Jews say Declaration of Independence is wrong

The Arabs did not invent Marxism; the Jewish Karl Marx did. The Arabs did not give to Marxist Soviet Union the secrets of America's nuclear bomb; the Jews did. And yet, the Jewish Shoshana Bryen says that America will be better off having Israel as an ally rather than the Arabs.

In modern times, the Arabs did not steal America's secrets; the dual-loyalty Jews stole blueprints used by Israel to bomb Iraq's civilian power station. And they stole blueprints of the stealth warplane which they gave to Israel that turned around and sold them to China.

But why do the Jews behave that way? They do because they believe they are the new master race, therefore have the right to usurp the powers they see in the hands of others, and use them to advance their agenda at the expense of those they hurt … including America.

Going back many centuries, when Muslim Arabs started to put down the foundation of modern science, and Europe was living in the Dark Ages, the Jews tried to use the chemical reactions they learned from the Arabs, to impress the Europeans and cement their supremacy over the Christian World. The latter did not like it one bit, and forced the Church of Spain to take a closer look at the Muslim science the Jews were dabbling in. The Church called what it was seeing “Devilish Black Magic” that violates the fundamental precepts of Christianity. It launched the Spanish Inquisition to probe into the matter, thus opened the door for the slaughter of many Jews.

That's not the only time or place where the Jews were slaughtered in Europe for doing what they did. They were slaughtered everywhere, from Russia in the East, straddling the Eurasian super Continent, to the British Isles in the West where the European Continent kisses the Atlantic Ocean. Most of the time, ordinary people were the ones to take matters in their own hands, letting the Jews know they had it up to here with their antics. The exception was the Nazi government that sought to implement the “Final Solution” by slaughtering their Jewish rivals on an industrial scale, and do away with them once and for all.

The Jews survived this one, and carried on with their merry way, playing the same old game and risking the repetition of the same old results. They are at it in full force once again, playing a dirty game that's so complicated they believe they will be safe this time because no one will see through it. Yes, the game is complicated, but repetition has forced its secrets to reveal themselves. In fact, the risk is back, danger for the Jews is looming, and everyone perceives it except the Jews.

If you want to know why the Jews are so dismissive of the mistakes they make that they cannot see why they are setting the stage for their demise yet again, you'll want to read the article that came under the title: “Calling out Palestinian peace process failures,” written by Shoshana Bryen, and published on November 28, 2017 in The Washington Times.

Sensing that peace negotiations will soon resume between the Palestinians and Israel, and wanting to make the point that America must not be neutral when moderating the talks, Shoshana Bryen played the usual Jewish three-pronged game: (1) She praised Israel while badmouthing the Palestinians; (2) she claimed that America benefits by associating with Israel; (3) she quoted a British rabbi who says that Jews are the new master race. She then argued that America must not be neutral playing the role of mediator, but biased in favor of Israel.

First, Bryen praised Israel for doing the things that kids from Third World countries do blindfolded, and go to international competitions where they win prizes for projects they put together that Israeli kids and adult Israeli professionals cannot dream of. Never has an Israeli won anything in those competitions.

Second, America's association with Israel has taken her from the status of beloved superpower to pariah everyone wants to avoid. That's because America arms Israel. It protects it from prosecution when it commits crimes against humanity. America did not rebuke Israel when the latter claimed that the superpower gave it ammunition to bomb Palestinian children asleep inside a UN school. On several occasions, Israel threatened to start a war it cannot win to force America to come rescue it. And the list of Israeli bad behavior is endless.

Third, Bryen says that when writing the American Declaration of Independence, the Founding Fathers didn't know what they were talking about, so she corrected them. Stripped of fluff, here is that passage: “Israel's relationship with the U.S. runs deeper than any practical point. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks said: It is presupposed in the Declaration of Independence: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.' Those truths are anything but self-evident. They are self-evident only to people who have internalized the Hebrew bible”.

In other words, Shoshana Bryen and her favorite rabbi believe that only the Jews are advanced enough to know the truth. Think about it.

Positioning their politico-diplomatic Torpedoes

The history of peace negotiations in the Middle East has been that every time the two sides reached an agreement, and all that was left to do was sign the documents, the Jews came up with a condition they knew the Palestinians could not accept. With this, the Jews were able to torpedo the effort and give themselves the perfect excuse to maintain the status quo while blaming the breakdown of the talks on the Palestinians.

Unfortunately, the opportunity was never there for students of history to study how America's Jewish establishment coordinated with the Israelis to pull off such demonic tricks time after time. The difficulty stemmed from the fact that the Jews were in total control of the situation, having someone of the Dennis Ross treasonous bent smoothing things for them with unparalleled zeal and fanaticism. The result was that nobody could detect the treacherous hand that was betraying the American Administration, as well as the people of Palestine and Israel who were robbed of the chance to live in peace and security.

Fortunately however, things have changed and the opportunity to pull off similar tricks at this time has dimmed considerably because the current American Administration has the savvy – let's be honest about it – to out-jew any Jew, even one of the Netanyahu or Dennis Ross caliber. But this does not mean they will not try. In fact, Jews have already started doing the fancy footwork to position themselves and their politico-diplomatic torpedoes in the right places. They intend to fire them when their targets will come into view because peaceful coexistence in their eyes, is a disease so virulent, it can only be cured by crucifixion or with torpedoes.

You can see that footwork in action when you study the content of three articles that were commissioned to play their role in this matter. One article came under the title: “The Man with Trump's Peace Plan” and the subtitle: “Meet Jason Greenblatt,” written by Michael Warren and published on November 24, 2017 in the Weekly Standard. The second article came under the title: “Is the fantasy of a Middle East peace accord about to come true?” It was written by Herb London and published on November 27, 2017 on the website of Fox News. The third article came under the title: “Kushner Can't bring Peace to the Middle East,” written by Dov S. Zakheim, and published also on November 27, 2017 in The National Interest.

Here is how Michael Warren sets up the scene:

“Donald Trump is confident he can get a comprehensive agreement between Israel and the Palestinians … His closest advisers are preparing to release a plan to resolve an issue that has vexed American administrations for decades … Leading Trump's effort is a triumvirate of Orthodox Jews: Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law; David Friedman, the U.S. ambassador to Israel; and Jason Greenblatt, the president's special representative for international negotiations … He reports to Kushner and, of course, the president. This Trump effort to solve peace in the Middle East is primarily a White House initiative”.

Here is how Warren positions the caveats: “Developments in the region are likely to alter whatever plans are being made for renewed negotiations … Until the details of the still-forming peace plan are known, it's impossible to evaluate how likely any Trump effort is to succeed”.

And here is how and where he places the first batch of torpedoes: “Critics see the Trump team having little appreciation for the history of peace negotiations and is making a naïve effort. Others see hope in Trump's disruptive and pragmatic approach”.

As to Herb London, it is clear what instructions he was given. He was tasked to prepare the groundwork for creating the conditions as well as the excuses Israel will need to torpedo the negotiations and blame the failure on the Palestinians, if not the Arab nations. What follows are the relevant excerpted sentences, each of which represents a fantasy of the kind that torpedoed previous deals. London is presenting them as preconditions to the upcoming negotiations knowing full well they are Dead On Arrival (DOA). Here they are:

“Then there are the terms. There is a willingness for Hamas and Fatah to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Noteworthy is the plan for 'the right of return.' The Saudis propose to widen the map for refugees citing locations in Egypt to Saudi Arabia as potential homes. The third leg is a joint Saudi and Israeli effort to defeat Iran and Hezbollah, and develop a plan to defeat Iran in a land battle with Israeli assistance. Previous negotiations did break down over Palestinian recalcitrance. Alas, that might happen again. Of course, this may turn into a dismal failure when the bargaining begins”.

As to Dov Zakheim, it is obvious he was told to discredit Jared Kushner who has the confidence of his father-in-law, President of the United States; as well as the confidence of the King of Saudi Arabia, and being the person to whom the all-powerful Jason Greenblatt reports. What follows is a small sampling of how Zakheim has approached this task:

“Whether Kushner has the skills to carry out such a mission is highly questionable. It is unclear whether he recognizes that both the Saudis and Netanyahu have agendas of their own that are not in America's interest. Netanyahu has his own calculations. The State's Attorney is investigating him in connection with two corruption allegations. The Saudis might be willing to go along with a peace initiative if the Israelis were to attack Hezbollah. The last thing the United States needs at present is another major conflict in the Middle East. An Israeli attack on Lebanon would tax America's already anemic diplomatic resources. It is unlikely that Netanyahu would take the initiative to start a new round of peace negotiations. The complexity of the region suggests that Trump needs someone who possesses not merely influence in the White House but also deep experience as emissary. It is time Kushner took a step back from meddling in the Middle East”.

There is a word to describe an operation like this. It is “conspiracy.” Yes, my friend, Jewish conspiracy is real, and like the perpetual motion machine, it never stops churning out new tricks, causing the world unlimited pain, suffering and horror.

Mirror on the Wall nail the most hateful of all?

Susan Shapiro wrote an article to say something that is clear enough, but in the process also said something that can lead to a useful idea.

She wrote “Old-school hate at The New School,” an article that also came under the subtitle: “The university is wrong to put Linda Sarsour on a panel.” It was published on November 26, 2017 in the New York Daily News. The point Shapiro makes is that hate is bad, Linda Sarsour is spreading hate, therefore Linda Sarsour and all those like her must not be allowed to exercise their right to free speech. She could not be clearer than that.

But when you analyze what Shapiro says Sarsour is saying, you conclude that Sarsour is also decrying the spreading of hate because it is a bad thing. The difference between the two women is seen in the manner that each wants to remedy the situation. Whereas Shapiro says: “Deprive my opponent of her First Amendment,” Sarsour says: “Do not deprive the American people of their constitutional right to buy what they wish to consume, or to boycott what they feel is immoral to encourage”.

Glossing at the two arguments in a cursory way, we find them to be equally compelling. If they don't to some of us, we pretend they do at least for now. We do because we must designate one of the arguments as winner, and be fair about the process that leads us to making our choice. Lucky for us, we discover that Susan Shapiro has already tried something along this line. She set up a test by which to determine how bad some activities are, and who practices them. A condensed version of the relevant passages to that effect follows:

“When someone scapegoats Israel but ignores the crimes committed by the 1.8 billion people in 50 Muslim-majority countries, which proves racism against Jews. Why don't Sarsour and BDS proponents boycott Syria? Or Saudi Arabia, home of beheadings? Most lists of countries with human rights abuses include Jordan, Libya, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia the United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Iraq and Kuwait –– none of which Sarsour publicly rallies against. More worthy of slurs and sanctions is Hamas. They spend millions on explosives smuggled through underground tunnels. Though less than 2% of the U.S. population is Jewish, the FBI has documented anti-Semitic hate crimes surging in America too”.

In saying that someone is scapegoating Israel, Shapiro says that someone is victimizing Israel. She goes on to claim that 1.8 billion Muslims commit similar crimes, but are ignored. Thus, she concludes this can only be an expression of racism. But what did Susan Shapiro really establish with that passage?

For one thing she has admitted that Israel commits crimes for which it is held accountable. But does that mean the Muslims are not held accountable? She seems to so insinuate but then contradicts herself by admitting that not just one list but “most lists of countries with human rights abuses include Jordan, Libya…” These countries are on the list to be held accountable. So then, what does it mean that Israel is victimized? It means that Susan Shapiro is playing the demonic game of attributing to Israel the pain that Israel is inflicting on the Palestinians. It's the occupation, stupid! That's the crime which sets Israel apart from everyone else.

Shapiro goes on to ask: “Why don't Sarsour and BDS proponents boycott Syria? Or Saudi Arabia? Or the list of Arab countries –– none of which Sarsour publicly rallies against.” The answer to those questions is simple. For every Sarsour rallying against Israel's occupation of Palestine, there are ten thousand Jews rallying against the Arab countries for every little thing they commit, and everything they are falsely accused of committing.

The writer of the article now switches her attention to Hamas. She says that they deserve being slandered and boycotted more than anyone because they spend millions of dollars on explosives. True or false, exaggerated or not, if what Shapiro wants is justice, and knowing that for every dollar Hamas spends on weapons, Israel spends ten thousand dollars, it must be she mentally processed that Israel is ten thousand times “more worthy of slurs and sanctions [than] Hamas”.

And this could well be the reason why her subconscious mind made her cite this piece of statistics: “Though less than 2% of the U.S. population is Jewish, the FBI has documented anti-Semitic hate crimes surging in America too.” It means Shapiro has finally realized that Jews are hated not because humanity suffers from a genetic defect called anti-Semitism, but because the Jews work hard to create anti-Semitism, nurture it and maintain it.

Shapiro lost the argument to Sarsour because she defeated herself by embracing the immorality of wishing to speak freely while silencing those who oppose her views. Typically, the woman suffers from the Jewish disease.

Trained Media Beasts that cannot be untrained

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) has a website, and one of the features on that site has a blurb that introduces it as: “A deeper dive into the day's most important stories”.

There was an important story on November 24, 2017, and Jonathon Gatehouse was assigned to perform the famed “deep dive” into it. So you ask, what was the result of Gatehouse's work? Well, it was nothing that rises above the level of a circus monkey performing the routine it was trained to play over and over.

His piece came under the title: “Egypt's deadly problem” and the subtitle: “Another deadly attack strikes Egypt's Sinai region.” Then came the first sentence that revealed the extent of the man's ignorance pertaining to the subject he dived into. Here is that sentence: “The attack followed an all-too-familiar pattern.” So you want to know, familiar with what? this being the first time that a mosque was attacked in Egypt.

As far as churches are concerned, the writer mentions two that were attacked on Palm Sunday; one in Tanta and one in Alexandria. But these are heavily populated urban areas where the pattern he describes could not have been carried out. Here is his description of the pattern: “First a bomb blast –– designed as much to scatter worshipers at the mosque as to kill. Then came the four-by-fours filled with heavily armed masked men...”

In fact, the only urban area where such a pattern was carried out with some success––but was attempted rarely––is Iraq. That's because the country was destroyed twice and invaded once by America. As a result, it has been in a state of civil war for more than a decade, lacking law and order. In this sense, Iraq is different from Syria that was not invaded by America, and different from Afghanistan that was never in a state of civil war.

Despite these realities, Jonathon Gatehouse could not shed his beastly training long enough to stop expressing the age old Jewish fantasy of seeing Egypt go the way of Syria or Iraq or Afghanistan. Here is his declaration on that score: “Egypt's internal struggles haven't received as much attention as the turmoil in places like Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.” To prove his point, he mentions the Palm Sunday incident, the downing of a Russian jet over the Sinai, and a couple of attacks conducted against the military – also in the Sinai.

But realizing that this list is not much worse than the attacks carried out by the same terrorists in Europe and America, the writer went out of his way to make it look like Egypt is nevertheless similar to Iraq, Syria or Afghanistan. In trying to explain this point, he proved to be not just ignorant of the subject he is discussing, but deficient in logic as well. Study the following passage and you'll wonder how someone of this level of mediocrity was trusted to write on that subject:

“One of the Sinai's deadliest groups, Ansar Beit al-Maqdis (Supporters of Jerusalem), pledged its allegiance to ISIS. But it's far from clear that radical Islamists are the only force behind the violence in the province. Historical grievances are very much in play; most specifically, the 81,000 hectares of prime agricultural land that was taken from the Bedouin and given to wealthy Egyptian businessmen who built luxury hotels and resorts on the Red Sea”.

There is much to unpack in this passage. Having used the early part of the article to make it sound like Egypt was undergoing a civil war or the equivalent thereof, Gatehouse now admits that the trouble in the Sinai Peninsula is caused by radical Islamists whose agenda is to liberate Jerusalem (which they promised they will do by toppling the Arab governments that refuse to fight Israel.) The writer then threw the caveat of “it's far from clear” before mentioning the evidence which turned out to be the thing that exposed him as totally clueless.

His evidence is this: “81,000 hectares of prime agricultural land was taken from the Bedouin and given to Egyptian businessmen who built luxury hotels and resorts on the Red Sea.” First of all, an editor that sees the two terms “Bedouin” and “agricultural land” in the same sentence, and does not throw the copy in garbage must be fired along with the author of the piece. Second, a “military law” – as it is called in Egypt – applies to anyone that misuses agricultural land by using it for any purpose other than agriculture. The fact is that nobody in Egypt builds hotels on agricultural land and stays out of jail to enjoy it.

Also, the truth is that Bedouins are nomadic tribes who roam the desert and do not farm it. The Sinai, like the two deserts flanking the Valley of the Nile, has remained underdeveloped since the beginning of time. When the industrialization of Egypt began in earnest after the completion of the Aswan dam and hydroelectric station in the 1960s, some places in Egypt began to develop faster than others.

For the first time, the country experienced what is known everywhere in the world as regional disparity, and there has been some expressions of discontent in those places in Egypt. Only now does the country find itself in a position to develop all the regions at the same time and at the same pace. One of the places where this is happening is the Sinai Desert for which a pipeline––extended under the Suez Canal––brings Nile water to it. So far 200,000 feddans (208,000 acres) of desert land in North Sinai have been irrigated and planted with crops by the company that invested its money to realize the project.

Seeing agriculture and agribusiness develop in North Sinai along the Mediterranean Sea, and seeing tourism develop in South Sinai along the Red Sea, the Bedouins felt neglected. The foreign terrorists tried to take advantage of that situation by inciting them to rise against the government but had very little success. However, it is believed that some Bedouins had information about the whereabouts of the terrorists but were not prepared to share it with the military. They will most certainly share it now, having seen what the terrorists are like.

Other than that, for the Bedouins to be fully accommodated and made to share the goodness that's generated by the country's renaissance, they will have to give up their nomadic way of life. Their children will have to attend school and be trained to do the kind of work that's available on the Peninsula. This will take time, and the Bedouins know it. They are a patient people and have reason to hope.

However, he same cannot be said about ignoramuses such as the writers, editors and network executives that produce and publish Jewish-inspired garbage and don't even know they have a problem.

Let them not use you to hurt others again

You can be politically correct all you want and hide the ugly faces of the hideous, hoping to win their favors. You can be callous all you want and hurt the innocent, trying to appeal to the masses. But all you'll accomplish is score very little of what will impress the first, and nothing of what will satisfy the second.

This is the lesson that Americans have – or should have – learned over the last quarter century. The readers who wonder what this is about should read the article that came under the title: “Libya Is a Failed State (and It's America's Fault,)” written by Ted Galen Carpenter and published on November 24, 2017 in The National Interest.

This work is a catalog of what was said in America at the start of Libya's destruction; what was said right after its destruction, and what the result of the destruction has been. It is an honest and exhaustive description of the three phases that went from the expression of optimism to the euphoric celebration of what just happened to the realization that a hellish horror is what really happened.

But the one thing that's missing in this literary effort is the revelation that the demonic undercurrent powering the horrific Libya adventure and all similar adventures, has been the Jewish scheme to use America's power in the destruction of every progress made by an Arab or Muslim country in the neighborhood where Israel was planted by the colonial powers of olden days to accomplish precisely that demonic outcome.

When the Jewish establishment in America had managed to stir the anger of Arab and Muslim kids throughout the world, motivating them to turn against their governments and against the “West,” it also managed to orchestrate the voices of the echo chamber to demand that America's “enemy” be clearly labeled and identified as Islamic terrorism. The mob of Jewish pundits and its Evangelical dogs responded to that demand by barking the refrain: “say it is Islamic terrorism,” intending to establish a false association between acts of terror committed by kids incited by Jews, with the Muslim establishment that was the victim of that terror. But when the Executive in America tried to implement the travel policies that would have put the Jewish demands in practice, the public and the courts forcefully rejected the move. How come?

It happened because the American public had its intelligence insulted too often by the Jewish establishment, thus recognized the ruse that was engineered to cash in on those insults. Instead of allowing this to happen, the public made clear what it expects at this time. It wants to see the voices of good and decent Americans join in a chorus to demand that the enemy of the Republic be clearly labeled and identified as the lobby representing the Judeo-Israeli establishment in America. In effect, Americans want to hear it said: It's the Jewish conspiracy.

To assist in achieving that goal, the readers who are beginning to develop an interest in this subject, will find the backgrounder they'll need in the Ted Carpenter article. It should initiate them in the specifics of the topic because Carpenter names the individuals in America who are most vociferous when it comes to sacrificing the interests of their country in the fulfillment of Israel's interests. They are the six horses pulling America's chariot of the apocalypse who took America from the mood of optimism to the euphoria of seeing an Arab country destroyed to the satisfaction that America has again inflated the glory of Israel. What follows is a condensed version of the relevant passages illustrating those points:

“Senators John McCain (1) and Lindsey Graham (2) were positive.’The end of the Gadhafi regime is a victory for the Libyan people and the broader cause of freedom in the Middle East and throughout the world,' they concluded. The two senators, along with their Republican colleagues, Mark Kirk (3) and Marco Rubio (4), gushed that the rebels had 'inspired the world.' Ivo H. Daalder (5), the U.S, ambassador to NATO, and Adm. James Stavridis (6) were equally enthusiastic. Describing the intervention as 'an extraordinary job, well done,' they called it 'an historic victory for the people of Libya who, with NATO's help, transformed their country into a nation with the potential to become a productive partner with the West.' Much of the media chimed in about the glorious outcome of the U.S.-NATO intervention. New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof was euphoric about how the people he encountered in Libya loved America”.

It should be clear from those passages that the Jewish crime syndicate, which sits at both ends of the New-York/Tel-Aviv axis, makes it sound that the interests of Israel are those of America, NATO and the West. In fact, nothing can be further from the truth.

The truth is that Israel's interests are satisfied by the reduction of America, NATO and the West. This can only be the case because Israel has nothing to contribute, yet wants everything. This is why the Jewish crime syndicate plays the zero-sum game of transferring to Israel tangible benefits in return for hot air about its fictitious contribution to the security of America, NATO and the West.

A mental Disorder as old as Time itself

As time passes, stories come out with greater frequency about children being left alone in a home that gets burglarized. What happens usually is that the child would hide in a closet or under the bed and calls 911 to report a burglary in progress.

Having gone through an experience such as this, and talking to their friends about it, you can imagine that the children and their friends will want to learn how to defend themselves in a hand to hand combat, and how to use weapons that may include firearms. They would have done all this before leaving their teenage years.

These stories are real and thankfully, none in America has ended in tragedy. So we take these stories a step further and imagine what could happen a few years from now. Think of a teenager that had a scary experience when he was younger, and is now determined never to be victimized again. And it happens that his home gets burglarized once more. He grabs a knife, lunges at the burglar and kills him.

The case goes to court, lawyers are retained to represent each side, and they do what lawyers are trained to do, which is to represent their clients as best they can. They proceed in accordance with the law while disregarding the morality involved in the issues they are tackling. At the same time, however, a public debate is sparked in which ordinary people, pundits and politicians participate. You'll understand that the public debate will be different from the one unfolding inside the courtroom.

So far so good because everything that's happening inside and outside the courtroom is unfolding normally. But then it happens that a lawyer on the team representing the family of the dead burglar injects himself into the public debate. He tries to make a case that's so extreme it would be unacceptable even in the courtroom, and would be overruled by the judge at every turn.

But speaking in public, the lawyer makes the point that it is not normal for a teenager to attack someone – even if he is a thief burglarizing his home. The lawyer's argument rests on the notion that such act constitutes barbaric terrorism. And so, he blames the parents of the teenager for not raising their kid properly. He suggests that they must compensate the parents of the burglar for the wrongful death committed by their child.

If you think this story is far-fetched, rest assured it has a real basis. You can read all about it in the article that came under the title: “How Ten Dem (Dumb) Members of Congress Encourage the Use of Child Terrorists,” written by Alan Dershowitz and published on November 23, 2017 on the website of the Gatestone Institute.

The setting this time is not America but the occupied West Bank of Palestine where the indigenous Palestinians lived for hundreds of generations; this being the only home they knew since the beginning of time. And then it happened that Jewish armed thugs came from all over the world to kill them and steal their homes. These were barbaric activities that the Jews implemented steadily over the decades. Palestinian kids and their parents, and in some cases their grand parents too were born, and lived a miserable life under the boots of alien beasts who consider them inferior beings ineligible to inherit what has been their patrimony for thousands of years. Imagine the diseased Jewish mentality that leads to this kind of thinking.

Despite the fact that the alien burglars were equipped with the most advanced weapons ever devised, the unarmed Palestinian kids, who felt they could no longer live with their necks permanently crushed under the boots of savage beasts, decided they must try chasing the oppressors away. They employed whatever means they had at their disposal, such as their bare hands, stones, knives and whatever else they could think of. This is how the Palestinian resistance movement started in the occupied territories of Gaza and the West Bank.

Alan Dershowitz and guys like him responded by telling the American public and lawmakers that the terrorists were not the alien thieves that came to kill and rob the Palestinians; they were the Palestinians that owned the properties the Jews came to rob. Dershowitz et al blamed the Palestinian resistance on the parents for not raising their children properly. But they were rebuffed with the argument that parents in a society under occupation can never control their children. So Dershowitz and his feeble-minded morons changed their tune and started saying that the kids were listening to leaders who inculcated them with anti-Semitic hatred. And they wanted the American Congress to come to Israel's rescue.

So I ask you, dear reader: What should the Congress tell these horrible creatures? Think of something. I, for one, would tell the following to Alan Dershowitz:

You spent a lifetime accusing humanity of being anti-Semitic by genetic defect. What makes you think kids who grew up under Jewish occupation should feel? Do you think they should shed their genetically inherited anti-Semitism and learn to love the Jews while the rest of humanity (not under occupation) remains anti-Semitic? If that's what you think, Alan, listen to this: You're a mental case. Admit you're a serious danger to society, and do the honorable thing of checking yourself into an institution. Do it for your own good and the good of society.

It's not only Russia; it's the human Race

Whether it is the social games that school kids play or those you sense at the office or those you detect in the political arena, the players that win in the end are those that pull the most cowardly tricks … unfortunately.

And when it comes to the politico-journalistic establishment, you'll want to award the gold medal for cowardly trickery to the Jewish editors of the Wall Street Journal. An example of their work is the editorial they wrote under the title: “Russia's U.N. Trump snub” and the subtitle: “Moscow kills a chemical weapons investigation to help Syria's Assad,” published on November 20, 2017.

You recognize a cowardly act by its specific signature. For example, if you see a person that's in a position of power or one that has the moral character to influence others – suddenly act out of character, you instinctively suspect that he or she was sucked into the orbit of a cowardly demon, and has ceased to be himself or herself.

This condition can happen to a teacher that suddenly picks on a student for no apparent reason; it can happen to a supervisor that picks on an employee, or happen to a Congress that picks on a country or a group having the same characteristics. And of course, it can happen to a once respected publication such as the Wall Street Journal that was sucked into the orbit of Jewish demons, thus became just another disrespected rag.

You can tell this is what happened to the Wall Street Journal from the pieces it has been publishing in the style of the current editorial. The title alone embodies much of the demonic cowardice that's detected in this kind of writing. In saying that Russia snubbed Trump, the Jewish editors are trying to turn an international dispute into a personal obsession of Donald Trump, President of the United States. The aim of the editors is to motivate Trump to drop everything he is doing in the service of America, and work to reverse what the Russians have done that conflicts with Israel's various schemes to dominate the region.

The snub according to the Journal is this: “Russia refused to renew the mandate of a UN panel investigating Syria's chemical weapons use. The rejection is an embarrassment for the Trump Administration.” Do you realize how crammed with hate this statement is? Well, let me explain this part before I go any further. The hatred that the Jews have for Egypt goes back nearly three and a half millenniums, to the days of Moses. Unlike normal people whose hatred for something subsides with time, the Jews experience the opposite effect. Hate in their hearts grows with the passage of time.

Thus, you can imagine to what size the Jewish hatred for Egypt has grown in the span of time between Moses and now. And if you've been following the “intellectual” work of Jews during the two most difficult years that Egypt was going through in the recent past, you might have detected their joyful anticipation that Egypt was going to disintegrate like Iraq, Syria or Libya.

The way they expressed that joy was to attach the word 'embarrassment' to everything they associated with Egypt. For example, they said it was an embarrassment for the president of the country that the Suez Canal revenues remained flat instead of growing during a given quarter. It was an embarrassment for the security apparatus when an IED exploded under a military vehicle in the Sinai. It was an embarrassment for the army when infiltrators from Libya got as far as they did in the Egyptian desert before being detected … and so on.

No one else in the world was given that same treatment until now. Who got it this time? Here are the words of the Journal's Jewish editors: “The Russian rejection is a public embarrassment for the Trump Administration.” Welcome to the swamp, America … the place where Jewish hate extends from time immemorial to eternity.

But what was it that the Russians did, anyway? The Russians not only refused to renew the mandate to investigate the possible use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war, they sent a strong message to the Americans. They said this: If you'll keep using your veto to protect Israel and allow it to commit crimes against humanity, we won't go as far as protect our clients when they commit crimes, but we'll shield them when you try abusing the investigative powers of the United Nations.

And that's that, America! If you want to make the Jews masters over your people; that's your business. But if you want to make them masters over the human race, it will be our business and that of the human race. Together, we'll stop you cold. Period.

One more Echo from the Echo Chamber

Glance over the membership rolls of think tanks; also scan the electronic and print media of America to establish a sense of how much Jewish interest there is in national issues as opposed to foreign policy issues.

You'll find that no more than one percent of Jews are dedicated to the articulation of American issues. You'll discover that all the others are immersed in matters relating to foreign policy, which means one thing only: they are dedicated to the promotion of Israel's interests.

When you study what they publish, or what they do if and when hired to serve in a public capacity, you'll find that they function as a mob of semi-independent operators who get daily instructions from someone in Israel as to what the important issues of the day are. It is then up to each individual to develop and present the arguments that will serve Israel to the fullest. Thus, while each operator proceeds in accordance with his or her style and talent, they collectively sound like an echo chamber playing the same tune on a variety of instruments.

A prominent member of the echo chamber is Clifford D. May who is also founder and president of the think tank identifying itself by the pretentious name, Foundation for Defense of Democracies. He wrote: “The battle for the lands of the caliphate,” an article that was published on November 21, 2017 in The Washington Times.

At this juncture, the important issue of the day for Israel is the growing strength of Iran. This is why the entire Jewish mob in North America was mobilized to echo that tune over and over. But having learned that when they present Israel's case in the “in-your face” style the way they used to, they get nowhere – members of the mob softened their approach. They now peddle the same old ideas but in a more subdued tone. It’s like the saying that goes: It's the old wine in a new bottle.

Still, the new approach, like the old, stands on four legs. The reader will discern them when reading the article. They go as follows: (1) The Iranians are portrayed as irredeemably evil people who hate America and will never change. (2) The Iranians are developing the means to carry out evil operations against America and American citizens abroad. (3) The Americans can still stop the Iranians in their tracks but only if they act now. (4) It will be too late if the Americans wait much longer before acting.

The following are condensed excerpts from the Clifford May article. Each excerpt reflects as much as possible the essential content of one leg:

First: “Iran's rulers are jihadis. Their goal is to establish a Shia Crescent in the Middle East. They intend to become powerful. What they plan to do next is no mystery. They will threaten the pro-American nations of the region. National security advisers harbor no illusions about them. They understand that when Iran's rulers chant 'Death to America!' they articulate an intergenerational project”.

Comment: Iran's rulers do not chant “Death to America.” The people of Iran chant: “Death to America, death to Israel,” each time that someone in America or Israel utters the words: “All options are on the table.” If America wants the Iranian chant to stop, it must stop insinuating it will bomb Iran.

Second: “And then there's the question of nuclear weapons ... Deir Ezzor province, which contains large oil and gas reserves ... If Iran is allowed to seize Deir Ezzor, it will have effectively established a land bridge from Tehran to the Mediterranean Sea”.

Comment: The oil and gas reserves of Syria may be large in the eyes of Israel, but they are no more than a drop in the bucket compared to the reserves of Iran.

Third: “Halting the land bridge will require an American commitment to the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). It will need funding, air power and the assistance of U.S. Special Forces. Such a commitment carries risks. But so does hesitation. Iran's rulers have been urging the SDF to cut its own deal with Assad's forces now rather than wait to confront them after the U.S. abandons the battlefield. Confronting enemies – it is preferable to do it when the enemies are weaker rather than stronger”.

Comment: Both America and Israel confronted much weaker enemies than Iran or any of its allies, and did so poorly, they'll scoff at the suggestion they'll have an easier time confronting Iran and its allies now or later.

Fourth: “A fellow at the Middle East Institute wrote that the next phase of the conflict in Syria is for the resistance forces to confront the U.S. military and its local allies. It would be useful for President Trump to communicate the days when Iran's rulers could slaughter Americans with impunity are over”.

Comment: And the Iranian people will reply that the days when the American or Israeli rulers could bomb Iran or any of its allies with impunity are over.

The time has come for the American government to sever its ties with these demonic tanks, and cancel their tax exempt status.

Only the sadomasochists pay the dominatrix that hurts them. Only the Americans pay the Jews that ruin them, and send their boys and girls to die in foreign lands to promote Israel’s interests.

The demonic Plan to launch a War on Iran

One of the Jewish approaches that used to impress the politico-journalistic establishment in America was that the Jews made their listeners believe it was possible to settle the entire gamut of troubles facing America in one fell swoop. You can do it, they told their audiences, by getting the foreign opponent that's making life difficult for you to answer one question.

To make themselves sound wise like only a Jew can be, the person in charge of giving the advice would stretch the word “one” to make the locution sound like this: waaaaan question. Yes, that's how they pronounced it. They would tell the politicians and journalists what the pertinent question of the day should be, and then advise them to ask the foreigner that waaaaan question. And the giver of advice would promise that if this is done properly, everything will be solved as fast as you can snap your fingers.

Well, that performance started to bore the public after a while, so the Jews dropped it but did not forget about it altogether. They modified it to harmonize with the current circumstances. Right now, they have decided that their agenda will be advanced by blaming the ills of mankind on the Iran nuclear deal. And so, they came up with the idea of doing what's necessary to convince the American politico-journalistic establishment that humanity will be saved if America did one thing: abrogate that deal. The approach they adopted, therefore, consisted of speaking of waaaaan problem instead of asking waaaaan question.

You can see an argument to this effect by reading the article that came under the title: “Iran's imperial project,” written by Ilan Berman and published on November 20, 2017 in The Washington Times.

Having used two thirds of the article's space to tell how much Iran's actions threaten the world, Berman asked a question and answered it. Here is how he did that: “What has made all this possible? A large portion of the blame rests with the 2015 nuclear deal concluded between Iran and the P5+1 powers”.

Actually, he did not blame the deal itself for the ills of the world; he blamed the fact that the deal allowed for the lifting of the freeze which the P5 +1 had previously imposed on Iran's money deposited in their banks. In saying this, Berman makes it clear that the choice being Iran developing an arsenal of nuclear weapons, or the P5+1 releasing the funds they held unlawfully, he would have preferred to keep the money, even if it meant having to live with a nuclear armed Iran.

Not only did he make that statement, he went on to explain it like this: “The sanctions relief provided Iran's economy a much-needed shot in the arm, and freed up funds that Iran has poured into its modernization efforts.” Now bear in mind that Ilan Berman is not just another member of the mob of Jewish pundits. He is senior vice president of the think tank that calls itself, American Foreign Policy Council in Washington D.C. And this is the kind of advice he and his colleagues have been giving to previous administrations as well as the current one.

Apparently, however, the current administration is not listening, which is why Berman is complaining like this: “The United States does not have an answer to Iran's growing imperial impulse. To the contrary, recent U.S. efforts in the Middle East have actually helped to fuel Tehran's adventurism”.

But should these people not be held responsible for that failure? After all, they were the think tanks and the pundits that advised successive governments on foreign policy for decades. In fact, they were the ones that designed the numerous policies which came under the rubric “War on Terror”.

But look what Berman is saying now about that policy: “Today, policymakers in Washington remain preoccupied with defeating the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, and they have spent less time figuring out what we can do to prevent [this] from becoming a boon to Tehran in Syria and the broader region.” And so, he advises that Washington should divert its attention from fighting the war on terror to blocking the economic, scientific, technological and military progress that The Islamic Republic of Iran is achieving.

Why this change of heart? Because the Jews had hoped that the War on Terror will lead to a war between Christianity and Islam. When this did not happen, they got scared by the consequence of that failed effort: the rise of Iran. So now, they want America to drop the War on Terror and gear up to fight the War on Iran.

Motivating America with subtle Demagoguery

Here is an “out of the box” novel idea: America should tell anyone willing to give it advice – solicited or not – that it no longer responds to scary scenarios. From now on, America will only respond to advice that counsels how it can help other peoples attain what they must achieve, but cannot succeed on their own.

It is important for America to adopt this doctrine and make it paramount in order to suppress all other doctrines that came before it. These were the doctrines that prompted America to shape a monstrous world, and ruin itself in the process. The readers interested in the subject will have no difficulty seeing that when Winston Churchill scared America about the Soviet Union, he helped spark a Cold War that resulted in a nuclear arms race between the two powers. This, in turn forced the Chinese to develop their own nuclear arsenal, which motivated India to do likewise, and Pakistan to follow suit. This hellish situation is Churchill's legacy.

Parallel to that development but moving at a slower speed, America got itself tangled up on the Korean Peninsula and has been there for six and half decades with nothing to show for its troubles but a nuclear armed North Korea that is now capable of hitting most of America's allies in the region, as well as a good swath of America's own territory.

Just as the shooting war in Korea was coming to an end, the French who found themselves mired in a Vietnamese quagmire, developed the smarts to replay the Winston Churchill ruse. They scared the Americans about a domino effect actualizing itself in East Asia; a reality they warned will turn the entire region into a communist haven. The Americans bought this argument, responded by bailing the French out of Vietnam, and took their place in the quagmire. A decade later, America, that defeated the state of the art Nazi and Japanese war machines, had suffered a major defeat at the hands of a backward Third Word country.

And before the Americans had the time to catch their breath and lick their wounds, the Jews were there whispering in their ear the following refrain: Boy have I got a winner for you! No, it's not the Brooklyn Bridge this time, it's the Arab derriere. It is the thing you'll go to at the height of your disappointment, kick some asses and take out your frustration. America thought this was a great idea, followed the instructions exactly as they were given, and produced the horror story you see unfold in the Levant today.

For these reasons, America must never again let itself be scared into antagonizing someone or starting a dispute that can escalate to a serious conflict. What America must beware are the smooth talking operators who will talk her into starting a small dispute, promising that this will settle all outstanding issues. But the moment that America will respond positively to such a call, the smooth operators will get to work plotting the future steps that will turn America's involvement into a perpetual war.

An example of how America was sucked into losing wars by smooth talkers came in the form of an article under the title: “Beyond Deconfliction in Syria,” written by Andrew J. Tabler and published on November 16, 2017 on the website of the Washington Institute. Tabler, whose only interest is to serve Israel, caught America at a time when it was ending its entanglement in the Syrian conflict, and gave it his advice. Because ending the conflict is bad news for Israel, he wrote a 1000-word essay to tell America in a very subtle manner what to do to keep the conflict going. What follows are excerpts that show how the writer developed an argument to that end. First there was the civilized part:

“President Trump and Russia's Putin issued a joint statement on Syria expressing satisfaction with recent joint deconfliction efforts … Strategic issues are clouding prospects for a sustainable diplomatic settlement. Whereas the United States is wise to avoid anything resembling war with Russia, U.S. policy should not allow Russia to cement Iran's grip on Syria … The United States must make clear that it will not endorse any election process in which Assad participates”.

And then came the demonic part:

“Otherwise, Assad will be guaranteed a victory and Iran will maintain its position in the country. Such factors will increase the likelihood of a future Iran-Israel clash, hinder national stability, and foster the conditions that allowed the Islamic State to thrive in the first place”.

Do you know what this does, my friend? It tells Washington there is no way Assad will not participate in the election, which means America must stay out of the talks. Because Assad is guaranteed to win, and Russia will allow Iran to cement its grip on Syria, America – that was wise to avoid starting a war with Russia – may be forced to start one anyway, to avoid letting Israel attack Iran … with consequences that will hinder America's national stability.

And that's the kind of civilized-sounding – but actually demonic – advice that America must reject because it is a devious attempt to get it involved in a never-ending war against Islam.

This Boomerang does not favor its Creator

It was bound to happen, and it did. Like the boomerang, a Jewish invention made a U-turn and came back to hit its creator in the face.

Masquerading as someone else has always been a favorite tool in the pouch of Jewish trickery, but the tool turned out to be a boomerang that has not favored the Jews. You can read all about this intriguing saga in the article that came under the title: “When the Right Pushes Fake Jews,” written by Jonathan Weisman and published on November 19, 2017 in the New York Times.

Weisman is complaining about the robocalls that were made in Alabama by someone adopting a Jewish name to pretend he is a Jew asking for Alabamian women to participate in a scheme that is anathema to most residents in that state. The intent of the caller was to rescue the campaign of Alabama's favorite son whose popularity has started to plummet following serious allegations made against him by local women. But because anti-Semitism is rampant in the Southern State of Alabama, according to Weisman, he thought as did the robocaller that the hate for Jews will outweigh the disgust with the actions of the favorite son and so, the voters will support him anyway.

Weisman's viewpoint has nothing to do with being for or against Alabama's favorite son. In fact, he does not say whom he wants to see win the special election that will be conducted in a few days. He does not even rebuke the robocaller for believing that Alabamians are anti-Semitic, and for trying to take advantage of this reality. In fact, Weisman corroborates that view; even authenticates it by revealing that he is himself from the South, and that he experienced anti-Semitism first hand for having a Jewish sounding name.

And the writer had still more to say on this subject. In fact, he went on to explain why discrimination against Jews is more virulent in the South than it is against Blacks or Latinos, and cited statistical figures to prove his point. But amid all of that explanation, the one thing that Jonathan Weisman failed to mention is that the practice of masquerading as someone else to trick people, is an old Jewish creation that has come to bite its creator.

For example, he failed to mention the Abscam scheme in which Jews masqueraded as wealthy Arabs willing to bribe American legislators for a quid pro quo. He also failed to mention the two police informers in Canada who masqueraded as a Muslim couple, and played stereotypical scenes in public that were so offensive, some Jewish television shows celebrated them for being “the most hurtful couple to damage the image of Muslims.” Incidentally, the supposed husband in that couple is now working as an expert contributor to an American television network. And this should come as no surprise to anyone.

And that's not even where or when the practice started. Those who lived in the Middle East and are old enough to remember the 1950s will recall that a dozen or so pirate radio stations were set up off the coast of Egypt. They broadcast hate propaganda against the government of the day, pretending to be ordinary Egyptians calling on the population to revolt against the regime because, they said, Egypt will do much better under a different government. They promised this will happen if the regime was overthrown, and someone else took over.

And there is the phenomenon of the Jewish American mob of commentators––those with dual citizenship and those without––who speak in such a way as to sound like they say “we, Americans” when in reality they would be saying “we, Israelis.” In so doing, they manage to divert to Israel the benefits of America's interactions with the world, while leaving to America the obligation to pay the cost in financial and/or diplomatic terms.

Believe it or not, there is something that is even more consequential than all of this. It is that an in-depth study of what has transpired in America during the past few decades will show that the famed Jewish trickery was not the only boomerang to make a U-turn. Another occurrence made a similar turn, and is on its way to take a toll on the Jews. It promises to make them wish they could go back in time and reverse history instead of just mutilating it as they have been doing up to now.

What is coming at the Jews is the responsibility of having destroyed the Republican Party by joining it under the neocon label, and transforming its members into a herd of beasts trained to constantly work at transferring to Israel everything that is of value in America.

I would not want to be around when this boomerang arrives.

Jewish Gobbledygook to blow your Mind

Having made all the gains they could in the aftermath of their first blitz on America's culture half a century ago, the Jews now find their powers eroding faster than they were able to accumulate them, and they are panicking.

The Jews responded to the phenomenon by reviving the old techniques that made it possible for them to attack America and establish a firm foothold on the cultural, political, diplomatic and financial landscapes of the land. They achieved this much before anyone had the time to realize what hit them – and the Jews believed they could repeat the performance one more time.

The techniques they used in the past and are now reviving, required the rabbis to speak the language of religious mystery. They also educated the public on Jewish sensitivities, threatening to sue people for not being sensitive enough to Jewish sensitivities. They slandered people behind their backs for refusing to toe the Jewish line, told outright lies about anything and everything, connected non-existent dots in the histories they mutilated themselves, engaged in endless haggling and repeated the confusing gobbledygook that nobody understood.

We now have a modern example mimicking the way the gobbledygook of yesteryear used to unfold. This time, it came under the title: “Steve Bannon Is Bad for the Jews,” an article that was written by Bret Stephens and published on November 16, 2017 in the New York Tines. What follows is a condensed version of it:

“To deny Israel's right to exist means that when a right-wing Jewish group such as the Zionist Organization of America chooses to overlook Bannon's links to white nationalists, it puts itself on a moral par with Jewish Voice for Peace … Just as there are anti-Zionist Jews, there are anti-Semitic Zionists. Spencer calls himself a “white Zionists,” on the theory that Israel is the sort of ethno-nationalist state he'd like to see America become … Support for Israel is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being a friend to Jews. That distinction should alarm Jews who call themselves pro-Israel … Bannon's alt-right views are consonant with a worldview that finds a way to get back to a class of rootless cosmopolitans … Anti-Semitism is both the socialism of fools and the conservatism of creeps. Repair of the world may not be the central teaching of Judaism. But it's wise to stay far from those who wish to tear it asunder”.

Now, my friend, imagine so-called American lawmakers at the federal and state levels––who are too busy fund-raising to have known about bump-stock to understand why a single individual could murder nearly sixty people and injure hundreds more in a matter of minutes––being indoctrinated with the dogma that their highest priority ought to be learning the Jewish gobbledygook well enough to recite it backward and forward.

And they are warned that failing this, they'll find it useless to even go fund-raising because the Jewish syndicate will assassinate their character and murder their candidacy before it gets off the ground. Now, my friend, do you believe that these creatures will ever do anything good for America being so busy learning a logic that means to confuse them so badly, it softens their brains? Do you believe that these supposed lawmakers will ever concentrate on serving their country when their brains are whipped into accepting absurdities like the assertion that everyone is anti-Semitic for saying A instead of B, and for saying B instead of A?

And that's not all because there is also the story of ordinary John and Jane Doe who wish that their days were made of 30 hours instead of 24 because they have so much to cover, earning a living and raising two kids. There are times when they must forgo important after-hour meetings at work to take the kids to a recital or a soccer game, or to help them with their homework.

And yes, there are days when their minds are so full of competing thoughts, they don't remember who the previous three presidents of the United States were. Do you think that ordinary Americans, who are that busy getting on with life, give a damn about an Israel that counts on its Zionist operatives in America blackmailing the nation's lawmakers and forcing them to send money and weapons galore to Israel so that Jews can murder more and more Palestinians, and rob them of their patrimony?

This behavior of the Jews is new to America but not the Jews that tried it in the Middle East and Europe. The result has been that the people of the Middle East disciplined them early on to keep them from causing damage to their nations. By contrast, the people of Europe allowed the Jews to run amok and cause considerable damage to their nations.

When all was said and done, the Jews suffered no pogrom or holocaust in the Middle East but hated its people who deprived them of the right to sue for compensation. By contrast, the Jews loved the people of Europe where they suffered numerous pogroms and one holocaust, but won the right to sue for compensation.

Sooner or later, America will find it necessary to make a choice: discipline the Jews now to keep them safe at the cost of triggering their hatred for you, or let them run amok only to see them pogrommed and holocausted, yet earn their love for opening yourself to lawsuits that will seek endless compensation.

Contrasting organic and artificial Evolutions

It is said that science and technology never forget their past. That's because no matter how advanced science and technology become, they build on their past achievements. The most glaring example that can be cited to illustrate this reality is the windmill. It was invented in Persia thousands of years ago, yet here it is, back again competing with the most advanced of methods in the production of electricity.

What this means basically, is that science and technology – which are artificial – go through an evolutionary process that resembles in some ways, the natural evolution we refer to as organic evolution. Well then, given that the two processes are competing against each other, and they have at least one thing in common, it is reasonable to ask if the artificial process will someday come to equal or surpass the organic one.

As a matter of fact, in terms of physical attributes, the artificial process is already well ahead of the organic process. This point was clearly made long ago with the argument that every tool and every contraption we invent serve as extensions of our body. For example, what we cannot do with bear hands we do using pliers. What we cannot do with our feet, we do using the wheel … and so on. The question is still open, however, regarding artificial intelligence. And so the question is this: Can it equal or surpass the power of organic intelligence?

The problem in trying to answer this question is that we don't know what components organic intelligence is made of. If we say things like consciousness or self-awareness, for example, we don't know how to define these terms, let alone how to replicate them artificially. Until we do, we have no choice but to start thinking about the subject the way that our ancestors did thousands of years ago when they began constructing the body of scientific knowledge they amassed by indulging in philosophical speculation. So then, where do we start?

Let it be known that there exists a publication calling itself the American Thinker. Published in it is a recent article that is devoid of substance. It came under the title: “The Middle East's Problems Are Really Our Problems,” written by Shoshana Bryen and published on November 15, 2017. This article can help us begin the process of understanding the differences that may exist between an artificial process and an organic one when the attributes we try to compare are moral and not physical.

In fact, Bryen's entire article is a long comparison between what may be called the American/neo-Yiddish culture, and what may be called the Arab/Middle-Eastern culture. The author makes it clear that in her view, the first is superior to the latter. Be that as it may, what cannot be denied is that the Middle Eastern cultures have been evolving organically since the beginning of Human Civilization.

By contrast, the Yiddish culture is an artificial concoction that was put together by Jews who did not want to be assimilated in the existing cultures of Europe. Its offshoot, the neo-Yiddish manifestation, which is dominant in America, is even more of an artificial concoction. As to the American “nativist” culture, it started out as an artificial construct when Columbus first landed in the New World half a millennium ago. It has struggled ever since to evolve organically by opening itself to the rest of the world and actively absorbing as much of the authenticity that the newcomers brought with them.

Thus, what Shoshana Bryen has done is compare the naturally organic culture of the Middle East against what is essentially an artificial one, and called the artificial concoction superior. To prove her point, she attributed to the artificial, the lofty clichés with which “Western Democracies” are associated. And she attributed to the Arabs the denigrating stereotypes with which the local governments are associated.

In addition, the writer skipped defining what's good or what's bad about each of those attributes, and concluded that the political set-up in Israel was as stable as the American set-up, whereas the Arab set-ups were not. But again, she failed to define what she meant by “stability” or how it relates to the survival of a culture.

This leaves us with no choice but to verify Bryen's claim by first defining the word stability. We then measure to what degree it applies to the various cultures. So here we go: If the stability of a culture is measured by how well it has survived the test of time, and how well it has remained self-reliant despite the periodic ups and downs that every culture suffers at one time or another, two undisputed truths jump out.

First, we find that every Arab and Muslim culture passes the test with flying colors. Second, we find that neither the Jewish nor the Yiddish or the Judeo-Israeli concoctions even qualify as being worthy to take the test. They are simply as devoid of substance as the Shoshana Bryen article.

But where does the American/neo-Yiddish culture stand at this time? To be brutally honest, America could have made it. But now that it has been contaminated by the Judeo-Yiddish concoction, the jury will have to make a decision on it in due course.

Even Fantasies must come to an End

First, imagine a child born with physical challenges. His parents, the extended family and their friends pamper him as he grows up to compensate him for what he is missing and other children take for granted. To him, the normal state is that when he desires something, he asks for it and someone will be there to get it for him.

And then, one day as a teenager, the boy discovers that neither he nor his parents can get everything they desire or ask for. In fact, his father has difficulty getting the promotion he believes is owed to him. His mother has difficulty getting the insurance company to pay for some of the bills. And he has difficulty convincing his teachers he deserves better grades than they are giving him. Reality has dawned on this boy.

Second, imagine an employee that suffers an accident on the first day of his employment. He was sitting at his desk when the roof collapsed on his head because the room above was not meant to be used as storage space housing the copying machines and such that were stored in it. After a stay at the hospital, the employee returns to his job, and gets everything he asks for because the idea is to make it easy for him to do his work efficiently despite his reduced physical abilities.

And then one day, when he looked fit and the medical reports were saying so, the company started denying him the extraordinary amenities he still asked for. Reality has dawned on this employee.

Third, imagine an Israel made of Jews that were hunted in Europe, and fled to Palestine where they hid and felt safe. When enough of them had accumulated in that place, they asked the world to have pity on them and recognize Israel as a bona fide jurisdiction, and the world did just that. For several generations after that, their leaders went from country to country begging that they be granted extraordinary considerations to compensate them for what hey suffered ... and some countries gave them much of what they asked for.

And then one day, someone realized that the Jewish beggars were charlatans masquerading as inheritors of benefits that were as remote to them as would be compensation claimed by modern Christians on the grounds that the Romans of ancient times fed Christians to the lions.

In fact, this is the message that the mob of Jewish pundits is beginning to receive in America these days, and the members are huffing and puffing, pretending not to understand why this is so. You can detect such reaction by reading the article which came under the title: “Trump follows Obama's lead and gives Iran just what it wants,” written by Benny Avni and published on November 14, 2017 in the New York Post.

Accustomed to seeing Israel at the receiving end of the gravy train, Avni begins by praising President Trump for reevaluating the Iran nuclear deal – something that Israel always wanted – but then chiding him in the same breath because Trump “took two steps back with his new deal with Russia over Syria.” What now for Israel?

All indications are that what's ahead for Israel and the Jews will not be pleasant. Look at it this way: a child that grew up pampered by his parents and relatives will learn from them that compensation was given to help him adjust to life despite his challenges. But now that he has achieved this, he must rely on himself because those who helped him in the past will not be there to help him forever. And the boy understood the message.

In a similar way, the employee that needed extraordinary accommodations when he was debilitated was told by those who pampered him, he reached the point of functioning normally without the need for further assistance. For this reason, he must now be treated like any of his colleagues. And the employee understood the message.

But who will tell the Jews of Israel and those of America that the gravy train has reached the last station, and can go no further. It was a fantasy to believe that America owed them anything at all, when in fact, it was America that rescued them from the fires of the Holocaust. For them to believe that America must continue compensating them for something it did not do, is the kind of mentality that sent their ancestors to the proverbial gas chamber again and again.

And this is why the Jews do not offer any kind of hope that their case will be resolved peacefully. It never did in the past, and they keep rejecting the adoption of any approach having the potential to cure the socio-religious handicap that's keeping them culturally debilitated and unable to function normally in a human society. They doomed themselves to eternity.