorts of stores that sold all sorts of goods and services. One of the stores sold hardware, and a short distance away from it, another store sold shoes. A dispute erupted between the two owners, and led to a serious fight between them. The other neighbors called the police, which promptly arrived on the scene.

 

Because neither owner wanted to lay charges against the other, the police tried to adjudicate the case on the spot. To that end, they asked each of the owners to tell his side of the story. The seller of shoes said, “the hardware man is so evil, he tried to steal shoes from my store.” The police asked if the man actually stole any shoes, and the store owner said no, he never did but he had the intention because he is evil.

 

Asked to tell his side of the story, the hardware man said that the seller of shoes was so evil, “he stole a large amount of my hardware, which can be seen in his store, strewn among the shoes he is having a difficult time selling.” The police looked into the shoe store and saw the stolen hardware. Because actions speak louder than words — regardless as to what the two men have been saying — the police declared that hardware in the shoe store spoke loudly to the effect that the seller of shoes was the culprit.

 

Well, my friend, you must have guessed by now that this is an allegory representing the story of the Jewish propaganda machine that put itself in the business of confusing the English-speaking world, especially America’s ill-advised Evangelicals. It did so, in fact, to the extent of reducing these people to dodos who would, for example, look at something like the January 6 insurrection at the Capitol in the District of Columbia, and think of it as tourists celebrating the advent of the messiah.

 

In addition, the propaganda machine made these Evangelical fanatics look at losers from around the world who convert to Judaism and claim to be more indigenous to the land of Palestine than the Palestinians who lived there since the beginning of time — and believe they are looking at the “Chosen” who were promised to inherit the Earth and all its content, including the human species.

 

One of those known to be of an extremely fanatic religious stock; one that’s continually adding to the dumbing of America, is Cal Thomas. He wrote yet another article dedicated to the effort of sending America backward another notch or two. His article came under the title: “Biden’s dangerous game with Iran,” and the subtitle: “Election of Raisi should send a message to Biden administration that re-entering nuclear deal is a fool’s errand.” It was published on June 23, 2021 in The Washington Times.

 

The following paragraph is a compilation — reproduced in condensed form — of the pertinent passages in Thomas’s article:

 

“The Islamic Republic of Iran is not a republic, but it is Islamic. Iran puts supreme power in religious leaders, not the people who are jailed or murdered by the regime. Radical Islam interprets the Koran by political leadership that seeks to impose its beliefs on the citizens and the world by force. Jews are not known to eliminate nations or impose their will on others. The election in Iran places the presidency in the hands of Ebrahim Raisi, it ought to send a message to the Biden administration that to re-enter the nuclear deal is a fool’s errand. The deal will not benefit Israel. According to The Times of Israel, Khamenei has developed a plan for the destruction of Israel. Why would anyone think they can negotiate with religious fanatics? How can anyone negotiate with those who want to rule and dominate the world? Do they believe they can sway those who proclaim to take orders from their god? They believe their god wants them to pursue an agenda of death to Jews and to eliminate Israel”.

 

As can be seen, Cal Thomas makes the delusional claim that Jews do not eliminate nations or impose their will on others. Because we cannot take this declaration seriously, especially in view of the reality that millions of Americans believe an election was stolen in America, we must think that a crooked reason must have motivated Cal Thomas to stick those humongous lies in the article. What could be that reason?

 

Does he mean to say that the Jews are not trying to eliminate Palestine as a nation, even though they would poke him in the eye saying it is what they are trying to do? And does he mean to say that the Jews are not, at this moment, imposing their autocratic will on the American people, including himself that’s behaving like the obedient slave who would emasculate himself for the privilege of having a Jewish ass to kiss day and night 24/7?

 

Cal Thomas must be one of those who believe that the January 6 insurrection at the Capitol, was made of tourists celebrating the advent of the messiah.

 

Come to think of it, it could well be that Cal Thomas thinks of himself as the messiah, instructed by his god to give the Jews what does not belong to them.

We must rethink the concept of winning

 When you desire something and work to accomplish it, you’ll consider it a win if and when you accomplish. And so, you establish in your mind, a link between the desire to accomplish something and the concept of winning. It follows that if your desire changes, so will your perception of winning.

 

This demands that you pose a serious question: How can you tell that what you wish for at any moment is the correct desire to have? In other words, might you not pursue and accomplish a goal today, and then regret having had the wrong desire to begin with?

 

Desire is an emotion that develops on the spur of the moment in response to an event. On the other hand, regret is a mental state that develops over time as a result of studying the hurried response to an event. If the study confirms the correctness of the initial response, the inquiry ends here. But if the study finds fault with the initial response, we face a new situation; one that requires rethinking the conditions and/or assumptions which caused the initial desire to develop in the first place.

 

This is what comes to mind when you read Clifford D. May’s article that came under the title: “Biden blew a chance for a win in his meeting with Putin,” published on June 22, 2021 in The Washington Times.

 

Reading the article, you immediately establish that it is more than the regret of a single event. It is the regret of a chain of events having a common theme, even if they unfolded over a long period of time and involved various personalities who faced a somewhat similar situation. In fact, here is how Clifford May started his discussion: “Time and again, we fail to understand Russia and its rulers”.

 

To explain his point, Clifford May cited the example of Roosevelt that did not heed the warning of Churchill who cautioned about Russia. But Roosevelt convinced himself that Stalin liked him, says May, thus gave him everything he could in the hope that Stalin will not annex anything, but work for democracy and peace. And then the Cold War erupted only to prove otherwise.

 

The Soviet Union then died in 1991, says Clifford May, and once again, “most of us had great expectations for Russia.” But we were disappointed as demonstrated by the fact that in the recent summit between the American President Joe Biden and the Russian President Vladimir Putin, Biden was compelled to raise concerns regarding “Mr. Putin’s multiple crimes,” May explains.

 

The current condition of the world being the concern of Clifford May, that’s what he used the rest of the article to discuss. He proceeded to name some of what he says have been Putin’s crimes. They included Russia’s participation in the Syrian war, the occupation of Ukraine and Georgia, the cyberattacks against American installations and the quashing of media, including Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

 

Clifford May expressed dismay that Mr. Putin denied the cybercrime accusations but said he was not surprised because, “Hey, if million of people are willing to believe China’s rulers when they charge that COVID-19 originated in the US, and Iran’s rulers when they say their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, why should Mr. Putin not be offered the same courtesy?”

 

And that’s where and when the entire Clifford May polemical construct came crackling down like a flaming Zeppelin. It’s because in going after the mouse that invaded the room, Clifford May ignored the elephant that resides in that same room. The elephant happens to be the collaboration between America and Israel, both of whom pioneered and continue to fund as well as practice the crimes that Clifford May has accused Russia of committing in the past. These include the participation in the Syrian war, the occupation of Palestine, the cyberattacks against Iran’s installations as well as the assassination of their scientists, and the bombing of Palestinian audio-visual and print media outlets.

 

To authenticate and reinforce the absurdity of the master-sinner scolding the student-sinner for doing nothing worse than imitate the master, Clifford May rejected Vladimir Putin’s claim of moral equivalence between Russia and America. If you want to know, this is one of the Judeo-Yiddish habits they infused into the American culture, the reason why the latter was taken down to the level of the banal.

 

But the thing is that the Jews have always wanted that banality to prevent others from crowding them on the pedestal of the “Chosen.” It happened that for a long time, the Jews would not allow anyone to come close to sharing the pedestal with them. But a reversal of fortunes began to creep into the global situation, and those who stand high are being pulled down to make room for the downtrodden who will replace them on the pedestals.

 

Because misery seeks company, the Jews are now inviting the Americans to share both the pedestal and the anticipated downfall with them. So, the question to ask is this: Will America play the confrontation game against others, and be flushed down the Jewish tube?

 

Or will America act like an elder statesman and guide the world toward a future that will be rewarding for everyone regardless of their political belief or affiliation?

 

That’s the golden formula, if America works to master it, that will lead to the continued scoring of big wins.

The same old advice from a ‘reformed’ Bolton

 The more things change the more they stay the same, goes the old saying. It certainly applies to John Bolton who moved from the Fox News crowd of extremists to the more centrist crowds elsewhere in the domain of audio-visual media.

 

That’s not the case, however, when it comes to the print media. In this domain, John Bolton has remained in touch with the old crowd, from where he continues to preach his old gospel of hardline war mongering. He did it again, writing an article under the title: “Biden should use Raisi election for Iran course change,” published on June 19, 2021 in The Washington Examiner.

 

Bolton’s first paragraph is a single sentence that seems to bolt right out the mirror in which Bolton must have been looking. Look what the sentence says: “Iran’s hard-line mullahs left nothing to chance in Friday's presidential election.” Replace Iran with America, also replace mullahs with Bolton, and you get this: “America’s hard-line Bolton leaves nothing to chance…” It fits like hand in glove.

 

Did Bolton meet his match with the advent of Raisi? Or is Raisi’s hawkish temperament a reflection of what the Jewish propaganda machine has been infusing into America’s politico-journalistic circles where the pastime is to go hysterical predicting what will happen, and be proven wrong even when their predictions concern their own backyard. In fact, this scene plays itself without fail each time that a newly appointed justice to the Supreme Court votes contrary to the crowd’s predictions. Despite all that, however, these people remain undaunted, believing they can expertly predict what a foreign leader will do when he gets in power. That’s what Bolton just did, not thinking of the consequences to his credibility.

 

To make the point that “the spectrum of Tehran’s leadership has ranged from hard-liner to extreme hard-liner,” John Bolton cited the example of Rouhani being a hard-liner and not the moderate he was thought to be, whereas the newly elected Raisi will prove to be an extreme hard-liner. But how does he know that? He knows it, he says, because The New York Times has reported on this subject.

 

Apparently, the Times said that in a remarkable admission, Mr. Rouhani “suggested” Iran duped the Europeans while negotiating with them. In fact, while talking with the Europeans in Tehran, the Iranians were installing equipment in Isfahan, said Hassan Rouhani, according to The New York Times. Thus, by creating a calm environment, the Iranians were able to complete the work in Isfahan, whatever work that was … a baby-formula factory or a uranium enrichment installation or what?

 

Unfortunately for Bolton, when you read that passage as he wrote it in his article, you realize that he quoted the New York Times, which itself quoted what the translator had translated of what Rouhani was reported to have said. Looking at this piling of hearsay on top of hearsay, you’ll conclude that Bolton’s writing reveals the shakiness of the New York Times assumptions about Iran. In fact, these assumptions were based on the interpretation that someone did of the translation from Persian to English, of words that Hassan Rouhani may or may not have uttered. Look closely at the quote, and you’ll see that the Times has in the same breath asserted that the Iranians “duped” the Europeans and that Rouhani’s words only suggest that Iran has duped the Europeans.

 

In any case, whether Iran did or did not dupe the Europeans, the fact that Rouhani has preferred to achieve — in a calm environment rather than a violent one — whatever the Iranians were doing in Isfahan, is proof enough that contrary to what Bolton says, Hassan Rouhani is a moderate human being.

 

Seeing that Bolton has gone through enormous troubles to paint a distorted picture of reality, we wonder what it is that motivated him to do so. Fortunately, it does not take us long to figure out that it all comes down to his passionate opposition to the Iran nuclear deal. Here, in condensed form, is a compilation of the passages that speak to his position on the subject:

 

“Resurrecting this deal is a priority for the Biden team. There is little doubt that the limiting constraints on what Biden is prepared to give away are the negative domestic political consequences for surrendering. Whatever minor modifications may occur to the deal, Iran will insist that key provisions and understandings remain unchanged. Don’t expect international inspectors to get any more access than the levels they now enjoy. Biden isn’t contemplating clawing back critical concession that Iran be allowed to enrich uranium to reactor-grade levels”.

 

Having understood that repeating the old advice the same old way will not lead to success, but eager to achieve the same old goals, John Bolton has decided to convey the old message using a different approach. In short, he decided to play out the principle of the old wine in a new bottle.

 

What Bolton says now that’s different from before, is that he called President Biden’s ideas a surrender to the ayatollahs, and warned that this will not sit well with the American public. Of course, he does not believe this will scare Joe Biden, but he gave it as free advice anyway, hoping that enough people will hear about it and be motivated to tell the White House, they oppose returning America to the Iran nuclear deal.

 

This is a shot in the dark that John Bolton himself believes has almost zero chance of hitting the target. And here is how he expressed his pessimism:

 

“If there is any chance Biden might be dissuaded from his crusade, Raisi’s election provides him an excuse to back away. Don’t hold your breath over he will avail himself of the opportunity”.

They have Power and Privilege and seek more

 Until recently, the food stand, operated by a vendor, such as you see in some cities around the world, did not go down in history as a focal point around which an anti-Authority revolutionary movement originated; one that might have been so powerful as to shake a region, much less the world.

 

This is not to say that the intersection between food and the Authority did not play an important role in the shaping of history, both culturally and politically. Marie Antoinette’s “Let them eat cake,” is an example of that. But a more poignant example, appears in Victor Hugo’s novel “Les Miserables,” in which the long and eventful life of Jean Valjean was set on a course early on by the simple act of stealing bread to feed his hungry nephew. Even after serving a long sentence in jail, Valjean was recognized and pursued wherever he went, by his former prison guard who never forgave him for stealing bread.

 

Whereas these literal and literary events were said to have unfolded in Europe’s France two centuries ago, a different version of the intersection between food and the authority, unfolded across the Mediterranean Sea; more precisely in the North African country of Tunisia, early in the twenty first century. This is where the brutal treatment of a food vendor by the police caused the vendor to protest by setting himself on fire, an act that itself, set off an anti-Authority protest movement across the Arab World. It was named “Arab Spring” but was later renamed “Arab Nightmare” by people who wouldn’t know a spring from a nightmare from a hole in their anatomy.

 

Spring or nightmare, the ensuing reverberations resulting from that movement since they reached Europe, are gradually entrenching themselves as important events not only in the annals of Arab history, but also European history. It’s because millions of Levant refugees were absorbed into the various countries of Europe, not always by a welcoming society.

 

The massive coverage that these events have generated as they unfolded, matched the gravity they represented to the future development of the countries that surround the Mediterranean Sea. But there was one omission that meant little at the time, and yet represented a pattern as important to America as the Levant migration was important to Europe. It is the story of a Jew in Israel who lived on a fixed income and could not afford the rising price of cheese. He set himself on fire in protest, but his story was quickly extinguished lest it pull down the mask that’s hiding Israel’s shortcomings.

 

The degree to which trivial and important stories are hidden or highlighted by the media, is what concerns the American portion of this tale. To understand it and see its connection to America, you might want to read the news item that came under the title: “Israeli vendor booted from Philadelphia food truck event,” written by Mark Lungariello, and published on June 20, 2021 in The New York Post.

 

It is the story of a food truck event to which an Israeli vendor was invited but was later disinvited when the organizers received word that there might be demonstrations protesting the participation of an Israeli in the event. The brouhaha that resulted when the story went public, caused the organizers to cancel the event altogether. Does that mean the case is closed? Not on your life. Not when a Jew is involved.

 

Whereas the story of the Jew in Israel, who set himself on fire, was hushed to protect the false image of a pig-like culture splattered with lipstick, look at the publicity that was mounted in America to raise the profile of a Jew that may or may not have been wronged — and you’ll be stunned by the contrast. Here is how Mark Lungariello reported the American story:

 

“Rep. Brendan Boyle chimed in, saying he was stunned and saddened by the decision. It represents surrendering to the threats of bigots, he said in a statement. He added that such threats should be investigated by law enforcement. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) said it was deeply disturbed by the events, as were the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia and the Jewish Community Relations Council of Philadelphia. The ADL said the decision to bow to this antisemitic intimidation was wrong. It added, we will be meeting with the organizers to provide education on antisemitism and share communal security resources”.

 

Not only was the amount of publicity stunning, but so was the number of institutions (such as the US Congress) and organizations (mostly Jewish) that pronounced themselves on the subject. They called for actions that range from the prosecution of yet-to-be identified culprits, to the education of the public on matters related to antisemitism.

 

Publicity being one of the metrics by which to gauge the degree of privilege accorded a group, there can be no doubt that in America, Jews are light years ahead of everyone when it comes to being privileged by the institutions and organizations that cater to the needs of the public.

 

This said, is there another aspect to the privilege that’s enjoyed by the Jews, we should know about? Yes, there is, and it is even more corrosive to the American system of governance than the one just cited. Here is the revolting story that has revealed the privilege:

 

To celebrate the inauguration of the newly elected Barack Obama to the presidency of the United States, a number of celebrities, among them former President Jimmy Carter, were invited to the party. He was then mysteriously disinvited, and no explanation was given.

 

Years later, a cretin little Jew that goes by the name Alan Dershowitz revealed the secret. He bragged he was the one behind the disinvitation, something he did because Jimmy Carter had refused to kiss the Jewish ring when everybody else was dying to kiss the Jewish ass.

 

That’s how much power and privilege the Jews have in America. Are you surprised?

Listen ye: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you

 You are insane by definition if you keep going into the frying pan or if you keep going into the fire, trying to achieve impossible to attain goals.

 

In any case, definition or not, you are doubly insane if you go out of the frying pan, into the fire. Sadly, that’s what America is preparing to do — not because it wants to, but because it is told to do so yet again. Shockingly, like a young maiden that’s wooed by a gang of pedophiles, America is listening with interest.

 

The grandest political rapist of all time was Winston Churchill who convinced America to spread itself thin across the globe in an effort to contain a Soviet Union that had neither the will nor the potential to break out of its territory at a time when its Warsaw Pact satellites were in a state of instability, and its own federated republics were getting restless.

 

After Churchill came the French who were taking a severe beating in their colony of Vietnam. Seeing their army go down the tube of defeat, they scared the Americans into believing that if Vietnam fell to the Communists, a domino effect will result and then, one after the other, the nations that make up the Indochinese bloc, will go communist one after the other, and threaten America itself.

 

Then came the Jews who told an America that began to stagger in Vietnam: No, no, no, the Communist domino effect will not happen in Southeast Asia. It will happen in the Middle East, which is why America must pivot from the East of the Asian continent to its West. That would bring it into the neighborhood of helpless Israel which needed the protection of mighty America so that it can protect helpless America from a Soviet Union that had begun the process of dissolving. Don’t ask me to explain this Jewish logic.

 

Then came all kinds of special interest groups such as the Cuba lobby, the Taiwan lobby, the Free Syria lobby, the hate-Iran lobby, the military-industrial complex … etcetera. And they all set-up shop in and around the Beltway of pimps and prostitutes, madams and gigolos, instructing America’s congressional fifth columnists how to sell their country for a fistful of Benjamins before retiring filthy rich, soaking in the sun on the decomposing body of the superpower they helped to kill.

 

America listened to the rubbish of all those advisors and did as it was told, not thinking for a moment that what it was doing to others will provoke them to someday do it to America. And that, in fact, is what happened in due course. Yet, instead of retrenching, America is now contemplating coming out the frying pan to jump into the fire. Which, you’ll agree, is an inexplicable display of double insanity.

 

Still, because times have changed, America was forced to modify the game it used to play with the use of its military power or the threat thereof. America now considers the military option as one of last resort, having developed other alternatives. Two such alternatives are reviewed in this discussion. One came under the title: “How America Can Support Iranians’ Election Boycott,” an article that was written by Mark Wallace and Jordan Steckler, and was published on June 15, 2021 in The National Interest. The other article came under the title: “The Difficult task of Exploiting Cracks in the Russia-China Relationship,” written by John Ruehl, and published on June 19, 2021 also in The National Interest.

 

Here, in condensed form, is what Mark Wallace and Jordan Steckler say America should do to give the diaspora Iranians what they want:

 

“The rise of Raisi’s political stock has to do with the regime’s need to sustain its grip on power. We are not powerless to stymie the Khamenei-Raisi alliance. Millions of Iranians in Iran and within the Iranian diaspora would like to see the weakened regime stripped of power. We must be ready to provide even greater pressure on a theocratic regime. Increasing economic pressure, diplomatic isolation, and attention to its direct responsibility for immeasurable suffering can change the forces that drive Iran’s nuclear program and underpin the totality of its malign behavior”.

 

As can be seen, the intent of the two Jewish writers, Mark Wallace and Jordan Steckler, is to disrupt the coherence that exists in the Iranian political system so as to render it degenerate and ineffective the way that other Jewish leaders dealt with the American system of governance. They rendered the system effective only when the US gives money to Israel and the other Jewish causes in America, such as paying to brainwash schoolchildren with scary stories about the Holocaust.

 

And here, in condensed form, is what John Ruehl says America can do to drive the wedge between Russia and China:

 

“Understanding why the Chinese-Russian relationship is strengthening is critical to revealing the cracks in it, and the potential to exploit them. Moscow and Beijing have put great effort into promoting their partnership. The two countries have described the current state of their relations as the best in history. Russian ambassador to China stated that Russia would inform the Chinese that Russia-China relations would not change no matter the attitude of the United States towards Russia. Xi declared that by strengthening their strategic cooperation, China and Russia can resist any attempt to suppress and divide the two countries. The United States will be willing to do more to woo Russia as a way of weaning it away from China’s embrace. This can only happen if Russia is offered terms that suit its own national interest, including freezing Ukraine’s EU and NATO membership, and easing sanctions on Russia”.

 

Here, John Ruehl the Jew, is suggesting that America should backstab its friends and would be friends to buy the goodwill of the Russian adversary by breaking up the relationship Russia has with America’s rival, Xi Jinping of China. This is not a love triangle; it is a love-hate triangle that’s motivated by no logic that can be explained … unless you think of it as Jewish logic.

 

But, as you can see, we’re back in the Elizabethan era of writing second rate drama, except that in this case, the drama is supposed to unfold in the real world.

Lies killed Journalism long ago. Truth is working to resuscitate it

 The Washington Post is flashing the moniker “Democracy dies in Darkness.” Jonathan S. Tobin who doesn’t like what the Washington Post and other journalistic outlets have morphed into, is countering with the claim that Journalism is dying in broad daylight. But the fact is that Jewish lies killed journalism long ago, and “truth” is now working to resuscitate it.

 

To make his point, Jonathan Tobin wrote an article under the title: “Journalism is dying in broad daylight,” and had it published on June 18, 2021 in The Jewish News Syndicate. The subtitle accompanying that title, is a long blurb that tells what prompted Tobin to write this article. It goes like this: “An open letter from journalists demanding bias against Israel shows how toxic leftist ideologies are conquering newsrooms and why faith in the press may already be a lost cause”.

 

Early on in the discussion, Tobin describes the five legs upon which stands his view as to where journalism is at today. Here are those legs:

 

One: Today, many news reporters have become opinion writers on the side, which would have been considered abandonment of professional responsibility by yesterday’s journalists, no matter their political point of view.

 

Here, Jonathan Tobin has recited a fundamental principle of journalism that was strictly adhered to in the past. In fact, when a non-Jew deviated the slightest from that norm, he would hear from his editor, also from a thousand hammer-wielding Jewish columnists who would repeatedly mug him till he apologized and “corrected” his non-mistake so as to correspond with the Jewish propaganda line.

 

Two: Instead of a coherent view of a complex war against Zionism and an effort to destroy the one Jewish state, many in the press served up easy-to-understand stories about underdogs and bad guys.

 

As if to blow up his first point, and reveal the stark hypocrisy that makes-up the Jewish argument, Tobin is here revealing that what’s expected from journalists in any ordinary discussion, does not apply when the discussion involves Jewish or Israeli matters. As can be seen with absolute clarity, speaking for the Jews, Tobin wants it so that a simple news item, such as saying: “I saw an Israeli soldier shoot a Palestinian child dead,” to be woven into “a coherent view of a complex war against Zionism and the effort to destroy the one Jewish state.” If this is not opinion mixed with news, what is?

 

Three: That stand reinforces the myths demonizing or delegitimizing Israelis and Jews while robbing the Palestinians of any agency about their fate was a consequence of lazy journalism and a lack of detailed knowledge about the subject.

 

Here, Jonathan Tobin laments that the faithful telling of the facts about Israeli activities in occupied Palestine without putting them in a context that corresponds with Jewish propaganda, leads to the demonization or delegitimization of Israelis and Jews. He attributes this state of affairs to the “lazy journalism and lack of detailed knowledge about the subject,” of those whom he says, should be neutral journalists and not advocates. But if they are not going to advocate, why do they need detailed knowledge of what’s behind what they see and simply report without prejudice?

 

Four: Example of the New York Times’s act of incitement against Israel in which it highlighted the pictures of children killed by Israel, illustrates anti-Israel bias. A new mindset has discarded objectivity in the belief that journalists must advocate for a particular point of view.

 

To reinforce the previous point, Tobin cites the example of the New York Times on whose front page, pictures of Palestinian children killed by Israel, were highlighted. He cries out that such act, incites against Israel, and goes on to explain that it is caused by a “mindset that discarded objectivity in the belief that journalists must advocate for a particular point of view.” So, here it is, speaking in the name of Jews, Tobin wants Journalism to sanitize the real situations before publishing them, because reality incites the audience against Israel. Therefore, according to Tobin, journalism must lie by omission to protect Israel from the consequences of its crimes.

 

Five: Taken out of the context of history, the Palestinians’ repeated rejections of peace and an independent state in 2000, 2001 and 2008—what you get is a caricature of reality that ignores anything beyond images of Palestinian victims.

 

When you’ve gone as far as Jonathan Tobin has—dressing up a mythical narrative—and when you have the narrative stand on a pile of mutilated history, you must find someone on whom to blame it all. You need to do so because if you don’t, the Jews of America and the Israelis will be the ones to take the blame. Well, being the Jew that his is, Tobin found the perfect group on whom to blame Israel’s horrors: He pointed the finger at the Palestinian victims themselves. How so very Jewish!

 

One of the reasons for writing his article, and a major one at that, is that Jonathan Tobin, like many of his ilk, was shaken by, “an open letter signed by more than 500 journalists in which they call for a change in the way that Israel is covered … They believe that all stories about Israelis and Palestinians should be told from the point of view of the latter,” says Jonathan Tobin.

 

Well then, given that the point of view of the Palestinians consists only of the facts that Journalists see on the ground when they visit Gaza and the West Bank, and given that the point of view of Jews consists of blending a mutilated history with contorted logic, we must agree with Tobin’s conclusion which he expressed at the end of the article. It is that the half century of Jewish efforts to kill American Journalism and replace it with Talmudic-style mythologies, is a lost cause.

 

May it so remain to eternity.