Familiarity and habitual Grant breed Contempt

We all know what the precious metals are, but not the rare earth elements even though both have much that's in common. It is that they are rare and they are precious. They are precious because the law of supply and demand says that when something is rare, the demand for it exceeds the supply, and this makes it valuable.

These concepts are so universal; it is a mistake to believe they apply only to tangible things such as the metals and the other commodities. The truth is that they apply just as well to the abstract as to the concrete. Friendship, understanding, tolerance and other attitudes being the abstract qualities that bond individuals and societies together, they too are governed by the same laws as the precious metals and the rare earths.

Not many people will dispute the validity of the old saying: “Familiarity breeds contempt.” That is, people – especially the young among them – are apt to be more scornful of what's familiar than they are of what's unfamiliar. The same goes for the things we take for granted. That is, whereas we rejoice when receiving something we did not expect, we scorn those who give it when the giving becomes a habit we take for granted. We – especially the young among us – get worse when the giver happens to deliver less of it or delivers it tardily. Simply stated, when we take something for granted, we expect perfection in the manner it is handed to us.

Believe it or not, all of that applies to one degree or another on the international stage among nations and other entities, as well as it does among individuals. And there too, you'll find considerable variation in the levels of scruple you detect in the different cultures. In this regard, the absolutely most infamous of the cultures is the Judeo-Yiddish concoction whose expressed gratefulness for favors received habitually, is manifested not in direct relation to the generosity of the giver but in reverse relation. That is, the more generous the giver, the more contemptuous of him will be the Jew.

You'll see this phenomenon in the way that the Jewish pundits respond to the favors which Israel receives from America. The absolutely most generous administration toward Israel being that of Barack Obama, the Jewish pundits respond to it in the most contemptuous way you can imagine. And given that not one of the pundits rises above the level of mud, it is impossible to classify them by the degree of their ingratitude. That's because you cannot build a totem pole whose every section fails to rise above the mud.

One of those Jewish pundits is Benny Avni whose latest creation came under the title: “A rare foreign policy success for Team Obama,” published on June 27, 2016 in the New York Post. Note the word “rare” because it is key to unlocking the workings of the mentality that powers the Judeo-Yiddish culture. To understand what is at play here, we need to review Israel's standing in America and around the world.

Israel is reviled practically everywhere in the world. Rare are the expressions of goodwill expressed towards it by someone. As to the situation in America, Israel is still tolerated by the public, and sort of “cherished” by the politicians who fear the wrath of a media that's monopolized by the Jews. Thus while everything Israel receives from America is taken for granted, it is treated with contempt by the Jewish pundits. In contrast, anything that America manages to procure for Israel from anywhere in the world, is considered to be a rare occurrence, therefore regarded as a precious development.

This is the situation that Benny Avni is celebrating in his article. He regards as precious the fact that the Obama administration has achieved the rare feat of reconciling Turkey and Israel. But does this mean he has reconciled himself with the Obama administration? Of course not. He wouldn't be a Jew if he did.

Now that he pocketed the Turkish gift, he does two things: He waves a cease-and-desist order at the current administration, and he makes a demand on America by setting the tone for the next administration.

Here is the cease-and-desist order: “Let's hope that Kerry won't use the opportunity for a clumsy relaunch of diplomacy between Israel and the Palestinian Authority”.

And here is the demand on the next administration: “An alliance between Israel and its neighbors can help Clinton or Trump clean up the Mideast messes their predecessor will leave behind”.

He is being ungrateful to the last moment in the most tenacious of the Jewish traditions.

HR used as Refuge by colonial Loonies

If you remember the old saying: “Nationalism is the refuge of scoundrels,” you'll appreciate the notion that the increasingly hysterical voices accusing others of Human Rights (HR) violations are a similar sort of scoundrels. They are the kind that would turn the lofty principle of personal liberty into a refuge behind which to hide.

This truism comes to the fore in a stark fashion as you go over the editorial that came under the title: “The World Bank Should Champion Human Rights,” published on June 27, 2016 in the New York Times. Undoubtedly crafted by amateurs, this is a piece of work that demonstrates what a hellish agenda the scoundrels are working on at this time.

Who but a novice would start an opinion piece with absolute assertive confidence about something, and then fails to prove his claim? Look how the editors of the New York Times start their editorial: “Much of the evidence supporting the emerging consensus that strong human rights safeguards promote and enhance development has come out of research from the World Bank.” And so you expect to read all about that evidence, but find nothing aside from a vague reference that may just hint at such evidence.

Here it is: “Bank studies have concluded that reducing gender inequality is good for prosperity and that communities where human rights are violated with impunity are more prone to armed conflict.” Of course you get more production, therefore create more wealth when women join the labor force, but the decision of the women who choose to stay home and raise their children should be respected not changed by the World Bank.

Also, you get more production when people work in the fields, mines, factories and the services instead of fighting each other, thus create more wealth. But peaceful coexistence cannot be dictated by the World Bank; it is infused into the cultures over a long period of time, mostly by non-bankers. Thus, women in the workforce and peaceful coexistence are economic and political issues not discussed under the rubric of Human Rights.

Yes, politics plays a big role in that whole affair as it does in this editorial. In fact, it is in the sham politics of this piece that the editors of the New York Times unmask themselves as being diabolic hypocrites. Their gruesome intent is clearly demonstrated throughout the piece.  What comes out is that they do not want to avoid armed conflict; they want to turn the whole world into a war zone.

The way they plan to achieve that much is by lashing out at the World Bank for not setting itself as the commissar in charge of enforcing Human Rights and then go from there. Here is a summary of their lashing out:

“Philip Alston said in a report that the bank was a 'human rights-free zone' with operational policies that treat 'human rights like an infectious disease.' He and other critics say the bank has failed to adopt protocols to examine the social harm of projects it bankrolls. Labor and human rights activists have chided the World Bank for its inadequate response to allegations that its funding was abetting forced labor. The Bank Information Center faulted it for the involuntary displacement of thousands of families. The Bank has failed to play a more assertive role in human rights.”

With this under their belt, they mount an argument whose content in hypocrisy renders it denser than a neutron star. Look at this piece of work: “The World Bank was created in 1944 … it held on to a fundamental principle: It stays out of the politics of the countries it works with and makes decisions based solely on 'economic considerations.' That may have made sense in the [past] but it is anachronistic today”.

What's wrong with this piece is that it flies in the face of history. The truth is that less than a decade after the founding of the Bank, the Jews whispered in the ear of Secretary of State John Foster Dulles who got fired up and ordered the World Bank to refuse financing Egypt's Aswan Dam and hydroelectric station because of purely political reasons. And the course of history was changed.

It changed because the Middle East was transformed from being a backwater on the world stage to being the lead actor on the world stage. It took that role in 1956; it has retained it to this day. As to the characteristic that best describes the Middle East during that period of time; it is the three-letter word: WAR.

Can the Jews pull off other Aswan-like capers, thus affect the course of history yet again? Well, the opportunities are there. In fact, with the countries of the planet rushing to industrialize as fast as they can, the choices are plenty, and the desire to make them is burning as ardently as ever in the hearts of warmongers. This can be seen in the article that came under the title: “Egypt's Costly Nuclear Project,” written by Eric Trager and published on June 16, 2016 on the website of the Institute for Near East Policy.

What comes out this article is that the descendants of the Jews who whispered in the ear of John Foster Dulles long ago, have today found a few ears in which to whisper a similar kind of calumny about Egypt with regard to another power station – this time nuclear – that Egypt has decided to build.

Knowing history, Eric Trager warned the habitual slanderers whose ultimate aim is war, they should: “tread lightly. To the extent that the nuclear project is intended 'to give hope,' any public disparagement from Washington would be counterproductive. More to the point, the lingering distrust means that publicly criticizing the project will not deter Cairo from pursuing it anyway,” as happened more than half a century ago.

An argument was made to the effect that the colonial project of Sykes-Picot led to the current situation in the Levant. It has also been argued that the Jewish designs for the Middle East dragged the entire region into the never ending turmoil that was started in 1956. It is now easy to see that the plan advocated by the editors of the New York Times is but a colonial project whose aim is to conquer the world by first setting it on fire.

The Human Rights that's advocated by these monsters is the sword they use to enslave the world.

They say they too were wrong but that's okay

Time after time, the editors of Pittsburgh Tribune stood with the pundits who took the view that America must threaten to stop paying its dues to the United Nations – or at least reduce them – because of a decision that was taken by one or the other of the UN agencies.

That would be the kind of decision that was liable to irritate the Judeo-Israeli sensibilities. And what this means in plain English, is that a UN agency would have recognized the right of the Palestinian people to be treated like human beings which, in the eyes of the Jews, was and still is a serious offense.

Do the editors of the Tribune continue to believe theirs was the right stance to take? Apparently not. The way that things turned out has forced them to believe that the shoe has gone to the other foot ... and so they changed their mind. Simply put, they are dismayed at what they believe has been a reversal of fortune. The result is that they now see as being the wrong thing to do, what they used to see as being the right thing to do.

They are making their updated view known in an editorial that came under the title “U.N. Watch: The price paid,” published on June 26, 2016 in the Tribune. Because there is no way to tell how much of what's written represents the views of the Tribune, and how much represents the views of the outfit that calls itself U.N. Watch, we must take it that the editorial is the product of a mind meld between the two.

And this is how they outline their new stance: “Exactly where the buck stops at the UN is made clear by its chief.” They go on to tell about a UN list of war zones around the world where children suffer. What they do not say, however, is that the children suffer because of anyone of many reasons … ranging from a shortage of baby food to the drafting of children into military service. Instead of explaining all that, the editors hide the truth, and then unleash a barrage of fabricated noise to make it sound like a Saudi apocalypse had occurred in Yemen.

Here is how they did that: “Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he 'temporarily deleted' a Saudi-led military coalition in Yemen from a U.N. list of child-rights abusers in war zones after he had been threatened with the loss of U.N. funding.” But the fact is that no threat was made by Saudi Arabia or anyone. Also, Ban Ki-moon did not speak of a threat coming from Saudi Arabia or anywhere. The truth is that the Pittsburgh Tribune told a damned lie because it is in the nature of its editors to lie.

What happened was that Saudi Arabia complained of being placed on a list that gives no specific details as to what transpired in the war. This has allowed scoundrels like the editors of Pittsburgh Tribune, the New York Times and Fox News to attribute to the Saudis any horror story their sick imagination can create. The Secretary General saw merit in the Saudi complaint and agreed to temporarily remove Saudi Arabia from the list, pending a review of the entire situation.

The review by the Secretary General applies not just to the Saudis but to everyone else, including by the way, Israel which is the self-declared Godzilla of child abusers. In fact, it was the Jews who told us about the day when they slaughtered the children of Egypt, looted their treasures, and ran into the desert. Ever since that time, the habit of killing children has featured prominently in Jewish folklore, having become the cornerstone of Jewish religious beliefs. It is what drove the Jewish King Herod to slaughter the babies of his subjects in the hope of killing baby Jesus. But that baby was taken to Egypt where he grew up and became the Prince of Peace that the Jews managed to get their hands on and crucify anyway.

Now, having misrepresented the situation, having put words in the mouth of Ban Ki-moon and having falsely attributed threats to Saudi Arabia, the editors of the Tribune end their piece like this: “If the U.N. mission, humanitarian or otherwise, is dictated by threats to withhold funding, then the world body serves no greater purpose beyond perpetuating its own survival”.

Do you realize what the editors of the Tribune just said, my friend? They said that having spent many years pushing America to withhold funds from the UN, they were making the world body serve the purpose of perpetuating its own survival. They were okay then; they are okay now having reversed their position.

Do not expect them to see they are too incompetent to remain in this profession, thus leave it and do something else. They haven't evolved enough to make this kind of judgment.

It's organized Crime Syndication not HR Advocacy

What would you say if 750,000 people were shot dead in the world year after year? You would say there is an epidemic in the world, would you not? Okay. What would you say if 10,000 people were shot dead in Egypt year after year? You would say there is an epidemic in Egypt, would you not?

Well, my friend, when those numbers are applied to America's population, they translate into 33,000 people shot dead year after year. Whereas no such thing happens in Egypt or the rest of the world, it is what happens in America. This being a real epidemic and not a hypothetical one, the question to ask is this: Who is responsible for all that horror?

Of course, you can point to a thousand places and say, “some blame goes here,” and you may be right because fixing any of these places could in theory spare a life or two, here or there. But in the end, there is only one place where a comprehensive solution can be worked out for the epidemic. It'll be a solution that will bring America's murder rate in line with the rest of the world. The place where this can and must be done is the Congress of the United States of America.

But that's not happening. Why not? Because the Congress has been re-engineered to serve not the people of the United States as envisaged by the Founding Fathers of the Republic – but to serve a heretofore secret agenda whose secrets are nevertheless being revealed, albeit at a snail's pace one painful chapter after another coming to light over one long decade following another.

The most obvious manifestation as to what the agenda may contain is the fact that the Congress is paralyzed. Thus, it passes no laws that would serve the people of America; especially not the laws that might help curb the killing epidemic that's plaguing the country. This fact alone would justify calling the Congress a crime syndicate. But that would only be a partial truth because in reality, the Congress has been reduced to serve as a tool in the hands of the mother of all crime syndicates – one whose reach extends around the globe.

To get an inkling as to who or what might be the worldwide wizard of crime syndicates, we look at the open letter which came under the title “Egypt: Civil society faces existential threat” and the subtitle: “IFEX joins CIVICUS and other concerned NGOs to call on Egyptian authorities to address severe violations against human rights defenders that could 'completely crush' civil society in the country.” Signed by eleven so-called Human Rights (HR) organizations, the letter was published on the IFEX website on June 24, 2016.

Reading it, we notice an important omission. Despite the fact that throughout the letter, the authors whine about Egypt's drive to rid itself of foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the authors were smart enough this time to avoid mentioning the most infamous names among those NGOs. In fact, they are the International Republican Institute (IRI) and the National Democratic Institute (NDI); revolting creatures that were spawned by none other than the American Congress of the brain dead zombies. And this is how the Congress is being used to spread the paralysis around the world.

That knowledge should now help us identify the culprit behind America's paralysis, and the attempt to paralyze the rest of the world. So we ask: Who was it that trampled on the intent of the founding fathers to serve the American people, by re-engineering the machinery of government so as to serve someone else instead. And there is only one answer to that question. It is the Jews whose command to get up and serve Israel brings to life the dead cells in the skulls of the zombies. They stay up long enough to pass the laws that serve the foreign entity, and quickly fall back into their inanimate status when done.

This is what the eleven signatories to the infamous letter are after. They wish to turn Egypt and any country that would listen to them into replicas of the treasonous senators and House members who would not lift a finger to save the thousands who get shot dead in America every year, but would kill their own mothers if this would serve the cause of Israel, always Israel and no one but Israel.

You can't have a more organized crime syndicate than that. You can't charge it with a more macabre task than that. And you can't give it a more worldwide reach than that. World Jewry, whose agenda is to paralyze the world in order to monopolize it the way it did America, is at the roots of all evil and has been since time immemorial.

They got enough Rope to hang themselves

Like the frog that doesn't realize the water in which it is immersed is getting hotter and hotter, the Jews who hunger to monopolize everything around them fail to realize they are pulling on the rope with which they'll end up hanging themselves.

If you believe there hasn't been enough metaphor already to satisfy your curiosity, let me tell you another one. It goes like this: “You saw him grope your wife and you did not cut off his hand. Tomorrow you'll catch him molest your young daughter, and you'll do nothing to stop him.” I heard this one from someone that used to live and work in Nepal; a place inhabited by many tribes, each of which is rich with tradition and ancient wisdom.

All those metaphors apply to the lowlife characters that the Jewish Hate And Incitement Machine (JHAIM) sends to the White House and State Department briefings. They go to those places and act as if they owned the joint, telling other reporters to “wait,” which means “shut up till I get my set of questions in,” and then badger the briefer with inquisition type questions, posed in inquisition-like manner.

Here is what transpired on June 23, 2016 during a briefing at the State Department with regard to a speech that President Abbas of the Palestinian Authority had given before the European Parliament on a subject that had nothing to do with America. The give and take at the State Department is between John Kirby the briefer, and an agent of the JHAIM who cut off a gentile reporter, and got in first:

GENTILE: Can we go to…

JEW: Wait, wait. Just one more on the – you said you're familiar with President Abbas's comments to the EU?

KIRBY: I just – the ones that he cited.

JEW: Are you familiar with the comments – the part of his speech in which he said that there were some rabbis who were wanting to poison Palestinian water?

KIRBY: I've see the comments. I can't confirm the veracity of that.

JEW: You can't – I'm not asking you to confirm it. I'm asking you what you think of it.

KIRBY: Well, look, I mean...

JEW: I mean, is this the kind of – is this the kind of language that you guys want coming from someone who says that he's a partner for peace and wants to negotiate, and then he accuses the other side of trying to poison his people?

Here is a sick Jew asking Kirby – inquisition style – to opine on something that the latter says he cannot confirm has or has not happened. Undeterred, the Jew presses on, disparaging Abbas as a way to insist that Kirby answers the question. At this point another reporter tries to move to a different topic but the Jew brushes him aside to go on and have it his way:

JEW: Well, this is before the EU parliament. What...

KIRBY: Again, we want – here's how I'd put it...

JEW: You don't think it might be true, do you?

KIRBY: I – again, I've seen nothing to indicate the truth of that. But we have long said what we want is for both sides to ratchet down the rhetoric.

At this point the voice of another Jew breaks in:

JEW: And this is that kind of rhetoric?

KIRBY: I'm not going to characterize each and every comment.

JEW: All right. How about I ask you again tomorrow, because I have the feeling you're going to want to say something a little bit stronger than what you just did.

Thus, unable to put words in Kirby's mouth today, he promises to try again tomorrow, suggesting that Kirby should come up with something stronger then. This is like the groper who promises to do better tomorrow, having planned to seriously molest the daughter, not just grope her.

Can it get worse? Of course it can; that goes without saying … after all, we're talking about Jews. In fact, what happened next was that the Weekly Standard took up the issue and discussed it under a title that went like this: “State Department Won't Condemn Palestinian Accusation that Rabbis Urged Water Poisoning,” an article that was written by Jenna Lifhits and published on June 24, 2016.

Basing her argument on an article that came in Tablet Magazine, she says that “Abbas's claim echoed a centuries-old, anti-Semitic charge that Jews poisoned wells in medieval Europe – a charge that led to Jewish mass slaughter.” This is an example of the Jewish use of the Ace Card. Put simply, this is a Jewish trick that goes something like this: True or false, when you tell what you believe has happened, you bring about the Final Solution … which is why you must not tell what you believe but tell what we say is the truth.

And she does not stop here. She goes on to drag the State Department into the melee: “Still, the State Department would not denounce Abbas's accusation.” She does not explain why America is obligated to do so, but then again, when in America, the Jews don't explain. They command.

We now ask the question: how did journalism in America get to be that debauched? And the answer is simple. It is that America let the Jews get away with it for too long. Like the degenerate who groped the wife and no one stopped him, the Jew went on to molest America's form of open government, the cherished daughter of their Constitution.

And what the Jews refuse to acknowledge is that they pulled on the rope enough already to bring about the mass slaughter they say they fear. If it happens, it will not be because Abbas spoke his mind but because the Jews pulled the rope too far out.

Shoes of Evil, the damned and the lucky ones

On June 13, 2016, under the title: “Egypt, Forty-One Months Later,” the New York Times published excerpts from a book that was written by an Egyptian woman named Yasmine El Rashidi. The title of her book is “Chronicle of a Last Summer. A Novel of Egypt”.

This being a novel, and there being no indication as to how much of what's in the excerpts is real and how much is fiction, I must reassure the readers that what follows is the truth as I recollect it almost half a century later. I am telling my story at this time because I'll never have a chance as timely as this one to illustrate so vividly the contrast that exists between two cultures – that of ruthless men and that of cowardly boys.

Here is the passage in Rashidi's account that prompted me to write my story: “A man … had walked towards them. I had noticed his shoes. They were familiar shoes. Shoes we saw a lot. Shoes of the undercover police. They were pointed, with a ledge.”

And here is my story. At some point during the mid-1960s and the end of the decade, I was taking a night course in the humanities at York University in Ontario. The professor was John Harney who was also a member of the New Democratic Party (NDP), and he happened to be running for the leadership of the party at the time. I was also working full time, and the union to which I belonged had a close relationship with the NDP. And so I managed to convince all of our delegates to vote for Harney at the convention that was held later in the year.

Perhaps, out of his sense of duty, professor Harney felt it necessary to warn the entire class that because he is a member of a party considered to be Socialist and accused of sympathizing with the old Soviet Union, we may all go under the surveillance of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). He didn't say electronic surveillance because he didn't know about it at the time. But he told us we'll recognize an RCMP agent by the shoes he wore. They will always be clean, he said, and they will always shine. He didn't say anything about them being pointed or having a ledge.

I did not worry about that because I was more annoyed by something else. I had received a visitor from a member of the Canadian Jewish Congress who had invited himself to my house for the purpose of warning me that I must stop writing letters to the editor … or the practice will get me into trouble. I did not stop writing but the editors stopped publishing my letters undoubtedly because he had visited them too.

What the editors did not do, however, was stop circulating my missives among themselves inside the loop – they who were the elites of the establishment. Thus, each time that I sent a piece of writing to one of them, they engaged in a “mining” orgy like a pack of starved hyenas scavenging on the carcass of a game that had succumbed to the hunting skills of a more powerful predator.

And then it happened that an editor of a major Toronto newspaper told me I was under the surveillance of the RCMP. To make certain I got the point, he told me about the furniture I had in my apartment, and the books I had on my shelves as described by those who were breaking into my apartment and taking note of everything in it. Over the years, I repeatedly complained to my Members of Parliament (MP) and asked for action to end this child-like madness. The trouble was that the MPs were themselves so terrified of the RCMP; they did not want me to call on them again. That's when it dawned on me that I was living in the most cowardly police state ever to have existed. What made matters even worse was that each time I contacted a Member of Parliament to complain, the RCMP would visit me at home or at work, or would tell me to report to a designated place, or to their headquarter. I met them – always two officers at a time – who listened to my complaint and assured me that I had nothing to worry about because I was clean like a whistle.

But why can they not end the surveillance and leave me alone? That's when they went mum. When I displayed anger at the fact that information about me was circulated among all those who wanted to hurt me and did, one of the officers would talk about people being so desperate they committed suicide. It is as if they suggested I should do the same. And there was a time when they hinted that it was the Jews who had me under surveillance. This turned out to be half the truth. In fact, I later befriended several individuals in the media and outside of it, who were in the loop, who knew some of what was going on, and were telling me.

It turned out the RCMP and the Jews were working together, harassing the Arabs – be they Christian or Muslim – to prevent them from participating in any activity that would raise their profile and give them prominence. That's because the Jews did not want competition, and the RCMP were terrified that something like this article would go out and tell the world what it's like to live in a Canadian style police state.

It was also confirmed to me that both the Jews and the RCMP wanted me to get so desperate, I would commit suicide or engage in activities so stupid, I would be arrested. The police would then use the event to justify their lifelong harassment of me, and their destruction of the life I was meant to live but never did because they blocked me everywhere I knocked at a door – be that in Canada or outside of it.

Talking to an editor I once befriended, he would console me by saying that I should consider myself lucky because in America the undercover police normally ransack the apartments they break into before leaving. I wonder what he would say to console Yasmine El Rashidi, considering that the lucky ones are those who live in Egypt, whereas the damned ones are those of us who live on this wretched continent.

Doing it all wrong but getting it right

Do you remember the old saying: “We did everything right but the patient died”? It was used to express sarcasm at the people who refuse to admit that things went badly because they handled them badly.

Well then, what would be the reverse of that? Let's say the reverse might go something like this: “They did everything wrong but the patient lived anyway.” And you know what, my friend? This should be used to express sarcasm at the people who refuse to give credit where credit is due, but keep challenging the motives of those who repeatedly get things right.

In fact, that's the standard by which the folks at the Weekly Standard operate. You can see it in the article that came under the title: “Amid Dissent at State, Obama Stays the Bloody Course on Syria,” written by Lee Smith and published on June 23, 2016 in the Weekly Standard. If you were to list all the things they have been saying President Obama did wrong, you'd think America was dead by now. But America is still here – alive and well – and the Standard gives weird explanations to account for this miracle.

Using as prop a letter that was written by a number of anonymous characters – the infamous memo that called on the Obama administration to implement everything in the book of Judeo-Israeli talking points – Lee Smith dismisses the significance of the American people expressing increased confidence in their President. To lend credence to his incomprehensible stance, he attributes bad motives to Obama's success at preserving lives, limbs and treasure.

The baffling question is this: How did Smith do it? The answer is that he first mutilated history. Actually, to be precise, he accepted the mutilation of history as formulated in the letter of the anonymous signatories. Whereas it used to be that Bashar al-Assad must go because he is a monster, it became the position of the anonymous ones and that of the Weekly Standard that: “The point of military action is not to topple Assad militarily, but rather to earn the United States a better negotiating position at the table with Iran and Russia”.

It is obvious that this crowd views having a strong hand to play with when at the negotiating table, is a privilege that must be earned the way that male kangaroos earn the right to mate with the females – by fighting and winning the fight. Still, when nations go to war, they do so using the young among the population. For this reason, the instigators of war give a rough estimate of the lives, limbs and treasure they are prepared to sacrifice to earn that privilege. And yet, this is something that neither the anonymous authors of the infamous letter nor the operators of the Weekly Standard, bothered to do.

As to Obama's response to the anonymous letter, Smith says he is not surprised that “the White House immediately rejected the possibility of any change in Syria policy.” And that's where you expect the Jewish fun to begin. In fact, it seems to do so when Lee Smith asks the question: “Why is that?” Unfortunately, however, in answering the question, he fails to deliver.

Having anticipated new “bombshell” ideas that would have revved-up the activities of your brain cells like a beehive, you feel let down because Smith only offers the equivalent of stale bread with which to feed your thoughts. The offer is stale because it consists of old ideas resubmitted without even the slightest of modification. See if you can find nourishment in this: “Obama's foreign policy legacy, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, depends greatly on whether or not Iran abides by the deal or crashes it.” That's the same old song, lifted from the Judeo-Israeli talking points. It is as if Smith and company promised a Cadillac performance but only delivered a rickshaw performance.

This is so puzzling, you want to know what the Jews do next, and Lee Smith delivers enough to satisfy your curiosity. Having asserted that Obama was motivated by the desire to preserve the Iran nuclear deal, Smith now tackles the motive of the other players. And the way he does that is by engaging in convenient speculation as can be seen in this passage:

“Those State Department officials who stayed on may have convinced themselves that only their continued presence prevented the implementation of an even more disastrous Syria policy. Presumably that's what's kept Ambassador Samantha Power at the United Nations”.

You're tired of this game and you want to drop it to do something else. But you also want to avoid the feeling that you wasted your time. So you convince yourself you learned something today.

You think about it and trip on the idea that those who say it does not pay to bet against America, are the first to bet against her if that will denigrate the opposition. What a weird way to exercise your freedom!

Ignorant or wicked, they spread the Hate

Charlotte McDonald-Gibson is a compassionate woman. She is also a journalist and a commentator. She wrote an article that is a genuine cry from the heart; a plea for the world powers to increase their effort for saving the lives of refugees who drown at sea trying to reach a safe harbor in Europe.

She wrote an article on the subject that was published in the New York Times on June 22, 2016. Given the content of the presentation, you would expect that the title chosen for it by the editors of the New York Times would read something like this: “A powerful Plea to save Lives,” or something like this: “A Call for humanitarian Action.” But that's not what the editors chose to do. Instead, they published the article under this title: “For Europe, Arab Lives Matter More Than Africans”.

This is a hate crime that is not subtle enough to hide the purpose for which it was formulated. It is the work of lowlife characters trying to stir up the hatred of African Americans who may not like the tactics used by some people in the “Black Lives Matter” movement, but sympathize with its message. The hate criminals at the New York Times are telling these Americans it is time for them to start hating – but not just anyone. They should start hating the Arabs who are well treated, say the NY Times haters, and they should start hating the Europeans who save the lives of Arabs while letting Black people drown at sea. That’s the message the New York Times hate machine is now trying to spread.

It is a hate crime that has the Star of David stamped all over it. It is a weapon that's frequently used by the Jewish establishment to try achieving their demonic designs. Normally, the Jewish leaders do what they do in subtle ways and avoid getting caught, but it happened on two occasions that the Jews got caught using this weapon of sheer cowardice.

There was that time when they were caught whispering their message of hate in the ears of a number of African American leaders. They were telling them that the Arab countries spend too much time pleading the cause of Palestinians at the UN when they should be devoting their energies pleading the cause of Africans whose needs are greater than the Palestinians. Another time, Israeli operators were exposed as they whispered the same message in the ears of African leaders both in Africa, and in the corridors of the UN building in New York.

The Jews failed to achieve anything substantial for themselves in either of those occasions. It can also be surmised that they failed even when they were subtle enough to avoid being caught. The proof is that their record at turning the sub-Saharan countries against the Arabs of North Africa remains a dismal one.

Here is the passage in the Gibson article that the editors of the New York Times have used as excuse to spread the hate: “The European Union draws a distinction between a genuine refugee and an economic migrant, and people coming from the world's poorest continent are generally assumed to be the latter. It is a narrative of the ‘good’ migrant and the ‘bad’ one that leads to policies focused on keeping people out and ignores a more nuanced reality”.

As can be seen, there is nothing in those words to suggest that Europe appreciates Arab lives more than Black lives. The distinction that's made is one between a “genuine refugee” and an “economic migrant.” In fact this is not a distinction that the Europeans have invented. It is a policy that's enforced everywhere in the world, including the Americas and Australia who take in migrants as well as refugees.

Gibson herself makes the following point: “Europe cannot be expected to offer a home to every person fleeing poverty or persecution, and European Union governments are right to try to come up with policies that deter people from making the voyage”.

She is a compassionate woman, but she also realizes that in real life, leaders must recognize the limits of what they can and cannot do. For this reason they set priorities that give immediate relief to those who need it most while searching for alternatives to accommodate the others.

She criticizes the European Union for not taking the correct steps to deal with the situation, and offers her own set of priorities as to how the Union can go about solving the problem. This is how civilized people do things, and how they present their ideas free of spin and subtle messages of hate.

Contrast this with what Jewish America is trying to do and you'll know why the New York Times went from being the eminent Gray Lady that it was to the used toilet paper it has become.

Exposing the Roots of a phony Conflict

Three articles, written and published during the same week – from June 14 to June 17, 2016 – point to what can only be described as the intellectual disarray of the Jewish imbued American thinking.

The first article came under the title: “Islam & the West: Irreconcilable conflict?” written by Pat Buchanan and published on June 14, 2016 in the Pittsburgh Tribune. The second came under the title: “U.S. Must Provide Constructive Criticism to Egypt,” written by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and published on her website on June 16, 2016. The third came under the title: “In Egypt, the policies of 'stability' breed chaos,” written by House Representative Mark Green and published on June 17, 2016 in The Hill.

The intellectual disarray is manifested by the fact that America is pursuing two contradictory trends at the same time. Pat Buchanan expresses one trend by quoting Rudyard Kipling who said: “East is East and West is West, and the Twain shall never meet.” The other trend is expressed by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Mark Green, both of whom are urging the U.S. government to coerce the Arab country of Egypt into becoming what they want it be; that which Buchanan and company say it will never be.

While the thinkers of America prove incapable of doing better than paralyze themselves and their nation with trivial intellectual pursuits, a number of facts must be kept in mind. One is that Egypt is the foundation upon which Western Civilization was erected. Another is that Christianity is closer to Islam with which it is fully compatible – than to Judaism with which it stands in absolute contradiction.

The truth is that not only did Egypt inspire the ancient Greek culture that launched Western Civilization, Egypt also saved Europe in the Middle Ages from the Asian hordes that almost destroyed it. This happened because Egypt (where Jesus went to hide when the Jewish King Herod was massacring children) is the place where the monastic movement was founded. From there, the monasteries spread throughout Europe, and it was in them that the monks took on the discipline of preserving on parchment the best of Western Civilization. Thus, when the Asians ransacked everything they saw and touched, the parchments they knew not existed, provided the blueprint for the relaunch of Western Civilization when finally the Asian invaders were pushed back.

As to the relationship that may exist between Judaism and Christianity, it is that of the ailment and its cure. In fact, from its beginning to its end, Judaism is nothing but one long chain of celebrated horror stories. They may be real stories or they may be mythologies; they are nevertheless the foundation upon which the Jewish religion stands. Christianity, on the other hand – being about peace from end to end – came as an antidote to Judaism. Thus, to speak of a Judeo-Christian religion is to utter an oxymoron that is no less jarring than saying: the infection-penicillin treatment. It is the sort of nonsense that can only be created in America in this day and age, and allowed to play a role in the governance of the nation.

As to the relationship that exists between Christianity and Islam, it was meant to be a complementary one. In fact, some of the founding tenets of Islam were adapted from Christianity. A number of instructions specific to the time and place where Islam was embraced – were added to that foundation. Now, several centuries later, the two religions can converge and live side by side in harmony the way they did in Andalusia. It is also the way they have been doing for centuries throughout the Arab world despite the incessant savagery of the Jewish attempts to start a murderous war by pitting one religion against the other.

This should reassure Pat Buchanan that Islam and the West need not be in conflict. He should know that the bloody confrontation witnessed at this time is an aberration created and nurtured by the enemy of both religions. In fact, Islam is of the West, and if the two have diverged from time to time, it is because the cycle of life so dictates. They can be reconciled again as they have often done … and Egypt is a good example of that.

All that's needed for this to happen is to foil the never-ending savage attempts by the Jewish establishment to drive a wedge between two peaceful cultures powered by two peaceful religions. We must tell the likes of Mark Green and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen we know what they are doing, and we'll expose them each time they stir up Muslim kids to revolt, and then blame their behavior on all of Islam.

The truth is that there is no real war between Christianity and Islam. There is something that’s instigated by the Jewish establishment encouraging Muslim kids – reviled by the establishments of 65 Muslim nations – to misbehave. When this happens, the Jews turn on their formidable lie and misinformation machine to create the impression that Christianity and Islam are at war. And they call on the American government to engage Islam militarily.

When the thinking in America will be straightened out, Christianity and Islam will work hand in hand to contain the eternally destructive Jews. This should put an end to the plague – four thousand years old – that has ailed human civilization during half of its existence. And that would be the preferred final solution.

Is it Love or is it Lust?

Imagine a small impoverished country that nobody used to care about, suddenly discovering natural resources in such quantities; it becomes one of the wealthiest countries in the world overnight.

You are a young citizen of that country; you traveled the world, studied in the finest schools abroad, and you're considered to be a highly educated, highly intelligent person. For these reasons, you are approached by your government and asked to join the civil service so as to help chart the future course of the nation.

The first file you delve into is foreign policy. Studying the subject, it takes you little time to discover that from a time when nobody cared about your country, it has now become the object of everybody's curiosity and interest. The nations of the world, be they big or be they small, are knocking at your door and handing you invitations to join their organizations and groupings.

Having traveled the world as a student, you know what's out there but realize that what you experienced then hardly went deeper than the thickness of the skin. To get a better understanding of what you'll be dealing with, you arrange to meet with representatives of some foreign governments. You also do something more immediate; you start to read the ideas of the leading opinion makers in those countries.

You find that most of the small and mid-level countries are preoccupied with local problems having to do with matters relating to health, education, growth in the economy and the like. As to the bigger countries, they devote a great deal of attention to foreign policy in addition to their local preoccupations.

One of those countries is America whose opinion makers – called pundits and commentators – never seem to doubt that they have the perfect solution for every ill in the world except the ills that plague America … about which they remain as dumb as turkeys. Intrigued by the phenomenon, you delve into America's thinking more deeply than you do all the others.

You first acquaint yourself with the recent history of the world going back a century or so. Now armed with adequate knowledge about the hot war, the cold war that followed it, and the competition that flared between the “Socialist” East and the “Capitalist” West, you begin to realize that the world is a complicated place. You surmise that the situation will require you to deal with it carefully.

Upon further studies regarding the current situation, you learn that the competition between the remnants of the Socialist World and the reconstituted Capitalist World did not die with the demise of the Eastern bloc. What seems to have happened instead, is that the relationships have mutated on several levels (economic, diplomatic, scientific and others) into cooperation on one hand, and more competition on the other.

Having digested all that information, you ask yourself if America is offering your country love, or it is lusting after something else. Does America want your country's citizens to thrive and lead the good life, or does it lust after your coming into the fold the way that things were done during the Cold War? Is America altruistic like it says it is, or does it wish to add your country to its list of conquests, thus cement the notion that it won the post Cold War competition against the old foes and the emerging ones?

Searching for answers and going over the writings of the opinion makers, one particular article engrosses you more than anything else because it reflects the true nature of America's interests at home and abroad. It was written by Jonah Goldberg, and came under the title: “Why Can't the Left Distinguish Conservative Christians from Islamic Terrorists?” published on June 18, 2016 in National Review Online.

You see in that article an author that no longer speaks of the foreign “Socialist” that's out there in the Eastern bloc, but of the new bogeyman that's a homegrown Socialist operating right here together with the local Left. What you see is Jonah Goldberg who is participating in a debate in which he attacks the new Socialist enemy as ferociously as his elders used to attack the old Socialist enemy.

The reason why this debate chills your bones is that it describes not a battle of the wits but the massacre of real human beings. Not just that; each side in the debate accuses the other of being indifferent to the mass slaughter of people because they are of a different political persuasion or because they are different in other ways.

So you ask yourself if this is the America you should trust when it says it cares about the well being of your people. And you answer that no, you shouldn’t trust an America that doesn’t care about the lives of its own people.

You conclude that America does not love you or your people; it only lusts after your membership in the club that might enhance its stature.

And you decide that until America changes, you'll have nothing to do with it.

Jewish Haggling over Words paralyzing America

The nation of America is polarized, its culture is polarized, its Congress is polarized … What's going on? This is a good question that merits an honest answer. It is this: Jewish haggling was thought to be an expression of democracy, and was allowed to permeate the American culture. Instead of enriching it – as it was thought – the haggling had the effect of injecting poison into the body of the American Republic.

Look how many programs were broadcast electronically, how many book chapters were written, how many articles were published ... in brief, look how many millions of words were uttered over the years – all to haggle over the phrase “Radical Islam.” And here it is, uttered once again by David Harsanyi who wrote: “By Rejecting the Phrase 'Radical Islam,' Obama Rejects Reality,” an article that was published on June 17, 2016 in National Review Online.

For thousands of years, Jewish haggling has consisted of something like character (A) saying to character (B): You did me wrong, therefore you owe me an apology and compensation. And character (B) responding: No, it's you who did me wrong, therefore you owe me an apology and compensation. The accusations went back and forth like a tennis ball, with each side mentioning words, events, personalities and what have you to make their point … with (A) defining the words one way; and (B) defining them another way. In the end the hagglers agreed on nothing, and remained polarized.

This is the state in which the American nation finds itself at this time, having absorbed the toxic Jewish pretense of a democracy. The country has been culturally and spiritually impoverished, having also forgotten how to create the wealth that used to enrich it materially. But all is not lost, say the Jews, suggesting that a set of pompous words – such as being an exceptional nation – can be used to define America, thus make it look as glorious as ever even when it no longer is. And they urge cultural America to go to bed at night like the pauper who sleeps on the sidewalk, happy to have found a morsel to eat in a nearby garbage can.

Feeding America more garbage is what David Harsanyi is doing in his article. He begins it like this: “Telling the truth is essential to winning the war against the terrorists.” And he deplores the fact that President Obama has rejected the suggestion made by the Republican candidate running for President, who equated terrorism with Islam. But that is the truth, says Harsanyi; the two are one and the same. He adds that we must say so even if it offends the Muslim World with whom we live and work and share the planet.

Well then, if to tell that “truth” regardless of the consequences, will make us win the war against the terrorists, we need to know how this is going to happen. After all, we don't want to risk losing a war we started, and find ourselves stuck with the consequences too. So you go through the article trying to find out how he proposes that the mere saying 'radical Islam and terror are equatable' will lead to winning the war against terrorists. Alas, you find nothing that would tie that cause with that effect, but find a rambling rhetoric that contains telltales which put together, say something different.

You find the author objecting to President Obama demanding “that Americans act as if all faiths are equally tolerant.” With that objection, Harsanyi means to say that all faiths are not equal. He later explains that “Islamic terrorism is a unique movement that threatens us in a way that the random madman opening fire in a theater does not.” Setting aside his weird preference, you realize he is saying that Islam is not just different from the other faiths; it is that a Muslim madman is inferior to a madman from any other faith.

Whether or not you agree with that argument, you consider it a profound proposition. And when someone says something profound, he usually ends the presentation with a big overarching idea. So you look for that idea at the end of the article, and find the following:

“I'm not sure why a peaceful Muslim would not appreciate being set apart from Islamists by the president. ’Radical Islam' distinguishes between extremists and moderates … what purpose does ignoring this distinction achieve? The president has yet to explain”.

No, David, no. The president has nothing to explain. It is you who must explain why you do not discard the idea of Islam being a “unique movement.” Why do you refuse to see that the difference between extremist and moderate Muslims is the same as the difference between extremist and moderate Christians, and the same as the difference between extremist and moderate of any religion?

Had you done that early in the article, you would not have made an ass of yourself suggesting that you would rather be in a movie theater with your family, and be cut down by Christian bullets rather than be in a nightclub and be cut down by Muslim bullets. The blood that is spilled will be of the same color in both instances.

Finally, when America will realize that Jewish haggling has nothing to do with democracy, America will get back to making sense in its daily discourses. When this happens, the country will find solutions to its problems.

That's the way it was in the good old days when the Jews were not in control of every debate; a time when the nation, the culture and the Congress were on the move.

Disguised Neocons urging a Libya encore

Either the editors of the Wall Street Journal are in on it, or they are the first people to be deceived by it. In fact, the game that's being played at this time seems to go something like this: If you cannot trick them because they know who you are, disguise yourself and go trick them or find someone who will trick them for you.

The editors are telling how impressed they are by the letter that was signed by 51 anonymous “diplomats” of the State Department. It is a letter whose message they want the world to know they are buying. It “calls for military strikes and the ouster of dictator Bashar Assad,” they assure the readers. All that is contained in the piece that the editors wrote under the title: “The Syrian Catastrophe” and the subtitle: “A diplomatic revolt against Obama's determined inaction,” published in the Journal on June 18, 2016.

They go on to say that: “American priorities for Syria [should be] regime change, the use of military force [followed by] hard-nosed U.S.-led diplomatic effort.” Come to think of it, this has always been the neocon wish for all the Arab and Muslim countries. Obama bought it for Libya, resulting in the horror show that continues to play itself to this day. But then Obama came to his senses having realized he was misled by the neocons populating the State Department. He rejected that same fate for Syria; the reason why the neocons disguised themselves as someone else, and came to advocate a Libya encore for Syria.

To make sure no one will suspect there is a deception here, the editors played a well known Jewish sleight of hand. They strongly asserted a false viewpoint and followed it with the denigration of someone – the Left. Here is how they did it: “This is remarkable. These rebels aren't the 'neocons' of the liberal myth.” However, they refrained from naming the rebels. Until they do, we must assume these were floor sweepers; a bunch of nobodies who were promised a bonus if they signed a letter that might well have been written by Dennis Ross, working for Israel's Likud Party like he has been for decades.

What you need to do now, my friend is study how that whole thing was organized. When done, try to deduce from the study the mental state of the organizers. By now, you'll find yourself marveling at the level of panic and hysteria that is gripping these people. Indeed, not realizing how much they are revealing, the editors begin their piece like this: “A day after CIA Director John Brennan testified [in Congress] there's more disagreement in the Obama ranks.” They just betrayed themselves like they can't begin to imagine.

How on Earth can 51 rebels – in a single day – get the same idea, get organized and write a letter expressing the point of view that America's priorities for Syria should be regime change and the ouster of Bashar Assad through the use of military strikes? Not only that, it took these people just another day to organize the leakage of that letter to the two most prominent publications in the country. And they accomplished all that before the head of the State Department, John Kerry, had had the time to read the letter.

So marveled you are by now, you believe that the next time Netanyahu goes to have his ego inflated and stroked on the podium of the United States Congress, he should be rewarded not with 29 standing ovations for not knowing what he's talking about; he should be rewarded with 99 of them for contributing to the process of turning the American State Department into a congressional-style bastion of brain-dead zombies in a panic.

Another indication that the editors of the Wall Street Journal are more likely to be in on the trick than they are victims of the deception, is the fact that they go on to strut many of the neocon talking points. To this end, they start enumerating the horrors unfolding in the Levant with this observation: “Syria's chaos has also incubated the rise of the Islamic State...” and then make the remark that “Mr. Obama carries on with business as usual … This is the President who stayed silent in 2009 when Iranians took to the streets...”

That is, the editors of the Wall Street Journal are lamenting the fact that Barack Obama did not double down on the horror that was started by George W. Bush – something that Obama could have done by destroying Syria the way that Bush destroyed Iraq. They also lament that Obama passed-up the opportunity to start the process of doing that same thing to Iran when a handful of youngsters rioted there, apparently demanding to have access to Chinese-made denims, and to American made hamburgers served with French fries and ketchup.

Of course, those editors and others like them have not a single brain cell with the ability to connect the correct dots, and realize that when they try to impress the young of the other cultures with denims and fast foods, the young of the other cultures will try to impress America's young with an ideology that is far more consequential.

Do you want that for America, you editors of the Wall Street Journal?

If the answer is no, then learn the meaning of the expression: “live and let live,” and practice it.

Logic that caused a Malady will not cure it

Why is it that throughout time, people everywhere on Planet Earth have concluded that the Jews are like a disease, and did not want them in their midst? Some people even thought that the best way to wipe clean the effect of the Jews is to burn them – alive if necessary – not just send them away. This must be the most punishing stereotype that a group of people has suffered anytime anywhere.

Much has happened during the past half century to explain this phenomenon, and we'll look at some of that. But the best explanation is offered by an example that has manifested itself only recently. It brings all the elements of the phenomenon in one story, which makes it a convenient composition to review. That story is discussed on the same day, June 17, 2016 in two major publications; the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times.

The first publication told the story in an article that came under the title: “U.S. State Department Officials Call for Strikes Against Syria's Assad” and the subtitle: “Dozens of officials sign confidential document protesting Obama administration policy, urge regime change,” written by Maria Abi-Habib. The second publication told the same story in an article that came under the title: “51 U.S. Diplomats Urge Strikes Against Assad in Syria,” written by Mark Landler.

Seeing 51 members of a bureaucracy decide in unison to write a memo expressing dissatisfaction with a situation that has been ongoing for five years, might surprise a novice on how the Jews operate, but not a veteran watcher of the Jewish habit. Indeed, ever since the mid-1960s, the rank and file Jews has been organized by their self-appointed leaders in such a way as to fully abuse the system of democracy.

They managed to do that by flooding the media types as well as the elected political figures with letters that make the same representations, laying out the same demands and offering the same remedies. And the memo that was signed by the 51 so-called diplomats is in keeping with the Jewish tradition of swarming around an idea, and then flooding someone with it.

That habit of coming together is also the reason why people often complain that the Jews stick together like glue, allowing no space for someone else to thrive. This is another stereotype that the Jews have earned everywhere they went. But what is puzzling is how they manage to get non-Jews in the media and the corridors of power to stick with them. Well, this phenomenon can be explained when the two stereotypes are examined in conjunction with each other.

We note that one of the causes of disease is the virus. This is a miniscule object that invades the body and wreaks havoc with its organs. But the virus is a single-strand RNA molecule that does not duplicate itself. So how can billions of viruses invade a body? The answer is that only one virus needs to get inside the body where it starts an amazing process.

The virus penetrates a cell – which is made of self-duplicating double-strands DNA molecules – and tricks those molecules to produce duplicates of itself. While this continues to happen, the newly produced viruses penetrate other cells in the body and trick them into producing still more viruses. The process goes on till the viruses overwhelm the body, or the immune system of the body overwhelms the viruses. That process offers an almost perfect analogy as to how the Jews penetrate an organization and manage to turn its people into non-Jewish clones of themselves.

That is how the phenomenon of thousands of people writing angry letters to the editors of publications, have mutated to produce thousands of angry people who write letters to politicians demanding one thing or another. It is also how young men and women grew up to become easily influenced bureaucrats who respond like sheep to the Jew among them who might write a memo and ask them to sign it like a swarm of sterile drones unable to fertilize a single idea of their own.

Enough of the memo’s content has been leaked to show that these bureaucrats wish to cure the situation in the Levant by doing to it what caused the problem in the first place. It is like saying: Let's cure the syphilis we caused by injecting more syphilis into the body. Who will rescue America from this kind of mental disease?

Forced Commerce is State Terrorism

Clifford D. May has once again felt it necessary to pull the Jewish ace card out of his sleeve to defend the indefensible. He did so in the article he wrote under the title: “Terrorism and economic warfare” and the subtitle: “It's a one-two punch meant to bring about a Middle East without Jews,” published on June 14, 2016 in The Washington Times.

What is the Jewish ace card, anyway? It is a chain of arguments made of interlocking assertions that start with a real or imagined observation to the effect that a harmless event has occurred. It is then used as a basis on which to make a series of affirmations that rise in intensity to warn eventually that the original event will lead to a catastrophic outcome.

The most famous of these chains is the accusation (true or false) that you are antisemitic. That is, your antisemitic discourse promotes hatred for the Jews who will be subjected to maltreatment by a society that will want to emulate the Crystal Night of the 1930s, thus lead to the Holocaust and ultimately the Final Solution.

Another chain is the one which starts with the accusation that if you call for the end of Israel's occupation of Palestine, it is because you wish to destroy Israel and push the Jews into the sea where they will perish, thus achieve the Final Solution you dream about.

As to the ace card that Clifford May is using in this article, it begins with the accusation that if you boycott products made by Palestinian workers under Israeli occupation, it is because you mean “to bring about a Middle East without Jews.” What he does not say is why this would be the case when Jewish leaders would (1) boycott products made by child workers anywhere in the world, and (2) boycott products made in South Africa if apartheid were to return to that country. So the question: Why would these two cases not bring about something as awful as a Middle East without Jews?

The boycott of Israel being the current preoccupation of a Jewish establishment that's made of self-appointed leaders like Clifford May – you'll find the boycott to be at the center of every discourse undertaken by members of that establishment. This explains why May has done his utmost to resurrect the long demolished arguments that were relegated to the can labeled “mutilated history”.

To argue that Arab economic warfare against Israel means a Middle East without Jews, Clifford May has avoided using the examples of (1) the Israelis who keep for themselves the tax money they collect from Palestinians on behalf of the Palestinian Authority, and (2) the incessant demand made by Jewish Americans for the US Congress to end its financial support of the Palestinian Authority. If he did that, he would be arguing that the Jews want a Palestine without Palestinians. In other words, he would be admitting that the occupation as implemented by Israel is an act of genocide, pure and simple.

Instead of doing that, Clifford May relied on examples from the 1930s and early '40s to make his point. He might have gotten away with the exaggerations he piled up had he stopped there, but he did not. Instead, he invoked a more recent history and proceeded to mutilate it. Indeed, to make it sound like the Jews who invaded Palestine were the innocent group whereas the Palestinians who were invaded in their homes were the aggressors, he made up fantastic fallacies that fly in the face of a well established history.

The biggest of those fallacies is the description he gave of the 1967 Israeli blitz on Egypt that started the six-year war. He says this: “In 1967, Israel's neighbors launched a war aimed at eliminating Israel.” The truth is that Israel had been preparing for that war with the help of Britain and France since the three of them attacked Egypt eleven years earlier, and were ordered by then President Eisenhower to end the aggression and get out of there.

Confident that they had the plan and the means to mount a massive assault on Egypt's army, and itching to cripple it in 1967, the leaders of Israel chose the most opportune moment to do so. What they saw was the elite force of Egypt away from home supporting one side in the Yemeni civil war. Knowing that despite all this, Egypt will speak up on behalf of its Arab allies, the Israeli leaders intensified their stealing of the waters from Syria and Lebanon. Egypt spoke – not to Eisenhower who was no longer there – but to Lyndon Johnson who began the process of selecting a delegation to go mediate the dispute.

The Egyptians saw this as a reassuring sign, the Israelis saw it as an opportunity to do to Egypt what the Japanese did to the Americans at a time when peace talks were in the air, the Americans were relaxed and the Japanese had Pearl Harbor dancing in their heads. However, the Israelis had three problems they needed to solve before launching their sneak attack. While Egypt's fighting forces were in Yemen, its defense forces were protecting the homeland, and could deal a severe blow to Israel's air force. What to do?

As it happened, the Egyptians had deployed most of their defenses along the Suez Canal anticipating that if an Israeli air attack were to come, it would be from the East the way it happened eleven years earlier. The Israeli solution to this problem was to take the longer route over the Mediterranean Sea, and attack Egypt from the West. They could do it because they had received the newest longer range Mirage bombers from France.

The second problem was that an American spy ship named Liberty was stationed in the Eastern Mediterranean, monitoring the activities of Egypt and Israel. Still reeling from what Eisenhower had done eleven years earlier, the Israelis feared that the Americans will tell Egypt an armada of bombers was coming towards it from the West. The Israeli solution to this problem was to sink the Liberty, killing the entire American crew.

As to the third problem, the Israelis knew that Egypt maintained a number of warplanes in the air twenty-four hours a day. Their strategy being to destroy the entire Egyptian air force on the ground, they could not do it while some planes were in the air. The solution to this problem was to take advantage of the fact that during peace time, the planes in the air would land and another group of planes would take off to start a new shift. In Egypt that was done between 9:00 and 9:15 in the morning. This meant that the best time to attack and destroy the air force on the ground was to do it during those 15 minutes. And that's what the Israelis did.

Now, despite the fact that this history is documented and well known to those who seek the truth, you still have people like Clifford May shamelessly proclaiming that “In 1967, Israel's neighbors launched a war aimed at eliminating Israel.” The truth, however, remains that it took the Jews eleven years to plan this war, procure the necessary equipment, do the training and rehearse the attack before they could execute it.

And what do the likes of Clifford May want you to believe? They want you to believe that the Arabs attacked Israel causing no damage. Israel then counter-punched and won the war. This, despite the fact that following the Israeli blitz, it took Egypt six years to repatriate its army from Yemen, procure new equipment, and do it while fighting a War of Attrition that denied Israel the full exploitation of the natural riches in the Sinai.

And then, in October of 1973, the Egyptians crossed the Canal, kicked the Israelis out of the Sinai and took it back only to discover that parts of it had become a haven for terrorists who were pouring in from everywhere. Egypt is now in the process of mopping them.

All that is but a microscopic part of the layers upon layers of lies that the Jews have been telling the American public and political elites during the half century they had the arena to themselves without someone pushing back. They cemented the notion that you're anti-Semitic and rooting for the Final Solution if you do not constantly display your infinite love for everything that is Jewish or Israeli.

This is why Clifford May can now say with pride that “in recent months, more than 20 governors have signed anti-BDS laws.” That is, 20 governors have committed the terrorist act of forcing their subjects to engage in a pattern of commerce they would otherwise want to do differently.

This is a crime that should send 20 governors to jail having sold their motherland cheaply for a Jewish pat on the back. They must also be ordered never to contact their biological mothers lest they be tempted to sell them cheaply as well, and hand the money to their Jewish masters.

If someone is that hungry for Jewish approbation, they would be shameless enough to do anything even to their own mothers.