Calling on the Pimp-in-Chief to terrorize the Johns

What would you tell a guy that says the following?

I am not a White South African, so I never experienced what it's like to be a member of the apartheid crowd.

I am not a Black South African, so I never experienced what it's like to live under an apartheid regime.

I am not a Palestinian, so I don't know what it's like to be born under occupation and be forced to love it or expect to be killed under one fake pretext or another.

But I am an American Jew, and I was born knowing more things than all these people put together.

Well, if you heard someone say that, you would tell him to go screw himself; would you not? I am glad you agree. And this is what you should be saying to David May who wrote an article under the title: “South Africa Adds to Its Long Record of Israel-Bashing,” published on May 30, 2018 in the Weekly Standard.

David May makes it clear he is unhappy with the African National Congress (ANC) because he says there is a resemblance between it when it was fighting to end apartheid, and the government of Israel that is currently fighting to end the apartheid imposed on the Jews by the Palestinians. C'mon, you must be saying to yourself, no animal, let alone human being is so diminished as to entertain such thought.

If that's what you think, here are David May's words: “South Africa recalled its ambassador to Israel to condemn the violent aggression carried out by Israeli armed forces along the Gaza border … At first, it may seem strange that South Africa is so deeply committed to defending the actions of a [freedom fighting] organization, given its own struggle to overcome the violent racism of the apartheid regime.” Are you convinced now?

If you want to know why David May exploded with such rage, here is his reason: “Hamas admitted that 50 of the 62 Palestinians killed were members of the organization upending South Africa's claim that more than 40 were civilians.” And here is the full story of what happened during the encounter when 62 unarmed Palestinians were murdered in cold blood by the Israeli army:

Of those who died, 12 were journalists, mothers, children and ordinary citizens not affiliated with any political group. The remaining 50 were members of Hamas; some of whom might have been combatants but even they were not armed. They demonstrated using placards or the occasional slingshot; nothing more lethal than that.

But David May wants us to believe that every member of Hamas – journalists, women, children, doctors and engineers – are soldiers engaged in the armed struggle against the Israeli occupation. This is like saying that every Zionist is an ethnic cleansing murderer engaged in the annihilation of the Palestinian people.

In any case, all that aside, David May goes on to say that South Africa has given up a great deal to stand with the Palestinians instead of standing with Israel. It is because South Africa has been plagued with the anti-Semitic canard for a long time, he goes on to say. Here is how he put it:

“South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has been in office three months, but his record on the issue predates his time in office. His predecessor Jacob Zuma hosted a delegation from Hamas. Zuma also recalled the ambassador to Israel in 2010, and pressured ANC and opposition leaders to abstain from traveling to Israel. The ANC has demonstrated institutional hostility toward Israel”.

The result, he says, is that South Africa is undermining Israel's efforts to build relationships in Africa at a time when African leaders seek to benefit from Israeli technology and innovation. What David May omitted was that the African leaders took one look at Israeli innovations, and when they saw nothing, determined that what they need are things they can see and touch, not things they only hear about.

Undeterred, David May, goes on to rail against South Africa. Here is what else he said:

“South Africa is also a leading proponent of the BDS campaign. South African officials are prepared to impose hardship on their own citizens. Even though Cape Town is facing a severe water crisis, South Africa has rejected Israeli offers of assistance. Israel is a world leaders in water solutions. Despite Israel's offer to provide its expertise, South Africa accused Israel of 'water apartheid' and endorsed BDS”.

Do you know what this is about, my friend? It's about Israeli solutions to water shortages. In the 1950s and 1960s, the Jews stole water from Lebanon and Syria, leading to the 1967 war. When they occupied the West Bank up to the Jordan River, they stole Jordan's water from its own river. When they dried up this source, they started stealing the water that belongs to the Palestinians. And so, when the South Africans looked at Israel's innovations in water thievery, they said: Thanks, but no thanks.

Now, my friend, guess what criminals do when they fail to have it their way? They blackmail, of course. And this is exactly what David May has done on behalf of Israel. See for yourself:

“When an ambassador to South Africa is appointed, and when U.S. leaders meet with their South African counterparts, they should press for an end to Pretoria's relations with Hamas and an end to the ANC's statements about Israel, including apartheid. They should remind South African leaders that U.S. law is unwavering in its opposition to BDS. This could have a deleterious effect on a future bilateral free trade agreement with the United States”.

In other words, David May wants President Donald Trump to run around the world in his capacity as pimp-in-chief for Israel, and warn all potential johns out there that if they don't come and make love to his revolting, ugly, stinking and syphilitic hooker, they'll experience some unspecified deleterious effects.

Creating Noise and turning the World on its Head

Here is an example of a little nobody doing his part to pollute the air with the kind of noise that impresses the brain dead zombies in charge of America's ship of state, and get them to steer the ship into the rocks of doom.

He is Ramy Aziz who wrote an article under the title: “Russia's alarming attempts to establish influence in Egypt,” and had it published on the website of the Jewish publication, “The Washington Institute” on May 24, 2018.

If you've been observant enough to have determined that the relationship between the operators of the Jewish propaganda machine and the crew that's running the American ship of state, is a version worse than that of the blind leading the blind –– more like that of the savage ignoramus that's conditioning the savage ignoramus –– you won't ask if Ramy Aziz is an SOB mouth-farting the Jewish stink, or that he is taking the captains of America's ship of state for SOBs who are basking in the glory of Jewish malodorous filth. Whatever the situation, it all sounds and smells Jewish to you.

Now that you have recalled those realities, and you know what it is that you're dealing with, look what Ramy Aziz has recommended the captains of America's ship of state do. Having written a long article to set them up just right, here is what he wrote near the end of the article:

“Egypt is an excellent example, where Russia succeeded in creating a role for itself as a result of a dispute between the previous U.S. administration under Obama and the Sisi regime. It has continued despite the departure of the Obama administration and the arrival of the Trump administration”.

And here is what he wrote at the very end of the article:

“Sisi views Russia and Putin as an ally who can be depended upon more than the United States. For that reason, the United States needs to adopt clearer and stronger language with Sisi regarding his rush to embrace Russia. In the long run, Russia and Putin are dangerous, and so the United States should work to end Russia's effort to establish influence in Egypt”.

You know what, my friend? There are those in America who will look at this kind of absurdity and fail to see what the savage ignoramus just told them. They'll fail to see that he told them the way to draw Egypt close to America is to create a dispute between the two countries, of the kind he said a moment ago, had caused a rift between the two countries. But instead of seeing the uselessness of this backward logic, and stay away from it, the captains of America's ship of state will embrace it as they always do.

In fact, they'll drop down to their knees, throw their hands up in the air and joyously scream to the sky the hymn that goes like this: “Thank you Lord, for sending us the Jews who, in their infinite wisdom at par with your own, are teaching us lessons from the secret scriptures of the Jewish propaganda machine.” And the brain dead zombies will go back to the two chambers of moral prostitution where they'll vote to give Israel all that America has and all it can borrow.

But why is it that the Americans consistently fall prey to the Jewish logic of the absurd? They do because for the past half century, the Jews have used the bimbo pastors of the televangelist movement to implement a scheme by which they educated America's children to the effect that when the Jews do the things which are forbidden to others, they prove to be superior beings. Consider them gods that America's children must grow up to worship.

So how did Ramy Aziz take advantage of this setup? Well, knowing that Egypt and its people are fiercely independent and have been non-aligned for ages, Aziz made it sound like when Egypt has good relations with Russia, it means that Egypt has gone into Russia's orbit. Aziz put out this rubbish to deflect attention from the fact that Netanyahu has traveled to Moscow as often as he can lie, and has thrown himself into the arms of Putin more than he has into the arms of those financing his various criminal enterprises.

Another thing that Aziz did is suggest that Egypt and its president seek legitimacy. He did so to deflect attention from the reality that it is Israel which is BDSed by the whole world, and constantly rebuked at the United Nations. All this stacks up in contrast to Egypt which is considered not only a legitimate ancient country, but the mother of the World.

And so, with Aziz having turned reality on its head, the captains of the American ship of state automatically view the Jews as being the gods they must worship without question as taught by their evangelical hookers.

Rambling on and on and say nothing good

Here is a guy that's a post-doctoral fellow, giving advice to the Europeans in an essay that rambles on and on to end up saying nothing of substance.

He is Elmar Hellendoorn who wrote: “A Call for Realism in Europe,” an article that also came under the subtitle: “If Europe wants to secure its fate, then it will have to balance European idealism with a renewed realism.” The article was published on May 27, 2018 in the National Interest.

Writing a piece like this, you don't have to start by saying: Here is my definition of “realism.” Here is my definition of “idealism.” Here is how I see the Europeans define realism and idealism. Here is where they are wrong because here is how the real world looks to me. And here is the part that the Europeans do not seem to understand in my estimation.

No, you don't have to do that, but all of these concepts must come out with the development of your argument, no matter which way you choose to tackle the discussion. Unfortunately, however, Elmar Hellendoorn didn't do that. What he did is hint that the idealism of the Europeans emanates from a belief that human nature is fundamentally good despite the fact that there was a Hitler and a Stalin in their past, which should have alerted them to the realism they choose to ignore. And the writer expects the reader to interpret and to understand everything he stuffed in his essay, through that point of view.

Also, given that Hellendoorn makes it clear any threat to Europe will come from China and/or Russia; perhaps even the instability of the Middle East, he does not explain what form the threats might take that could endanger the fate of Europe, no less. And he does not explain why European idealism will fail to stop or mitigate such threat whereas a renewed realism would.

Reading the article you cannot help but conclude that the writer has amassed a number of vague ideas about the history of the planet since the middle of the Twentieth Century, and patched them together to make his work sound like a theory that says something substantial … which it does not. He then went on to offer the concoction as a gift to the Europeans, hoping this will give it the importance it does not have. So we must ask the question: What is Hellendoorn missing? And why is it that his entire generation of analysts seems incapable of putting together a piece that makes sense?

To answer that question, we need to know how those of us who lived through the Cold War view the current situation, and contrast it against what the younger generation sees. The prevailing point of view at the time was that the Soviet Union was about to collapse, and when this happens, the evil Communists will lash at the world and doom all of us. But when the Soviet Empire collapsed, and the Russians turned out to be no evil ogres bent on hurting humanity, we had a period of detente that was truly a pleasant interlude filled with hope. But things gradually deteriorated between East and West, and yet those of us who tasted the pleasantness of the interlude, refuse to believe that the Russians suddenly turned into the evil ogres we used to think they were but proved not to be. We remain optimistic.

As to the younger generation which studies the history of the Cold War by reading papers that were written at the time, and compare the impressions they accumulate against what they see happening today, they miss the pleasant interlude that told our generation the Russians are not ogres bent on doing evil. In fact, those of the younger generation don't even know there was such an interlude. Instead, they see a continuum of pessimism stretching from the Cold War era to the present, and they respond the way that the hawks of yesteryear used to.

The worry is that the effect of this kind of thinking is proving to be similar to the influence of Winston Churchill whose unflattering pronouncements about the Soviet Union encouraged America to arm itself and start the Cold War. Slowly but surely, America is being sucked into a warlike vortex, causing it to restart of the Cold War. In turn, this is forcing China and Russia to do likewise, and before you know it we'll live through an era of arms race that may not end as well as the previous.

This is why those of us who grew up during the Cold War era have the responsibility to correct those who are schooled to see half the truth while the other half is kept hidden from them.

Catch those Fools trying to BDS Europe

What comes to mind when you see a headline that reads as follows: “Iran, Get Ready for the Battle Rial”? Lots of things, right? Well, that's the title of an article that was written by Mark Dubowitz and Richard Goldberg of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. The article also came under the subtitle: “The Trump administration has declared financial war on the regime. It's a good bet America will win.” It was published on May 21, 2018 in the Wall Street Journal.

To most people, here is what will come to mind: When it became obvious during the decade of the 1960s that the global economic system, as it was structured at the time, was unsustainable, people began to debate what might replace it. When the various suggestions were tabled and taken into account, there emerged a consensus around the idea that manufacturing will have to figure as the key component in the transformation of the old system into the new.

The structure of the old system came to be what it was because two related movements happened almost simultaneously. They were the Industrial Revolution and Colonialism. Even though gun powder was invented in China and used to make celebratory fireworks; and even though artillery was invented by the Arabs who would not use it in war because their dominant religion forbade killing someone at a distance, it was the Europeans that manufactured the guns and used them to conquer the world. They plundered the nations they subjugated, of their natural resources, and fed their growing industrial base back home.

By the time the wars of liberation were starting to make it costly for the colonial powers to continue plundering their “possessions,” the world population was growing exponentially, and the production machines were becoming so sophisticated in terms of automation and efficiency, they required a great deal of knowledge to design and produce. These developments made it necessary for the colonial powers – now called the developed West – to think in terms of becoming the knowledge economies that make production machines and sell them to their former colonies – now called developing economies. As to the latter, they were to produce consumer goods and sell them to pay for the machines they were buying from the West.

This is how the new Global Economy began to take shape. For political and practical reasons, China whose population amounts to a fifth that of the World became the biggest beneficiary of the new system. Keeping its population growth under control and implementing policies that encouraged saving, China was able to achieve high rates of growth and sustain them for decades. These policies allowed China to achieve by horizontal growth, in a generation or two, what took the developed West almost ten generations to achieve while relying on both the horizontal and vertical growths. This meant that in a short period of time, China became not only a manufacturer of consumer goods but also a manufacturer of knowledge-intensive production machines.

Up to the time that China began to add a knowledge based component to its labor intensive economy, it had the ability to pay its workers very little, thus shut out most other emerging economies by selling its products cheaply. This started a race to the bottom that other emerging nations found it hard to sustain, lacking the discipline that the Cultural Revolution of the 60s had forced on the Chinese population. When a number of smaller economies got into trouble and turned to the IMF for help, the latter forced them to adopt the unpopular policies of devaluing their currencies and “tightening their belts” come what may.

Now that China is living with a knowledge based economy while having an aging population that's not renewing itself adequately, it is taking advantage of the cheap labor and low value currencies in Africa and Asia to start manufacturing cheap goods in those places while raising the standard of living of its own people by doubling the salaries of its workers in some cases. Faced with a similar sort of dilemma, Russia, South Korea and a number of other countries are setting up industrial zones in the cheap labor economies.

But China and those other countries are not moving in that direction alone. The European countries and the United States had been doing it for a while, thus made substantial investments in the developing economies. This is why it is ironic that the United States should start threatening countries like Iran, North Korea and Russia with economic sanctions. As if this were not ironic enough, the United States is even threatening the European companies that reject the sanctions it is imposing on other countries.

There is no doubt that the European sovereigns will ignore America's demand because they can stand up to America. As to the individual European companies that have investments in America and would like to do business with say, Iran; they'll do what they always do to get around the American blackmail. They'll create a new company and put into it the business of Iran, thus protect the parent company. America can sanction the new company all it wants and nothing will change. As to the parent company, it will go on doing business in America as usual.

This sort of structure is created all the time in America and elsewhere to get around one regulation or another, and no one knows it better than the Jews whose holding companies often look like a multi-layered labyrinth with connecting tunnels going in every direction.

In fact, the ultimate irony is that the Jews should be the ones to incite America to go after the Europeans whose full participation in the BDS movement – if triggered in retaliation – could crush Israel and wound it permanently.

The Power of Evil stretches to Infinity

Denying the Holocaust is one thing, justifying it is another. There are a few who deny the Jewish Holocaust inflicted on them by the Nazis, but no one has justified it. On the other hand, there are many who continue to deny the Palestinian Holocaust inflicted on them by the Jews, and there are those who justify it.

Count Matthew R.J. Brodsky as being a justifier of the Palestinian Holocaust. He so badly wants the world to know his point of view he wrote an article to make it known. The article came under the title: “The Media's Palestine Narrative Reads Like Fan Fiction” and the subtitle: “Recent events in Gaza demonstrate the growing chasm between reporting and reality.” It was published on May 25, 2018 in the Weekly Standard.

As indicated by the title and subtitle, the subject matter of the article concerns a demonstration carried out by the Palestinians of Gaza on their side of the border to commemorate the Holocaust that was inflicted on them and all Palestinians in 1948. It is a Holocaust that continues to be inflicted on those who remain under direct occupation in the West Bank, and those who are kept under air, land and maritime blockade in Gaza.

It was during the days of demonstrations that snipers of the Israeli military – who were equipped with high powered American guns and bullets – shot and killed dozens of Palestinians who did not fire a single shot; having no firearm to do it with. From where the Jews were camped behind fences and a neutral zone hundreds of yards wide, the Jews picked the Palestinians and practiced marksmanship on them as if licensed to kill by the U.S. State Department which designated the Gaza Palestinians as Hamas terrorists. Whether or not these people are terrorists, that designation legitimized the killing of human beings in the eyes of animals calling themselves Jews, and the eyes of congressional retards who themselves should be kept in a zoo.

With that designation put out for use by those who thirst for blood, the Israelis practiced the killing orgy on the people of Gaza knowing that there will also be a Matthew Brodsky and others in America who will justify the action and get paid articulating it. In fact, this is what Brodsky did. He relied on a trick that the Jews refined over the decades and used on the Americans with great success. It is to point to a small act, call it a cause and attribute to it an effect. This done, they call the effect a new cause greater than the previous, and attribute to it a newer and greater effect. They iterate the reasoning several times, thus create a chain of causes and effects that lead to the ultimate accusation that someone is planning to Final Solution the Jews.

Here is how Brodsky sequenced the chain regarding the Gaza event: “The prevailing narrative was that Israelis were shooting and killing unarmed Palestinian protesters, when in fact there were a series of riots planned by Hamas as cover while they attempted to breach the security fence, pour into Israel, and kidnap or kill Israelis”.

Here it is; Matthew Brodsky called “fact” what he guessed was the intent of the Palestinians to breach the fence, pour into Israel, kidnap Israelis and kill them. Never mind that even if the unarmed Palestinians had managed to breach the fence, they would have faced a division of tanks and armored vehicles manned by soldiers who would have killed them on the spot before the Palestinians had the time to implement the chain described as pouring into Israel, kidnapping civilians and killing them.

Now my friend, I must do something I dislike doing but must do because it tells a great deal. It is that something new was revealed to me as to how and why the persecution of me by the Government of Canada on behalf of the Canadian Jewish Congress, lasted for several decades despite appeals launched by Jewish civil libertarians to the Canadian Jewish Congress to end the madness.

I had learned that the government of Jean Chretien bought the Jewish narrative about a chain of causes and effects, which began with me saying that Egypt was a civilized country, and promising to culminate – according to the Canadian Jewish Congress – with me growing in stature to become the new Hitler that will implement the Final Solution. What I learned in addition to this, was that the Jewish civil libertarians who interceded on my behalf, were not the only ones to take up my case. Someone else did … and there is a story behind this one.

What happened was that on the occasion of starting a new session of Parliament, Jean Chretien, the Prime Minister of Canada at the time, had invited the Queen of England, of Canada and the Commonwealth – to come to Canada and read the Speech from the Throne in Parliament. It would have been a great honor for him, for Parliament and for Canada.

The queen said she would come and read the Speech from the Throne if he, Jean Chretien, will end his government's persecution of one, Fred Habachi. And Jean Chretien told Her Majesty to shove it because pleasing the Canadian Jewish Congress was more important to him than pleasing her.

It is this kind of knowledge, coming to light bit by bit, that renders me ever more pessimistic that the Jews can be so reformed as to blend harmoniously with the human race or even coexist with humanity in a ghetto-nation-state they call Israel.

It is now evident that the Jewish tribes were doomed on arrival four thousand years ago, and “doom” has been their country ever since.

The dysfunctional Liberal-Democratic Family

You can think of the traditional family as the father and the mother having joint custody of the children. You can expect that during the years the children are growing up, the family will experience good times and bad times. It is normal that some of the children will grow up and be exemplary, while others will not do as well.

When something goes wrong in a healthy family, the question that the parents normally ask is this: “Where did we go wrong?” In a dysfunctional family, on the other hand, the parents point an accusatory finger at each other for the children turning badly. By analogy, this is what's happening in the American political family which sees itself as being liberal-democratic. All the signs are here that the family has become dysfunctional.

Like the parents of a governing family, the politico-journalistic establishment has custody of the administration that's elected to run the country during the term specified by the Constitution. Even when times are normal, you can expect that some things will go wrong from time to time. In these cases, both the journalistic and the political structures of the country ask themselves: “Where did we go wrong as a society?”

But this is not what's happening in the United States of America. It is that the politicians and the journalists are pointing the accusatory finger at each other for the failure to get anything done in the country, let alone done correctly. This is what tells the world that the American politico-journalistic family is dysfunctional. Two editorials written three days apart give a glimpse as to how bad things have become in America.

The latest editorial came under the title: “Trump's Korea stumble” and the subtitle: “An impulsive decision, conflicting signals and irrational exuberance scuttle a planned summit.” It was written by the editors of the New York Daily News and published on May 24, 2018. Three days earlier, the New York Times had published a piece under the title: “Pompeo's Iran Plan: Tell Them to Give Up,” penned by the editorial writer Carol Giacomo.

Right after telling what their piece is about, the editors of the New York Daily News went on the attack, chiding not only the current administration but the one that preceded it. Here is how they put it: “We were no apologists for a feckless Obama foreign policy, but let's be blunt: This charade exposed Team Trump as foreign policy amateurs.” And they went on to point out how foreigners take advantage of America's juvenile setup. Here is what they said in that regard: “A top North Korean official told The New Yorker: If President Obama doesn't talk to us, we will just wait for the next President”.

That is, the world has come to realize the usefulness of the game that the Jews have been playing in America for decades. Knowing that continuity is not maintained in the American system of governance, the Jews ask for what they want, and if they don't get it today, they renew the request with the next administration. Thus, it is the persistence of a permanent organization that wins over America's temporary government each time. The Jews sucked America's blood playing this game, and now, other dudes want to play the same game.

That lack of continuity in the American system of governance is precisely the point at which Carol Giacomo began the New York Times editorial. Here is how she started her piece: “Trump renounced America's commitments under the Iran nuclear deal; what comes next?” She used harsh words to describe how unrealistic the plan that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has put together to deal with Iran. What follows is a sampling of what she wrote:

“In a belligerent speech, Mr. Pompeo said... But there are many things wrong with this approach … We're at this absurd point because of Mr. Trump … The Europeans said Mr. Pompeo's speech did not demonstrate how walking away from the deal has made or will make the region safer from the threat of proliferation … The real goal seems to break the regime or create an excuse for military action. But the experience with regime change in Iraq makes clear this is a terrible idea … It's no coincidence that John Bolton, the architect of that disaster, is Trump's national security adviser”.

It is worth recalling that the John Bolton mentioned above is the man that dedicated his life to laying down the idea that Jews are above the law. Not only they must never be convicted of anything, they must not even be accused of anything. And if someone is so imprudent as to make that mistake, Bolton will drop everything he does, work to mobilize all of America, and stay with it till he reverses what was done to the Jews.

Now you know why it happened that with “Americans” like Bolton, the country has turned dysfunctional.

The unpredictable Disease called Leverage

There was a time when calling someone unpredictable was meant to be received as an insult.

In fact, it happened that when the late Idi Amin, President of Uganda, changed allegiance from being loyal to the Israeli causes to being loyal to the Palestinian causes, angry Jews in America and Israel called him unpredictable. This was a time when the charge of “Holocaust denier” had not become a big deal, whereas “unpredictable” was the insult that used to bite.

Now that things have changed and there happens to exist an unpredictable Donald Trump in Washington instead of an Idi Amin in Kampala, the Jews turned yesterday's insult into today's praise. They did so not because there is something intrinsically redeeming in being unpredictable but because it happened that someone used the two words “unpredictable” and “leverage” in the same sentence, and the Jews saw in the combination a new weapon they can use to terrorize their enemy of the day and all of humanity.

In the same way that a modern weapon of terror consists of a carrier like a missile that's carrying a weapon of mass destruction such as a biological bomb – and deliver it anywhere; the Jews see unpredictability as the carrier that's capable of carrying a disease for mass destruction called leverage – and deliver it everywhere.

However, unable to have Israel make use of the weapon and scare the daylight out of its multi-nemeses, among them Hamas, Syria and Iran, the Jews schemed to have the weapon figure as a standard feature in the political games they incite Washington to play on the world stage … most of the time for the benefit of Israel.

You can see how all of this comes together when you go over the article that came under the title: “The U.S. has the leverage with Iran and North Korea,” written by Victor Davis Hanson and published on May 23, 2018 in The Washington Times. After a short introduction to the subject he is about to discuss, Victor Hanson started the discourse with this observation: “The North Koreans seem worried that a more unpredictable Trump has a pessimistic and tragic view that humans are predictably capable of almost anything if not deterred”.

In normal civilized parlance, that kind of talk is thought of as the American president blackmailing the North Koreans with the threat of exploding over them the disease called leverage. To be sure, the Jewish transformation of yesterday's insult into today's praise has made it so that the disease is now defined as follows:

“Tough international sanctions work well enough to injure economies. The tragedy of the Iran deal was that Tehran had been brought to the brink of chaos before the deal was struck. Had the boycotts continued, Iran might not have had the cash to be richer, more technologically sophisticated and far more powerful in the region by the time the agreement expired”.

But there is a nagging question that needs to be answered; it is this: Does Victor Davis Hanson really believe that the new Jewish weapon is so powerful, using it will automatically guarantee victory? And the answer is no; Hanson does not believe in such automatic outcome. In fact, he described another scheme to be used concurrently, or kept as plan B for activation in case the first one fails. It goes like this:

“The U.S. can also threaten Iran and North Korea in a variety of other ways. Regional neighbors such as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt have the ability to go nuclear themselves. Without China, neither Iran nor North Korea can obtain the support needed to build a nuclear arsenal. And China can be convinced not to endanger its lucrative commerce with the West. In sum, for all their obnoxious bluster, the rogue governments of North Korea and Iran are more vulnerable than ever”.

Do you see what's wrong with this, my friend? Or what's wrong with the entire conception? Let me tell you what's wrong. It is that Victor Davis Hanson believes those other countries have subscribed to the Jewish American scheme when, in reality, they haven't. They do not see bluster coming from Iran or North Korea; they see it coming from New York and Tel Aviv.

Most people around the globe see America as adopting the character that sent the Jews to their doom for thousands of years. They don't see this development as a harbinger of world peace; they see the world entering an apocalyptic period as bad as any in the history of this planet.

And when that period will come – if it will come – the people of the world will have no qualms blaming the misery that will ensue on the Jews, as they have done for all the wars that the Jews have instigated since they appeared on this planet centuries ago.

Clifford D. May: Israel is a Stooge for Hamas

Would you believe that after all these years fighting to make Israel the colossal hegemon of the Middle East, Clifford D. May has abruptly turned against Israel, accusing it of being a stooge of Hamas?

After all, it was the Israelis who created Hamas for whatever reason, but have decided to turn to the ancient pagan tradition of fashioning the gods they wanted to worship. It could be that from the time the Jews exited ancient Egypt, their secret wish had been to worship the fighting spirit they finally instilled into Hamas.

True to the Jewish tradition of never being aboveboard or direct or honest about anything, Clifford May took a long and winding road to let it be known he has come to the belief that Israel exists for the sole purpose of giving Hamas what it wants. If you think this is only a theory, you can verify it yourself by reading Clifford May's latest article. It came under the title: “For Hamas and its allies, the worse the better,” published on May 22, 2018 in The Washington Times.

Like the man says in the title, for Hamas, it is the worse the better. So, guess what Israel did to make it the best it can be for Hamas. Well, it made the situation the worst it can be for them. Not only that, but Clifford May has also outed the mole that's working for Hamas inside the concoction that is Israel. Would you believe that the mole turned out to be none other than Benjamin Netanyahu? Check it out yourself.

Recalling that it was Netanyahu the Bibi who stood firmly against having a two-state solution all along, look what Clifford May is now saying: “Hamas has said clearly the two-state solution is out of the question.” It is clear that Netanyahu took this as command and reaffirmed it as follows: The two-state solution on my dead body.

Do you know what else is amazing about May's column? It seems to have been dictated by a Netanyahu aide. See for yourself. Speaking of what Hamas did at the border between Gaza and Israel, Clifford May said the following: “This is a blatant violation of the law of armed conflict.” Did you grasp the significance of this sentence, my friend? If not, think back what happened at that border.

What happened is that the Palestinians went to the border unarmed to have a demonstration on their side of the border. Standing safe across the neutral zone hundreds of yards away, the Jews used long-range American made lethal firearms to kill dozens of Palestinians. Well then, the Jews being the only ones armed on that day, the law of armed conflict applies only to them. Thus, what the Netanyahu aide did was to make sure the world will note it was the Israeli military that blatantly violated the law of armed conflict. It committed war crimes.

Do you want to know how else Clifford May has shown the Israelis to be bloodthirsty? Look at this passage: “Commentators have insisted that Gazans staged 'peaceful protests' while characterizing the Israeli response as a 'slaughter.' Also widespread has been the baseless charge that President Trump deserves blame.” The writer has juxtaposed two charges. One was leveled by commentators against the Israeli military. The other was said to be a widespread charge leveled against President Trump. The writer rejected the charge against the American President but sustained that of the commentators who denounced the Israeli military. Yes, the Israelis are bloodthirsty, said Clifford May in his roundabout manner.

He did one more thing to expose the horrible kind of society that the Jews have installed in what used to be the proverbial Garden of Eden. Look at this passage: “Zionism originated as a movement to build a Jewish state. Israel became a refuge for Jews from around the world –– including thousands from Arab and Muslim countries. They and their descendants today constitute half of Israel's population”.

There is no doubt that the intent behind the writing of that passage was to show the world the extent to which the European Jews are suppressing the Jewish population of Israel that's of Arab descent. Instead of half the government being made of Jewish-Arab immigrants, there is not a single minister of Arab descent in the government today. In the 70 years that Israel has been in existence, there has been only one minister of Moroccan descent, and he didn't last long before he vanished. That’s Jewish style egalitarianism for you.

The scandal is not only that the Arab-Jewish population is suppressed; it is that the story tells why the Jewish military is happy to kill Palestinians of Arab-Christian and Arab-Muslim descent. Now you know.

Recurring self-serving Flattery of the Fleeceable

Anyone that had to deal with difficult young men knows they are not as tough as they want you to believe they are. In fact, there are those among them who wish to be tough and will do anything to prove they are, and there are those who incite them to do what's forbidden to prove they are tough.

The most successful of the inciters go about their business by flattering those they wish to dominate. They tell them how much they admire them for being able to do certain things, and then tell them what those things are. They suggest there are things waiting for them to do, and tell them how to go about doing them. The fleeceable do what the inciting flatterers tell them to do and get into trouble. The flatterers reap the benefit of what happened or get a kick out of it, and congratulate themselves for what they have accomplished.

This kind of scenario plays out not only among adolescent men in their late teens and early twenties (increasingly among adolescent women as well); it plays among adolescent adults in all walks of life. That includes the corridors of power at the highest level of political and diplomatic governance in both developing and developed countries.

In fact, this has been the history of the Jews in America during the past half century. They incited the captains and lieutenants of America's ship of state, telling them they can do the things no one else can. When the Americans became aware of the resentment everyone in the world was developing for them, the Jews told them not to worry because what they were seeing was proof they are big and strong and envied by everyone. The Jews assured the Americans that the world resents them not because of what they do, but because who they are: the perfect free people whose freedom everybody hates.

In time, the approach used by the Jewish flatterers began to wear out, and the brass at the pinnacle of America's ship of state began to ignore it. The Jews lowered their profile and waited for a different crew to come aboard and take command of America's ship of state. When this happened, the Jews came out the woodwork and started plying their old tricks again, but cautiously this time.

At this stage, they are only testing the waters to see how far they can push their luck. You'll see an example of this in the article that came under the title: “Trump and Pompeo's plan for Iran” and the subtitle: “It's risky, but it has a chance of succeeding.” It was written by Marc Dubowitz and Richard Goldberg, and published on May 21, 2018 in New York Daily News.

Unlike past habits when – from the first sentence to the last in the article – Jewish writers would tell the White House what to do, Dubowitz and Goldberg restrained themselves on this occasion. They mentioned the speech that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had given a few days earlier and simply analyzed it by highlighting its main points. They let the Secretary express the thinking of the administration, quoting him as saying that the green light was given for the application of the “strongest sanctions in history [against Iran] by the time we are done”.

But the two authors are not certain it will be smooth sailing from this point forward. Here is how they expressed that concern: “European leaders are feeling violated. They see Washington poised to use extraterritorial sanctions to threaten their economic sovereignty. They are invoking blocking laws making it illegal for their companies to comply with U.S. sanctions”.

After telling what makes them optimistic that the Pompeo initiative will work, and what makes them pessimistic it will not, they concluded that he “may yet succeed” because he called for renewed diplomacy with the Europeans as well as Gulf and Asian allies. But here too, Dubowitz and Goldberg cautioned that “the secretary of state will be challenged in uniting countries that are eager to trade with Iran, and already smarting from North Korea sanctions enforcement”.

Having painted a situation that is a cliffhanger, the two Jewish writers placed themselves in a position to start playing the old role of telling the White House what to do. And of course, they will begin by flattering those who will listen to them. Here is how they prepared for this moment: “The administration has an ambitious plan with a clear objective”.

Judging them by their past performance, the next thing the Jews will do is define “clear objective.” When you look closely at their definition, you'll find it to be a set of activities serving not America or the world but Israel, always Israel and no one but Israel.

Here we go again; we're back to square one.

The Lizard Tongue of Dennis Ross

Can you imagine what would happen if they cut off the tongue of someone and insert in its place a lizard that stays alive and remains a lizard?

Well, you don't have to go far with your imagination because there is an example of that, and all you need to do to experience its presence, is delve into the writings of the thing. His name is Dennis Ross and he is the number one propagandist for Israel and the Jewish causes. He wrote an article under the title: “The next Mideast explosion” and the subtitle: “An all-out war between Iran and Israel is approaching, and Trump has no strategy.” It was published on May 20, 2018 in the New York Daily News.

It's an article that can be thought of as Dennis Ross telling the Americans something which sounds as follows:

The inferior Iranians wanted to test Israel's supremacy, and so they did the foolish thing of sending a drone into Israel's Golan airspace (which every fool on the planet believes is Syrian airspace.) Needless to say that the superior Israeli air force piloted by superior Jewish airmen and equipped with superior Israeli weapons (which every fool on the planet believes are American weapons) was sent to teach the inferior Iranians and their inferior Syrian allies a lesson they will never forget. The superior Israelis rained hell on the enemy and returned home triumphant like they always do, leaving behind a wounded and very sad inferior enemy.

Dennis Ross went on to explain to his American audience what else is happening in the Middle East. To that end, he engaged his lizard tongue, and continued to tell his audience the story of Israel confronting the Iranians in Syria. He added the following to his earlier rant:

Do you know what else is happening in that part of the world? I'll tell you what's happening. Your own foolish President, named Donald Trump, is not interested in what superior Israel is doing so courageously in a region that respects courage of the Jewish kind … this kind of courage and only this kind of courage. Instead of promising to send America's air force – that had no triumph to brag about since the Second World War – and share in the glory of Israel's triumph, your foolish Donald Trump says he is not getting involved in Syria or anywhere in the Middle East. Can you imagine something as asinine as this?

Here are the words of Dennis Ross himself making those points:

“Trump likes to blame Obama but that's a simplistic interpretation. His administration has done nothing to stop Syria or Russia … The Qods Forces sent an armed drone into Israeli airspace. Israel shot down the drone and took out the Iranian command-and-control vans that launch the drones. Israel then took out Syria's air defenses without losing any aircraft. Israel hit a number of Iranian targets again, going after the Iranian capacity to launch missiles. The Israelis hit several Iranian and Shia bases throughout Syria, destroying much of the Iranian military infrastructure … We [Americans] have left the Israelis in a position where they must use force to impress the Iranians and the Russians. Traditionally, the U.S. would have convinced the Russians that America could not allow such a conflict to take place, emphasizing we would act by using our air power to stop the expansion of the Iranians in Syria. President Trump wants little to do with the conflict in Syria”.

As can be seen, only a lizard tongue such as that of Dennis Ross could have written a long article in which he says that Israel was forced to use its air force to violently take out the enemy, when America could have done the job peacefully by sending its own air force to take out Israel's enemy.

When Dennis Ross discovered it was absurd to say that Israel can chase Iran out of Syria by waving its little finger, and then ask America to do just that – he found it necessary to come up with another reason why America must chase Iran out of Syria. Guess what he came up with. You say you can't guess? C'mon fellow, what do you think a Jew would do? He would blackmail, of course. And that's what Dennis Ross did. Here is how he put it:

“Israel will strike Iran in a way designed to inflict a high cost, hitting Iranian oil facilities. At that point, the Iranians may choose to hit back at Saudi Arabia or elsewhere in the Gulf. Rather than wait for such a scenario to unfold, we should be acting. Presently, however, the U.S. is on the sideline”.

Now I ask you to make another guess, my friend. What do you think will happen when the gullible brain-dead zombies of America's elites, will hear those words? Well, that's easy to guess. They'll wet their pants, tremble in their boots and even throw up out of fear. They'll run to the giveaway chambers of political prostitution and legislate giving the Jews not what they want but ten times what they ask for.

And then someone will explain to those gutless apes that the likelihood of the Iranians hitting at economic facilities that can hurt the West will increase exponentially with an American involvement in a military operation against their country.

That's because the Iranians can handle the Israelis and come out on top. What they cannot do is handle the American military and remain whole. If attacked by America, they'll seek revenge by hurting the Western economies. The way they'll do it will be to hit the oil installations in the Gulf region, and by closing the Strait of Hormuz.

And the apes will not regret what they did. On the contrary, they’ll give themselves a raise and take a long vacation.

Good Viewpoint that still needs Improvement

David Brooks wrote a thoughtful column about the situation in Palestine but I believe he is missing something. It is that his point of view is incomplete and needs refining. The column came under the title: “The Gaza Violence: How Extremism Corrupts,” published on May 18, 2018 in the New York Times.

The way I see things, Brooks has a limited understanding of the concept he calls extremism. He speaks of it as if it was a one-of-a-kind thing which pops up spontaneously out of nowhere and does not evolve or devolve.

I can see why Brooks developed this view: he saw extremism come about in America spontaneously in the way that a breakaway faction came into being inside the Republican Party. This caused the rise of another faction, and so on down the line. In turn, the Democratic Party underwent a similar transformation as if the Republican disease was contagious and the Democrats caught it.

It can be said that extremism inside a political party is akin to sibling rivalry, which means that the gulf between the rivals cannot be very wide, making it possible for contagion to take place. As to the competition between two parties inside the same system of governance – such as the Republicans and the Democrats – it can be thought of as a feud between members of an extended family. Here too, contagion can take place, but at a slower pace.

When it comes to strangers, however, extremism does not come about as a result of contagion. What happens instead is that extremism begins to develop as a result of suspicion rising between two adjacent tribes. Extremism could also happen as a result of economic conditions souring, such as drought (or the modern equivalent) making it harder to feed everyone in the neighborhood. A fight may erupt between the tribes, causing each side to respond to the aggression of the other, and escalating the fight to extremes. Thus, it is the need to respond to aggression rather than contagion which transmits extremism from one tribe to another.

When you think of extremism in these terms, you can see why David Brooks started his argument on the right footing but froze for a moment, and then veered into a direction that led him astray. He started correctly when he said: “My narrative starts with the idea that the creation of Israel involved a historic wrong … In the 1990s extremism grew on the Israeli side, exemplified by the ultranationalist who murdered Rabin”.

At this point, Brooks stopped for a moment to observe that, “extremism exploded on the Palestinian side,” even if his use of the word “explode” is an exaggeration. He then went astray when he offered this interpretation: “Palestinian extremism took on many of the shapes recognizable in extremism everywhere”.

What he said from that point on was irrelevant, and the conclusion he reached was meaningless. See for yourself. Here is what he said: “First, the question shifted from 'What to do?' to 'Whom to blame?' The debates were less about how to take steps toward a livable future and more about who is responsible for the sins of the past.” Brooks did not say whose debate that was. The Palestinians certainly did not participate. As to the Jews of Israel and America, they lived well and could not care less about the “livable future” of the Palestinians. So then, who carried on with the debate? Nobody; because there was no such debate.

And here is the David Brooks conclusion: “To fight extremism, you have to answer the angry shout with the respectful offer.” Again, he did not say who is supposed to make what offer to whom. Did he mean the Palestinians could offer something to the Jews? But that would be impossible since the Palestinians had everything taken from them and were left with nothing to give away even if they wanted to.

Did he mean the Israelis could offer something to the Palestinians? But that will never happen since the Jews, who took everything already, still want the Palestinians to swear they'll love the Jews to eternity for what they did to them. What kind of logic is this?

Did David Brooks mean to say that the Americans could offer to do the right thing by ending their financing of Israel's crimes? But it became clear in 2007 that this will never happen when a deal that was reached at Annapolis was torpedoed by the Americans on command from the Jews.

Consequently, it can be seen that America will most likely never come from under the Jewish yoke and do the right in the Middle East. This is why the region is better left to those who know how to fix it, when to fix it.

And if there is one advice to give to America; it is this: Stop telling the Arabs or anyone to get involved in Syria or anywhere else. Everyone knows what they must do, and they'll do it when the time comes. Just go home, America and stay there; you've done enough damage to the world already.

Editing is one Thing, truncating another Thing

The editors of the Wall Street Journal came up with a piece that's too clever by half. Of course, they have the right to edit what they publish. But what they cannot do is edit so much of the piece, it becomes a different story. Going about it this way, changes editing to truncating, and that's unacceptable.

And yet, this is what the editors of the Journal did to the piece they published under the title: “Trump and Bolton on Libya” and the subtitle: “North Korea and the U.S. press corps share a common enemy.” The editorial was published on May 18, 2018 in the Journal.

The editors defended John Bolton who was denounced by the North Koreans for a statement he made during a television interview. Here is what the Journal says Bolton had said in that interview: “The White House aide said that the U.S. sees the 'Libya model' as an example for North Korea to pursue nuclear disarmament”.

Even though John Bolton did not specify what he was talking about, and neither did the interviewer ask him for an explanation, the editors of the Wall Street Journal took it upon themselves to explain that Bolton “was referring to Moammar Gadhafi's decision in 2003 to renounce his nuclear program.” Of course, this alone did not warrant that the North Koreans should respond as harshly as they did.

But they did respond harshly as reported by the editors of the Journal. Here is what they said in that regard: “The analogy infuriated North Korea, which denounced Mr. Bolton, and threatened to cancel Kim Jong Un's summit with Mr. Trump, adding that North Korea is not Libya, which met a miserable fate”.

And that's where the editors of the Journal saw the need to tell there was confusion. But instead of explaining what the confusion was and how it happened, they exploited it to score political points, thus added more confusion to what's already there. Simply put, the confusion stemmed from two different dates. In 2003 Gadhafi renounced his nuclear program. In 2011 America and its allies bombed Libya, causing an uprising against the regime, culminating in a street mob shooting Gadhafi and killing him.

Instead of putting it as simply as that, the editors of the Journal took a long detour talking about superfluous subjects for the sole purpose of attacking their liberal opposition. In so doing, they said very little about the real story, effectively truncating it and telling a different story. It must be said, however, that the editors of the Journal behave in such manner all the time, except that they had more on their mind this time. They wanted to hide the fact that the North Koreans were justified when they responded the way they did to John Bolton's interview.

Here is what the editors truncated out of the story. For a long time, the consensus in America and throughout the world was that North Korea did not meet Libya's fate because it has nuclear weapons whereas Libya did not. Thus, to denuclearize North Korea meant to put it in the same category as the Libya of 2011 when regime change was imposed on it. The fact that Bolton did not specify 2003, made that year irrelevant. The fact that he associated denuclearization with Libya made 2011 the banner year in that interview.

Thus, it can be said that the Bolton confusion––whether deliberate or inadvertent––stemmed from the fact that the Americans – who are constantly nudged by the likes of John Bolton – never cease to speak of regime change. This threat, however implicit it may be, is reinforced by such explicit sayings as: all options are on the table. There is also the constant allusions to North Korea proliferating nuclear technology to other unsavory states, as well as the ties it maintains with terrorist organizations … all of which are unproven allegations.

If the American president was confused about Bolton's saying––as reported by the editors of the Wall Street Journal––imagine how difficult it must have been for the leaders of North Korea when they tried to decipher the translated version of what Bolton had said into their language.

Thus, for the editors of the Journal to end their piece by advising that “Mr. Trump needs Mr. Bolton's counsel to avoid falling for the same false promises that Bill Clinton and George W. Bush did,” is the height of folly. Either these people have no idea how to conduct foreign policy, or they are trying to torpedo the negotiations between the two countries before they even start.

When the Lawyer is a religious fanatic

The job of a lawyer defending a client is to gather the bits of information that's available about the case and stitch them together in such a way as to create a reality that almost never resembles what actually happened. The lawyer's aim is to paint his client as a saint, and paint his opponent as the devil.

When you take a closer look at what the lawyer has done to embellish the image of his client, you'll find that he constructed a monument not of bricks and mortar, but one that’s made of high standards and perfect models. He makes these qualities so eminent and flawless; the monument they produce looks like perfection even if the reality it represents, is rotten like anything you can imagine. Thus, if your job is to debunk what the lawyer has constructed, this is where you begin to push back against his argument.

David French is a lawyer by profession. He is also a religious man that's interested in politics and journalism. He wrote an article in defense of Israel's right to slaughter people it has robbed of their properties, has confined to an open sky prison, and has used American weapons, money and diplomatic backing to annihilate them.

French's article came under the title: “Israel Has the Right and Obligation to Defend Its Border with Deadly Force” and the subtitle: “Would you let people who want to kill you into your home?” It was published on May 15, 2018 in National Review Online.

To make his case, David French brought out what he says is the history of Hamas. Thus, the best way to debunk the spins he utilized to make his argument; is to correct his fake Hamas history by exposing its internal absurdities, and also bring out the true history of the Jews. A comparison of the two histories can then be made. The following passage is the foundation upon which David French has built his case:

“Every informed person knows that Hamas has a history of using human shields, including women and children, to drum up international sympathy and deceive gullible foreign critics into believing that Israel is using lethal force against peaceful protestors who merely seek a peaceful resolution to an intractable conflict. Yet we saw tweets and articles not just from the anti-Israel Left but also from far more thoughtful observers”.

Do you know what this sounds like, my friend? It sounds like David French is asking you this set of questions: Who are you going to believe? Your lying eyes or what I'm telling you? He explains that whether you are a dumb Leftie or a thoughtful critic like himself, you must not be fooled into believing that when an Israeli bullet strikes a young Palestinian male (not an elderly man or a woman or a child) and he drops dead in front of you, it means that Israel has used lethal force. Don't you believe that for a moment, he pleads.

But David French does not explain the absurdity of what he just enunciated. Instead, he leaves it up to us to guess that in his view 'lethal' force does not mean 'deadly' force when applied to a Palestinian male; it means scoring bull's eye during a session of target practice. It must be that in the eyes bull-headed David French, Palestinian males are not human beings but things that can be disposed of to make room for Jews.

And this brings us to the history of the Jews. They went around the world where they lived in almost every home for a while but were kicked out of each unceremoniously due to their repugnant behavior. Eventually, the Jews went to Palestine, which is the home of Palestinians, without being invited there. What happened next can be understood through the principle that David French himself has invoked. It is this: “The international legal standards are clear. A nation has the right to protect its integrity, supplemented by an inherent right of self-defense in the face of a hostile foreign power”.

Thus, a legitimate Palestinian resistance movement called Fatah (later becoming the Palestinian Authority) was formed to do battle against the hostile foreign power that was invading Palestine. To defeat the Palestinian movement, the Jewish invaders – now calling themselves Israelis – did the most cowardly thing there was to do. They convinced a group of Palestinians they would do well to fight against Fatah. The group called itself Hamas (Arabic for Enthusiasm) and accepted training, weapons and financing from the Jews. But instead of fighting against their Palestinian brethren, they fought against the Jews of Israel.

Rumors have it that David French was not retained by the Jews to make the case for them. So, we must ask, why is he doing this for? There can only be one answer to this question. It is that he is a religious fanatic.

You see, my friend, the Jews convinced a segment of America's fanatic Christians that if the Palestinians are allowed to have a state of their own, the ancient prophecies will never be fulfilled. But if the idea of a Palestinian state is made to vanish for good, the ancient prophesies will quickly be fulfilled.

And here is what the Jews have also drummed into the heads of the David Frenchs and Mike Huckabees of America: The fate of America is tied to that of Israel. If the Jews are made to share the Land of Palestine with someone else, America will be made to share superpower status with someone else. But if Israel becomes the hegemon of the region for ever, America will forever remain the only superpower on the planet.

This is why – like Abraham – David French and Mike Huckabee would take the children of America to the mountain, and cut their jugular veins to please their Jewish gods.

And this is why the American parents who love their children, must consider the fanaticism of French and Huckabee to be the 'lethal' and 'deadly' arsenic that the Jews continually inject into the food for thought they feed to the children of America.

The way to counter this horror is for America’s parents to teach their children how to spot a religious fanatic, and refrain from consuming his poison.

Stephens: Hitler had the right to defend Germany

The year was 1968 or thereabout. The Church that spoke out was Protestant … if memory serves, it was the Anglican Church. What this church tried to do was organize a march that would replicate in some ways, the biblical account of the Exodus which brought the Hebrew tribes to Palestine.

The Church wanted to gather as many Palestinians as would volunteer to show up and have them march, sail or swim across the Jordan River from the Kingdom of Jordan into their usurped Palestinian homeland, then renamed Israel. The idea was that the Jews would be so decent as not to fire on the Palestinians who were only yearning to get back to their homes.

The elders of Palestine objected to the scheme because they knew that the Jews were anything but decent. They argued that the Jews will take advantage of the situation and slaughter as many Palestinians as they could because it was in their genocidal interest to do so. The Palestinian elders refused to go to the designated crossing point by the river, and made sure their children did not go either.

This was a time when the Palestinian family was structured the same as the surrounding Arab, Christian and Muslim families. That is, the parents could tell the children not to participate in a scheme whose outcome was uncertain, and the children listened. Now, three generations later, Palestinian children who were born and grew up under Jewish occupation, whose parents were born and raised under Jewish occupation, and whose grandparents grew up under Jewish occupation – had seen enough of the notorious Jewish indecency, they yelled: Damn it! The hell with life under Jewish depravity! For us, it is do or die … we'll fight the depraved Jews with what we've got; whatever the outcome. And there was nothing the parents could do to stop them.

This time, the Palestinian kids were not in Jordan but in Gaza. They assembled at the border, determined to fight the way that Mahatma Gandhi fought the more civilized British occupiers, and they tried to walk to what is still their homes in the usurped land of Palestine. But as predicted by their ancestors, the Jews who are nothing like the Brits, fired their American-made weapons and slaughtered many of the Palestinian kids.

Guess what happened next. The mob of Jewish pundits in America teamed with the Evangelical bimbos led by the Grand Pimping Wizard, Mike Huckabee and mounted a propaganda campaign aimed at making the Palestinians look like they were at fault for wanting to go home, and that the Jews were correct slaughtering them for having such desires. An article to this effect came under the title: “Gaza's Miseries Have Palestinian Authors,” written by Bret Stephens and published on May 16, 2018 in the New York Times.

Whereas most of the article is a rehash of the old talking points, Stephens came up with something that has the potential to widen the discussion a little more than before. What he did is ask a question; this one: “Why do they begrudge Israel the right to defend itself?” It is another way of repeating the Jewish mantra: “Israel has the right to defend itself,” which is what the Jews recite absentmindedly each time they attack the unguarded that do nothing to hurt them.

Well, the answer to that question is simple and obvious. It is this: They begrudge Israel for the same reason that the Jews begrudge Hitler who wanted to defend Germany. Both the Nazis and the Jewish leaders stole someone else's land, and both claimed to defend themselves as well as civilization. Also, both have been saying with words and deeds they consider war to be the highest form of civilized conduct. If anything, these two have proved that the goose and the gander leave the same disgusting taste in your mouth when you chew on them.

In addition to all that, and in their eagerness to avoid being singled out for doing the things which are singularly Jewish in their bestial tenor, the Jews of Israel and America made it sound like someone was partnering with them all the time. For decades, they implicated America herself in the crimes they committed, and no one told them to stop this beastly behavior.

And then, it happened that the world began to view America the same way it views Israel. This made it so that implicating America in Jewish crimes drew no gain for Israel. So the Jews searched for someone else to play the role that America is no longer reputable enough to fulfill. Here is how Bret Stephens introduced the new candidates: “Egypt and the Palestinian Authority [PA] also participated in the same blockade.” He means the blockade of Gaza.

But there is one problem with this attempt. It is that the Palestinians know that America arms, finances and protects Israel whereas Egypt and the PA do not. The Gazans also know that every time Israel launches an air attack on them and kills their people by the thousands, America compensates Israel with a billion or so dollars. The amount comes roughly to half a million dollars per Palestinian head.

Neither Egypt nor the PA does anything of the sort, which is why the people of Gaza are angry at the Jews only. Like they say in Washington D.C., the attempt to implicate Egypt and the PA is DOA – Dead on arrival.