Thoughts on Master Builders and Grave Diggers

Let's imagine a new spectrum for human achievement that spans the gamut from the most useful for the progress of human Civilization at one end of the spectrum, to the destroyers of what's being achieved in the realm of human Civilization at the other end. How do we measure the work of someone so that we may place them in the correct slot on the spectrum?

Before starting anything, we should be humble enough to recognize that we cannot set-up such a spectrum, working purely in the abstract and out of the imagination. In fact, works of this kind are always done after the accumulation of a number of case studies. The cases are graded and placed in the spectrum according to the rank they earned. This is how we should approach setting-up the spectrum of human achievement.

So, we begin with one case that came under the title: “World Bank Ignores Palestinian Authority 'Play-to-Slay' Crisis of Its Own Making,” written by Maurice Hirsch and published on October 4, 2019 in the Jewish publication, Algemeiner. To understand what the author is saying so that we may place him in the correct slot on the spectrum of human achievement, we need to understand a simple concept that relates to economics. Here it is:

A community that is engaged in economic activity, produces a finite amount of goods and services which are consumed by all the members of the community. Because a community is made of diverse people, some are allowed to consume more than others. If the disparity between the rich and the poor is too large, an ideal solution would be to increase the production, thus give more to the poor. But most of the time, this cannot be done. And so, another solution is often advocated. It is called the redistribution of the national income. Under this scheme, some of what the rich receive is given to the poor.

If, for whatever reason, a community cannot produce enough to provide all of its members with the minimum to survive even if the wealth is distributed evenly among all the members, that community will appeal to foreign governments and institutions, asking for help to close the gap between what it can produce locally, and what it needs to guaranty the survival of everyone. The one thing the community will not do, is deprive one segment of society of the necessities of life so that another segment will have enough to go on living. It is thought that no one has yet been forced to make a choice as to who shall live and who shall die.

Under normal circumstances, the donor countries and institutions respond favorably and altruistically to an appeal from a community in distress. This is the case now, even if America, which is one of the big donors, is beginning to place conditions on giving out aid. America makes an exception, however, which is that for some weird reason, it gives Israel more than the little thing asks for, despite its abhorrent record.

And that's not all which goes on between America and Israel that's weird. Having worked together for half a century at transforming what used to be a thriving member of the Fertile Crescent into a have-not Palestine, the Jews of Israel and America came up with an idea that is so savage and shameful, Satan would have vanquished a team of demons had they been so beastly as to suggest something like it. And yet, here it is, the idea was put into effect by America and Israel, as described by Maurice Hirsch in his article.

What Hirsch complains about, is that the World Bank is not praising the Jews of America or Israel for implementing a scheme they call the “Situation.” It consists of engaging in the systematic suppression of the Palestinians' ability to produce as much as they need to maintain a decent standard of living. When a dire situation resulted, America decided to help close the gap between what is produced in occupied Palestine, and what is consumed locally. But then, all of a sudden, the Jews came up with a beastly scheme to turn America's aid into an instrument of duress, and use it as leverage to force the Palestinian Authority (PA) to accept the unacceptable. Here is how the Jews envisaged the scheme would work:

To make the “Situation” work as if it were consented to by the PA, the Jews convinced America to cut off its aid to the Palestinians so that there will not be enough for everyone to live on even at the subsistence level. This done, a promise was dangled in front of the PA to restore the aid if and when it implemented a program to punish –– not the dead or imprisoned Palestinian youngsters who are in a permanent state of punishment –– but their families. This would be done by denying the families any income, and letting them perish. Meanwhile, the goods and services produced would be diverted to maintain the rest of the population at a subsistence level. If accepted by the PA, this scheme would have had the effect of the PA making a choice, favorable to the Jews, as to who shall live and who shall die. Now, my friend, you see why even Satan would have been disgusted by this so-very-Jewish scheme.

And so, when the World Bank came up with a report that does not praise the most barbarous of the demonic Jewish schemes ever devised yet, Maurice Hirsch blew his entrails out of his belly howling that the World Bank did not handle this case the right way.

This makes Maurice Hirsch a grave digger of human achievements, and that's where he must be placed on the spectrum.

How and why America got sucked into the Swamp

Time after time, country after country and community after community, the Jews were given the chance to start from scratch and work toward building a legacy for themselves that does not end in tragedy. And they blew it each time, causing the dreaded tragedy to be repeated again and again, one way or the other.

Those places and those moments in time were neither aware of each other, nor in communication with each other. They were separated by hundreds, even thousands of miles, and remained apart by hundreds, even thousands of years. What this means is that those places and those moments in time, had nothing in common between them except for one thing. They were visited by Jews at some point, and that's when anti-Semitism was planted in them and grew like grass on a fertile plot of land. The visit of the Jews being the only element these places had in common, logic dictates that the Jews, only the Jews and no one but the Jews were responsible for the spread of anti-Semitism through space and time.

This question settled and beyond dispute, the next question is how and why the Jews continue to do it to themselves time after time … here, there and everywhere they go? Well, two articles that were published recently answer that question. One article came under the title: “For once the UN calls out global anti-Semitism,” written by Melissa Braunstein and published on October 2, 2019 in the Washington Examiner. The other article came under the title: “High School Students Demean the Holocaust,” written by Harold Brackman and published on October 4, 2019 in the Jewish publication Algemeiner.

Melissa Baunstein tells of an issue that started to establish itself normally, that developed normally, that was handled normally and then … kaboom! The whole enterprise promised to open the doors of hell. And here is the “good news” side of the story, according to Braunstein:

“At the United Nations, special rapporteur on freedom of religion released his report on global anti-Semitism. It is informed by interviews with Jewish individuals and organizations. He describes anti-Semitism as a human rights issue. He acknowledges that contemporary anti-Semitism is a problem among neo-Nazis and the political Left. He expresses alarm at rising global anti-Semitism and suggests the UN secretary general appoint a senior official to liaise with world Jewry and monitor anti-Semitism. These are reasons to cheer”.

But because this is an issue that involves the Jews, here is how Melissa Braunstein created a kaboom-moment by helping to sustain the promise that someday––sooner or later––the next steps, taken by the Jews, will open the doors of hell:

“Finally, there is the crucial matter of the next steps. What changes should we expect from the UN member states and international organizations? Will countries start protecting their Jewish populations? Will the British Labour Party extinguish its anti-Semitism? Will the UN scrap the blacklist of companies operating beyond Israel's Green Line? Will the UN Human Rights Council justify the Israel agenda item?”

That is the story of those to whom you give a finger, and they see in your gesture the long-awaited promise that the messiah is about to come and hand them the planet. Such fantasy induces them to believe they now have a license to ask for the arm and anything they want, and that society will be obligated to give it to them. It is what prompted Braunstein and those like her to make the list of what they want as shown above.

One important item that is high on every Jewish list at this time but not talked about, is the matter of the Jews taking control of the American system of education from kindergarten to graduate school. It is that when they compare the influence which they have on the public, to the influence that their elders had a few decades ago, Jews of the Melissa Braunstein generation are filled with the desire to repeat the success that their forefathers and mothers had when they were “educating” the public.

But knowing that the public is now too sophisticated to let the Jews reeducate it, the Jews have decided that their best bet is to do what they can at taking control of the system of education while they still have some influence on the mentally retarded and emotionally rattled politicians of America.

What the Jews don't know, however, is that they will be greeted with a loud bang if and when the politicians will be so foolish as to make the laws that will allow them to extend their presence into the schools, and lay hands on the children. You'll get an idea what the parents might do when you study what the kids are doing right now based on the rumors which they hear to the effect that the government may force them to study the Holocaust.

And you don't have to go far to find out what the kids are doing to signal their displeasure, because Harold Brackman has done it for you in his article. He cited examples that took place in schools from Colorado, the District of Columbia and San Diego. He also described incidents that took place at the Universities of Duke, Cornell, Pennsylvania State and Vermont. And he wants the readers to know that's only the tip of the iceberg. Read the full Brackman article and see for yourself.

Just imagine what will happen when the parents will realize that without debate or consultation, the politicians may contemplate giving their children to the Jews who plan to brainwash them, hypnotize them and turn them into obedient poodles eager to serve their Jewish masters at any cost to themselves, the family, the community and the country … exactly what the prostituting politicians are doing to stay in office and perpetuate the legacy of America’s shame.

The Godfather unhinged; the Godsons gone rogue

Israel, where the godfather of the worldwide Zionist movement now resides, is in a mess culturally, militarily, economically, ethically and in many other ways too. For these reasons, the instructions which are coming out of Israel to collaborators in America and elsewhere, are beginning to sound like the utterances of a godfather that has gone unhinged.

This effect can be sensed in two recently published articles. One came under the title: “Should Israel invade Gaza?” and the subtitle: “Negotiations, mediation, compromise, concessions and other gentle means have replaced victory as an Israeli goal.” It was written by Daniel Pipes and published on October 2, 2019 in Jewish News Syndicate. The other article came under the title: “If it comes to war with Iran,” and the subtitle: “The correct response would be to eliminate Iran's ability to project power beyond its shores.” It was written by Gary Anderson, and published the next day, October 3, 2019 in The Washington Times.

What you'll find in common between the two articles is vintage Nazi behavior. It is that both are advocating the humiliation of the enemy. Daniel Pipes wants to humiliate the Palestinians; Gary Anderson wants to humiliate the Iranians. But why did this attitude develop in the first place? The answer is that, reacting to centuries of Jewish provocations, the Nazis decided to do in one blow what the rest of Europe had been trying to do piecemeal. And there were reasons for this to happen. Here is the story:

Kicked out of the Middle East after two thousand years of committing mischief everywhere they went from the ancient Persian Empire to the Egyptian Empire and all points in-between, the Jews ran away and settled in Europe, bearing the status of beggars and supplicants. But true to their nature, it took them little time to go from being beggars to being choosers. And they had what they thought would justify such attitude. It is that they saw themselves as the chosen children of God, and cousins of the Semitic Arabs whose power was beginning to increase, standing as they were at the leading edge of the new science as well as technology, mathematics, astronomy and the instruments of war.

But as usual, things started to go downhill again for the Jews. From Russia to England, the Europeans responded to Jewish provocations by staging small scale pogroms aimed at kicking them out of the neighborhood. But such acts only resulted in the Jews going somewhere nearby and doing the same thing all over again. This is when the Nazis decided to tackle the Jewish problem head on. They instituted a Holocaust style industrial program to destroy the Jews en masse. To make sure that the remnants who will survive the operation will not want to rise again, the Nazis mated the physical destruction of the Jews with their humiliation as a group. This kind of collective punishment is the attitude that Daniel Pipes and Gary Anderson inherited, and are trying to emulate. What follows is a condensed version of what Daniel Pipes is recommending that Israel do to the Palestinians:

“What should Israel's goal in Gaza be? It's time for something far more ambitious. Victory is the goal. That is, aim to impose a sense of defeat on Gazans, from the head of Hamas to the lowliest street sweeper. What are the strategy and tactics? They require a detailed study of the Gazan population's psychology. Does the deprivation of food, water, fuel and medicine inspire a sense of resistance and steadfastness among Gazans, or does it break their will? Same question about the destruction of homes, buildings and infrastructure. This done, with victory as the goal, Israel can address the problem of Gaza”.

And what follows is a condensed version of what Gary Anderson is recommending that America do to the Iranians:

“The worst that the administration could do would be a proportionate response. The correct response would be to totally eliminate the Iranian ability to project military power. It would mean the destruction of Iran's air defense system, ballistic missile systems, air force and navy. It would also mean the destruction of Iran's entire oil infrastructure and portions of its nuclear program that would not produce fallout. These strikes would be followed by a blockade of Iran that would block everything. Any attempt to rebuild strategic assets would trigger more strikes. We would likely lose planes, ships and personnel in such a conflict before they lose their capability to retaliate. Iran doesn't crave love, but weakness and humiliation would be intolerable”.

What is lost on the young generation of American media and political types, is that the Jewish terrorist organizations that launched the conquest of Palestine in earnest in the middle of the twentieth century, used the weapons of the Nazis and copied their method for making war.

When the Jews were condemned by the world, including America, they created AIPAC to work in America on polishing the image of the Jewish combatants. As can be observed, AIPAC has succeeded so well that nothing comes out the mouth of an American official these days, which does not parrot the words: Israel has the right to defend itself.

Not only that, but after every genocidal massacre of Palestinian families in their homes in the middle of the night, using the most lethal of American weapons, America rewards Israel with a gift that runs into the billions of dollars.

Thus, what looks like the Israeli establishment going unhinged, is not something that's new. In fact, being unhinged is a Jewish normal that's kept under wrap as long as it pays to keep it there. But when the payment comes to a stop, the normal Jewish behavior is unleashed on the world once again.

Daniel Pipes and Gary Anderson must have determined that the time has come to let the normally murderous cat out of the Jewish and American bags.

Cowardly Solution to make a Problem invisible

It's about the BDS movement and anti-Semitism again. But before we get into a discussion about these matters, let's look at a problem that began to make itself felt throughout society decades ago, and how some people proposed to resolve it.

It was during the decade of the 1960s that society became aware of the danger inherent to smoking cigarettes. Little by little we learned how detrimental to health the habit was; also became aware of the negative consequences to the economy and to family life. In addition, there came a need to reorganize the public places into smoking and non-smoking sections, which forced additional expenses on the businesses that catered to the public, as well as to the municipalities that maintained numerous public venues.

Experts and laymen alike talked about the problem and wrote about it. They described their personal experiences with smoking, offered recommendations and suggested solutions. One solution that was proposed by a father and taken up by other people, suggested that the best way to solve the problem of smoking was to make sure the young never start the habit. And the way to do this, is to get your teenage son or daughter to sit in front of you and chain-smoke one cigarette after the other till they get so sick of the experience, they resolve never again to put a cigarette between their lips.

If you believe this is too cowardly an idea to recommend to anyone, you will not like what the politicians of the so-called Western Democracies are doing now, pretending to work on resolving a situation known as anti-Semitism. Unable to think up ways to legislate what their societies should feel at the visceral level and in their hearts; also unable to regulate the thoughts generated inside the heads of their citizens –– the politicians have welcomed the idea that the Jews acted––as they always do––by creating a false link between the BDS movement and anti-Semitism. They even went as far as to link BDS to terrorism.

At last, the politicians now have something easy to work with, thus avoid being blamed for doing nothing to prevent the explosion that everyone knows is bound to come. In fact, like the writing on the wall, the signs are everywhere, informing the Jews that society has had it up to here with them constantly asking for new favors, and the politicians constantly acceding to them. But the reality is that the public does not realize what is motivating the politicians, whereas the latter have a plan. You may want to call it a cowardly plan when you'll know what it is, but it's all that the politicians have for now.

Here is the plan: Like the father who suggested letting the children chain-smoke cigarettes till they get sick and resolve never to smoke again, the politicians are giving the Jews what they ask for and more. They are doing it for two reasons. First, when the explosion will come, they'll be in a position to say they were not responsible for it because the record is clear; they sided with the Jews all the time. Second, the politicians want to put the problem behind them as quickly as possible and devote their attention to other matters. The way to hasten the development of the events, is to speed up the process of society reaching the boiling point and setting off the explosion that's coming anyway with or without the politicians’ help. As to you, my friend, do you consider this to be a cowardly scheme? If so, you're entitled to your opinion.

In any case, that's what you'll come out with when you read the article that was written under the title: “Beware the anti-Semitic underbelly of BDS,” authored by Mark Goldfeder, and published on October 3, 2019 in the Washington Examiner. It is the latest Jewish attempt to exploit the appearance of a whole new bunch of excuses. The Jews are using them to motivate the politicians to go around the wishes of society yet again, and give the Jews what they want.

And what the Jews want this time, is related to Israel. They are asking the “democratic” governments of the “Western” world to force their citizens to buy the Israeli goods they do not want, thus encourage and support the criminal Jewish settlers in occupied Palestine, to maintain and expand the occupation. Failing this, says Mark Goldfeder, the Israelis will feel demonized and delegitimized, a condition that will contribute to bringing down the Israeli State.

Of course, Mark Goldfeder is not smart enough to realize that by suggesting Israel will cease to exist if it is forced to end the occupation (a disaster that will happen if the citizens of the Western Democracies are not forced to buy what they do not want) he is, in effect, suggesting that Israel is an artificial piece of drivel that does not deserve being called a state. This description being one that nobody has made before, raises a serious question: Does Mark Goldfeder wish to alter his suggestion? Or is he so stubborn as to prepare himself for being surprised when the explosion will come rather than face reality now?

What the public of any society knows instinctively that the politicians of the democracies fail to grasp intellectually, is that there exist three basic ways to govern a country. They are the democratic way, the autocratic way and the tyrannical way.

America was governed the democratic way before the advent of the Jews. That is, decisions were made after the thorough airing of the various viewpoints through public debates. Many of the Western allies also had a similar kind of system.

Other countries were then, and are now governed by autocrats who allow little room for public debate. The penalty for breaking the rule of silence to criticize the government, vary from country to country. Thus, it can be said that autocrats vary in temperament from the benevolent to the harsh.

Back to America. In the span of half a century, the country went from democracy directly to Jewish tyranny. That is, instead of holding debates that lead to public policy, a new system of governance was installed in America, and remains in effect to this day.

This is how Jewish tyranny works: Everyday, the Jews decide what they want on this day. Disregarding what may be ongoing in the public square, the Jews go visit those in charge of executing the policies of the nation. They talk to them behind closed doors, bribe and/or blackmail them, thus force them to do what is good for the Jews and for Israel.

Only then do the citizens get to know what was given to the Jews in the middle of the night behind their backs –– all that, courtesy of the Jewish style tyranny that has no peer in the annals of human history.

And that’s where the cycle would be close to producing the inevitable explosion that the politicians will claim they were not responsible for.

They hate those they falsely accuse of Hatred

It is well established by now that the immutable Jewish cultural and religious obligation is to accuse others of the sins that the Jews see in themselves, and attribute to themselves the virtues they see in others.

Thus, whenever a Jew explicitly tells his or her audience to dissociate themselves from someone, or they say it by the more subtle method of attacking that someone for one reason or another … or no reason at all, the Jews would be expressing the ultimate form of hatred for the one they disparage. Yet, the reason that the Jews give for asking their audience to distance themselves from someone, is that they accuse him or her of hating the Jews … calling the innocent anti-Semitic. And this is how the Jews incessantly accuse others of the sins they see in themselves while attributing to themselves the virtues they see in others.

There is manifestation of this phenomenon in the column that came under the title: “Columbia celebrates anti-Semitism,” and the subtitle: “The school's Global Leaders Forum welcomes Mahatir Mohamad,” written by Clifford D. May and published on October 1, 2019 in The Washington Times.

The content of the column can be summarized as follows: Clifford May is asking his readers to (1) hate Mahatir Mohamad because he says that Mr. Mohamad was deemed to express anti-Semitic views, and (2) hate Columbia University for giving Mr. Mohamad the opportunity to express his hatred of Jews in front of an international audience. The trouble is that while Clifford May's column is a clear expression of his own hatred for both Columbia University and Mohamad, he failed to give a single example as to why the Jews consider Mr. Mohamad to hate them, thus deserving of the anti-Semitic label.

So, the pressing question is this: What does it take for someone to prove that he or she is not anti-Semitic? To seek an answer to this question, look anywhere you want, and you'll find only one clear indication as to what it will take to establish that proof. The indication came from a French Jew who styles himself as a philosopher. He goes by the name of Levy, and spends his time promoting two ideas at the same time.

First, Levy wrote a book in which he explained to the human race why people everywhere should have undivided, total and sincere love for the Jews regardless of what they do. Second, Levy continually incites the “Western” powers to blindly hate the Arabs and the Muslims. He incessantly urges the West to do to these people what America did to Qaddafi's Libya. This was a disastrous military attack that Levy himself had been advocating for years. When done by the Americans and their allies, it turned out to be an adventure whose aftermath continues to be an unmitigated calamity in North Africa, now moving into the sub-Sahara.

Because it is nearly impossible for the English-speaking Jews to express themselves in the language of love the way that other Jews do in the other languages, you'll find that the Anglo-Jews stick with the language of hate whose fluency they have mastered. In fact, to urge an audience to love the Jews, the Anglos do so by expressing hatred for those they accuse (falsely or accurately) of wanting to harm the Jews. The following is an example of how Clifford May has done just that:

“Given a choice, I'll take anti-Semites over anti-Zionists. Garden-variety anti-Semites disparage Jews. They don't want them working in their businesses, living in their neighborhoods or joining their clubs. That's nasty but survivable, and alternative businesses, neighborhoods and clubs can generally be found. Anti-Zionists, by contrast, want to deprive Israel of the right to exist. Were anti-Zionists to achieve their goal, what would happen to the 6 million Jews who live there?”

What Clifford May has done here, is construct a hierarchy of hate to make political opposition to Zionism the highest form of Jew-hatred. Because this level of hate has the potential to do to the 6 million Jews living in Israel what was done to the 6 million that perished during the Holocaust, May expects that humanity will automatically feel sympathy for the Jews the way that it did upon learning what the Nazis had done to them.

Clifford May has thus calculated that hatred of what might happen, will cause humanity to fall in love with the Jews, and will move to protect them. This is a typically Anglo-Jewish method for generating artificial love by playing up the hate narrative: the only language that the Anglo-Jews speak fluently.

In fact, the Jews invented this method to be in a position to accuse the people who do not profess love for the Jews or Israel … accuse them of being anti-Semitic even if they do not express anti-Semitism. Go over the May article, and you'll find that despite being labeled anti-Semitic, Mr. Mohamad displayed no sign of being anything like that. But while accusing him of anti-Semitism, Clifford May has summarized as follows, what Mohamad really thinks:

“Mr. Mohamad is not a Holocaust denier. At Columbia he confirmed that there was a Holocaust. The event moderator never asked a tough question or challenged the speaker's assertions and expressions. 'We have a lot of wisdom that we can draw on from you,' the moderator flattered the politician. At the conclusion of the program, he exclaimed: That was amazing!”

Yes indeed, it is amazing. That's because you can always count on Clifford May to bring the truth out as he tries to hide the truth. It's like the old saying which goes like this: Tell me a lie, and from what the lie is trying to hide, I'll figure what the truth is.

Keep on truckin’, Cliff my friend, keep on truckin’!

A Sewer where there was a Watergate Glory

A has-been that “don't get no respect” the way that it did, is trying to revive the glory days of the Watergate era when it was the most respected newspaper in the world, and not just in America.

This is the pathetic story of what the Washington Post (WAPO) has become, sinking as it does an inch deeper into the Jewish sewer, every time it tries to show its readers how tall it stands when going after strong leaders at home or abroad, whether they did something wrong, or they did not.

Once again, the Washington Post has tried to stand tall, but instead of sinking an inch this time, it sank a whopping foot … which would be twelve inches. The editors of WAPO did it to themselves thinking they could pull a funny one by standing, or rather tiptoeing, over Donald Trump's crack locution: “favorite dictator,” and go after Egypt's al-Sissi.

Yes, the editors of WAPO did it to themselves, but some of the responsibility must be shared by the deteriorating state of civility in America. This makes it so that nobody believes what someone else is saying. And the consequence of this condition is that it does not matter whether or not I respond to every falsehood that the editors have expressed deliberately, or have inserted in their piece out of ignorance.

This said, there is something I feel obligated to clarify to the readers of my piece who will want to read what the WAPO editors came up with –– and to the readers of WAPO who might be interested to read my piece. Here is the WAPO passage that needs to be explained: “Mr. Sissi has squandered billions on pharaonic projects, such as an expansion of the Suez Canal and a new capital city.” But what the hell do these guys mean by “pharaonic projects”?

The answer to this question is that, whatever the WAPO editors meant by that term –– having copied something not knowing what it stands for in reality –– the expression has actual roots in the Egyptian folklore. To fully explain what it is for those who don't know Arabic as well as those who know a little of it, I shall have to digress for a moment.

There is a sound in the Arabic language that does not exist in any of the other languages I know of. Those who begin to learn Arabic are told it is written as the number 3. For example, the word 'arab' is pronounced 3arab. And the noun 'pharaoh' is pronounced fara3on. An adjective that is derived from that word sounds like this, 'metfar3an' and used to describe someone who behaves with deliberate authority like a pharaoh. Depending on the context, the word is often used as a pejorative term. But if someone says: 'dah 3amal fara3oni,' he means it as a compliment because it roughly translates into something that goes as follows: 'this work is of scale that befits a pharaoh'.

The problem with the way that the WAPO editors expressed themselves, indicates that they were confused. They said that Sissi squandered billions, which is a pejorative thing to say. But they specified that the billions went into infrastructure projects that befit a pharaoh, which is a compliment given that the work on the Suez Canal has increased the country's income in hard currency, and the new capital has helped reduce the unemployment rate from 12 percent down to less than 8 percent. So, the question to ask is this: Which of the two ideas were the WAPO editors expressing?

This prompts us to ask another serious question; this time about journalism in North America. First, we observe that to lift the veil on the secrets that those who wield the power wish to keep hidden, today's journalists do not bother developing the ability to do forensic work by looking at the paper trail of a case. Instead, they rely on sources that can at best, give only a partial account of what happened. In addition, these sources are often unreliable because they would be grinding their ax, something they do by unloading their gripes on the media.

This is how lazy the journalists have become when they work on local and national stories. Now imagine what it is like for them to report or to comment on foreign matters where the documents that need to be analyzed forensically, are written in a foreign language.

Journalists such as the WAPO characters don't do any of that; they don't even rely on sources that pretend to know what's going on. Rather, the so-called journalists rely on the rebellious opposition that has bagful of lies to tell about the governing party, as well as rely on the local tabloids that have sensational stories with which to embarrass the government and sell more copies of their rag. The WAPO types repeat the garbage in their publication and tell their readers it is the gospel truth.

And here is proof that the WAPO editors did not even realize there was an opportunity to do forensic work that would have improved their editorial enormously. Look at this passage: “Young Egyptians fed up with stagnating living standards have taken to the streets ... Though the economy is growing, so is the poverty rate.” There is an incongruity here that begs to be explained.

Anyone that has been following the business news even casually, would know that the widening of the gap between rich and poor is a worldwide phenomenon that needs to be studied and explained so as to find a workable remedy.

The WAPO editors could have contributed to that effort but they did not. Why is that? Because it takes at least the IQ of a baboon to realize there is an issue that needs to be studied and understood.

But the WAPO editors haven't yet reached that level of IQ, which is why they keep sinking into the Jewish sewer and keep maligning good people like Sissi.

The Time is now to speak freely and openly

Under normal circumstances, the difference between being correct and wise, and being correct but unwise, is that the first posture results from having experienced the reality of life as it is, whereas the second posture results from imagining the ideal life as it ought to be.

However, because there is a time to adopt one posture, and a time to adopt the other posture, no surefire rule of thumb can be devised for the blind adoption of either posture without having to make a judgment based on the particulars of each case as it presents itself. This is when both realism and idealism must be combined to help form a judgment that is both practical and wise.

A situation that has existed for centuries, and has affected just about everyone on the planet, is that which is known as the Jewish question. By now, no one doubts that there is an element of incompatibility between the Jewish mode of interacting with others, and the various modes which are generally followed and accepted by humanity. In fact, the behavior of the Jews has caused the human race to suffer enormously time after time; a cycle that is repeating itself at this moment around the globe. It is why the time has come to confront the issue, and speak about it freely and openly.

The reason why I feel compelled to make that kind of plea, living as I do on a continent that pretends to bask in the glory of a freedom of speech that nobody else enjoys, is that contrary to the mistaken belief, North America is now the most repressive place on the planet when it comes to speaking freely and openly about the Jewish question. It is no exaggeration to say that no dictator that ever lived, had control over his subjects like what the Jews have over nearly 400 million totally muzzled North American subjects.

The difference between the regular dictators and the Jews, is that the regular type put down the rules, play by them, and expect you to do likewise. If you don't, they'll punish you for breaking the rules. With these dictators, you know what you're getting into, know what choices you have and know what consequences every choice entail. By contrast, the Jews put down the rules so that they know where you'll be at any moment. When you get there, you'll find they are also there expecting you to sing their praises. If you perform well, they'll give you a new assignment. If you don't, they'll kneecap you and throw you to the wolves.

Two articles show how the Jews have taken control of America's foreign policy and made a mess of it. Two other articles show how the Jews took control of America's domestic policy and made a mess of it. We begin with the latter. They are: First, “Rashida Tlaib Endorses Prominent Antisemite –– and No One Cares,” written by Petra Marquardt-Bigman and published on September 23, 2019 in the Jewish publication, Algemeiner. Second, “Columbia welcomes hate speech as long as it's anti-Semitic,” written by the editors of the New York Post and published on September 24,2019.

Look how Petra Bigman starts her article: “It is rather shocking to contemplate the implications of US Rep. Rasida Tlaib's unequivocal support for Zahra Billoo.” This is a Jew telling one American she must hate another American. Do you know why no dictator ever asked his people to do that? Because their people would have given them the Vietnamese treatment. Do you know what that is? I'll tell you what it is:

Every time the Vietnamese downed a warplane and captured an American pilot, they would put him in a cage of the kind they used to transport wild animals. They would drive the pilot in his cage around the city for the citizens to see the creature that came from thousands of miles away to kill them in their homes. Well, it is time for the American people to contemplate inflicting a similar treatment on the Jews that dare to tell one American he or she must hate another American.

As to the editors of the New York Post, their piece exhibits the classic Jewish exercise of carrying on with two contradictory discourses simultaneously. One discourse says that a speech which does not praise Israel and/or the Jews is antisemitic, and must be prohibited. The other discourse says that a speech condemning the chosen enemies of the Jews, no matter how false or vile it may be, must be considered a true expression of free speech, and be praised.

As to the articles that show how the Jews have taken control of America's foreign policy and made a mess of it, they are: First, “Iran, Trump, and 2020,” written by Jonathan Weaver and published on September 27, 2019 in the American Thinker. Second, “An 'America First' foreign policy doesn't include regime change in Syria,” written by the editors of the Washington Examiner, and published on September 28, 2019.

Having hammered the Obama administration, asking it to refrain from adopting the Iran nuclear deal but failed to do so, and having hammered the Trump administration to abandon the deal and succeeded to do so, the Jews saw how foolish they have been. And so, they are now using the voice of Jonathan Weaver to beg America to reverse course. The way they are doing it, is through the use of the classic Jewish approach. They are telling Donald Trump that the way to win the next election is to readopt the nuclear deal he abandoned not long ago at heir behest.

Similarly, having hammered every administration, going back several decades, to effectuate regime change in every Arab and Muslim country that did not befriend Israel, the editors of the Washington Examiner have realized how foolish they have been. So now, they are telling Donald Trump not to do to Syria what America did to Iraq and Libya at their behest.

This horrendously idiotic way to run a country, let alone a superpower, was made possible because the Jews recognized at the outset that to play America like a broken fiddle, they first had to shut everybody up. This done, they used the country's institutions to do what they want, and got the people running the institutions to sing the praises of the Jews.

Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Francois Duvalier Papa Doc and a few others are turning green with envy in their graves.