Human robots running on the same algorithm contradicting each other

 Are antisemitism and Jew-hatred racism or are they not?

 

Don’t try to find out from the Jews themselves because all that you’ll get are artificial responses as if spoken by robots running by a defective algorithm that contradicts itself. It will happen when you see two robots running on the same algorithm contradict one another.

 

This happened, in fact, to Adrienne Skolnik and one of the editors at The American Thinker who proved to think contrary to each other. This was shown by the fact that one of them says antisemitism and Jew-hatred are a manifestation of racism, and the other says they are not.

 

The occasion is the article that came under the title: “Antisemitism And Jew-Hatred Are Racism As The Left Defines It,” written by Adrienne Skolnik, and published on May 29, 2022 in The American Thinker.

 

I must assume that the title for the article was chosen by one of the editors at the American Thinker because its message contradicts what the writer of the article had tried to establish. In fact, speaking about antisemitism and Jew-hatred, here is what Adrienne Skolnik wrote: “All these attacks were deliberately targeted against Jews and only Jews. Whether defined genetically or as a modern construct, is this not a clear definition of racism? A targeted people?” With this, Skolnik is affirming that antisemitism and Jew-hatred constitute a form of racism.

 

To understand how this definition contradicts the title that the editor chose for the article, you need to be aware of the reality that the Judeo-Yiddish culture brought to America by Jews, consists of creating two columns under which are listed either the friends or the perceived foes of the Jews. One column goes under the title that says “those with us,” the other goes under the title that says “those against us”.

 

Thus, when something happens that requires evaluation, what the Jews are supposed to do robotically — driven as they are by the algorithm that’s instilled into them since childhood — is to compare that thing against what’s in the two lists, and choose to believe that it is a good thing or a bad one for the Jews. Thus, telling the Jewish rank-and-file that it is the much dreaded “left” which defines that antisemitism and Jew-hatred are racism, the editor gave the readers the opposite message of what Skolnik has articulated in her presentation.

 

But given that both Adrienne Skolnik and the editors of the American Thinker are driven by one and the same algorithm, we must conclude that this algorithm is defective. And when you realize that the defect has been infused into the American culture, and has metastasized to the extent that the entire body politic of America has become paralyzed, what’s left for you to feel is the chill in your bones as you try to determine if America will ever get back to the way it was before the advent of the Jews into it.

 

Another manifestation of the defect in the algorithm which makes the Jews decide mechanically whether something is good or bad for them or Israel, is the way that they react to the question as to whether they are a race or they are not. Here is what Adrienne Skolnik said about this matter:

 

“Many Jews insist they’re not a race because race is how Hitler justified murdering 6 million Jews and trying to annihilate Jews worldwide. However, in a world in which “race” is used as a catch-all for any distinct group, and it comes with built-in protections for most groups, it’s logical to classify Jews in the same way for the same protections”.

 

Thus, Adrienne Skolnik begins by asserting that a fact is not a fact if acknowledging it leads to something that’s bad for the Jews. However, she goes on to say, that because “the word race is used as a catch-all,” we can make an exception and accept the reality that a fact is a fact, after all. She continues by saying that we can build a construct that contradicts the faulty logic which flows from the assertion that a fact is not a fact if acknowledging it would hurt the Jews. Get it?

 

If you, my dear reader, believe this is the kind of stuff that’s good only for a class of philosophy on account that it is too abstract to have an effect on the everyday life of some people if not potentially on all the people, consider what happened to Whoopi Goldberg when she said that the Holocaust was not about race. And bear in mind that she said so in conjunction with the banning of a book meant for a class of small children.

 

The implication of Goldberg’s assertion is that the Jews are not a race, which is what Skolnik says many Jews insist they are not, given that it was this idea which allowed Hitler to kill many of them. And yet, when Goldberg said exactly that, the entire Jewish establishment blew off their seats and hollered their horror at what Goldberg had said.

 

The woman was suspended for a few days, and made to apologize for what Adrienne Skolnik has failed to clarify, thus left the adults who run schools for small children, confused as to what the Jews now have in the column that says: “those with us,” and the column that says “those against us”.

 

And this is how America is transmitting to future generations the paralysis that is plaguing the body politic of today.

Deep pocket calls to account a serial killer

 There are good journalists who report the facts as they observe them, and express honest opinions when necessary. And there are amateur journalists who sensationalize what they see, and then editorialize about them rather than report honestly on what they observe. 

 

As well, the world is run by authorities that respect the good journalists and tolerate the bad ones. And there are authorities that want journalists to be purveyors of the good news that happen in their jurisdictions while ignoring the bad ones no matter how consequential they may be. These authorities protect and reward the first kind of journalists and punish the second kind.

 

And then there are the Israeli authorities who run the country of Palestine they stole by exercising the power they derive from the American legislators who are plagued with low self-esteem, thus arm and finance the Israelis on command. These despicable creatures squander the power that belongs to the people, and survive in their posts by kissing Jewish rear ends day and night.

 

Trained like savage circus animals who respect the self-confident authoritarian trainers, and attack the weakly trainers that show fear and self-doubt, the American legislators squander what they are in charge of on the Israelis who show a self-confident contempt for them by treating the journalists—that the Americans “pride” themselves on protecting—like toys meant to be played with or worse.

 

In fact, the Israelis deliberately show contempt for the Americans by treating the journalists of the world as disposal commodities to be thrown in the trash can when they do not serve the purpose for which they were supposed to have been created as described in Jewish beliefs. Thus, we see the Israelis constantly complaining to the Americans about the foreign publications that do not toe the Israeli line while bombing the buildings that house those publications, and killing the honest journalists in the field as they do their job covering the events of the day.

 

The Jews of Israel do all this in the knowledge that however blatant their acts of contempt for the Americans, they’ll hear not a peep from them or from anyone else in the American government. These are the same Americans who get on everyone’s back for doing less to harm the journalists, and say nothing about the Israeli actions, but continue to arm and finance Israel while looking the other way when the most horrible crimes are committed by the Jewish masters of America.

 

No one in the world has in the past dared to challenge this state of affairs because no one had the means to do it, and have a chance at being successful going against the combined power of the American patsies and their Jewish masters. But things have suddenly changed because finally a deep pocket has decided to challenge the status quo. That challenger is Al Jazeera, who is backed by the government of Qatar, a wealthy country sitting on vast natural gas resources.

 

You can see the news about this event as reported by Arjun Singh in an article he wrote under the title: “Al Jazeera Will Take Israel to International Criminal Court over Journalist’s Death,” published on May 26, 2022 in National Review Online.

 

Arjun Singh is reporting that Al Jazeera has decided to take Israel to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for the killing of an American journalist that happened to be of Palestinian origin. Al Jazeera is also taking Israel to court for the bombing of the building in Gaza that housed the international media.

 

That incident took place during the war of May 2021, a time when the Israeli air force proved to be useless trying to destroy the maze of tunnels in which the Gaza military had stored its equipment. It was also a time that the Israeli military was fearful of going in with grounds troops, having leaned during previous wars that it takes 10 Israeli soldiers to fight one Palestinian soldier man to man, and then run away with tail between their legs to hang on to their dear life or perish on the spot.

 

Frustrated at their inability to defeat the Palestinians who fight the Israeli occupation with the same zeal and determination as the Ukrainians who fight the Russians who are trying to occupy their land, the Israelis and their Jewish and non-Jewish supporters have learned that it does not pay to ask the Americans for weapons and money in a situation that is expected to last long. That’s because the Americans get bored quickly, and will drop you like a hot potato in no time at all.

 

Still, the Israeli occupation of Palestine has lasted more than half a century while paid for by the Americans during all that time because the Jews had learned that to keep the Americans interested in their cause, they must play on their low self-esteem by constantly making them feel they are inferior to the Jews who will accuse them of antisemitism if they relent even for a moment in their support for Israel.

 

And so, like the successful circus trainer, the Jews have kept the American political class in check by showing a self-confident contempt for them, trampling on the American Constitution, not only by making a mockery of the rule of law, but also forcing the Americans themselves to make a mockery of the rule of law. The latter did just that when the State Department sided with Israel in its opposition to the Palestinians who decided to take Israel to the ICC, citing its never-ending criminal behavior.

America’s Mandelas liberating their country

 You can go to a library and spend months researching what the British, French, Belgian, Spanish and other colonial overseers were telling each other about the restless natives that had it up to here living under colonial rule, or you can read a 1,300-word article that will give you a pretty good idea what those people were telling each other.

 

Said article came under the title: “Who’s winning Bernie Sanders’s war on AIPAC?” and the subtitle: “The Vermont Socialist and allies like AOC are the main obstacles to the pro-Israel organization’s efforts to stop the left’s anti-Israel campaign to transform the Democratic Party.” It was written by Jonathan S. Tobin, and published on May 23, 2022 in Jewish News Syndicate.

 

Tobin wrote that article to tell the other Israeli overseers things are not all that kosher in the banana plantation known as the United States of America. The nativists and their buddies are restless, he says, and they seem to be gaining ground pitting themselves and others against the loyalists who were yesterday’s indifferent lot before they turned coat and became today’s enthusiastic supporters of America’s subjugation by the Jewish overlords.

 

Tobin says AIPAC used to be the rock-solid organization that looked after Israel’s interests in the plantation till it happened that seemingly out of the blue, there appeared an aging Bernie Sanders and a handful of young militants calling themselves the Squad. Together, these individuals proved determined to liberate America of the exploitative work that AIPAC is doing to promote Israel’s interests, “our dear mother country,” as Tobin thinks of that entity.

 

Here, in condensed form, is the preamble of the Tobin article describing how the Squad and their followers — known as the “Progressive Americans” — are working to move America into a brighter future, but are opposed by the forces of darkness that work to benefit Israel:

 

“57 Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives signed a letter calling on the U.S. State Department and the FBI to launch an investigation into the death of a Palestinian American journalist who died from a gunshot wound suffered during a battle between Israeli forces and Palestinians. It was the latest indication of the inroads that anti-Israel propagandists have been making among progressives. That a quarter of the Democratic caucus in the House signed on to it shows how much ground Israel’s enemies have gained in the party in recent years. That’s the context for what is shaping as a fight between the ‘progressives’ and pro-Israel groups over the future of the Democratic Party”.

 

It is clear from that passage that the overseers of the American plantation view the events currently unfolding in America as a battle (if not a war) between themselves who are loyal to Israel (their adopted motherland) and the progressives who are loyal to America (their inherited motherland).

 

However, the difference between what went on in the past between the old colonial powers and the militants on one hand — and what’s going on in America today between the progressives and the Judeo-Israeli exploiters on the other hand — is that the militants of the past wanted the powers of occupation out of the country, whereas the progressives of today will tolerate the Jews, if the latter will just behave. In this sense, what is happening in America today, resembles what happened in South Africa between the forces of Nelson Mandela and those of the White minority that was ruling the land. In effect then, Bernie Sanders and the progressives are the Mandelas of America who seek to bring about a peaceful regime change in the country.

 

And while the progressive Mandelas of America have that goal in mind, the Judeo-Israeli colonial powers have a goal of their own. It is to regain the powers that the Jews had before they lost them. What happened was that the Jews wielded those powers like ruthless dictators exert absolute power, the reason why they lost what they had. Now that they seek to regain those powers, the Jews discovered that the progressives stand in their way, successfully preventing them from achieving their illegitimate goal.

 

It’s a good thing that the progressives are doing this, because when you study the following passage from the Tobin article, you’ll become horrified at what the Jews were able to accomplish in the past, and what they are trying to replicate now and in the future. Here is the shocking passage:

 

“Pro-Israel political donors and political action committees have been rallying to the support of those seeking to prevent the entry into Congress of future ‘Squad’ members. AIPAC formed its own PAC last year to help in this effort, joining with others such as the Democratic Majority for Israel (DMFI). They’ve had their victories. DFMI merely echoes what AIPAC’s goal has been since it began several decades ago, saying that its purpose is to do what it can to ensure bipartisan support for Israel”.

 

Do you realize why this passage is horrifying? It is so because the mention of bipartisan support for Israel has come to mean absolute dictatorial rule of America by the Jews. You see, my friend, when the American Congress is paralyzed, and cannot do anything for America, yet witnesses the moral prostitutes from both parties rush to approve Israel’s demands without even debating the issues, you have what amounts to a unanimous support for a Jewish rule of America that neither Stalin nor Mussolini, nor even Hitler dreamed of.

 

This demonic situation had been the norm in America for half a century till Bernie Sanders and the Squad began to change things. They made the Jews panic, forcing them to try renewing the status quo ante, a time when moral prostitution was celebrated, and America was sinking into the Jewish sewer bit by bit by bit, day after day after day.

The lie that failed to create a viable legend

 If you want to know how legends are created, there is an example that will show you how an attempt was made to create a legend, and why it failed to be sustained as a viable folktale.

 

The example came in the form of an article under the title: “The Yom Kippur War and Ending the Ukraine Crisis,” and the subtitle: “A diplomatic win will come only if Washington takes advantage of the evolving military stalemate to reach a ceasefire and lay the foundations for a political agreement,” written by Leon Hadar, and published on May 17, 2022 in The National Interest.

 

It has been 49 years since Israel’s mouthpieces in the English speaking world have been attempting to  create an Israeli legend about the 1973 battle that saw the Egyptian military cross the Suez Canal and liberate the Sinai that had been under Israeli occupation for 6 years. And it has been 49 years that Israel’s mouthpieces have been failing at this task because the lie is too big to be packaged neatly into a bundle small enough to fit a bumper sticker.

 

Leon Hadar is supposed to be the great big expert on Mideastern affairs, who wrote books and articles on the subject, and was acclaimed for his work. But then, you see him make blunders like he did in his current article, and you wonder what happened to him. Here is one blunder that casts doubt on either his knowledge of the subject or his sincerity at telling the truth about the subject: “Years of diplomatic negotiations and a two-year war of attrition failed to force Israel out of Sinai.” That was not a two-year war of attrition, it was a six-year war of attrition, from 1967 to 1973. Also, being invited to negotiate, Gamal Abdel Nasser had given the 3 “Nos,” one of them being “no negotiations.” Thus, Leon Hadar mentioning “years of diplomatic negotiations,” is purely the product of his imaginations.

 

Furthermore, it happened when at the end of the Israeli Pearl Harbor style attack on the Egyptian air force, the latter used their navy and land forces to begin the counter attack against Israel. While working on rebuilding their air force, the Egyptians sank Israel’s Eilat destroyer in 1967, and began the land War of Attrition in the Sinai. Six years later, when the Egyptians crossed the Canal and smashed through Israel’s Bar Lev line, illusions about Israel being invincible melted like butter under the hot sun of the Sinai.

 

In fact, Moshe Dayan who was the Minister of Defense went berserk, and he too melted like butter in the Sinai. He was taken to hospital where he remained till he died. Golda Meir — who was nicknamed pimping madam of Israel for inviting the men of the world to visit Israel carrying lots of money, to sample the attractive Jewish prostitutes from Eastern Europe filling Tel Aviv’s streets — took out the cyanide poison and got ready to swallow it the moment that the Egyptians crossed the border into Israel. But Sadat had promised the American President Nixon that he will not go into Israel. Look now what Leon Hadar is saying about this matter:

 

“Sadat’s goals were more limited and involved crossing the Suez Canal and forcing Israeli troops into defending their positions in the Sinai Peninsula, allowing Egypt to press the international community, including the United States, to return Sinai to Egypt”.

 

Yes, Sadat’s goals were limited, which is what he told President Nixon they were. But he did not think for a moment that he cannot win the war, even go into Israel and “break” it, which would have forced him to “own” it, and be responsible for the welfare of 5 million Jews whose activities over the decades had made millions of angry enemies around the world. And these hordes of enemies were prepared to descend on the Jews, and show them what payback time looks like.

 

To keep his word to Nixon, Sadat halted his advance before getting too close to the border with Israel. Because the forces of Egypt and Israel were tangled up with each other by that time, it was decided to have a ceasefire and a talk — not a diplomatic talk but one — between the two militaries, so as to disentangle the forces, thus prevent the further shedding of blood.

 

But then, guess what happened, my friend. Well, what happened with Israel, is what always happens with Jews. They broke their “solemn word of honor” and asked the Americans to help them do something they can use in their future propaganda campaigns. The Americans that had superior surveillance capabilities went along with the Israelis, and gave them what they wanted. Here is what the Americans had seen:

 

Over the 6-year period between 1967 and 1973, the city of Suez that is situated on the West bank of the Canal, well in the range of Israelis guns, had been evacuated of its civilian population. Egypt’s Third Army moved in, bringing with it its own guns to respond to Israeli shelling. And so, the duel with big guns went on throughout the time that the War of Attrition had lasted.

 

When the order was given to cross the Canal, the Third Army was among those that crossed. When this happened, the City of Suez was emptied of military as well as civilian presence. American surveillance saw an opportunity here to give to Israel for its future propaganda campaign. It participated in the war by flying into the zone, war material that a token Israel force could use to establish a presence in Suez, thus claim that it did what it could not do during 6 years of war. But instead of just saying that Israel established a presence on the West bank with a small token force, here is what the Jews are now saying:

 

 “U.S. military assistance allowed Israel to eventually halt Egypt’s attack. By the end of the war, Israel had advanced to positions some 101 kilometers from Egypt’s capital and occupied 1,600 square kilometers, cutting the Cairo-Suez road and encircling the bulk of Egypt’s Third Army. Soviet military aid failed to change the balance of power on the battlefield, and leaders in Moscow threatened to intervene directly in the war, raising concerns that they would unleash a Third World War unless the Americans pressed Jerusalem to agree to a ceasefire that would halt the Israeli advances. That is what the United States did”.

 

Sadat that had told the Russians to leave Egypt before he ordered the crossing of the Canal, was beginning to forge a warm relationship with America’s President Nixon. Having given his word not to crush Israel, he found himself at odds with his Chief of Staff Saad el-Chazly who initially wanted to do just that. But if not cross into Israel, he wanted at least to replicate what the navy had done when it sank the Eilat. In fact, a tanker was bringing oil to an Israel that was thirsty for the fuel, and Chazly suggested sinking it, but Sadat refused to greenlight the idea, especially since the ship was a civilian vessel, and not even under Israeli flag.

 

The war ended. Egypt triumphed. Nixon visited Egypt, and had a good time riding the train along the Nile. Back at home, he faced Watergate and resigned. Sadat continued his peace effort by visiting Israel and calling for “no more wars between us.” He was assassinated, but the peace move he began has endured. Meanwhile, Jewish kooks continue to mutilate history hoping to create legends that fail to impress because they cannot be made to hold water. As Walter Cronkite would say: That’s the way it is.

Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) protects us

 When for personal reasons, Winston Churchill convinced trigger-happy and gullible Americans that the way to go was to encircle the Soviet Union with bases because these people are hard to understand, therefore must be considered evil — America started Cold War 1 that proved unnecessary by the behavior of the Russians when at the end of that war, the losing Soviets (now a nuclear superpower but an economic wreck) proved to be a docile pussycat desirous only to be protected like everyone else, and sharing the good life with those who tried to strangle it, motivated by the demonic advice of Winston Churchill.

 

Having caused the Soviet Union to permanently live with a war economy that allowed it to become a nuclear superpower sitting on a civilian economy that could not sustain it, America and its Western European allies created a situation of theoretical stalemate between them and the Soviet Union. This was a situation that reigned during the entire period of Cold War 1. That period earned the moniker Mutual Assured Destruction or MAD in recognition of the fact that a war between the two nuclear armed camps would have annihilated both sides, and taken down the rest of the world with them. This is why neither side dared to start a hot war.

 

When at the end of Cold War 1, the Soviet Union voluntarily relieved itself of the responsibility to protect and guide the Eastern European satellites under its influence, it lost half of its population and a great deal of the territory — part of which was its own, and part was under its controlling influence. Instead of seeing this act as a gesture of goodwill on which to build and create the world that human beings have been clamoring for during the millennials that they did much to inflict misery on themselves and each other, the Western alliance headed by America started Cold War 2 by taking into its camp the satellites that used to be under Soviet influence. In so doing, they tightened the rope on Russia’s neck as if it had lost not the Cold War but a hot war against the West, leaving behind much spoils for the winners to pick up.

 

This development caused the Russian leaders to see things as representing an existential threat to themselves and the land to which they sacrificed much to protect against foreign invaders during the centuries. Since the break-up of the Soviet Union is what caused the chain of events that brought us to this point, the Soviet leaders determined that the logical response to the moves of the Western alliance can only be the attempt to reconstruct the old Soviet Union. To that end, Russia invaded Ukraine that was formerly its most prized rump in an attempt to make it part of Russia once again.

 

The war in Ukraine is ongoing at this time with Russia fully committed to winning it, and the entire Western alliance, now apparently on the side of Ukraine, fully committed to preventing Russian from winning. Enter the stage from the far right, the shapeshifting Jews who are having a great time playing the peacemakers trying to bring a resolution to the conflict so as to allow Russia to ramp down and save face, while at the same time flooding the Western marketplace of ideas with exhausting anti-Russian propaganda, aimed at making the West believe that the Jews, including Israel, stand with the West.

 

You can see how that Jewish effort is playing itself out when you study the article that came under the title: “Tyrannical dictator Putin gives new life to NATO,” written by Clifford D. May, and published on May 17, 2022 in The Washington Times.

 

Having failed to bring the Russian and Ukrainian leaders to meet in occupied Jerusalem, of all the places in the world — an attempt that if successful would have legitimized the Jewish occupation of Palestine while at the same time delegitimized the Russian occupation of Ukraine — the Jewish mouthpieces of Israel, such as Clifford May, started to attack Russia with all they got.

 

The propaganda purveyed by Clifford May had been that the invasion of Ukraine was the brainchild of the Russian President Vladimir Putin who wants to reconstruct the Russia of the Czarist era (stretched over 250 years), which is a bizarre contention given that during most of that time, Russia enjoyed a smaller territory than today’s Russia.

 

Throughout the article, Clifford May is expressing the delight that Russia has invaded Ukraine because he sees the move as the act that got the Western allies to rally around America, even see other European nations that lived as neutral states for decades, finally deciding to seek membership in the NATO military alliance headed by America. These were Finland and Sweden who did so as an insurance policy against a possible Russian aggression, a move that would trigger Article 5 of the NATO charter, prompting all the members to come to the rescue.

 

Also throughout the article, Clifford May is promoting the idea that deterrence is the way for America to go, thus keep the world safe from the bad characters who threaten the good people that cannot defend themselves. But this has proven to be a false contention given that nations as small as Venezuela, and as powerful as Russia are doing what they want while giving America the middle finger. The truth of the matter is that so far, MAD is the reason why there has not been a nuclear war on Planet Earth. But there has been plenty of smaller wars in which America got involved, and got its ass kicked everywhere by big boots and small boots.

 

The sad fact is that what deterrence manages to do, is force the other guys to keep up with America by arming themselves to the teeth. This, in turn, feeds the worldwide arms race which duplicates the danger we see in the streets of America. It is that many guns have led to the murderous rampage no one knows how to stop.

 

Humanity wants a better outcome than that.

Will they now do the right thing and eat crow?

 Can you imagine the editors of the New York Post making yet another horrible mistake — which is as natural to them as breathing ­— admitting that they erred and publicly eat crow to pay for their mistake?

 

How about if to them, eating crow consists of writing an editorial in which they apologize for jumping the gun and thoughtlessly supporting Israel when it does the wrong things as much as when it does the right things? Would the editors of the Post write such an editorial?

 

Consider the reality that whenever an Israeli is killed, the government of Israel automatically blames the Palestinians, and so do the editors of the New York Post who never call their supposition disgusting, even though it was made before an investigation or a trial were held to determine who was culpable.

 

Well, the editors of the New York Post have the chance to redeem themselves by retracting their latest editorial in which they called the assertion made by Rep. Rashida Tlaib, disgusting. The editors should retract and apologize whether the upcoming investigation will prove them right or wrong. It is that they attacked Rashida Tlaib because she made the reasonable assumption that because the Israelis use guns in their confrontation with the Palestinians who use only their bare hands and stones, it must be that the shooting of a journalist happened with a bullet that came out the nozzle of an Israeli gun.

 

“Who needs a trial — or even an investigation?” howled the editors of the New York Post in an editorial they wrote under the title: “The week in whoppers,” and published on May 12, 2022. The editors proceeded to explain what they thought went on that day, and hummed an accusatory hmm when reporting that the Palestinian Authority — whose trust in the Israeli government after half a century of negotiations came down to zero — had refused to hand the killer bullet to the spiteful government.

 

Now, my friend, I must admit that the New York Post editorial was not without redemption. It is that the piece of work produced by those editors inadvertently brought out something that the Jews have always refused to acknowledge. Here is what they did this time: “Tlaib is only interested in slamming the Middle East’s only true democracy as it defends itself against terrorists. Disgusting”.

 

How redemptive is this? It is when you consider that every time someone accused a Jew of being obnoxious, the Jews complained about the use of such “inappropriate language.” They complained in their own publications as well as those which pretend to be mainstream but are run by Jews, such as the New York Post and the New York Daily News. But now, the editors of the Post have shown that it is acceptable to describe Tlaib as being “disgusting” because she slammed what they view as a “democratic” Israel defending itself. In so doing, however, they validated the view that Jews who call themselves Zionists can be viewed as obnoxious by others because they stole the country that belongs to the Palestinians who are the most noble and peaceful people on the Planet.

 

This being the case, what are the ramifications of the Jews being viewed as obnoxious by the general public? We get an answer to this question by studying the article that came under the title: “Don’t just condemn anti-Semitism; combat it,” written by Marisa Bearak and published in the New York Daily News on May 13, 2022.

 

To argue that it is necessary to educate the public about the Holocaust in order to solve the problem of antisemitism, Marisa Bearak has managed instead to demonstrate that educating the public about the Holocaust, makes people illiterate about the Holocaust, and increases antisemitism. And so, Bearak has concluded that what’s needed in America, is doing more Holocaust education. Imagine.

 

And so, when you read that kind of passages, they make you think that this woman, Marisa Bearak is a one-of-a-kind screwball, but you’d be wrong. The fact is that there is not a single rabbi or Jewish writer that does not share those views. They are all screwballs.

 

The following is a condensed version of the passages that tell all about the screwy viewpoints of Jewish so-called thinkers:

 

“With 1.7 million Jews in the [New York] metropolitan area, there are more Jews here than in any one place besides Israel. Yet, more visibility has only made Jews more vulnerable. To curb Jew-hatred must be central to a plan to combat anti-Semitism. It should start with passing a Holocaust education bill. New York is among the states that scored the lowest in a nationwide 2020 survey measuring knowledge of the Holocaust among millennials and Gen Z adults. While teaching about the Holocaust is mandatory in New York, a study of the current curriculum will provide necessary insight into gaps in Holocaust education and a better understanding of how it is taught in schools. Condemning anti-Semitism is not enough”.

 

During the four thousand years that the idea of Judaism has been haunting Planet Earth, the Jews have convinced the political leaders of the countries where they found themselves, to impose the Jews on their own people by enacting Jewish-specific laws and rules that privileged them. This caused the public resentment that the Jews conveniently call Jew-hatred and antisemitism. They complained about it in the way that Marisa Bearak has done in her article. But instead of “combating” antisemitism, the approach has fueled antisemitism.

 

It follows from this that the way to combat Jew-hatred and antisemitism is to tell the Jews they got too much already, and they need to stop nagging the higher-ups for more, because all they will get from now on, is a public dressing down and humiliation.

 

In fact, the editors of the New York Post can begin the trend by eating crow, and writing an apology addressed to Rashida Tlaib, while telling the Jews they must end the occupation of Palestine.

The victim cannot define the wrong done him

 Let’s do a far-out kind of thought experiment to help us understand a complex principle that has been marred by waves of haggling tsunamis, it can no longer be discussed using a normal language, or be resolved to the satisfaction of anyone.

 

So, let’s imagine that Planet Mars is populated by “little green people” called Martians. Centuries ago we, Earthlings, travelled to Mars and established close relations with its inhabitants. Some Earthlings migrated to Mars and made it their home planet. Given that more Martians loved life on Earth than Earthlings loved life on Mars, large numbers of Martians migrated to Earth and made it their home planet.

 

Earthlings, who are endowed with a peculiar trait, began to discriminate against the Martians that came to live among them and be of them. When discrimination became so intense that it began to disrupt the social order, the Central Government of Earth passed a law prohibiting discrimination against the Martians. The law is based on the definition of what constitutes anti-Martian sentiment as defined by the Martians themselves who took into account the history of anti-Martian discrimination on Earth when formulating their definition.

 

Then it happened one day that a Martian businessman fired one of his employees that happened to be an Earthling. The businessman argued that he had to do it because business slowed, and he was forced to trim the workforce. But immediately after that, the Martian businessman hired a Martian worker to fill the position. Upon learning this, the fired Earthling started picketing the building where he used to work, holding a sign that read: My little green Martial boss illegally replaced me with a little green Martian.

 

The lawyer for the Martian went to court seeking an injunction to prohibit the Earthling from picketing. He also sued the Earthling for violating the anti-discrimination law that’s meant to protect Martians from the utterings of Earthling hatemongers. While the courts and the lawyers were busy considering what fell into their laps, the media and general public earnestly debated the subject of discrimination.

 

Here is what it all boiled down to:

 

In the definition of what constitutes anti-Martianism devised by the Martians themselves, there is the provision that to refer to Martians as being green or little, is to use old tropes and memes that help spread anti-Martian hate. And so the question is this: Was the fired worker guilty of something because in the past, people cringed at the mention of Martians being green or little? This is a relevant question to ask because Earthlings have gotten so used to the Martians being green and little, they no longer react to the mention of what is true and visible. Thus, to refer to Martians as being green or little, is no longer an insult or a means to stir up antimartian hatred.

 

So now, my friend, you want to know what this is about. I’ll tell you what it is. It’s about an article that came under the title: “Federal courts shouldn’t force Texas to subsidize discrimination,” and the subtitle: “It is well-settled that states may prevent their funds from being used for discriminatory conduct.” It was written by Kenneth L. Marcus, and published on May 9, 2022 in The Washington Times.

 

Here is the issue that Kenneth Marcus has taken up: “In A&R Engineering and Testing v. City of Houston, a federal trial court blocked enforcement of the Texas law that bans anti-Israel boycotters from state contracts during the duration of their boycotts”.

 

Kenneth Marcus goes on to argue in favor of the Texas Law which says that if you’re going to adhere to the principles of BDS, you cannot deal with a publicly financed Texas institution. This is wat happened when the engineering firm wanted to do business for the City of Houston, and the latter said it could not deal with the engineering firm due to the Texas law that prohibits such interactions. The engineering firm sued in the federal trial court, which ruled in favor of the firm by invalidating the Texas law.

 

Marcus is not happy with that ruling, and so he advanced a huge mass of mumbo-jumbo haggling to try refuting it. But like all such attempts, Marcus failed to produce a work that can be respected by serious people who search for workable solutions to a problem that endures.

 

What Marcus is missing in all of this, is the logic behind the saying that he who claims was made to suffer a wrong, cannot formulate a definition of the wrong that was supposedly committed. That is, the Jews or their friends cannot define antisemitism anymore than the Martians could define antimartianism. That’s because to define the wrong done is to formulate half the verdict that follows, and that would be unfair to the accused.

 

And yet, in haggling his gobbledygook presentation, Kenneth Marcus attacked the BDS movement because he says that in addition to dredging out old tropes and memes such as those used in the past to spread anti-Jewish hatred, BDS violates the definition of antisemitism as formulated by the Jews themselves who rightly or wrongly claim to be Semites.

 

Thus, judging people today by what happened in the past, and judging them according to a definition that was formulated by the accusers, is a sickly nonsense that the Federal Court rejected when it rejected the impractical Texas law.

 

More power to the Federal Court.

A twisted Alan Dershowitz sense of proportions

 To accuse a student newspaper of exaggerating its presentation of the Palestine-Israel dispute, Alan Dershowitz used the term: “Blood libel” obviously thinking that this is not an exaggeration. This prompts us to juxtapose the two ideas to see which one is an exaggeration and which is not.

 

In an article he wrote under the title: “The Harvard Crimson Normalizes Growing Campus Antisemitism,” Alan Dershowitz has accused the Crimson editors of practicing blood libel because they said they now support the BDS movement which resembles the anti-apartheid movement that was instrumental in liberating South Africa from the grip of apartheid. The Dershowitz article was published on May 6, 2022 in the Jewish online publication Algemeiner.

 

As to the meaning of blood libel, we find that it originated in Europe during the Dark Age when Jews (who lived in ghettos to protect themselves from the aggressive populations that did not like their Jewish looks, attacked them for who they are) came up with a solution to their predicament that backfired on them.

 

What the Jews did was change their looks by crossbreeding with the Europeans. To this end, they devised a scheme according to which they kidnapped the street children that were abandoned by their parents, raised them as Jews in the ghettos and crossbred with them when they grew old enough to procreate. While this scheme succeeded in changing the “hook-nosed” Jewish look to that of the natural European appearance, it created other problems for the Jews.

 

It is that, knowing about the Jewish kidnapping of Christian children, but not knowing why the Jews kidnapped them, the European populations connected this act with stories that the Jews were telling about the Passover. This was a time when the Jews smeared blood on the doors of Egyptian households containing the children that must be murdered. The Jews did this while baking the unleavened bread they were famous for. Thus, the European populations could not avoid the conclusion that the Jews were making bread with the blood of Christian children. Ever since that time, the Europeans maintained that belief and held it against the Jews who saw it as the worst libel ever devised and used against them.

 

Back to the Alan Dershowitz contention that to equate Israel’s treatment of the indigenous Palestinians it has under occupation, with the Afrikaners’ treatment of the indigenous population of South Africa — is an exaggeration. That is, to accuse Israel of practicing apartheid is the same as to accuse the Jews of murdering Christian children to make bread with their blood.

 

Has this man lost his mind, or is there some sort of logic to what he is doing? To find the answer to this question, we study what Israel has been doing that Alan Dershowitz has always approved of. By annexing the West Bank — which the Israelis call Judea and Samaria — a piece at the a time, the Jews hope to create a Jewish state that extends from the (Jordan) River to the (Mediterranean) Sea. In response to this scheme, the Palestinians came up with the cry from the heart that goes: From the River to the Sea, Palestine shall be free.

 

This is the vision that the Jews fear the most. A democratic state modelled after post-apartheid South Africa where a majority of Palestinians and a minority of Jews share the governance of a country where everyone will have the opportunity to live a tranquil life, and freely pursue happiness. Instead of this, what the Jews want is a state whose population will always be composed of an imported Jewish majority ruling over a continually diminishing Palestinian minority.  

 

These two competing visions were developed because Israel made it so that the two-state solution became extremely difficult to realize. The Israelis did it by confiscating Palestinian lands and building Jewish settlements on them in such a way that it will not be possible to create a contiguous country for the Palestinians. This left only the one-state proposition as a viable option.

 

The problem with this is that it demonstrates the Jewish approach to doing things. They think up a scheme which they believe came to them as a revelation from God. They rush to implement what turns out to be a ballistic bullet whose trajectory cannot be deviated or aborted. It keeps going unguided till it hits something, causing whatever damage will result.

 

This is what happened to the Israeli scheme. They created a monstrosity that trapped them as would quicksand. Unable to move in any direction that will help them solve a condition that’s boiling furiously, and promises to explode, the Israelis are pulled down into a condition that may be impossible to describe with certainty, but is not too difficult to predict will be soaked with blood.

 

Given that for half a century, it was Jewish leaders such as Alan Dershowitz who put the Israelis in their current impossible condition by exercising an absolute dictatorial control on all works that dealt with Jewish or Israeli themes — only to be exposed as false and destructive by the advent of the internet, Dershowitz saw that he would be working against himself if he tried to silence all those who will emulate the Harvard Crimson, by slamming the Crimson at this time. And so, what he did instead, was to whine about the 220 words that were edited out of his 890-word article.

 

Here again, Alan Dershowitz seems to equate editing out a slice of a single pro-Jewish article one time, with silencing other voices time after time for half a century.

 

This guy has no sense of proportions.

It is Lavrov and Harsanyi going against Schumer

 On May 2nd and May 3rd, 2022 something remarkable happened in America in response to something that was said thousands of miles away.

 

It happened that the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reminded the world of something that was legitimately or falsely “common knowledge” decades ago, but was nevertheless smothered under tons of Jewish lamentations and cancelation of the researchers who dared to bring the subject to life — which they did to see it handled professionally, and added to history in a scholarly manner. But the subject was kept out of circulation ever since as demanded by the Jews.

 

The subject touches on the role that wealthy Jews played in the implementation of the Holocaust that was carried out by the German military against the Jews of Europe. Even though the Jewish leaders admit that ordinary Jews, thrown into concentration camps, have collaborated with the Germans in return for being treated less harshly than the others, those same Jewish leaders do not admit that wealthy Jews collaborated with the Nazis in building the gas chambers and crematoriums where the Jews were killed and disposed of.

 

The Jewish leaders of today reject mention of this truth because it is a can of worms that if opened by serious researchers and dealt with professionally, will open the door to reveal the relationships that the Jewish leaders of that time had developed with the Nazi Party and the German military. This was not the relationship of simple acquaintance, but a kinship that saw Germans with Jewish blood in them, finance and staunchly work to build the infamous gas chambers and crematoriums, knowing full well what they were intended to be used for.

 

Having kept the lid on this can of worms for decades, the Jewish leaders of today were hit in the face with a reality they thought had died a long time ago, and would never be brought to light. But it did because the Ukraine War proved to be so multifarious, discussing it invariably leads to the discussion of subjects that the Jews wish to keep secret — which is what happened when Sergey Lavrov mentioned that Hitler himself may have had Jewish blood in him.

 

You can see how, when and where the Lavrov comment was made when you read the article that came under the title: “Schumer slams ‘sickening’ comments from Russian foreign minister as antisemitic,” written by Kate Scanlon, and published on May 2, 2022 in The Washington Examiner.

 

It is so unusual for someone to blow up as did Schumer about something that was common knowledge when he was a boy, you must wonder if his family tree, which can be traced back to Ukraine and Austria, does not show Nazi affiliation. And why not? If Catholic Madeleine Albright was of Jewish origin, why could Jewish Chuck Schumer not be of Nazi origin?

 

You can draw the same sort of conclusions about many of Israel’s leaders, most of whom are of European descent. They too reacted to the Lavrov comment as did Schumer without a single one of them suggesting the settling of this issue by letting the good historians that have been canceled, banned or sidelined — return to their work and again study that period of German history without the fear of being punished for revealing the truth.

 

Two more articles in the Washington Examiner, published on May 3, 2022, tell a great deal more about this subject, and you may be interested in consulting them. One article came under the title: “Russian foreign minister’s ‘Jewish blood’ jab tests Israel’s neutrality,” and was written by Joel Gehrke. The other article came under the title: “Russia repeats attack and claims Israel is supporting ‘neo-Nazi regime in Kyiv,’” and was written by Max Thornberry.

 

And then, there is an opinion piece on the same subject that you will not want to miss. It came under the title: “BDS and Jewish Self-Loathing,” written by David Harsanyi, and published on May 2, 2022 in National Review Online.

 

It is obvious that David Harsanyi was not aware of the Schumer or Israeli reactions when he sat down to write his analysis of what had happened — and rush his piece to be published one day before Schumer or the Israelis had the time to express their opinions.

 

What you’ll see in Harsanyi’s piece is what’s prevalent among rightwing Jews nowadays. These people are so enraged by the stance of the moderate and leftwing Jews when it comes to matters that pertain to Israel, Jews on the right passionately attack those on the left as if they were mortal enemies: They call them self-loathing Jews.

 

The burning preoccupation at this time being the BDS movement, Harsanyi brought up the subject to show that what’s happening today has roots in the past but that it has nothing to do (or maybe just a little to do) with the Lavrov’s contention that Hitler may have had Jewish blood in him. Look how Harsanyi formulated his view on the subject:

 

“There is no evidence that Hitler had Jewish blood, and even if there had been one Jewish grandfather, Hitler didn’t grow up in a Jewish household, and his venom didn’t spawn from self-loathing”.

 

This was such a summary dismissal of an important matter, it makes you wonder if Harsanyi has not spent some time studying the matter, discovered a few unsavory truths, and resolved to join the crowd that wants to keep the truth from being revealed.

 

It would tax our credulity to believe that the people who today go far out of their way to plot schemes that end up marrying their children to those of prominent and rich people — were not doing the same thing in Germany when the Nazis were the dominant power in the Third Reich. They do it today like they did it then, even before that to the days of Moses and Esther of Persia.

 

This being the reality of Jewish life, the idea of Jews leaving their synagogue to join the Nazi Party, is as much a certainty as it is of Jews leaving their clan to join the Klan.

 

That’s what David Harsanyi is trying to say.

Juvenile logic posing existential threat to life

 The difference between juvenile logic and mature logic is that the juveniles base their logic primarily on the dictation of their instinct as bequeathed to them by evolution. In contrast, the adults base their logic more on the dictation imposed on them by their experience in life. This results in a more flawless logic, the higher the level of experience that’s behind it.

 

What can happen, however, is that some individuals grow up and age under conditions that prevent them from gaining an experience weighty enough to overrule the evolutionary instinct they would have inherited for being a member of the higher primates. These adults not only embarrass themselves and their clan with their juvenile logic, their influence in society often leads to serious consequences.

 

You can see an example of that in the Washington Examiner’s editorial that came under the title: “To yield to Putin’s nuclear threats would be to yield the free world’s future,” published on May 1, 2022.

 

The editors wrote that piece to tell America’s decision makers they must ignore the statements issued by the various Russian players to the effect that if the West will push Russia so far into the corner as to threaten its existence, Russia will have no alternative but to detonate the “doomsday machine,” known as the formidable Russian nuclear arsenal, and take the world down with it.

 

Whereas it is obvious that the postures of both the Russians and the Americans attest to a lack of maturity on both sides, the way that the editors of the Washington Examiner explain those postures and then respond to them, is what should frighten humanity the most. The following is a condensed version of the editor’s preamble which introduces the readers to the subject:

 

“Russia is upping its World War III rhetoric. Putin has threatened any nation that directly intervenes in Ukraine with retaliation via nuclear weapons. At the same time, foreign minister Lavrov says the risks of a nuclear war are now very significant. Prominent commentators suggested that a nuclear war with the West wouldn't be problematic because Russians would go to heaven, whereas Westerners would perish. The fact that this was allowed on state media is highly significant because there is nothing more serious than nuclear war. Yet this is not the time to bow before Russian threats. Biden must respond to Russian aggression forcefully. As Americans look with concern at Russia's escalation, they must also be reminded that this showdown is not simply about what form Ukraine survives. This conflict is about the future of the entire free world”.

 

With this preamble, the editors of the Washington Examiner have reduced the planet’s continued existence or its destruction to a simple choice: Either Ukraine will join the Western alliance, and the billions of humans on it will survive, or Ukraine will be absorbed into the Eastern alliance, and the billions of humans on it will risk annihilation.

 

The editors made their choice, and have argued for it vehemently. If you get the impression that the use of the word “vehement” means the editors came up with strong arguments and presented them forcefully, you’d be wrong. It’s because the editors (1) brushed aside what they called the immediate moral and political merits of the situation. (2) They invoked what they call “sacred principles” to suit the moment without thinking of the consequences that come with such invocation.

 

First, the editors brushed aside the moral obligations which are due to Ukraine because what’s more important than Ukraine, say the editors, is none other than America herself, and what she will tolerate in the 21st century. On second thought, say the editors, add to that the desire of the free world (whatever that is) which allegedly marches in lockstep with America.

 

Second, the editors blew their case out of the water when they used the most subtle of methods to define what they mean by sacred principles. Here is their definition: “A sacred principle of the post-1945 international order is that a sovereign democracy cannot be extinguished simply because a more powerful nation desires it”.

 

What is tailor-made for the occasion in this instance, is the use of the two words “sovereign” and “democracy.” The reason why they were stuck here, is to exclude Palestine and include Israel. The subtle argument of the editors, is to the effect that because the Jews stole Palestine while still a British Mandate and not a sovereign nation, annihilating the Palestinian identity is acceptable to America even if it contradicts the United Nations’ definition of genocide.

 

By the same token, while America pursues a nuclear deal with Iran, it accepts Israel’s lie about having a nuclear arsenal it keeps on the table to use against Iran when it will so desire. America accepts this double-standard because Israel also lies about being a full democracy, whereas Iran quietly practices the parts of democracy that suit its condition. Apparently, to America a deliberate full lie uttered by a Jew, is more valuable than a chance partial truth spoken by an Iranian.

 

The editors of the Washington Examiner go on to discuss the rapprochement that has taken place between Russia and China. That’s a subject that will be discussed another time.

 

Meanwhile we continue to be gripped by the antics of the grown juveniles who sit on enough nuclear bombs to send us all one-way to Kingdom Come.