The Volodymir Arafat Zelenskyy performance

 When, out of the goodness of its heart, the United Nations (UN) defied thousands of years of human wisdom warning about the cockamamie religion calling itself Judaism and gave its adherents a piece of Palestine, the UN started a chain of events whose murderous aftereffects continue to be felt today much to the chagrin of the entire human race.

 

Yasser Arafat was among the first of Palestinians to feel the effect of the UN blunder. He formed a resistance group that worked on both the diplomatic and military levels to alleviate the suffering of his people. To let the UN know how much its action has changed him from the trained physician that he was to the leader of a resistance group that he became, he addressed the UN General Assembly wearing a military attire and brandished a gun.

 

Decades later, Ukraine suffered a fate similar to that of Palestine, but neither the UN nor America had anything to do with that event. Still, its President Volodymir Zelenskyy—wishing to visually dramatize what was happening to his people—took a page from the Yasser Arafat book, wore his military attire and addressed the United States Congress as if he were in full combat mode.

 

Clifford D. May wrote about the Zelenskyy performance without mentioning his role model – for a good reason. It is that Clifford May considered Arafat to be the enemy of Israel while considering Zelensky to be the friend of the West. Thus, May prepared a different package of strokes for each of the folks. He discussed all that in an article he wrote under the title, “Strategy 101: When enemy Russia attacks friend Ukraine, back the friend,” and the subtitle: “Ukraine isn't asking for US troops, just arms to defeat a common enemy.” The article was published on December 27, 2022 in The Washington Times.

 

Surprised by the number and status of the people on the Right of the political spectrum who found the Zelenskyy performance inappropriate, Clifford May used the bulk of the available space to attack these individuals in lieu of writing an upfront article on the subject. Thus, he called churlish the comments that were made by Tucker Carlson and by Benny Johnson.

 

In fact, Clifford May suggested that (1) Carlson’s comment to the effect that, “the president of Ukraine arrived at the White House like the manager of a strip club and started to demand money,” and that (2) Johnson’s comment to the effect that, “it is a disgrace to wave any flag other than America’s inside our own Capitol,” were meant to entertain television viewers and generate clicks.

 

But May forgives Carlson and Johnson because he feels it must have been difficult for them to overcome the cultural effect of what he calls “reflexive contrarianism.” That is, because those on the Right feel they must continually demonstrate unshakable loyalty to their side of the political spectrum by opposing everything that those on the left—such as Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi, do—they were compelled to oppose what the latter have been doing to help Ukraine in its struggle against Russia.

 

But what about those on the Left. Do they not feel like double-faced when preaching peace and resolution of conflict by negotiation, then turning around and giving all these weapons to Ukraine? Clifford May dismisses this bunch because he believes they simply don’t get it. He gives the example of Batya Ungar-Sargon who wrote:

 

“It is possible to admire President Zelensky and the Ukrainian people’s bravery, resilience, and fortitude in the face of a malevolent, godless foe while also recognizing that his interests are not our interests, his fight is not our fight, and his requests should not be granted”.

 

And so, Clifford May took pain to explain why this kind of thinking is not only wrong, but downright dangerous for the continued survival of the human race. To make his argument clear, he first asked the audience to imagine that Ukraine had fallen to Russia’s military at the start of the invasion, the way that things were expected to happen. This done, May implored the audience to think what would be the long term outcome of such a development.

 

And so, Clifford May proceeded to give his own assessment of what the outcome may be. But he made sure to begin his rant by blaming the expected nefarious consequences on Joe Bidden whose “surrender” to the Taliban would have told Russia’s Putin it’s okay for him to go after Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. Following that, May believes that Putin would have Poland, Finland and Kazakhstan in his crosshairs, intending to use them to destroy NATO.

 

And because Putin has other foreign autocrats to keep him company, the destruction of the world will not stop here, says Clifford May. He mentions three other boogeymen of the autocratic world, and says we must take them into account when protecting ourselves.

 

May explains that China’s Xi Jinping will invade Taiwan. Iran’s Mullahs will do as they wish in their region knowing that Americans will not stand in their way, especially after they arm themselves with nuclear weapons. And Kim Jong Un of North Korea, will think seriously about attacking South Korea.

 

If America allows this to happen, says Clifford May … in the long run, “America will be seen — with justification — as a nation in terminal decline. Even the past will look different if it turns out that World War II and the Cold War only postponed — but did not prevent — the rise of totalitarianism”.

 

To prevent this from happening, says Clifford May, rev up the military industrial complex, and have it employ American workers to produce weapons in American factories. These would be weapons that the Ukrainians will use to frustrate the ambitions of America’s despotic enemies.

 

And this happens to be Clifford May’s perpetual bottom line. The man has not changed.

FDD is now encouraging Holocaust denial

 When you know that if you do something it will backfire and deliver the result you always said you dreaded, but you go ahead and do the thing anyway, you prove to the world that you had a change of heart or that you fell into a state of insanity.

 

This much can be said about the article that was written by Jacob Nagel who is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), a notorious Clifford D. May outfit. Nagel’s article came under the title: “Patriot Missiles to Ukraine: Will Israel’s Iron Dome Follow?” and the subtitle: “The war in Ukraine has forced countries to clearly identify their national interests.” It was published on December 23, 2022 in the National Interest.

 

What Jacob Nagel did, undoubtedly speaking in the name of Clifford May and his Foundation, is that he tried to deceive the readers in a manner that’s so insulting to their intelligence, the writer’s doing is bound to backfire and go a long way toward the creation of a paradigm where denial of the Holocaust will become commonplace. To understand why this will be the case, you need to get familiar with how deceptions are used in the most subtle of ways to spread disinformation.

 

Recall a time when you were watching your favorite television show, and while absorbed by the scene, your attention was gently deviated toward the image of a consumer product you normally see in paid-for commercials. Well, that gentle deviation was also a paid-for commercial except that the producers of the show decided to use the most subtle of methods to advertise the product. They did so knowing that a subliminal message piggybacking on your favorite show will have a greater impression on you than would an ordinary commercial.

 

And this is precisely the method that Jacob Nagel has used to resuscitate the long dead hoax that was once known as the Israeli Iron Dome. It is that Jacob Nagel has piggybacked on the American decision to send Patriot missiles to Ukraine, and spoke about the fictitious Iron Dome in the same breath. He did all that as if the story of the Patriot and that of the Dome were equivalent, maybe even interchangeable.

 

Look how deftly Jacob Nagel fashioned the nexus with which he associated America’s decision to send the Patriot to Ukraine with Israel’s potential move to do likewise with the Iron Dome. Here is the relevant passage, reproduced in condensed form: “Biden announced one important change to US policy. Washington will now send Patriot air defense systems to Ukraine. In some ways, the move also puts a spotlight on Israel”.

 

Now that life has been breathed into the once dead Iron Dome, Jacob Nagel began the task of restoring the respectability that was bestowed dishonestly on the hoax at the start. To that end, the writer gathered the false attributes that were conferred on the non-existent system, and bestowed them anew on the resuscitated cadaver. And while doing that, Nagel started the false discussion as to why Israel has refused to transfer the system to Ukraine. Here is how he did all that:

 

“The country refused to provide Ukraine with its Iron Dome air defense system, with its more than 90 percent success rate intercepting rockets, missiles, and UAVs. The reasons for Israel’s refusal are several. It harbors fears that if the system were to be deployed, it would be captured by Russia on the battlefield. From there, it will be sent to Iran for analysis. This could enable the regime to find ways to counter the system in the battlespaces where Iran’s proxies and Israel are squaring off. This would benefit Hezbollah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in future confrontations with Israel. The outgoing Israeli government made clear this was not a risk it was willing to take. The new government will probably say the same”.

 

Jacob Nagel went on to say that Israel had three more reasons why it would not send its Iron Dome to Ukraine — each of which is as phony a reason as the other. First: there is a shortage of weapons, cried Nagel. But the truth is that shortage of weapons has been an American concern developed by the fact that the country handed weapons to its allies as if they were all threatened by someone. In contrast, Israel had a year and a half since the last Gaza War to replenish its arsenal of Iron Domes. If these things were real, there should be enough of them by now to send to Ukraine and defend Israel against a Hamas attack. But they are not real, which is the reason why they could not be given out. This is what the Ukrainians have learned. It is why their President expressed profound contempt for the Israeli government, and why Jewish Central declared him to be an excommunicated non-Jew.

 

And when the American military said it will take time to train the Ukrainians to use the Patriot, Nagel popped up out of nowhere, and said it will take even more time to train the Ukrainians to use the Iron Dome. That’s how he became phony in the superlative. Lastly, Nagel said that Israel did not want to upset the Russians by arming the Ukrainians. But Israel always said the Iron Dome was a defensive weapon designed to save lives, which is something that the Russians say they are for. Their objection concerned the supply of long range missiles that can hit the Russian homeland – and the Iron Dome, even if it existed, never pretended to do that.

 

It should be clear by now that Jacob Nagel’s discussion had one objective: To make the world believe that the nonexistent Iron Dome does exist, and that it needs a permanent stream of cash from America to continue existing. And this, my friend, is how hoaxes are created and maintained using disinformation.

 

Well, the Israelis may convince the American Congress of fools that they are telling the truth. But the American public, like the rest of the world, is not buying this garbage. What’s happening instead, is that people everywhere are waking up to the possibility that if the Jews would go this far to make you believe a hoax is true, could it not be that the Holocaust is a hoax maintained alive by disinformation?

 

Clifford May’s outfit says it is a distinct possibility.

 

They want to make the world their monopoly

 What’s wrong with people who are supposedly highly educated, making asses of themselves under the influence of an ideological fanaticism that grips them so tightly, they are left with no willpower to explore alternatives to the unworkable plans they suggest for solving the problems of the day?

 

Take the case of Alan Dershowitz who is professor emeritus at a law school, and that of Andrew Stein who once served as New York City Council president. The two coauthored a piece which came under the title: “Biden and Netanyahu must put aside their differences and work to stop Iran,” published in the New York Post on December 21, 2022.

 

Dershowitz and Stein should know that a discussion about Iran leaves some people indifferent while capturing the interest of other people; those who would hang on to every word that’s said the way that choirboys hang on to the words uttered by the preacher. Thus, the situation that Dershowitz and Stein face, is that of preaching to the choir while at the same time wasting their breath on a portion of the audience that prefers being entertained by a different show.

 

Let’s take an example of what the authors are saying, and imagine its effect on the two parts of the audience. Here is the example: “A nuclear-armed Iran would not only pose an existential danger to Israel — it would threaten America’s other allies in the Gulf and beyond. A big reason several Arab nations were willing to sign on to the Abraham Accords was a common fear of an aggressive Iran determined to control the entire region”.

 

To the indifferent audience, the matter of one nation in the Middle East, or a group of them threatening another nation or a group thereof, is of no importance to them — they who already fear what threatens them in America as they see the security situation in the cities deteriorate day after day.

 

As to the choirboys that have amassed a fair amount of knowledge about the subject matter, they’ll feel like their intelligence was insulted by the Dershowitz-Stein proposition alleging that the reason why Arab nations signed on to the Abraham Accords was their fear of an aggressive Iran. Well, anyone that knows the geography of the region, knowns that Iran is separated from Morocco — a signatory to the Accords — by half the continent of Asia to which is added the entire width of the African continent. This makes the authors’ proposition as absurd as it can ever get.

 

The two authors proceeded from there to speculate, and to make other assertions with a validity that tells you they have not the slightest idea what they are talking about. In fact, to make the argument that Israel will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear capability, they offered the following implausible speculation: “Israel will do what’s necessary to prevent that from happening, much as it did in Iraq and Syria, where it bombed nuclear facilities.” No, Israel will not do as it did in Iraq or Syria because it cannot.

 

To begin with, the Jews are repeatedly making the accusation that Iran is mastering the fuel cycle because it is necessary to build a nuclear arsenal. The Jews have also observed that Iran is hiding its facilities underground while protecting them with a formidable array of ground to air missiles.

 

In contrast, neither Iraq nor Syria were working on a nuclear weapons program. Thus their facilities were not protected, making them easy targets to a cannibalistic predator that came unannounced in the middle of the night. In fact, Israel’s attacks came as a complete surprise to Iraq, Syria and the world whereas now, there has been so much fanfare about Israel’s wishful thinking concerning the Iran situation, the world knows – as do the Iranians – that there will be no Israeli attack. Thus, the situation will remain an Israeli exercise in wishful thinking.

 

In fact, even Alan Dershowitz and Andrew Stein know that, which is why they segued to an argument in which they dragged America into the discussion in preparation to making a plea that America enter the fray, and do the job that Israel cannot do. Here is how the two authors made their presentation: “But if Iran is intransigent, will the United States make it known to the mullahs that we [Americans] would participate in a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities?”

 

And here is how Dershowitz and Stein began to plead their case: “If Iran is convinced that this is the strength of our commitment, it will be more likely to terminate its weaponization program and seek relief from the sanctions that are weighing down its economy.” But getting the feeling that this is not going to work as well as they wish it would, they fell back on the use of the Jewish haggle to make the Right vs Left political points which they feel will be more persuasive. Here is what they said:

 

“At the moment, Iran does not believe that the Biden administration, influenced by the Democrats’ increasingly radical left-wing elements, would take such action. Iranian leaders are betting that Israel’s new right-wing government will alienate the Biden administration to such a degree that the president will not be willing to cooperate against Iran”.

 

This done, Dershowitz and Stein lifted the veil on a mystery that puzzled the world for decades: How was it that the Jews were able to take command of America’s decision making process by driving the wedge between the parties when it came to working for the American people, but achieved a bipartisan agreement when it came to serving Israel? Good question, and here is the answer:

 

“It is important, therefore, that both the Biden and Netanyahu governments marginalize the extreme elements among their supporters so as not to let them influence an issue on which our two nations should remain united”.

 

In other words, the Jews said: Screw the Liberal Democratic system which gives power to the elected representatives. The Jews commanded that these people be marginalize, and went on to explain that the imperative issue America must agree on with Israel’s ruling clique, is the well being of Israel. Period.

 

It was as simple as you can see. The Jews said they wanted to monopolize America, and the American Congress responded: Yes, master Jew. We hear and we obey. America is yours and yours alone.

 

It is how America was turned into a Jewish plantation, and made to serve Israel. Meanwhile, seeing what happened to America, ordinary people around the world, revolted and pledged that: Never will they allow something like this to happen to them.

Public pursuit of a resolution to my dispute with the Canadian government

 The year 2023 will soon be upon us. It is the year I turn 80. This will happen in a few months. Taking into account the reality that I won’t have much longer to live beyond that age, I set it as a red line at which time I’d go public with the decades-long dispute I’m having with the Government of Canada should the latter continue to break its public promise as well as its numerous private promises to me.

 

It happened that decades ago, the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) did what comes naturally to Jews, which was to inject tons of fear and hate about me into the veins of the Canadian Government. The latter responded by putting the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) at the disposal of the CJC, allowing it to do whatever it took to destroy my life should I continue to refuse writing like Lubor Zink, the self-loathing Eastern European Salman Rushdie of his time.

 

Typical of the Globe and Mail editors of that time, they appropriated the dispute I was having with the RCMP, and carried on with the debate concerning the excesses committed by Canada’s federal police force. The editors said they were doing it to help establish a new public policy, but made sure never to mention my name even though I was at the center of the dispute being debated. Go figure.

 

Under mounting pressure, Pierre Elliott Trudeau who was then Prime Minister of Canada, established a Royal Commission to look into the excesses of the RCMP, publicly promising in the name of the Canadian Government that everyone so victimized, will be notified in writing as to what happened, and given the opportunity to pursue legal remedies. I was never notified and so, I tried to resolve the dispute using the methods established by the system of Liberal Democracy, only to discover that the methods were boobytraps, and meant to explode in the face of those seeking justice.

 

The first method I used, consisted of speaking to my member of Federal Parliament. I did so on several occasions, meeting with a member of one political party or another over the decades. Each time, I was promised that I’ll be getting the awaited notification but instead of this happening, I was visited by the RCMP who interrogated me as if I had committed a crime complaining about them. And that wasn’t even their punishment of me. The punishment that was meant to hurt and did so profoundly, consisted of the RCMP or their surrogates approaching my landlord, my employer or an acquaintance to ask questions about me after introducing themselves as members of things like the “contraband” squad, the “narcotics” squad or what have you.

 

This method to resolve my dispute with the Canadian Government being closed to me, I do not wish to try it again.

 

The second method I used to resolve my dispute with the Canadian Government, consisted of speaking to prominent people privately and quietly to see if they could do something to end the CJC/RCMP surveillance, harassment and persecution of me. The RCMP responded by destroying these people, revealing sexual behavior about them or a member of the family.

 

This method to resolve my dispute with the Canadian Government being closed to me, I do not wish to try it again.

 

The third method I used to resolve my dispute with the Canadian Government, consisted of writing letters to the government or its agencies — not about the harassment itself — but the effect of the harassment that was preventing me from getting a break in life such as, for example, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) lifting my name off the blacklist, and accepting for production any of the 100 or so scripts I wrote, and were deemed excellent by many people in the industry.

 

What happened was a response that is so unique to Canada, you’ll never see its like anywhere in the world. It is the savage mutilation of history in a manner that’s so imaginative, it is as gruesome as taking pleasure dismembering a fetus in the womb before it is out taking its first breath.

 

Here is how that worked. I write a letter on a given date, making several points. Instead of the responder responding to my concerns, having properly dated their letter showing it to be written after mine and in response to it, the responder predates their letter to before mine so as to make it sound like I was responding to their letter. The net result of the correspondence — that which will be archived to preserve Canada’s history — will be as confusing and dishonest as Canada telling China it has a bad record on Human Rights … instead of learning a lesson in intellectual honesty from the Chinese.

 

This method to resolve my dispute with the Canadian Government being closed to me, I do not wish to try it again.

 

And this leaves me with no choice but to go public with my dispute, asking the Government of Canada to keep the promise of notifying me as to what happened and why, and telling me of my options.

 

No more private talks behind closed doors, no more stabbing me in the back, no more giving me the runaround, and no more punishing me for asking to end my persecution. Robbing a man of his entire adult life is savagery unheard of before anywhere in the world.

 

Enough is enough. There is an urgent need to put closure to this matter.

Incomprehensible call for redundancy

 Jordan has a peace treaty with Israel. A peace treaty is by far a more solid document than the so-called Abraham Accords negotiated between a handful of Arab nations and Israel. So, why is Clifford D. May lamenting that Jordan has not joined the Abraham Accords? Is he thinking of replacing the peace treaty? Or is he thinking establishing a redundancy?

 

Actually, Clifford May is lamenting for two other reasons. The first is that the Abraham Accords represent the political fad of the day. And when there is a fad, the trivial thing to do is embrace it, then urge everyone else to do the same. The second reason Clifford May has, is that the coming into being of the Accords, is credited to Donald Trump. Those who love the man despite his faults, wish to see him credited for what’s worthy and what’s not. It must be that Clifford May is of that clutch.

 

But whatever case Clifford May is trying to build, the question is this: has he been convincing? Well, the reality is that May’s current article contains more stink bombs than any he wrote before. To see this, we begin by exploring examples that define “aggressor” and “victim”.

 

An aggressor would be a home invader. It is someone that may or may not have a home of his own, but would invade someone else’s home because he covets the thing, or because of another reason. As to the definition of victim, it is the person whose home has been invaded. This alone is a horrible thing to happen to someone, but gets worse when the home invader accuses the victim of being the aggressor.

 

And so, my friend, you’ll find that Clifford May has turned a real life situation into a stink bomb that is so smelly, it will disgust you for an eternity. Here is how he did that:

 

“The Abraham Accord signatories sympathize with the Palestinians. Hamas, which rules Gaza, is openly committed to jihad and genocide. Once upon a time, Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority that governs the West Bank, was seen as a peacemaker—but. King Abdullah faces unique challenges. In 1921, with the backing of the British Empire, Abdullah I, the current monarch’s great-grandfather, founded the Emirate of Transjordan. That entity evolved into the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Millions of Jordanian citizens descend from families who lived in eastern Palestine. Others moved to Jordan, fleeing wars launched by Israel’s Arab neighbors — Jordan among them — in 1948 and 1967. In other words, millions of Jordanians identify as Palestinians”.

 

What Clifford May says here, is that Hamas, whose home has been Gaza since the beginning of time, is the aggressor—and a genocidal one at that in the ongoing dispute with the Jews—because the latter invaded the Hamas home expecting to be welcomed with kisses and hugs but got neither. The same holds true for Mahmoud Abbas, says Clifford May, because it was thought that he will take the inhuman Jewish abuses with a smile—which he did for a while—but then let it be known that he has had enough of this nonsense, and started to look for legal remedies to what the Jews have been doing to the home of Palestinians they invaded and continue to occupy.

 

As if this stink bomb were not enough, Clifford May added another to it, perhaps to make certain that the nausea will be long lasting. What May did this time was accuse the Arabs of launching wars against Israel in 1948 and 1967. But the reality is that in 1948, the Arab countries were colonies of the Ottoman Empire. They had police forces to keep the peace internally, but no armies of their own with which to fight outside of their borders. By contrast, the Jewish invaders from Europe had come equipped with state of the art weapons including an air force — this, at a time when most people in the region had not even seen a civilian plane fly over their heads.

 

So then, what did happen in 1948? What happened was that reports of the massacre which the Jewish invaders were conducting in Palestine so alarmed the Arab neighbors, they told the Palestinians to protect themselves in any way they could, including fleeing to the neighboring countries. The Palestinians did just that but were pursued by the Jewish killers. That’s when skirmishes took place between the heavily armed Jews and the lightly armed Arab police. And this, my friend, does not count as war.

 

As to the 1967 war, this is the one for which Israel had been preparing for eleven years. It all started in 1956 when the Jews who were ditched by the Soviets, turned to the old colonial masters Britain and France, and asked them to show Israel how to attack Egypt. The move served the Jews whose plan was to keep the neighbors in a permanent state of underdevelopment. And it served Britain and France who wanted to take back the nationalized Suez Canal. And then, in the same way that Egypt was surprised by the 1956 attack, it was surprised by the 1967 attack.

 

Finally, to add humor to his gloomy view concerning the subject matter we’re discussing, Clifford May did something that’s glowingly expressed by the following story:

 

If someone out there in Timbuctoo or a faraway place, voiced the wish there was a gadget to measure the environment-polluting farts of cows, a Jewish Jack-in-a-Box would instantly pop up and declare that the little fart that’s Israel is the envy of the world because it is the world’s leader in fart technology.

 

What Clifford May said in this vein, is the following: “Israel is a world leader in desalination technology.” Hold your noise, and take that with a grain of salt.

Think about it. Who is closer to the truth?

 Critics accuse Israel of being like the apartheid South Africa of an earlier era. The president of Israel, Isaac Herzog, says those who accuse Israel of being like South Africa, are themselves like those of an earlier era who blood-libeled Jews with false accusations. Well then, who is closer to the truth?

 

To answer that question, we first need to understand what is meant by blood libel. It happened that when Moses fell out the rank of Pharaoh’s favorite adviser, he decided to rouse up the Jews with false spins concerning their status in Egypt, and to make false promises concerning the future that awaits them if they will follow him on his quest to steal a country and turn it into an empire that will rival Egypt, Persia, Babylon and every other empire in the region at the time. Moses added that this was the will of God who chose them to be his favorite children, and urging them to go to the promised land where Moses will take them.

 

The words of Moses so hypnotized the Jews, they went into a mindless frenzy that got them to imagine God had sent an angel to kill the first born in every Egyptian family but that they had the task of telling the angel where to find the kiddies to be slaughtered. And while doing that, the Jews were preparing the fastest meal they could cook and bake, which compelled them to make the unleavened bread that later acquired the name matzoh. And this is how the blood of massacred children was forever associated with the Jewish matzoh bread.

 

When it did not go well for the Jews, trying to steal Palestine and establish themselves in it, they fled to Europe where they made a mess of their lives there too. They thought they were rejected by the Europeans because they looked differently, so they decided to look more like the locals, thus came up with the idea of intermarrying with them as much as they could. There were a few legitimate marriages to be sure, but most of the others consisted of kidnapping the abandoned street children of Medieval Europe — a widespread phenomenon at the time — raise those children as Jews in the ghettos, and marrying them whereby they produced European-looking Jews.

 

Alarmed by the Jews kidnapping Christian children, and hearing about the coincidence of the Jews making matzoh bread at the same time as they slaughtered Egyptian babies, the Europeans became convinced that the Jews were kidnapping their children to make matzos bread with their blood. This is what came to be known as blood libel. Because it is a horrendous accusation to make even though it’s easy to prove false, invoking the blood libel became the favorite cudgel utilized by the aggrieved Jews to clobber those who say what irks them.

 

So, we’re back to the question: Who is closer to the truth? Is it Herzog saying that those who accuse Israel of being like South Africa, are themselves like those of an earlier era who accused Jews of blood libel? Or is it the critics who accuse Israel of being like the apartheid South Africa of an earlier era?

 

The truth is that there are many similarities between today’s self-declared Jewish state of Israel, and yesterday’s apartheid South Africa. An increasingly large number of people come to see this reality as something that can be argued, accepted or modified but cannot be rejected as totally false on its face. And so, for Herzog to recall the medieval belief that Jews made bread with the blood of Christian children, and equate it with the saying that Israel resembles apartheid South Africa in some ways, is to use a remedy that’s so excessive, it worsens what it’s trying to cure rather than alleviate it.

 

This says that the reaction of Isaac Herzog is a grotesque exaggeration of what the situation is really like. But this does not surprise anyone who is familiar with the way that the Jews operate. The reality is that to get away with many of the things they say and do, the Jews first monopolize the discussion by angrily accusing those who speak up to tell the truth, and shut them up with the charge that they are spreading antisemitic tropes. With this, the Jews open the way for themselves to move unopposed in the direction of controlling the political landscape.

 

Feeling confident that no one will dare contradict him, Isaac Herzog took the flight of fancy that landed him – not in the nirvana of his imagination – but the disrespected land of “too unserious to be taken seriously.” This leads to the question: what comparison is realistic in the debate concerning the regime that’s now occupying Palestine?

 

To make that determination, we need to dress a proper assessment of the differences and similarities between apartheid South Africa and today’s Israel. From there, we measure what might have motivated each side to act as they did, and where the leaders wanted to take their jurisdictions. In brief, we need to probe the thinking of the leaders on each side.

 

It is easy to know what the leaders of South Africa wanted. They were motivated by the belief that the land belonged to them because they fought the Brits and won the spoils of war. Ultimately, they wanted to build a White South Africa up to the level of an advanced big economy. When it became impossible for them to do this, they surrendered to the Black majority rather than dig in, which would have triggered a civil war and destroyed the country.

 

As to what the Israelis want, we find it in the pronouncements of Isaac Herzog its president who said the following according to the Jewish News Syndicate of December 15, 2022:

 

“Isaac Herzog slammed as blood libel comparisons of the Jewish state’s policies towards the Palestinians to South African apartheid. He also described the BDS movement as a brutal campaign spearheaded by groups seeking to build a long-term policy that will undermine the existence of the Jewish state. The comparison between the State of Israel and the apartheid regime is not a legitimate criticism—it is a blood libel. It is dangerous since the legitimacy of the State of Israel and the justification of its existence are related to its ability to protect itself and hence they are trying to undermine this ability”.

 

It is obvious that Isaac Herzog is not yet where the South Africans were when they saw the light and decided to do the right thing for the benefit of all parties in the ongoing conflict. Where Herzog will take Israel from here is anybody’s guess.

To accuse of antisemitism is to seek supremacy

 Let’s say you work in a place that’s big enough to have many employees, but not so big as to give each one a private office. Thus, all employees share one massive office that’s divided into cubicles with no doors to keep intruders out.

 

You worked there for many years with nothing unusual happening till one day something happened that got you to scratch your head in bemusement. What happened was that the luxurious pen gifted to you on your birthday, disappeared as you left it on the desk to go on a coffee break. You figured that with so many employees in one place, something like this was bound to happened. You reasoned that someone must have come to talk to you, did not find you, and in his distracted state, picked up the pen and walked away. You hoped he’ll realize what he did, and will soon return the pen.

 

Instead of this happening, you were flabbergasted to see your immediate neighbor use a pen that looks the same as the one you lost. Because he is a new employee, and you know very little about him, you gave him the benefit of the doubt, allowing for the possibility that he came to own that pen as legitimately as you did yours. And so, you said nothing to the man for now.

 

With the passage of time, you became ever more convinced that someone was rummaging through your desk whenever you went on a break. Since all of this began with the advent of the new employee, you suspected he was responsible for what was happening. Unable to take it anymore, you mustered the courage to confront him. You started a gentle discussion by mentioning that you once had a pen like the one his is holding. He said he bought it the first day he was hired here.

 

Saying the pen was a gift that invoked warm memories, you wanted to buy a similar pen to keep the memory alive. And so, you asked him from where he bought his pen. He hesitated to answer for a moment, then mentioned a store, then said he didn’t know because the pen was a gift he received on his birthday, just like it happened to you. This answer did not reassure you one bit.

 

You proceeded to tell him that things have been disappearing from your desk when you went on breaks, and asked if he saw anyone rummage through your cubicle when you were away. He instinctively responded with a yes, but realizing that he may be asked to identify the culprit, corrected himself saying that no, he didn’t see anyone rummage through your cubicle. And that’s when you became convinced your neighbor was the thief.

 

Now, dear reader, consider this story a metaphor representing people that commit reprehensive acts which are so transparent everyone knows they are the culprits. But when you try to discuss that reality with them, they throw a tantrum and accuse you and everyone else of racism and antisemitism.

 

A recent article that shows how a situation such as that, is unfolding in real life at this time, came under the title: “Dispensing with the Israeli-Apartheid Myth,” written by Bobby Miller, and published on December 12, 2022 in National Review Online.

 

Citing the case of a university’s student government passing a resolution endorsing the BDS movement, Bobby Miller has shown how he expresses his tantrum. He did it by labeling the movement an antisemitic campaign waged against the Jewish state, calling it an apartheid regime.

 

To belie what everybody sees as being the reality on the ground, Bobby Miller proceeded to complain that this was, “the latest instance of anti-Israel lies taking root on the campus of an elite American university.” And so, he asserted that, “As instances of Jew-hatred continue unabated, it’s important to debunk this pernicious lie”.

 

To deflect attention from the reality that Israel is an artificial concoction erected on the stolen country of Palestine, Bobby Miller went on to say that Israel was the only democracy in the Middle East, and a vibrant one at that. What Bobby Miller failed to say is that Jewish democracy resembles the Liberal Democracy of the Western World in the way that a cadaver resembles the body it was before death. As to Miller’s assertion that Jewish debate is vibrant, it must be that no one told him Jewish haggling does not rise to the level of a debate. It is a shouting match that’s superficial, flimsy and meager enough to leave the human spirit malnourished.

 

In the midst of all this, Bobby Miller mentioned Israel’s “full and equal individual rights.” To understand this part, we must digress for a moment to study the differences between the way that authoritarian regimes oppress their people, as opposed to the way that the Jewish leaders oppress citizens of the Anglosphere.

 

Under normal circumstances, citizens living under either regime enjoy the same level of freedom. But when a regime feels threatened, actions are taken differently under each. The authoritarians inform the masses that dissent will not be tolerated, and enforce the stated directives when they are violated.

 

In the Anglosphere, Jewish organizations proliferate and become the eyes and ears of Jewish Central. They hide under every desk in every institution, even behind every proverbial tree from where they watch to identify individuals capable of growing in stature and become a future danger to Jewish schemes. The Jews try to recruit the person and have him or her work for them. If they fail, they instruct the security apparatus of the country to destroy that individual before he/she grows too powerful.

 

The Jews have achieved this level of success, not by operating in the open through the debating process set forth by the democracies, but by giving out instructions in private and behind closed doors. Now my friend, with this kind of operations unfolding in the Anglosphere where Jews have to be careful, you can imagine how the operations unfold in Israel where the Jews have a free hand to do as they wish. And yet, this is what Bobby Miller wants you to believe constitutes respect for individual rights in Israel. He is insulting your intelligence but you don’t have to take it anymore.

 

Looking at the entire landscape, it says that contrary to what Bobby Miller claims, Israel is neither an open jurisdiction that respects free speech, nor a democratic jurisdiction that respects human rights. And yet he, and those like him, regularly throw tantrums, accusing others of antisemitism — doing so to impress upon the public that Israel is the closest thing to perfection. Why is that?

 

It is that the Jews have discovered they can ascertain their supremacy by accusing others of antisemitism when the latter denounce Israel for what it does in Palestine, and when they denounce the Jewish leaders for what they make the Anglo political leaders do in secret for the benefit of the Jews and Israel to the detriment of their own citizens.

 

The Jewish message to humanity comes down to this: We are above you and above your laws. Stop criticizing us, and learn to love everything we say and do no matter how shocking it may seem at first blush.

The UN represents the human collective

 Imagine you get acquainted with someone and you instinctively prepare yourself to find out what kind of a person he is. You take note of what he says he likes and dislikes about other people and other things, and you carefully study what he is like himself.

 

Having accumulated enough information, you correlate the pieces to see if they reveal something about this person. Sure enough, you detect a strong correlation between what he says he likes, and what he is like himself. You conclude that this guy is very much a narcissist.

 

Are there people like that? Of course there are. Are there organizations like that? Of course there are. A perfect image of themselves is what companies pay public relation outfits to paint of them. That’s not to speak of the political parties who depend on projecting a good image of themselves to attract donors, especially of the deep pocket kind, and attract constituents of the kind that actually votes.

 

So then, what’s odd about this? Nothing is odd. In fact, this situation represents life as ordinary as it gets for the human species on Planet Earth. But there is an exception. To understand this part, we do two things. One, we study the relationship that an organization has with its members. And two, we study the relationship that a country has with its people.

 

Normally, an organization such as a company represents the proverbial tight ship. This means it has a more or less rigid hierarchy that leaves very little room for the members to do or say as they wish. The same cannot be said of political parties whose mother’s milk is the free and open debates that prepare the members to engage the opposition come election time. This makes it look like the jurisdiction, if not the entire country, seem to have as many independent thinkers as there are voters.

 

And this brings us to the exception. It is the Jews and the relationships they have with each other. It is also the relationship they have with Israel which they say represents their collective, as well as the relationship they have with the organizations to which they belong. And it is the relationship they have or seem to have, with the rest of humanity and the organizations that represent its collective such as the United Nations, the International Criminal Court and other world bodies.

 

You’ll find language addressing all these relationships in an article that came under the title: “The UN Reminds Us What Kind of Place It Is,” written by Bobby Miller, and published on December 14, 2022 in National Review Online. Miller begins the discussion by mentioning a film that was made by a Jew thirteen years ago and titled: “incompetence and corruption at the heart of the UN.” Miller goes on to say that nothing has changed since then because “Every time the UN starts to look like a somewhat credible institution, we’re reminded of how astonishingly ridiculous a place it is”.

 

Bearing in mind that Bobby Miller is of the kind that when he sees or hears something he doesn’t like, complains that he saw or heard an antisemitic trope denigrating all Jews — it stuns you to see that he does not hesitate to denigrate all of humanity the way that he did by calling the United Nations, which represents all of us, “astonishingly ridiculous.” In effect, therefore, he wants us to be careful about what we say and do to avoid hurting their feelings, at the same time that he passionately insults the entire human race without giving a thought what this does to our feelings. And this is a display of Jewish narcissism in full flowering.

 

Miller goes on to explain his thinking by mentioning the fact that the United Nations removed Iran from the Commission on the status of Women, which he says is a positive development, but wonders why Iran had a seat on the commission in the first place. His beef does not end here because China whose one-child policy, he says has engendered female infanticide, is still on the panel. Bobby Miller also mentions Qatar which he accuses of human-rights abuses, and laments that it continues to retain its seat on the UN Human Rights Council.

 

And what would be a discussion about Jewish thinking without encountering an instance when a Jew advises humanity not to believe what it sees with its own eyes, but believe what the Jews tell it to. It happened this time when Bobby Miller advised humanity not to believe what it sees in America’s political circles, but believe the Jews who say it isn’t what it seems. Here is how he spun this piece of illogic:

 

“It has recently emerged that the UN’s managing attorney overseeing the Human Rights Council’s probe into Israel’s treatment of Palestinians during the 2014 conflict between Israel and Gaza-based groups claimed that the US government was under the thumb of the Jewish lobby. Evidently, antisemitism is a problem at the UN. Surprise, surprise”.

 

Here, Bobby Miller is advising the human race that to tell the truth is to commit an antisemitic act, which itself has been defined as a call to wipe the Jews off the face of the Earth. That is, Bobby Miller, speaking in the name of all Jews, is saying that the telling of the truth is an existential threat to the Jews. In other words, Miller is confirming that Jews can only survive in a sea of lies. Hitler must be giggling in his gave.

 

Finally, as expected, someone advocating the Jewish and Israeli causes, could not end his discussion without shooting himself in the foot. Here is how Bobby Miller did it: “We can’t dispense with the UN Security Council. But efforts to reform it should be a priority of the incoming Congress”.

 

Because the American Constitution stipulates that foreign policy is the responsibility of the Executive branch, which depends less on the lobbies than does the Congress – for Bobby Miller to urge that the Congress usurp from the Executive responsibility for the UN Security Council, makes him a closet believer that the US government is under the thumb of the Jewish lobby, master of the US Congress.

Who is responsible for spreading antisemitism?

 Imagine the totally fictitious scene of being a teenager that loves school, especially the math class. I say fictitious because the scene never happened as I describe it, but happened close enough on several occasions to be awkward.

 

So then, it happened one day that you heard two adults haggle interminably about a problem they cannot solve, and you interjected with a comment that went like this:

 

Actually the temperature went neither up nor down because when you work out the math, you’ll find that 65 degrees Fahrenheit, translate into 18 and a 1/3 degrees Celsius, which is what this thermometer is indicating.

 

Instead of being praised and encouraged by the adults, you were reprimanded — not because you contradicted them or interrupted them, but because you did not have the qualification to make such a judgment. But what exactly would be the necessary qualification? It would be a degree in mathematics or the environment, according to the adults.

 

Scenes such as that happen all the time – and not just in math but in all fields of knowledge. In fact, whether you are young or old, you’re not supposed to speak on any subject unless you can show that someone has certified you as being knowledgeable in the field. That is, you have to have a degree on the subject or have extensive experience practicing a trade associated with the subject you’re tackling.

 

What has this trend—which started in North America in the decade of the sixties—done to the culture? The answer is that it has done what Clifford D. May is complaining about. He did so in an article that came under the title: “Extremist ideologies proliferate in a world where anything goes,” published on December 13, 2022 in The Washington Times.

 

As you read through the article, it slowly dawns on you that Clifford May is a prime example of what he complains about. What alerts you to this reality is that despite the fact he is a lawyer and a journalistic commentator, he could not ignore the Jewish method of rejecting having a debate on the fundamentals of the subject being discussed, favoring instead having a superficial discussion that describes the events which prompted the discussion in the first place.

 

Thus, in the same way that when you read articles written by Jews, you get inundated with statics and descriptions of events pertaining to the inhuman treatment they are subjected to on a daily basis – Clifford May is inundating his readers with superficial descriptions of events that happen on the world stage. But he makes no attempt to dig deep in search of the causes for what happens. Why is that?

 

That is the case because the Jews have long rejected the principle of uncovering the truth via the method of exchanging ideas. Instead of trying to build a consensus by putting together the best of that’s offered by each debater, they get into a shouting match known as haggling, thus allow each side the chance to avoid losing the debate that was never conducted.

 

Whereas the Jews normally engage in haggling among themselves, they do something else when talking to non-Jews. They engage in frivolities because time has taught them that their ideas are such outliers, they cannot win a debate that’s conducted rationally. And so, they stay on the safe side by rattling off statistics and complaining about being treated badly by a human race they say is stricken by a disease they call antisemitism.

 

Living for half a century with Jewish lawyers, journalists and politicians in its midst, the American culture became so imbued by the outlier nature of their modes of thinking, the bonds that used to connect the various components of the culture began to dissolve. This opened the door for permissiveness to get in, replace what was there, and steadily grow bigger inside the fissures of a cracking old culture like fungus grows inside a dilapidated building.

 

Still, despite exhibiting the attributes of a Jewish lawyer which he is, can we find anything in Clifford May’s article that would indicate he has deep ideas he does not reveal for whatever reason?

 

In fact, there may be such indications. Here are a few possibilities:

 

“Extremist ideologies are proliferating. These developments should worry us, no? QAnon is a made-in-America. Its arcane ideology has spread to other countries. I’m not suggesting that Mr. Trump agrees with such views. I am suggesting he demonstrated abysmally poor judgment by breaking bread with these extremist whackadoodles. Finally, let me point out that Mr. Biden is championing a variety of extreme positions, including those of the ideology known as wokeism. No mention was made of the beyond-the-fringe brand of gender-identity ideology Mr. Brinton both represents and promotes. To even call attention to such extremism is now taboo — though I guess it’s a taboo I’ve just broken”.

 

There seems to be an attempt here by Clifford May to be more than the outsider who is looking through the glass window as he tries to understand what’s behind the display that was arranged by others. Thus, speaking in general terms, May declared that extremism was proliferating. That mysterious QAnon was made in America but easily spread to other countries. Donald Trump has poor judgment but Joe Biden is championing wokeism and other extreme ideologies. And he, Clifford May, broke a taboo by mentioning the foibles of a certain Mr. Briton.

 

Could it be that Clifford May is on his way to writing an article under a title that reads as follows: “Researching the subject seriously, it is clear that Jews bear responsibility for antisemitism”.

The breeders of catastrophes are on the prowl

 The Holocaust that was caused by Nazi Germany, was a catastrophe affecting mostly the Jews. Every year, a day is reserved to remember the event, and no one in the world objects to it on the grounds that to remember the day is to wish that Germany never existed.

 

In fact, while remembering that day every year during the past three quarters of a century, Germany prospered so much as to become the biggest economy in Europe. It also became one of Israel’s best friends, paying oodles of reparation payments to the survivors of the Holocaust, aiding the government of Israel financially and standing with it in world forums.

 

The Jews were not the first or the only ones to suffer a Holocaust. Some like to haggle as to which holocaust was the most painful, but the truth is that a holocaust is a holocaust is a holocaust. In fact, someone being stabbed to death by a savage maniac does not thank God he is not being gassed to death by the Nazis. In addition, hundreds of indigenous native tribes have been wiped out or came close to being wiped out in the Americas, Australia and New Zealand by the invading Europeans. A day in the year is reserved to commemorate the anniversary of each as being one of conquest for the invaders, not the holocaust that it has been for the natives.

 

As usual, having recognized that it had an abominable human condition, the human race took note of what happened each time, and relegated to history what belongs to history. Humanity did so to maintain a record of what happened so as to benefit the researchers of future generations who would want to learn the lessons of the past and advise their political contemporaries what options they may or may not have when faced with a difficult situation.

 

And yet, despite all of this, one exception stands out like a rotting stick in a pool of stinking waste. It is the false claim that the Palestinian catastrophe, known as the Nakba, cannot have a day reserved to remember it because to do so means that the creation of Israel — which caused the Nakba — must have been a mistake, therefore — according to Jewish logic — it is antisemitic to remember the Nakba.

 

If you find this impossible to believe, read the article that came under the title: “Biden, other Democrats remain silent on the overtly antisemitic wing of their party,” written by Gerard Level, and published on December 12, 2022 in The Washington Times. And you’ll see how the impossible was made possible.

 

You’ll discover that Gerard Level has adopted the very Jewish sleight of hand, which consists of distorting something that someone higher up – such as the President of the United States – has said recently or long ago. He made it sound like a promise made but not kept, and chided the President for being muddled if not complicit in something as grave as antisemitism. Here is how he put it:

 

“President Biden declared that ‘our political leaders should be calling out and rejecting antisemitism wherever it hides.’ He concluded by saying, ‘Silence is complicity.’ The opportunities for the president to express himself on the subject of antisemitism abound. Notably, the United Nations General Assembly very recently adopted a resolution declaring an official commemoration of the ‘Nakba’”.

 

This said, Gerard Level went into a long rant to explain why the commemoration of the Nakba by the General Assembly of the United Nations, constitutes an act of antisemitism. Doing so, Gerard Level relied again on a sleight of hand to confuse the situation. What he did to start the discussion is avoid having to explain why commemorating the Nakba is a bad move in and of itself. Instead, he went on to say that Israel was established legally, has been in good standing ever since, and does not deserve to be treated shabbily by the United Nations.

 

In the same vein of avoiding having an honest discussion about the reasons why there should not be a commemoration of the Nakba, Gerard Level brought out the talking points that were set forth by Jewish Central, and made them the focal points of his argument. Here is how this part of his discussion unfolded:

 

“This singling out of Israel for delegitimization is a reprehensible act, an antisemitic act. Applying a standard to Israel that is not applied to other countries is a form of antisemitism. No UN state other than Israel has been subjected to the humiliation of a declaration calling for a special day commemorating its creation as a catastrophe. However, it does not appear that any comment has emanated from the White House regarding this action, and the president has seemingly been silent”.

 

And because a fanatic Jew can never discuss anything serious without dragging into the discussion the Left versus Right politics of the moment, Gerard Level did just that. He began this part of the discussion by characterizing the Nakba declaration as being a “vile” act. This said, he unveiled the true colors of his loyalties by attributing what is vile to America’s system of Liberal Democracy — doing so to protect Israel from having to live with a commemorated Palestinian Nakba caused by none other than Israel.

 

More important than all of this, is what Gerard Level has revealed not knowing the ramifications thereof. It has to do with the creepy manner with which Jewish Central infiltrates the body politics of the Liberal Democracies and devours their inside the way that termites devour the foundation of a house. Here is how the man tripped himself:

 

“Since the singling out of Israel for treatment inconsistent with the treatment afforded to other nations, is now generally recognized as a form of antisemitism, the president and leadership of the Democratic Party should speak out against these ‘Nakba’ resolutions”.

 

Do you know what Gerard Level is talking about, my friend? He is talking about the definition of antisemitism, concocted in secret by Jewish Central, and spread around to infest the Liberal Democracies by holding private sessions behind closed doors with their representatives, away from the public that will be impacted by the definition. This is Jewish style democracy right out of the cesspool.

 

The Palestinians suffered their Nakba. America is about to suffer a political catastrophe that will be as painful as the Nakba.

Judeo-American blueprint to set Africa on fire

Responding to a developing new trend in American foreign policy, Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute, has come up with a blueprint that if successful, will set Africa on fire, destroy every progress the continent has made over the last few decades, and push it back to the primitive state of the pre-colonial era.

 

Using the occasion of African leaders coming to Washington intending to review and celebrate the successes that were accomplished on the continent through the Africa-America partnership since Israel was kicked out of there — which happened in the aftermath of the abominable behavior exhibited by then Foreign Minister of Israel, Avigdor Lieberman — Michael Rubin went into an angry mode and started frothing nonsense at the mouth.

 

Displaying his unabashed loyalty to Israel as well as his unlimited contempt for America, Michael Rubin devised a plan that will use America’s wealth and military power to implement a policy that would set Africa on fire, and prepare it to be looted by Israel. Describing how the policy is meant to work, Rubin praised both Israel and Rwanda’s ruler while bashing America’s leaders and the United Nations.

 

You can see all of that in the article that Michael Rubin wrote under the title: “How Biden Can Transform Africa Posturing into Progress,” and the subtitle: “The way forward is not through conferences or dumping money and responsibility upon the United Nations. Rather, it is through careful diplomacy not beholden to disaffected exiles and through military partnerships.” The article was published on December 10, 2022 in The National Interest.

 

Here is the evidence that shows how disloyal Rubin is to America:

 

“For too long, the United States has failed in Africa for three reasons. The first is a failure to compete. The second is arrogance. The third is a tendency to ignore African solutions to African problems. The UN’s five most expensive peacekeeping operations are in Africa but with few exceptions fail. All three American mistakes are on display in the Great Lakes region of Africa. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Samantha Power treat Rwanda unfairly. No symbolic conference in Washington can substitute for the fact that the State Department and Senate have failed in their responsibilities. Blinken and Power have taken the region to the brink of a new genocide. The UN compounds the problem by allowing terrorists and unrepentant Hutu génocidaires to run its refugee camps by remaining armed and transforming schools, UNRWA-style, into incitement centers”.

 

But the reality is that it was Avigdor Lieberman of Israel who worked on taking the region to the brink of genocide — doing it not by mistake or ignorance but deliberately. After all, he was the one that threatened to nuke the Aswan Dam, thus inflict a biblical size plague on Egypt by flooding it with a radio active tsunami. Lieberman threatened all that because the Egyptian president had rejected an invitation to visit Israel. In addition, Avigdor Lieberman pretended to represent America and in this capacity, badmouthed Egypt to the politicians of Uganda and most other countries of the Nile Basin, urging them to make life difficult for Egypt, they who control the source of the Nile on which Egypt depends for its very existence. Getting wind of this repugnance, America kept both Lieberman and Israel out of Africa, thus paved the way for the noticeable progress that was accomplished on that continent.

 

And here is the evidence that shows how loyal Michael Rubin is to Israel, and what he believes resembles Israel:

 

“Rwanda’s President Paul Kagame, over the course of his twenty-two-year tenure, has undertaken a project to erase the social order imported by the Belgians, and the French cynicism that led to the 1994 anti-Tutsi genocide. In the space of just two decades, Kagame has further defeated corruption and transformed a country in ruins into a regional Silicon Valley. In effect, Rwanda is today Africa’s Israel or Singapore. That Kagame has accomplished this without the welfare and colonial dynamics at the heart of the Western non-governmental organizations increases activist animosity from groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, less because of human rights or democracy concerns and more because Rwanda’s success threatens their model”.

 

So, here is Michael Rubin who spent decades of his life urging America to bomb the authoritarian regimes that threatened the democracies, now accusing his former allies — Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International — of feeling threatened by the success of the non-democratic, if not authoritarian, Paul Kagame of Rwanda.

 

In fact, if there is any resemblance between Rwanda and Israel, it is that Israel resembles the Third World county that is Rwanda, whereas Rwanda differs from Israel in that it can at least feed its people — which it does without running infomercial on Fox News begging the Christians of America to donate 25 dollars each to feed the hungry masses of Israel.

 

Well then, now that Michael Rubin’s political views have turned 180 degrees, what does he want to see happen in Africa? Here is what he wants to see:

 

“Diplomatic platitudes will not help Africa. The European Union falls short because it restricts its aid packages to the non-lethal. What Rwanda needs is assistance with strategic airlifts, armored personnel carriers, civilian armored vehicles, and fuel. Rwandans would welcome US Special Forces assistance to train and equip Rwandans heading into conflict zones. The United States and other Western countries could also support Rwandan peacekeeping and bilateral deployments with both per diems for police and soldiers, and assistance to the families”.

 

In other words, Michal Rubin wants to recruit soldiers in Africa, not to form armies that will protect their respective countries, but armies that will be paid directly by America and the Europeans, thus take orders that will instruct them on how to do the dirty work for their paymasters.

 

And you can be certain that while Rubin is thinking such plan, he is also thinking how to make Israel benefit from all this, even if this will result in setting Africa on fire.

They seek universal assent to be supreme

 When Moses lied to them saying they were chosen by God to be his favorite children, and when he promised they’ll inherit the Earth with all its content—considered to be their property even now—the so-called Jews took the cruel hoax to heart and lived by it ever since.

 

Even though thousands of years have passed, and the promise looks more like a bad joke than a divine plan to organize humanity into a hierarchy that puts them at the top of the heap, the Jews do not seem to give up demanding that humanity accept the divine will and cede all powers and possessions to them.

 

Why is that?

 

It’s because Jews are not the Jews they want the world to believe they are. It is that the Moses hoax was given to the Hebrew tribes that wanted a country of their own but did not want to work on building one. Thus, Moses suggested that they steal one. To legitimize the crime, he said it was the will of God that they do so. In fact, Moses went on to say that God had volunteered to be the general who will guide them to victory after victory when they decide to go on a rampage, kill everyone and destroy everything that stands in their way.

 

But living with the hoax that asserted they were chosen, had its negative effects on the Hebrew tribes. It happened because when they saw their numbers dwindle as they fought to steal a country, they went to the proverbial Tower of Babble and recruited people of all kind to shore up their ranks. In so doing, they sacrificed their tribal cohesion and diluted their pedigree. They could no longer pretend they were Hebrew, so they called their movement a religion, named it Jewish and made it sound like to be a Jew was to be of one and the same race.

 

And the Jews have been stealing, rampaging and killing ever since those days while constantly recruiting new conscripts from among those they con into believing they’ll become of the chosen, and will inherit the Earth with all its content.

 

But times have changed and the influence of religion on the masses, has steadily been reduced. The stories that supposedly happened in the distant past, and were believed to be miraculous events, are increasingly viewed as mythologies in the genre of the Greco-Roman deities. With this, the myth of the Jews being the chosen children of God and sole owners of the world, is vanishing.

 

Accustomed to being venerated for what they were believed to be but were not, the self-appointed Jewish leaders now refuse to accept that their people have been demoted to the status of ordinary human beings who are deprived of monopolistic privileges that would visibly demonstrate to the rest of humanity they are the chosen children of God, and meant to reign supremely above everyone.

 

To fight back against what’s happening to what they call their people, the Jewish leaders devised a plan according to which they manipulate the defects of the liberal-democratic system of government. They motivate the political leaders of those countries to betray their oath of office and serve the interests of the Jews, which they do to the detriment of their own people. This causes the masses to get angrier and more hostile toward the Jews, as manifested by the speeches they make and the acts they commit — all of which are deemed to be antisemitic.

 

You can see how this comes about when you read the article that came under the title: “It’s time to implement the EU Strategy on combating antisemitism,” and the subtitle: “Jews do not feel safe in many parts of the continent, and they need European leaders to take the matter in hand.” It was written by Rod Singer who is chairman of the Center for Jewish Impact, chairman of the Board of Trustees of World ORT, a member of the governing board of the Combat Antisemitism Movement and the former CEO of the World Jewish Congress.

 

The article was printed on December 8, 2022 in the online publication, Jewish News Syndicate.

 

What you see in the first paragraph of the article are the words “strategy” which means artificial, “combating” which means a war of some sort, “fostering Jewish life” which means granting special privileges to Jews — as well as the idea that “Europe can only prosper when its Jewish communities prosper,” all of which prompts the question: What does Robert Singer want the world to do for the Jews? Here is what he wants:

 

“Each country must develop national strategies for combating antisemitism. Adopt and use the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism and encourage local authorities, regions, cities and other institutions and organizations to do the same. Bottom of FormTo T  Actively strengthen the capacity of national and local law enforcement and judicial authorities to prosecute those involved in online hate. Strengthen education against antisemitism. Teach tolerance towards the Jews to children as young as possible, through junior and high schools, in formal and informal educational settings. More children and youths having been exposed to antisemitic hate speech and conspiracy theories, there must be a counterbalance to this in the classrooms and informal education programs. Syllabi should focus on how the Jewish people have been targets in the past and the present. All forms of antisemitism must be addressed, including modern manifestations involving Jewish collectivity in Israel”.

 

Robert Singer wants the hypnotized political leaders of the liberal democracies to hand him and his fellow Jewish leaders, the children of Europe so that they can brainwash them at a young age, and make them grow up believing that Jews are a race apart, and a supreme one at that.

 

He also wants the leaders of the liberal democracies to hand him and his fellow Jewish leaders, the entire judicial system, beginning with the codification of the Jewish definition of antisemitism. This done, he wants the Jews to own the national and local law enforcement and judicial authorities so that every Jew will have the power to summarily convict those he accuses to committing online hate.

 

Last but not least, he wants humanity to hypnotize the self into believing that Israel is heaven on Earth, and that it is the exclusive home of the Jews.

Signs that the blame game will soon be over

 For several decades, the self-appointed Jewish leaders have been blaming everyone for the rise of antisemitism in America as it has been in the rest of the world.

 

It was easy to determine that the Jewish blame game was faulty because when the leaders placed the blame on American factors, they could not explain the rise of antisemitism around the world. And when they placed the blame on international factors, they could not explain how the multitude of factors interacted with the local cultures to produce the same antisemitic result.

 

And so, whereas most of the Jewish leaders remained unruffled by the logical discrepancy, a few reviewed their thinking and felt obliged to revise their stance. Searching for a common origin to the rise of antisemitism around the world, they had no choice but to point the finger at Israel and its criminal activities in occupied Palestine.

 

The rise of a revisionist group of Jews motivated the unrepented Jewish leaders to revise the definition of antisemitism. They widened it so much as to encompass criticism of Israel. And because they had to create a new argument that would legitimize their assertions, they said that Israel was the “eternal” home of the Jewish people; a place that must remain above criticism. In fact, they asserted that to criticize Israel was to threaten its existence thus advocate its abolishment. If this were to happen, it would deny the Jews the right of self-determination in a home of their own, a flagrant denial of the Jewish human rights.

 

The rift between the unrepented Jews, and those who revised their thinking to take into account the realities of what surrounds them, quickly transformed into a haggling match of the political kind. You’ll get a taste of that when you read the article that came under the title: “The American Left Sows the Seeds and Waters the Roots of Anti-Semitism,” written by Richard Moss and published on December 8, 2022 in the online magazine The American Thinker.

 

Standing on the Right side of the political spectrum, Richard Moss began his discussion by defending the former President Donald Trump who came under criticism because of what he said and what he didn’t say over the years with regard to groups reputed to be White Supremacists — and lately because of the objectionable individuals he has been hosting at his Mar-a-Lago property.

 

Rejecting the argument that you cannot judge America’s Jews by judging what Israel does or what happens to it, Richard Moss brushed aside the criticism that was leveled against Donald Trump, and urged his readers to look instead at what the former president did for Israel. Moss’s point being that what’s good for Israel is good for America’s Jews and vice-versa, he wrapped his argument in a political envelop that was also infused with the subject of antisemitism. Here is that pregnant argument:

 

“A cursory exam of the record will demonstrate that Trump is the most pro-Israel, pro-Jewish president we have ever had. It would be useful to compare the records of Trump, the Democrat Party, and the Jewish left regarding their treatment of the Jewish people and the state of Israel, and to determine the true epicenter of anti-Semitism in America and around the world today”.

 

And while he was at it, why not try to get even more persuasive by mentioning the following realities:

 

“Members of Trump’s immediate family are Jewish — Ivanka converted to Judaism when she married her Jewish husband; Trump has Jewish grandchildren that he adores. Jews have been influential consultants and advisors throughout his long career in business and his administration. While the broad American Jewish community did not support Trump in 2016, he was very popular among observant Orthodox Jews and nearly 75% of Israelis approve of Trump”.

 

With all this under Trump’s belt, Richard Moss felt confident enough to argue that what Donald Trump did for Israel on the international stage, is a reflection of the genuine love he has for Israel and the so-called Jewish people. And so, he enumerated Trump’s gifts to Israel, which are the following:

 

Trump moved the American Embassy to Jerusalem. He  ended the Iran nuclear deal whereas the Jewish left and the Democratic Party defended it. He ended payments to the PLO which supports the families of freedom fighters who stand up to the terrorist Jewish settlers. Trump also stopped funding UNRWA, and pulled the US out of the UN Human Rights Council, an institution the Jews consider hostile to Israel.

 

But while Donald Trump was doing all this for America’s Jews and for Israel, what did America’s Left do in Richard Moss’s estimation? Here is what the Left did, according to him:

 

Obama was an associate of anti-Semite, Louis Farrakhan. The first two Muslim women elected to Congress, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, are Democrats and support the BDS movement. Keith Ellison, Congressman and former attorney general was a member of the Nation of Islam. Al Sharpton, a Black supremacist, has referred to Jews as blood-sucking, bastards and White interlopers. He spoke at the Democrat national convention, and was a frequent guest at Obama’s White House. Franklin Foer, Julia Ioffe, Dana Milbank, Roger Cohen, Peter Beinart, and others represent a clique of powerful left-wing Jewish commentators and columnists who attack Israel routinely and condemn Trump for defending it.

 

Worse than all of that, billionaire George Soros undermines Israel by funding left wing Jewish groups engaged in anti-Israel projects — they include: J Street, Jewish Voice for Peace, New Israel Fund, If Not Now, Breaking the Silence, and B’Tselem. Soros is a leading contributor to the Democrat Party. Leftism has also infected non-orthodox synagogues. The leaders of the Reform and Conservative movements have delivered their flagship institutions into the hands of Jewish anti-Semites. The Reform invited Michael Chabon, an outspoken hater of Israel, as their keynote speaker. The Conservative leadership invited the anti-Zionist group ‘If Not Now’ to train counselors at one of its largest summer camps.

 

So, you see, my friend, all these occurrences are signs that the Jewish blame game will soon be over because the Jewish majority will have discovered that throughout the centuries, Jews had no one to blame for their misery but themselves.

 

And the world will become a much safer place to live in.