New Instructions from the Likud Boiler Room

One after the other, the most prominent “hawks” in America have been coming out lately – not to give the usual promise for a quick victory that will enhance America's image as being a “strong horse” – but to recommend to the Trump Administration a war of another kind.

When you check the background of these characters, you find them to be students of the Likud School of mental disorder. It was expected, therefore, that their campaign will culminate in someone coming out to advocate a new multi-generational war of the religions. And that's what is happening with these guys because the principle of war without end has always been the undercurrent providing energy to fuel the Jewish arguments pertaining to war and peace. So now, the Jews who dominate the gang of hawks by their numbers have decided it is time to expose the idea and to show the public its full dimensions.

The one chosen to articulate that paramount point of view is Clifford D. May. He wrote: “Afghanistan and the war against the West,” an article that also came under the subtitle: “To win will require a 'sustainable sustained commitment.' It was published on August 29, 2017 in The Washington Times.

It is amazing the shameless nerve that allows these people to ignore 99 percent of the historical realities, and then mutilate the remaining 1 percent to make a fake point they hope will prove the theory they adopted for the day. True to from, this is what Clifford May set out to do when he advised that from the conflict in Afghanistan, referred to as “the longest war in American history … you might infer that wars are normally brief. Not so.” Thus, for two reasons, you should pay attention to the terms: “American history” and “normally brief.” They are these:

First, the writer did not mention one war in which America participated, that was longer than the Afghanistan war. In fact he admitted as much when he said: “It's true that America's wars have been of relatively short duration.” But then, guess what he did to insist that it's okay for America to get involve in bloodier wars. He said this: “But many [wars] also have been intensely lethal.” He went on to cite the large number of soldiers who died in each of the previous wars, and terminated with what amounts to: What the heck! Not as many have died so far in Afghanistan, so why not stay there till we log hundreds of thousands more dead?

Second, given that Planet Earth has known more than 50 wars – all of them of short duration since the Second World War just three quarters of a century ago – it must have taken a great deal of Jewish gall for Clifford May to reject the notion that wars have been “normally brief,” then cite only 3 supposed wars of long duration that took place in the past one thousand years or so.

And that's not even the entire deception because what he calls long wars, were not wars at all, but a peaceful Muslim rule that was then replaced by a Christian or Atheist rule. In fact, if we go by Clifford May's definition of war, we would say that the Russia-Ukrainian war lasted 72 years from 1919 to 1991. And we would say that the Bantu-Caucasian war in South Africa lasted 4 centuries till the election of Nelson Mandela as President. Both propositions would be false, as are the three Clifford May assertions.

As if these were not enough falsehoods and mutilations of history, Clifford May decided it would be helpful, as he says, “to think of Afghanistan as a great war against the West.” Never mind that Afghanistan is situated in the East, or that America – presumed to be a part of the West – is the one occupying Afghanistan, Clifford May has adopted the Jewish logic of the rapist that cries bloody murder when his victims refuse to return what he calls his supreme act of love. The Jewish world is a world that’s upside down.

To explain his point, May says that “the conflict can be traced back to Iran's 1979 revolution.” This is when Shia Muslims declared they wish to conduct jihad, he says. The problem, however, is that they did nothing about it for a long while, according to him, a situation that gave the Sunni Muslims the idea to engineer the 9/11 tragedy.

And that's how the East-West or the Muslim-Judeo/Christian great war started according to Clifford May. But now that this reality is upon us for better or for worse, he advises carrying on with the war for an eternity or until one side has vanquished the other. These characters will invent anything to get America involved in a war.

The alternatives to a war without end, he says speaking on behalf of Israel's Likud Party is to retreat, submit and surrender. But surrender to whom? Zawahiri? al-Baghdadi? al-Shabab? Boko Haram? Are you scared yet?

He is raving mad and beyond Rescue

What was heretofore fantasized in terms of abstract theoretical visions by rank and file loonies has been fully developed into practical terms by the Master Wizard of Loonyland.

John R. Bolton who would out-Netanyahu the Bibi anytime of the day, has constructed in bricks and mortars, and in bolts and nuts, the architecture for the way by which the American military can be handed over to the Israelis. The stated aim of the latter being to implement a war plan that will take America to the kind of defeat that will make the Fall of Rome sound like a bedtime lullaby.

Bolton wrote an article about the plan he had developed, intending to present it to Donald Trump, President of the United States of America, but never had the chance to get close enough, given the recent changes that took place at the White House. And so, Bolton wrote the article under the title: “How to Get Out of the Iran Nuclear Deal,” and had it published in National Review Online on August 28, 2017.

He begins the article by telling what he was up to but was sidetracked by events. He then goes ahead and publishes the plan he calls: “Abrogating the Iran Deal: The way forward.” Written in the style that lawyers use to write a formal proposal, you soon discover it is anything but a legal piece of work in the sense that it violates every precept of balance, fairness and justice known to civilized man. It sounds more like the ravings of a mental case; one that has gone off the deep end and offering not the slightest chance of being rescued.

His entire approach is based on convincing the world, especially the other (P5+1) signatories to the Iran Nuclear Deal, that on second thought, America has discovered that the deal is a threat to the “national-security interests of the United States.” And so, he calls on “U.S. leadership” to mount a global campaign to explain to the world “the grave threat to the U.S. and particularly Israel.” But how to do that? Well, Bolton tells how.

That's where John R. Bolton shows what an insult he is to the legal profession. Bear in mind that two of the most fundamental precepts of justice are (1) respecting all forms of contract; and (2) applying the appropriate response to actual infractions committed, and not to real or imagined substitutes. Bolton violates these two precepts big time, thus demonstrates as much commitment to them as a terrorist does to human life.

First, look what he wants America to tell the world in violation of the precept requiring respect for contracts: “The Administration's explanation should stress the dangerous concessions made to reach the deal, such as allowing Iran to continue to enrich uranium; allowing Iran to operate a heavy-water reactor; and allowing Iran to operate and develop advanced centrifuges while the deal is in effect”.

Second, look what he wants America to tell the world in violation of the precept requiring the application of appropriate responses to actual infractions committed, and not to real or imagined substitutes: “The Administration should announce that it is abrogating the Nuclear Deal due to Iranian conduct … Moreover, Israel a key ally in the Middle East, directly affected by this agreement, did not have its interests adequately taken into account”.

Having made what he believes is a tight case, Bolton proceeds to tell how to move “the way forward.” To this end, he tells the Administration it must “develop momentum for imposing sanctions against Iran, more comprehensive than those favored under prior Administrations.” In addition, he wants the United States to impose sanctions “outside the framework of Security Council Resolution 2231”.

Because he wants to do more than just abrogate the Nuclear Deal, he tells the Administration it must take further steps to limit Iran's activities. He also wants to see the launch of a debate that would relate to “providing F-35s to Israel … as well as expedite delivery of bunker-buster bombs”.

Recalling that during the negotiations between the (P5+1) and Iran, Bolton was leading the group that advocated giving Israel those terrible bombs at the same time as Netanyahu was threatening to move against Iran, intending to force America into a war it did not want.

Well, here is Bolton trying once again to recreate the conditions that will make it possible for Netanyahu and his generals to drag America into a war they have been planning for many years; the war that America did not want then, and does not want now.

It is time to recognize the man as being a traitor. The trouble is that, if tried, he'll plead insanity and see the case dismissed. But this outcome should slow him down a little, which is better than letting him loose doing what he does now.

Not the Gorilla in the Room but the Monkey

Imagine a celebrated chef that has worked in the fanciest of hotels and restaurants around the world, opening his own restaurant and serving only the best of the best he cooked in each of the places where he worked. He gets on with age and hires a number of sous-chefs to help him carry on with the tradition.

The problem is that one of the sous-chefs is a plant sent there by his father who owns a competing restaurant and wants to be “King of the Hill.” To help the father achieve his goal, the son starts to alter the system that was established by the celebrated chef. He does the alterations a little at a time in a deliberately slow and gradual manner so as not to draw attention to what's happening.

Now dear reader, you must be wondering if this is a metaphor. The answer is yes, that's what it is, and the intended discussion has to do with keeping an important part of Planet Earth free of nuclear weapons. No, this is not about turning the currently celebrated Korean Peninsula – which is in the Far East – free of nuclear weapons; it's about maintaining the entire Middle East free of nuclear weapons.

The difference between the two locations is that the main problem in the Far East has been identified as North Korea; thus when we discuss proliferation in that region, we make sense. As to the Middle East, it has become taboo to mention the Israeli monkey in the room. For this reason, we haggle like a cackling duck all we want around the point, and we end up saying nothing that's useful.

Why is this happening? It is happening because we have a Jewish sous-chef in every politico-diplomatic kitchen that keeps poisoning the system that the American chef of a glorious past had established long ago. The system worked well while it lasted, but then the Jews appeared on the scene, and kept altering it a little at the time. Still, in time, the system became what it is today; a dish no different from the dish-wash that washes it.

You get a sense of all that when you read the article which came under the title: “How to Prevent a Nuclear Arms Race in the Middle East” and the subtitle: “Invest in stability instead of conflict,” written by Jack Keane, Dennis Ross, Keith B. Alexander and Robert MacFarlane. It was published on August 28, 2017 in the National Interest.

If you know your way around Middle Eastern affairs, you'll quickly identify Dennis Ross as the proverbial sous-chef who is poisoning the stew. He has been doing it throughout his career, and veteran Middle East watchers have known it. However, if you're not immersed in the history of the region but only acquainted with it, you'll wonder why Israel––that kept insinuating it is the 600 pound gorilla possessing an arsenal of nuclear weapons to blow up 200 cities in the neighborhood––was not made a part of the article's presentation.

You'll eventually guess that to say something negative about Israel in an American publication had become a taboo. And this will prompt you to dismiss the entire article as a piece of junk not worth the paper it's written on. In fact, a passage that came early in the article must have rung the astonishment bell inside your head. It reads as follows in condensed form:

“A trend involves the international ambiguity concerning U.S. policy toward the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The United States has lacked a strategy for promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy since signing of the joint comprehensive plan of action (JCPOA) with Iran. It was designed to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear state. That agreement is seen throughout Saudi Arabia, the GCC states, Egypt, Israel and Jordan as enabling Iran to legally pursue a nuclear-weapons program later on”.

Having said nothing about the monkey in the room pretending to be a 600 pound gorilla, the writers went on to admit that the use of nuclear energy to produce electricity will become a common view in the Middle East whether or not the Jews like it.

And so, they advised that because Russia and China are assisting the nations of the region to build civilian nuclear power stations, America must get in and compete. It should do so, they say – not just for commercial reasons – but to keep an eye on those countries, thus make certain they will not produce nuclear weapons.

And this is why––mindful that Israel used stolen American satellite images to bomb Iraq's civilian nuclear station, thus triggered a chain reaction that brought the horror we see in the Levant today––those countries will look upon any American offer to assist them as a Jewish booby trap.

They will think of the offer as being encouraged and promoted by a Congress of imbeciles, and will conclude that they must reject the American death trap no matter how sweet it sounds.

Had it not been for the inclusion of Dennis Ross among the writers, the article would have been written differently. It would have said: Let's use the JCPOA as model and refine it where we must, then get every nation in the Middle East to sign it, including Israel.

Nation-Destruction and muddled Democracies

Do you want to know how a Jew pulls a rabbit out of a hat? He names a handkerchief “rabbit,” and pulls it out of his hat. No, the Jews are not the only ones to regularly pull this kind of a trick; all primitive cultures do.

It is said that Muslims encountered it in the places where they converted primitive animists to Islam, and told them it was forbidden to eat pork. Unwilling to comply, the animists named the pigs something else, and continued eating them. The idea that's involved here is that if you cannot change your situation to fit reality, you redefine your situation or redefine reality itself.

The Jews do that all the time, thus initiate haggling marathons that never end. This is why they get nothing done for themselves, thus live on what they sponge from the suckers who listen to them. In fact, this is the approach that Elliott Abrams is putting to work yet again in the effort to realize an age-old Jewish dream, this time using America's standing in the world, its power and its prestige.

You can see how he does that in the article he wrote under the title: “The Nation-Building Straw Man,” published on August 25, 2017 in the Weekly Standard. Once you're done reading the article, you'll have realized that the focus of Abram's attention is Egypt; the country that has been the Jewish obsession since they came to think of themselves as more than a collection of nomadic tribes.

Abrams devotes one paragraph, situated in the middle of the article, to discuss the situation in Egypt. What comes before and after that paragraph is a Jewish style haggle that seeks to dismantle the definition of nation-building as put forth by those who won the Second World War and rebuilt the nations they destroyed in the process.

No, says Elliott Abrams to the Americans, you don't know what you're talking about when you say you rebuilt Germany and Japan. He explains that what the Americans did, is “change the domestic order” in those countries to improve America's security. To illustrate his point, he cites the two most famous examples: “Fascist Japan and Germany were enemies; democratic Japan and Germany [became] allies”.

The theory he propounds – though he did not elaborate it fully in this article – is that if a country is not a democracy, it sits as a security threat to America. To remove that threat and achieve the nirvana of security, America must mobilize to force regime change in all non-democratic countries. It should resort to war if necessary, and see nation-building happen by itself in those countries, together with the establishment of democratic regimes that will be friendly to America. This was America's intent, he says, when it carpet-bombed Germany and nuked Japan. It all worked like a charm, he asserts; so why not repeat the experience?

He wants the readers to see that the above definition of nation-building is different from the way it is expressed in this sentence: “The United States no more invaded Iraq and Afghanistan to 'construct democracy' than we invaded Germany and Japan in the 1940s for that purpose.” Now, my friend, you know why Jewish haggle is as useless as Ahmadinejad of Iran would say: the stuff you blow into a handkerchief. Can Abrams turn that into a rabbit?

His article highlights another useless habit of the Jews; that of rejecting clarity as we know it and replacing it with the clarity that the Jews say they understand. Look how Abrams started his article: “Trump's strategy for Afghanistan shows deep confusion on the issues of 'nation building' and democracy.” To illustrate the point, he quotes a passage from a Trump speech: “We are not nation-building again … We are killing terrorists”.

Now Abrams makes it clear he doesn't like the way that Trump elaborated on that idea – this elaboration: “From now on, victory will have a clear definition: attacking our enemies, obliterating [them], and stopping terror attacks against America before they emerge. We will no longer use American military to construct democracies, or rebuild other countries in our own image. Those days are now over”.

And so, Abrams rebuts the Trump declaration with this: “First, it should be clear that those days are not just over, they never existed.” After that, he gave his muddled definition of nation-building as shown above. And he continues to believe that what he did stands as a paragon of clarity.

Suppose now that the Elliott Abrams article was given to military and national security specialists to work on, and come up with practical plans that can be implemented. What do you think they might come up with?

First, the specialists will see the article as being a stream of intellectual mudslide with nothing to fish in it but death and destruction. They'll point out it is a scheme that will keep American troops fighting in places like Afghanistan for as long as the eye can see and beyond.

Second, they'll see that fresh troops will have to be maintained on standby while America seeks regime change in places like Egypt. If the effort is unsuccessful, the troops will be committed to do battle, and given instructions to turn the place into another Afghanistan.

Third, if this happens with a middle power such as Egypt, Iran, Turkey, Pakistan or North Korea, it is America that will be reduced to a middle power, ceding the top spot to Russia, China or the European Union.

Nothing that the Jews ever suggested ended well, and nothing will. They have the Midas touch in reverse.

The Distance between two Schools of thought

Even though the term “political correctness” is not in use in the non-English speaking countries of Europe, the principle is known to them, and frequently discussed as shown in the article that was written by Bernard-Henri Lévy, a renowned French Jewish writer and sometimes popular philosopher.

His article came under the title: “The Distance Between Two Tragedies and the subtitle: “Response to the neo-Nazis in Charlottesville was swift and clear. Not so for the horror in Barcelona.” It was published on August 25, 2017 in the Wall Street Journal.

Without saying so openly, Lévy used the writing technique of comparing the response that followed the Charlottesville tragedy, and the one that followed the Barcelona tragedy, to make a serious point. It is that political correctness, engendered by the fear of being labeled Islamophobic, is getting in the way of slowing down the expansion of Islamic terrorism, he insinuated. Here is a translation of the way he expressed this thought at the end of his article: “Humanity must confront both heads of the beast … But the fact remains it is necrophiliac Islamo-fascism that holds life, death, and the future in its clutches”.

But Lévy should have known that this is a false assertion given that Nazism has been condemned more than anything in history and yet, it is still around and trying to impose itself on a human race that's rejecting it categorically. Thus, to shed the fear of being labeled Islamophobic and instantly condemn what a handful of Muslim kids do, and then sit on our hands waiting for a miracle to happen, will not solve the problem.

Did Lévy know this? Was it the reason why he did not make his point openly? Most probably yes, which is why he chose the method of comparison. But if he knows that condemnation alone will not solve the problem, why did he go through the painstaking effort of making the comparison? Well, there is only one answer to this question; it was his subtle way to push a demagogic agenda. Having written a book in which he argued that Jews must be loved unconditionally, and that no one else merits being loved, he is now telling his readers what they must think of their Muslim neighbors, and what they should feel towards them.

To advance his agenda, Lévy begins this part of the argument with the assertion that what played out in Charlottesville were: “two visions of society and the world,” whereas in Barcelona only “hate” played itself out; the not-so-subtle point being that Islam is powered by hate. And so we pause to examine this assertion; doing so by asking the question: When does understandable anger become unmitigated hate?

Being a highly developed organism, a survival strategy that begins with the feeling of anger, is designed into our system of responses. Anger is the alarm that tells us there is danger ahead, and we must choose between fighting or fleeing, and then deciding on whether to retaliate when we have acquired the means to do it, so as to permanently eliminate the danger and live in tranquility.

But because anger takes a toll on us, we are also designed to gradually dissolve it and lose it when the danger has ceased to exist. There is no doubt that Bernard-Henry Lévy believes this is happening in Europe and America regarding the Muslim kids who sometimes produce atrocities. And so, he warns against establishing “false symmetries” because he wants to set all Muslims – not just the mischievous kids – apart from the rest of humanity, thus institutionalize hatred for them, and make it a permanent feature of the Western psyche.

The thing is that institutionalizing hate is not an invention of Lévy. It is built into the religion that says of itself, it came into being because a tribe of Hebrews that lived well among the people of Egypt, killed the babies of those who fostered them, looted their possessions and ran into the desert to go steal the land of milk and honey that belonged to someone else. All that – say today's Jews who pretend to descend from the ancient Hebrews – is true and real because God is so fond of them, he adopted them as his favorite children and gave them carte blanche to do as they wish anytime they want, everywhere they go.

And so, the Jews who hung on to the myth of their beginnings and kept it alive for thousands of years, now want the hate for Muslims to keep going till further notice or to eternity. This is how what should have been no worse than understandable anger on the part of those who suffered during all their existence, was transformed into a tool that generates unmitigated hate for those they select periodically, thus perpetuate their own suffering to eternity.

In conclusion, it must be said that whereas Lévy wants the world to believe that Muslim kids are powered by hate, the reality is that the Jewish establishment, armed with a religion that's based on hate, has been and remains the sole purveyor of hate in the world today.

And Bernard-Henri Lévy speaks loudly for that establishment.

Get to know the original 'Axis of Evil'

Benny Avni wrote an article under the title: “Meet the new Axis of Evil,” and this compels me to tell the full story behind that expression. You can read the Avni article in the August 24, 2017 edition of the New York Post.

As to my story, it started decades ago when I was blacklisted around the end of the 1960s. In response, I could have chosen to do what most Arabs and non-Arabs did when they were hit with that same Jewish blight, and kept my mouth shut. Or I could have chosen to fight the Jewish beastly abomination of pretending to stand for free speech while blacklisting what did not suit them. I chose to fight back.

I started fighting at a time when there was no internet. I did it by sending my writings to every big and small publication, only to see that one in every two-dozen submissions was published by an editor that had not yet been visited by a Jewish thug or blackmailed into observing the boycott of me. This, however, did not mean the rest of my creations remained unused. Called missives, they were circulated among the Jewish mob and their barking disciples. They were mined by each low life thief of intellectual property, and used in their writings as if they were the creators and legitimate owners of the stolen ideas. And nobody outside the loop knew.

Believe it or not, this wasn't the worst that happened. Some people even suggested I should have been flattered to know that those who denied me the fruits of my creativity were the ones that ate the fruits. Perhaps. But what really hurt was the Jewish habit of stealing my ideas of praise for someone or criticism for another, and applying them in the reverse order.

One of those instances was the use of the word “axis.” I used it the first time during the Reagan era to refer to the New-York/Tel-Aviv Jewish alliance. Even though the Reagan speechwriters were heavy miners of my ideas, they never stole that specific word. This happened later during the George W. Bush era when it was used as “Axis of Evil” to mean Iraq, Iran and North Korea, even though the three countries were not allied, nor were they communicating with each other.

Originally, the word was used during the Second World War to refer to the “Forces of the Axis” that brought together Germany, Italy and Japan. A few more nations joined later. They were opposed to the Forces of the Alliance which brought together the United States, the Soviet Union, the nations of the British Commonwealth and others. In time, the words “Alliance” and “Coalition” came to mean the forces on the good side of the war. As to the word “Axis,” it came to mean the forces on the bad side of the war. And so I used the word Axis as a pejorative term to mean that the New-York/Tel-Aviv Jewish alliance was a bad thing.

I must now digress for a moment to tell of a subplot that's related to the main plot. The time was the mid-1970s, and there was a woman named Barbara Frum on CBC radio, hosting a show called “As It Happens.” There was also the first serious Israeli incursion into Lebanon. Barbara Frum was fair to both sides; conducting balanced interviews and passing minimum judgment on either side. I wrote a piece praising her, and it was circulated inside the loop but never published. Shortly thereafter, the CBC brass rewarded her with the prestigious post of hosting a panel right after the nightly news on CBC television. From what I know now, she appreciated me, and was saddened that she could not interview me or praise me publicly because of the blacklist.

As it happens, Barbara Frum had a son named David Frum. I don't know how much he knows of the story I just related, but I later learned he became speechwriter for George W. Bush. I saw him on television a few times and read a few of his writings, but I must say he is not “like mother like son.” In time I learned that he was the one that used the word “axis” in an expression that was later modified to sound, “Axis of Evil”.

What tells me David Frum consciously stole the idea from my writing is that he lied about the way it came to him. He says he got it from reading a Roosevelt speech in which the American President referred to the forces of the Axis. Well, that's how they were referred to at the time, and not in a pejorative way. It was their proper name, and nothing more. The term became an insult much later on, and was used pejoratively ever since … as I did.

Another thing that tells me David Frum consciously stole my intellectual property and lied about it, is that he formulated not “Axis of Evil” but “Axis of Hate.” As it happened, any criticism I leveled against Israel at the time, was called hateful speech by the Jewish establishment. Because nobody spoke of hateful speech during World War Two, or in connection to the fictitious alliance between Iraq, Iran and North Korea, it can only be that David Frum was thinking of my writing when he coined Axis of Hate; the expression that later became Axis of Evil.

Now, by all means my friend, go ahead and read the Benny Avni article, and laugh your head off at those Jews who go to the same well over and over again even after it dries. And they do more than that. They keep chewing on the same piece of bone whether you throw it to them or they steal it from you.

Theirs is a pitiful existence that doesn’t get better.

Example of a subtle demagogic Incitement

Something must have happened in the alignment of the planets for the editors of The Washington Times to come up with a piece like the one they did on August 13, 2017. The piece came under the title: “The demographic threat to the West” and the subtitle: “Muslim immigration threatens to change the European way of life”.

Up until now, advocating the need to maintain a society that's demographically inclusive of one kind of people, or exclusive of another kind, used to happen only in Israel. In fact, its leaders have continually talked in the past, and they continue to talk about maintaining Israel predominantly Jewish. They also talk about their fear of being overwhelmed by other religions, most especially Islam.

But even the Jews of Israel never mustered the audacity to tell other nations how to manage their demography, or what they should fear about the demographic changes that may come to their countries. This is not the case with the Jews of America, however, as demonstrated by the editorial piece in The Washington Times; a publication that is heavily influenced by Jews.

Mindful of what will happen if they openly advocate the curtailment of Muslim immigration into America, which is clearly their desire, those editors pushed the idea on the Europeans and then – in a burst of pure cowardice – added the following subtle point: “the European culture from which America sprang.” With this, they voiced their deep desire, believing they were shielded against the criticism they tried to evade by being devious.

These people did not just make the above statement and left it at that; they used the demagogic tools at their disposal to scare society about accepting Muslim immigrants into the country. To that end, they pointed to the few instances when a crazy Muslim committed an unsavory act, and made it sound that all Muslims are inclined to commit similar acts.

Were this a reality of the human character, we would believe that every gang of white kids would lasso a black man and drag him behind their car as it happened in America once. We would also believe that every white man in America would kill his black companion kid, cook him and eat him as it happened once. And we would believe that every Canadian farmer would kill dozens of women and sell their flesh as pork. That's in addition to believing that every bus rider on a Canadian highway would eat the face of a fellow traveler; do so in broad daylight and in full view of a horrified audience.

But, in reality, we do not believe in the absurd notion that if an individual commits a mindless act, he necessarily reflects what every member of the group to which he belongs will do. The reason why we do not believe in such absurdities is that we do not believe in any expression of demagoguery that is expressed by the Jews or any of the disciples they train.

Having done what they could to pit the readers against Islam, the editors of The Washington Times went on to demonstrate the depth of their ignorance. Here is a revealing passage:

“Islam is not a faith as faith is understood in the West. In some Islamic countries Islam is bequeathed at birth. It is often not a faith of the heart, but of law … Complicating assimilation, Muslim immigrants develop self-contained slums around urban centers, which become incubators of extremism”.

To fully appreciate how much in the dark these people are, we need only remember who instructed them on such matters. To this end, we go back in memory nine or ten years to a time when Barack Obama was running to be president. The self-declared experts on Islam – who happen to be Jews – warned that if elected, Barack Hussein Obama will be assassinated as soon as he takes office. That's because he was born a Muslim but left the faith, they explained. As it turned out, the man was elected; he served as president for eight years, and has remained alive to this day.

One more thing needs to be mentioned. It is not unusual for people who settle in a culture that's different from theirs, to huddle in ghettos. This has been the reality during the long history of Jewish sojourn in Europe. The difference between them and the Muslims of today is that the indigenous Europeans thought the Jews were so weird, they feared for their children. And so, they came up with stories known collectively as “blood libel” about Jews making bread with the blood of Christian children.

Something like this is not happening to Muslims today, and will never happen. The reasons why are easy to understand. First, the Muslims are not as mysterious as the Jews were then. Second, the Europeans have become a lot more civilized than they were at the time.

Contorted, Pretzel-like, atrocious Jewish Logic

Behold a second generation of arguments the Jews are trying to string together, hoping to score big in the way that they did with the first generation of arguments.

The trouble is that both strings are tenuous. Despite all that, the first string survived and brought the Jews great success because no opposition was mounted against it. However, the second string will fail because opposition is already mounting against it.

The first string went something like this: When you criticize Israel, you deny the Jews a place where they can flourish as Jews. This says you are antisemitic, which means you want to see the persecution of Jews. If this happens, a holocaust will ensue, which is the ultimate aim of your criticizing Israel in the first place. Therefore, you must cease and desist criticizing Israel because Jews must never again suffer another holocaust.

As to the second string, you can see it developed in an article that came under the title: “Replacing patriotism with tribalism” and the subtitle: “The politics of grievance and revenge divides us all.” It was written by Clifford D. May, and published on August 22, 2017 in The Washington Times. Stated briefly, the argument goes something like this:

“At the end of the eleventh century, the Muslims conquered the Holy Land. Four centuries later, they lost it to the Christians. Even if the modern Arab governments do not care about that history, the kids who take up jihadism do, and they want their sweet little revenge, so we call them revanchists. But those kids want to go beyond that, and conquer the whole world; and so we also call them supremacists. Because the neo-Nazis and Klansmen of America seek revenge, they resemble the jihadi kids, thus become revanchists and supremacists in our eyes.  And while we're at it, we must lump the Antifa kids with those two groups because they too seek to achieve the same things in their own way”.

What's wrong with this? What's wrong is that Clifford May made use of mutilated history to advance a contorted, Pretzel-like and atrocious logic to fabricate arguments that are full of holes big enough to drive a truck through them. Here is one example. To make the point that “the killers are revanchists,” Clifford May cited two events of history, and made them sound like the Muslims lost on both occasions. The first event unfolded in Palestine (the Holy Land) the second unfolded in Andalusia (better known as Spain).

Clifford May is correct in speaking of Andalusia as a win for the Christian side after almost 800 years of Muslim rule. However, no crusaders, authorized by the Church, were involved in this war. As to the Holy Land, the story there was much different. Seven major crusades were conducted during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries in addition to a number of smaller ones; and they all failed to defeat the Muslim defenders of Palestine.

In the end, the Holy Land remained in the hands of Muslims till 1923 when the League of Nations made Palestine a British mandate. Here too, no crusaders were involved in this operation. Thus, the overall net result was one win for each of the Muslim side, and a Christian side that was not of crusaders. Put together, all of this demolishes May's theory of Muslim kids turning revanchist because of events that happened centuries ago.

The reality is that most of these kids are motivated by the condition in which they find themselves here and now. Treated as second class citizens in the Western countries of their births, they see the countries of their ancestors shredded by the war machines of the same Western countries treating them so badly. Rightly or wrongly, the Muslim kids conclude that the West has declared war on their race and their religion. They respond by fighting back any way they know how, using any weapon they lay their hands on.

As to Clifford May's assertion that the neo-Nazis, Klansmen and Antifa kids resemble the jihadi kids in their revanchist and supremacist attitude, the argument defeats itself by the fact that the author fails to tell what was taken from these kids that they wish to take back. Who took it from them, against whom they seek revenge? Over whom do they wish to assert their supremacy?

For a moment, you might think that Clifford May is saying America is divided into a right-wing and a left-wing, each of which wants to fight the other and take the country back. If so, it means that no one in America feels they own their country.

You know what, my friend? There was a time that we, Canadians, felt the same way about our country, and we had a serious debate about selling Canada to America. We estimated that each of us would receive something like a million dollars, an amount at the time that would have been sufficient for us to live royally for the rest of our lives. But then something happened, and we changed our collective mind.

Is this happening to America at this time? If so, anyone interested, China? Anyone interested, Germany? Anyone interested, GCC?

Or is this another Jewish scheme concocted by the guy that sold the Brooklyn Bridge?

America shown to be no different from Europe

It is disquieting the way the Jews are indoctrinated to embrace the proposition that – unlike everyone on Planet Earth that's recognized to have both rights and obligations – they have only rights and no obligations. You see an example of this in the article that came under the title: “Watching Charlottesville From Jerusalem,” written by Daniel Gordis and published on August 20, 2017 in the New York Times.

But how did a paradigm of this monstrosity get to take roots in America and become the “new normal”? Well, it happened because the Jewish leaders of Europe that lived through, and survived the events of the twentieth century's first half, had one of two choices to make when they migrated to America. They could have faced up to the mistakes they made in Europe and avoided repeating them in America, or they could have used the knowledge they gained from the ordeal to pull a stealthy revanchist round on the gullible leaders of America and the public too. The Jewish leaders fatefully chose the latter.

And so, instead of telling their followers they should respect the home that welcomed them by assimilating into the existing culture while retaining their religion, which they were allowed to do; the Jewish leaders did something else. They instilled in the younger generations of Jews the lesson of the Holocaust as being proof that they are the descendents of an ethno-religious group so superior to all the others, everyone is murderously jealous of them. Thus, they must always rally around their leaders and stay with them through thick and thin to remain safe and ultimately obtain what they deserve: inherit the Earth and all that's in it.

In practical terms, the rank and file was told to proselytize during all the time that they have, and do so everywhere they go. They will not proselytize adherence to Judaism as a religion; they will proselytize reverence for the Jew who is a storehouse of knowledge, endowed with superior wisdom. That is, as foot soldiers dedicated to the cause, they should publicly praise to high heaven everything that a Jew does, and never criticize even the most mediocre of his performances. And they should use every means at their disposal to convince the gentiles around them that it is divine to praise the Jew, and evil to revile him.

Look what Daniel Gordis says he and his wife – now living in Israel – have been teaching their American born children: “Everywhere Jews did their best to be accepted until their host community tired of them. When that happened, horror ensued.” No, that wasn't teaching their children the truth; it was lying to them. These parents lied to their children out of ignorance and malice.

The truth is that communities do not tire of someone or get bored with him. Individuals may do that but even they do not slaughter that someone just to be relieved of the boredom. Besides, the communities he mentions in England, Spain and Germany, moved against the Jews hundreds of years after the original Jews had moved in. That is, the hosts did not move against the Jews that were; they moved against the Jews that became. This pattern repeated itself not only in the three places that Gordis mentioned, but everywhere the Jews went, including the United States of America, a reality that is puzzling him no end.

But if Gordis had been reading this website, he would have learned years ago it was inevitable that the American public will revolt against – not just get tired of – the despicable attitude that the last two generations of Jews have been exhibiting in America. After all, this is the community that saved them from annihilation, gave them the best it had, and treated them as honored guests. So how did the Jews respond to this generosity?

They responded by taking what they were given, and asking for more. No, this was not an exaggerated sense of human greed – which is a trait common to us all – it was a manifestation of the indoctrination that the Jews received, and the belief that they own everything, being God's gift to them. Increasingly, such notions led the younger generations to believe they had no obligation toward anyone. They also believed they could not be criticized for anything because what they did had been ordained by the Almighty.

Seeing that the Jews had reached this point in America, I began to sound the alarm. I did so because I had befriended Jews who lived in Europe during a time when the Jews were succeeding at codifying what they thought were hard earned gains. To that end, they convinced the legislators of the countries that hosted them to make laws that imposed the Jewish will on the public.

That public responded the way that all kinds of people did throughout history. They organized themselves, they mounted riots in the streets, they attacked Jews, and in some cases set off pogroms and holocausts.

This is what's beginning to happen in America as demonstrated by the events in Charlottesville; and no one but the Jews can reverse the trend. However, to succeed, the Jewish leaders will have to begin by shedding every dogma they thought attested to their Jewishness. Yes, it promises to be brutal.

He is haggling the usual bad Faith

It is an exercise in cheap talk that will lead nowhere. It is not something new; it is a recurrence that is seen every time we deal with matters relating to Israel.

After 600 words to say how bad everyone is, Danny Danon, who is Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, has reserved the last paragraph of his article to say that in the face of adversity, Israel remained perfect all along. Here is what, in his eyes, makes Israel the perfect thing that he says it is: “No one wants Unifil to succeed more than Israel does. We seek calm and stability on our northern border.” There will be more about this remark later.

You can see all of that and more in the article that Danon wrote under the title: “Hezbollah Is Running Rings Around U.N. Monitors in Lebanon and the subtitle: “The Security Council should expand the force's mandate––and make sure they do their jobs.” It was published on August 21, 2017 in the Wall Street Journal.

Of course, when the writer says that everyone other than Israel is bad, he wants to tell the bad guys what they must do to get better. And as always, what he wants to see done are the things that will serve Israel's interests. This means the things that will come at the expense of everyone else.

And so Danon of Israel starts dictating to these bad guys: Hezbollah, Hamas, Lebanon and the United Nations Interim Force In Lebanon (UNIFIL.) As well, to make sure that someone will be there to police the crowd, he tells friendly United States of America how to do its job in fulfillment of that task. In short, he wants to see a beehive where everyone runs around doing something to keep always-unsteady Israel from falling flat on its face.

So now, we want to know what in Danon's eyes the bad guys do that's really bad … which happens to be the things he says Israel is doing perfectly well. To tell what that is, he begins by saying that he took dozens of UN ambassadors on tours of Israel's border with Lebanon to show them that Hezbollah is violating Security Council resolutions. But he neglected to tell how hard the ambassadors laughed in his face given that no one comes close to violating UN resolutions the way that Israel does.

Next, Danon takes on the UNIFIL forces accusing them of being “not effective in fulfilling their mandate.” He explains they were supposed to keep the territory south of the Litany River free of weapons and fighters other than the Lebanese army. He says such prohibition should include Hezbollah even though Hezbollah is an integral part of the Lebanese government and army. That is, beehive or not, Danon wants to structure the government of Lebanon according to precepts that would serve the interests of Israel. Go figure.

Look what else Danon complains about: “Israel reported to the UN that Hezbollah has established a series of border outposts … Our intelligence services have determined that these positions are used for reconnaissance operations against Israel. Unifil claimed it lacked authority to investigate.” Do you realize how much gall is packed in these words?

For one thing Unifil says it had no mandate to investigate. This can only be true because if it investigated Hezbollah, it would have to investigate Israel as well. In fact, Danon admits that it was Israel's “intelligence services” which discovered that Hezbollah had intelligence services doing reconnaissance. So why would he deny Lebanon what he admits Israel already has? What could this be but the exhibition of raw Jewish gall?

And that's not the only thing Israel's intelligence services discovered. Here is what Danon says in this regard: “We shared with the Security Council information detailing how towns have become Hezbollah strongholds. We also shared intelligence revealing how the Iranians use airlines to [transport] arms into Lebanon.” And his list of complaints goes on even if nothing of what he accuses Lebanon is illegal, unlawful or unethical.

Given all that which troubles him, he tells the UN what it must do in three steps. (1) Unifil must increase its presence in the territory, (2) Unifil must report all violations to the Security Council and (3) Unifil must insist on unlimited access to all suspicious installations.

But why would anyone, including the U.S. take Danon seriously? After all, the last time the UN did things Israel's way, Israel bombed the UN installations killing dozens that included Canadian peacekeepers. Israel kept bombing for an hour despite the fact that the UN contacted Israel's commanders several times and told them they were making a mistake. But the Jewish aggression continued till the UN posts were completely obliterated.

This says that when Danny Danon, speaking in the name of Israel, says: “We seek calm and stability on our northern border,” he means: We seek the peace of the grave.

And the UN says: Thanks but no thanks.

The Jewish Nazification of Democracy

Consider this statement: They gave a gang-rape party and made it sound like fun. Many attended the party, enjoyed the first few moments, but then some attendees felt disgust and departed early, leaving behind the diehard rapists who kept the horror going. As to those who left early, they forever kept their mouths shut, pretending not to be aware of what happened because they felt shame, unable to explain why they went to the party in the first place.

Guess what; I am sitting on a story I never thought I'd have the opportunity to tell, but such moment has arrived due to the publication of the Mike Evans story which came under the title: “Hatred of the Jews returns with a flourish,” and the subtitle: “Anti-Jewish slogans were heard in Charlottesville, and anti-Semitic incidents are on the rise across the globe.” It was published on August 17, 2017 in The Washington Times.

After a long introduction about the Charlottesville incident, Evans tells how he personally faced anti-Semitism starting with this preamble: “You don't feel the full weight of hatred until you become the target. And that's what happened to me on my 37th birthday.” He goes on to tell how he learned that someone was planning to assassinate him on his birthday, but was saved by the authorities who did their job by eliminating the threat, and informing him of what happened.

He says this is proof of hatred for him because he is a Jew, and this sounds like an accurate statement. In fact, many get killed in America everyday by people who hate them for one reason or another. Others are saved in the nick of time and, like him, get to learn what was about to happen but was thwarted by the authorities. These people feel lucky, and move on with their lives. But why is it that when something happens to a Jew, it becomes a big story that eclipses even gang-rape stories such as the one described above?

I must pause here because I realize it is getting complicated. So bear with me while I explain this part in detail. I shall do so with the stipulation that what I know is a collection of bits and pieces of a story as told to me by second hand and third hand witnesses long after the events. Also, I had some knowledge beforehand which I added to those parts, and spliced the whole thing the best way I can into the composite you see below.

At some point during the decade of the 1970s I knew I was under surveillance by Canada's secret police because the Jewish establishment didn't like me writing an article a few years previous, that was printed in the country's biggest newspaper about Egypt being a civilized country. What I did not know at the time but learned lately, is why the effort that was mounted by some people to end the criminal insanity of the police spending taxpayer money to collect information about me and spreading it among those who would use it to hurt me in everything I did for myself, everywhere I went.

This was the moment when the gang-rape analogy came-in handy to explain to me how the Jews managed to win the argument that the surveillance of me must continue. I was told these events were happening at a time when Israel had received drones from the United States and was using them to spy on Lebanon in a clear sign it was preparing to conduct a large military operation there. Some people in the Canadian foreign service were opposed to that, but they were not the people who stood up for me. So there were two parallel stories.

And this is where the evil genius of the Jews played a crucial role. Knowing that the group defending me did not care about Lebanon, and knowing that those who worried about Lebanon did not care about me, the Jews came up with a formula that neutralized the objection of both groups. To this end, the Jews bet on the tendency of people to enjoy the voyeurism involved despite the raised objections – mining as they did the raw information they received about me, and using it. And so the Jews constructed this argument: No harm will come to Lebanon because the drones only collect interesting information about people we should get to know well, the same way that we know so much about Fred, and he's doing well, and we're doing well.

Do you see what this is about? It is the Jewish analogue of the Nazi reliance on the science of eugenics to learn interesting information about the people they used to examine. It is criminal banality that gave each of the groups objecting to the surveillance, the excuse to put the onus of lobbying to end the practice on the other group. But like the saying goes, when something is everybody's business, it becomes nobody's business.

The result has been that the expressions of indignation waned, everybody got used to the ongoing crime, the surveillance of me continued for decades, and Lebanon suffered successive Israeli invasions that ultimately produced the Sabra and Shatila massacre, among many other horrors.

That was a horrific massacre to recoil even the Nazis but not the Jews who found a justification for it. It was ordered by the people who operated the drones that sent back “interesting information” showing the gunners where to aim their shots to cause maximum damage to Arab life and property.

And the Jews will proudly tell you they do all that in the name of and for the glory of democracy. Would you be so insane as to object to that?

A Homecoming for Alice and Jabberwock

A group of kind-looking con artists will score a few successes at the start of a new project they undertake because societies that wish to move ahead are geared to giving its beginners a chance to prove themselves.

These societies will even give the benefit of the doubt to the beginners that make mistakes on their way to mastering their craft and to producing better performances. But if repeated errors start to show a pattern that indicates an unhealthy scheme is behind the performance, the affected society will take back its approval of the group. And this is what happened to the Jews a zillion times during the four millenniums they have been swindling the human race around the globe.

The latest society to fall prey to the Jews has been the United States of America, and that's where we see, in real time, a live performance of what happens inside such a group when the members sense they were outed, and shown to be what they really are and what they want. They demonstrate how quickly they can point the finger at each other in a game of mutual recrimination. This tendency is clearly apparent in the drama that's unfolding in the latest article by Bret Stephens. It came under the title: “President Jabberwock and the Jewish Right,” published on August 19, 2017 in the New York Times.

The point Stephens is making misleads the readers because the author reduces the difference between his splintered right-wing Jewish camp and the main right-wing Jewish camp, to trusting or distrusting Donald Trump. But something happens when the writer struggles to develop his idea: a bigger truth comes out. It shows there is only one right-wing Jewish agenda, and it has not changed even after the split in two. Thus, the difference between them boils down, not to the content of the agenda, but to the way it must be implemented.

You get a sense of the agenda's content when you read the following passage: “He [Trump] would rip up the Iran deal. He wasn't afraid to call out the Islamofascists by name. He 'got' Israel's [back] and wasn't going to abide the State Department's piety about the peace process or the location of the U.S. Embassy [in Israel]. He'd rebuild the military”.

As to the method of implementation, it seems that Bret Stephens and those in his camp were stricken by the Holocaust psychosis more than the other camp. They are therefore more sensitive to the possible existence of hidden meanings in the Donald Trump discourse, than their opposing counterparts. You get a sense of this reality when you read the following passage:

“You could smell it in the citation of a Benito Mussolini quote; an image of Hillary Clinton alongside a six-pointed star and a pile of cash … in the denunciation of 'international banks' and the 'enemy of the American people' news media … in the resurrection of 'America First' as an organizing political slogan –– a politics of exclusion that has never served Jews well even when we were suffered to be included”.

To know that the election of Donald trump led to the split of the Right into what Bret Stephens calls the “right-of-center Jews” and whatever else, does not tell the full story. How this splinter group came into being must be added to the mix when analyzing the current situation. These people are the offspring of the new conservatives (neocons) who were themselves liberals because their parents were liberal, having suffered under the European Right before migrating to America.

In fact, politically speaking, the Jews of America resembled those that lived in Israel's kibbutzes at the time. Because it took the Palestinians at least a full generation under occupation before mounting a movement of resistance, the Jews remained liberal in Israel and America too. But when the Palestinians started to resist the occupation, the Jews of Israel started to turn Right, and so did those of America. They defected the Democratic Party to join the Republican Party, thus became the neocons.

Aside from a handful of “old guard” conservatives that resented the advent of the newcomers in their midst, the rest of that society tolerated or welcomed the neocons. The trouble is that, being third and fourth generation Americans, the youngsters lost the sense of discreteness that their ancestors lived by when expressing their political views. Indeed, the younger generation became in-your-face, brash and demanding.

Its members infiltrated and took over most of the strategic institutions in America, especially the media. In response, the society that welcomed them now began to reject them. Its anger is what Trump has expressed during the presidential campaign; its views are those he articulates as President. This is why Bret Stephens and the others in his camp are defecting back to the liberals.

It is as if Jabberwock had looked at the mirror image of a mirror image and felt nostalgic.

The Time has come for a drastic Change

If you're an apprentice and you keep making mistakes, the boss will tell you that you're not cut to do this kind of work. He'll do the merciful thing of letting you go with the advice that you should pursue another line of work.

If you're a journeyman that has done well all your life, but you're starting to make uncharacteristic mistakes, the boss will tell you that you've earned a well deserved retirement. He'll throw a farewell party for you; he'll give you a golden watch and perhaps other goodies too, and he'll shake your hand goodbye.

If you're an aging pauper disguised as a young apprentice, and you turn everything you touch into disaster from day one, the rule is that the boss will grab you by the neck with one hand, by the seat of your pants with the other hand, and will throw you out the door. Well, let's say this would be the thing that the boss will do to anyone. Unfortunately there is an exception to the rule, which can at times be a painful one.

The exception comes with three conditions attached to it. First, the candidate must be a Jew. Second, the drama of his employment must unfold in America because it's where the right conditions exist. Third, the candidate must be in a line of work that's heavily laden with politics because politics is the fuel that moves the drama onward.

If those conditions are met, the candidate not only gets hired in America without a single question being asked, he'll be appointed boss – if not on the same day – the next day. No matter how badly he does, no one will dare say he is not cut to do this kind of work. As well, no one will suggest giving him a retirement package containing at golden watch or two just to get rid of him. And no one will grab him by the neck or the seat of his pants, and throw him out the door. Instead of this happening to him, the pigmies of the enterprise – whatever its name – will line up around his boots and ask: What next, Master Jew?

This is the situation in which Matthew RJ Brodsky is basking. A former director of policy at the Jewish Policy Center, he contributed mightily to the series of disasters that befell America everywhere it went carrying with it Jewish plans, Jewish advice and Jewish instructions. Despite a long list of calamitous failures, Matthew Brodsky is currently occupying a position at the Security Studies Group in the District of Columbia, and the position of Middle East analyst at Wikistrat.

Being a Jew in America, it was natural for him to remain in the politically laden environment where he has been all his life. The tragedy, however, is that he is still advising America, and paid handsomely instead of being shown the door long ago. In fact, he just wrote two articles which he published on two consecutive days in two different publications. He did so to tell America what to do next in the Middle East. Go figure.

One article came under the title: “U.S. Policy in Lebanon Is Now Helping Hezbollah and Iran” and the subtitle: “We have special forces helping the Lebanese military prepare to face ISIS. Unfortunately, Hezbollah is infiltrating the country's armed forces.” The article was published on August 16, 2017 in the Weekly Standard.

Lebanon is a project on which Israel has been working for several decades. It used French built warplanes to bomb Bayreuth's airport, causing the French to stop giving it weapons. It then used American weapons to invade Lebanon, causing the rise of Hezbollah, a militia that kicked the invader out. Israel then launched several air raids on Lebanon, causing Hezbollah to acquire a deterrent force that is making Israel think twice before trying something new against Lebanon. Now Brodsky wants America to cut its ties with Lebanon. Imagine!

The second Brodsky article came under the title: “Get Rid of the Iran Deal” and the subtitle: “Here are four options.” It was published on August 17, 2017 in National Review Online.

Iran is one of two non-Arab Muslim countries that Israel was counting on to encircle the “Arab Core” and squeeze it … the other country being Turkey. As usual, things started well for the Jews, but then turned very badly for them. But while the Jews were cultivating warm relations with Iran, they did not realize they were creating the Frankenstein that is now scaring them stiff. This is why Israel is calling on America to bail it out of the mess it got itself into.

However, to put an end to the never-ending Jewish cycle of tragedies, America must instead, treat Israel like the pauper that's disguised as a wizard, and tell it the time has come for the Jews to solve their problems by themselves.

The Root Causes of America's current Malaise

If you heard the expression “you can't make this stuff up” but never seen an example it can describe accurately, there is one you may look at. It came in two parts on two consecutive days in the same publication.

On August 16, 2017 the New York Daily News published: “New York has no place for Charlottesville-style hate,” an article that was written by the governor of the state of New York, Andrew Cuomo. On the next day, the editors of the same New York Daily News came up with a piece they published under the title: “BDS on exhibit at the Queens Museum”.

Andrew Cuomo wants you to believe that he had no reason to write this article except that “in the wake of” what happened in Charlottesville, he and his fellow New Yorkers have wanted to send a clear message to the perpetrators of those events, and to President Donald Trump who did very little to denounce them. This is how Cuomo sought to assure you he was not pressured by a Jewish organization in New York or anywhere in America or in Israel to write that article.

Of course, Cuomo wants you to believe him in the same way that he wants you to believe he spends the time that he does in Israel to benefit New York and not Israel. He also wants you to believe he is not under pressure or compulsion to suck up to his Jewish lobbyists or financiers. And he wants you to believe that he feels Israel is his second home; one that keeps attracting him the way he was attracted to the idea of saying an emphatic “no” to the perpetrators of the Charlottesville incidents, and to the President that did not repudiate them.

Being the gentle and accommodating man that he is, Andrew Cuomo did more than just say “no;” he explained his action for the benefit of the readers. In fact, he went out of his way to give a blow by blow account of his reasoning. He began by saying no to President Donald Trump because he knows deep down, and he wants you and the President to know, that there is no equivalence between nationalists of the white-skinned variety, and those who protest against racism whatever the color of their skin. However, Cuomo said nothing about religion because this is too sensitive a subject to tackle at this point.

He goes on to tell six more “nos” that reject the idea of supremacists being “very fine;” of Nazis marching through towns, and of cantors chanting “blood and soil.” He also rejects the idea that stories could have “many sides.” But having waited this long to write his own article, he chides Donald Trump for “waiting days to denounce” the Charlottesville incidents. And he says he cannot ignore the murder of Heather Heyer, nor can he accept Trump returning to New York where he reiterated his sympathy for the wrong people. And Cuomo promises not to be pitted against someone else.

He then tells how distinguished New York has always been in the field of human rights and equality between all the races and religions. He tells this story without once denouncing the racial profiling that goes on in that state. He tells the story without denouncing the New York House representative (former enabler of the IRA) who wants to make it a crime being a Muslim in America. And he tells the story without denouncing the idea of Jews stealing a country, killing its people or pushing them out to form an entity for Jews only. In fact, this is how Jewish racism is disguised as acceptable religious privilege, a point that will be discussed further in a minute.

Even though Cuomo is not a Jew, he is welcome in Israel where he often goes to relax and recharge his batteries. Israel is after all his home away from home where he gets instructed on what laws he must pass in New York to impose the Judeo-Israeli agenda on its American citizens. In fact, Cuomo describes a few ideas at the end of his article, for new laws he wants to add to the anti-DBS abomination he already approved.

As to the piece in the New York Daily News, the editors of that publication pick up the thread from where Andrew Cuomo left off. They do a service to the American people by clarifying the idea that America's federal and state tax collectors work not for America but for Israel.

To wit, speaking about the Queens Museum refusing an Israeli application to rent space, the editors say this: “The institution, recipient of taxpayer subsidy, cited objections of the friends of the museum ... Israeli Ambassador blew the whistle, at which point the museum buckled.” What the editors did not say is that the friends of the museum are themselves some of its biggest donors.

The situation, therefore, has come down to private American donors being overruled by the Israeli ambassador who is de facto owner of the money collected as taxes from the American public. And because it is sacrilegious to forget and violate this fact, the collective punishment of those responsible must be harsh and swift. And so, the editors of the New York Daily News make the following demands:

“Ex-officio board members, City Council Speaker and Queens Borough must discipline any and all members of the board who expelled a participant from public property on the basis of religion. And find a new executive director to boot”.

Did you see that? The editors have just reduced the dispute to one of religious discrimination against what they call Jewish Israel. Because America adheres to the principle of religious freedom, the Jewish leaders have been interpreting everything, either as a Jewish right or the denial of Jewish right. This is how they get away with ethnic cleansing Palestine of its Palestinian population, replacing it with Jews. And this is how they plan to get everything they want in America whatever the American public says.

Now you know why the Charlottesville cantors who knew what happened to the people of Palestine were chanting, “Jews will not replace us”.

And this is why Andrew Cuomo mentioned the “blood and soil” refrain, but not the “Jews will not replace us” refrain.