They counsel Justice by compounding Injustice

If you felt like you got hit in the face with an American baseball bat that was swung by Jewish arms upon hearing the latest Judeo-American treatment of the Palestinians, rest assured this is not a one-of-a-kind oddity; it is as much a Jewish habit as matzoh bread.

This time the Americans gave the Jews of Israel the right to all of the West Bank because they said that the current situation did not produce peace, therefore things had to change. But instead of the Americans telling the Jews to change the current situation by getting out of Palestine, they told them to grab more of Palestine. This is like saying the victim that was gang raped by a Judeo-American pack of savages did not like being raped and so, the Americans thought of fixing the situation by gang raping the victim some more.

Well, the Jews of America have done it again––this time not in Palestine but in America itself. And you won't have to go far to find out what they are foaming at the mouth nowadays. In fact, the idea was expressed in the title of Jonathan S. Tobin's article. It reads as follows: “Reform's Embrace of Reparations Won't Advance Justice,” published on December 29, 2019 in the Jewish publication, Algemeiner.

What Tobin says is that to recognize the wrong that was done to the Africans who were brought to America as slaves and treated as such, is to do the wrong thing––it would be committing an injustice. That's because for justice to be done in his view, today’s African-Americans must accept what happened to their ancestors, and go from there to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and be satisfied with their lot.

You'll see why Jonathan Tobin believes he might convert some African Americans to his point of view, if you've been following the events of the last few months. That's when the differences in temperament between the Blacks, the Whites and the Jews came out as clearly as can be.

What happened during that time is that White supremacists killed Blacks in their churches and in their apartments. The Blacks responded by forgiving them, even hugging them. But when Whites were mass murdered by other Whites, the relatives of the victims insisted on seeing that justice be done. As to the Jews, the scent of blood got them to clamor for he heads of innocent men in their nineties. These were men that did nothing worse than be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

This being the way that things ought to remain in Tobin's view, he was shaken to the core when someone––a rabbi no less––rocked the boat. Here is how Tobin described what happened: “Rabbi Jonah Pesner of Reform Judaism declared that it was time for the Jews to 'reckon with our nation's bigoted history,' as well as to confront 'racism in our country, our synagogues and our hearts.' He also put forward the notion that compensation for slavery was comparable to the reparations from Germany to Jews”.

From there, Jonathan Tobin went on to argue against compensating African-Americans for the slavery that their ancestors endured, and the aftermath that continues to linger to this day, affecting them negatively in both subtle and overt ways. Here, in condensed form, is what Tobin said in this regard:

“Pesner is right to consider slavery and racism as sins. But he is wrong about both the justification for and the utility of reparations. The enactment of such a law –– and the creation of a new federal bureaucracy that would cause American society to become even more race-conscious than before –– would not undo past wrongs, while likely making the country a more dangerous place for all minorities”.

Now, dear reader, I ask you to imagine the howling, the moaning and the cries of anti-Semitism that would have been produced by Jonathan Tobin and those of his ilk if someone had suggested that the Jewish victims of 9/11 must not be compensated because the enactment of such a law and the creation of a new federal bureaucracy would cause American society to become even more race-conscious without undoing 9/11, while making the country a more dangerous place for all minorities.

If you wonder how the creation of a new bureaucracy will make the country a more dangerous place for all minorities ... wonder no more. To say that the whole world, or at least the whole country will go to hell if you do something that displeases the Jews, is a Jewish habit that is uttered often but means nothing. In fact, Jonathan Tobin used it again to close his article. Here is what he said:

“For Pesner's Religious Acton Center to engage in the rhetoric of white privilege when speaking of Jews validates the myths that fuel antisemitic libels of Israel and the Jewish people, as well as the propaganda spread by Jew-haters like Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam. Race is an issue that can never be ignored. But when groups embrace solutions that will do more to downplay the reality of a rising tide of antisemitism, it only winds up hurting all Americans”.

In other words, Tobin is counseling against compensating the African-Americans for being treated badly because if you do, you'll increase antisemitism and hurt all Americans, he says. It is an argument as annoying as a dog's poop left on your porch.

Will this Admission of self-Delusion do it?

A famous saying goes something like this: If you give a man a fish to eat, he'll survive for a few days. But if you teach him how to fish, he'll survive for as long as his natural lifespan will allow it.

Of course, this is a metaphor that applies in many situations, one of which being the survival of the United States of America as a sovereign nation. As it happened, the group of people that inhabited the American colonies two and a half centuries ago and before, were foreigners in a country that had not yet existed. But they had a vision for getting rid of the colonial masters, and declaring themselves a sovereign republic.

These were the foreigners who became the American patriots that agitated to oppose the British occupation of the colonies. They were also the soldiers who fought and lived or fought and died in the war of independence. And they were the forefathers that produced the Federalist Papers, and went on to formulate the articles of Confederation.

All of this was the one-time gift that the foreigners gave to the nation-in-the-making; one that eventually took on the name: United States of America. But was this the one-time fuel that has allowed the country to survive as a free nation till now? Or is it that we're seeing the flame of independence thinning like the man that ate the fish but didn't learn how to catch them, thus could not go on living beyond a short span?

If we look at America's performance in another field, and guess from what we see how the country will react to the question of maintaining its independence, the signs are not encouraging. For example, instead of endeavoring to create an indigenous class of entrepreneurs that can maintain America at the leading edge of innovation and industry, the decision makers of America pride themselves on being an exceptional nation. But what does that mean?

It means that America's decision makers do not care about producing their own geniuses and entrepreneurs. To keep up with the rest of the world, they prefer to import the geniuses and the highly motivated from other countries. This is like looking for someone new to give them a fish every so often. But the way that the world is transforming at this time, there aren't enough geniuses and entrepreneurs willing to leave their countries and emigrate to America. That's because their own countries––that used to be underdeveloped––have now developed enough to give them the opportunity to flourish at home.

Likewise, the majority of America's so-called nativists seem to rely on someone else to keep the country free of foreign influence, whether that influence is generated externally by outside powers, or generated internally by groups that pretend to have America's interest at heart but, in reality, have their loyalty somewhere else.

The visible signs of all this, are foreign Jews living in Israel who pop up on American print and electronic media, and tell America's decision makers that because the Arabs, “know nossing about za damacracy,” America must get involved in the affairs of the Middle East, and stand on the side of Israel. At the same time, however, those who are of Arab descent, as well as the African Americans and the other people of color living in America –– urge the decision makers to spend their time and energy working for America instead.

But what's this all about? It's about the Jews of Israel and America trying to mobilize the entire power base and resources of America, and put them in the service of Israel. Since the Arabs and the Muslims would be the victims of America's aggression overseas, they advise America to turn its attention to the needs of its local population instead. And because the African American population, and the other people of color are the most disadvantaged in America, members of these groups have joined the call for America to look after its own people rather than waste the young lives and wealth of the country to please the never-satisfied Jews.

After five decades of Jewish idle ranting, two of which coincided with the American attempts to subjugate the Arabs and the Muslims, the American decision makers have finally seen the light, and have decided that yes, what the Jews were leading them into, was delusional. You can see this reality in the article that came under the title: “The 'Afghanistan Papers' and the delusions of nation-building,” and the subtitle: “Strategy failed, but plans must be made for when troops leave.” It was written by Jed Babbin and published on December 28, 2019 in The Washington Times. Here is Babbin's conclusion in condensed form:

“What should be an important debate since Sept. 11, 2001, is not happening. Two presidents insisted on nation-building as a strategy. This required compliant generals to delude themselves and lie to the public. The results of 18 years of war in Afghanistan are clear, nation building has utterly failed and nothing has been accomplished that won't evaporate the moment our forces withdraw. Nearly 2,400 US troops have died in combat and more than 20,000 were wounded. We have poured about $1 trillion into Afghanistan, trying to build schools, roads, dams and power plants. Much of the money was wasted. There is little we have to show for our sacrifices because we never understood Afghanistan”.

This is not the first time that America was given a bitter lesson it was not supposed to forget, but did forget. Will history repeat itself? Or will America make this lesson the last one to learn?

The way to find out is to monitor the situation where America still conducts operations in places around the world. If you see mission creep somewhere, it means that the lesson has again fallen on deaf ears. This will be the signal that you must continue to laugh at America and weep for it at the same time.

They respect the Law like Dogs respect Poles

The moment that an agreement is formulated between two people or more, a social contract comes into existence. Depending on the nature of the contract and the size of the community that adheres to its terms, you'll have a code of conduct for a company, a bylaw for a municipality, a statute for an autonomous jurisdiction or a constitution for a sovereign country.

The one thing that all the groupings must have to render the social contract legitimate, is an independent body that sits in judgment and if need be, order that the articles of the social contract be enforced when disputes arise between the members that come under its jurisdiction. When this happens, the articles come to be viewed as the law of the land.

The significance of this development is that the law of the land, as administered by an independent body of judges, is meant to replace the edicts which are proclaimed by a single individual known as king or dictator, who may or may not be assisted by a small coterie of sycophants. When a sovereign country is overseen by those who make the laws and those who enforce them, it is considered to adhere to the system of liberal democracy. It is called a nation of laws as opposed to a nation governed by the cult of personality.

Authentic democracy has been the pride of the American system of governance and the triumph of its constitution for two centuries. And then, America was infested by the Judeo-Yiddish disease which began to decompose it from the inside. The result has been that today, you have an American president that can send troops anywhere in the world on a whim, bomb a country to show contempt for his predecessor and withhold aid to a foreign ally for the quid pro quo of improving his election chances by trashing his opponent.

As to the congress, it has become a two-chamber veritable whorehouse of male and female prostitutes who would sell the honor of the country, not only to the highest foreign bidder but also the most ruthless of blackmailers. Even if a member that's running for congress has done nothing wrong and has nothing to hide, he or she can still be terrorized by the Jewish organizations that have complete control over the media in America. The candidates running for congress fear being targeted for not “loving” Israel enough by the lewdest of prostitutes who would give away their mothers and daughters to a Jewish brothel for a Netanyahu smile, a pat on the back and a stroking of the buttocks.

The way that the Jews brought about that level of filth into the American system, is that they took advantage of a practice known as politics. This used to be a vehicle that allowed difficult issues to be resolved by giving each side in a dispute a way to compromise their position, yet claim victory for getting something that would otherwise have been unattainable.

The Jews looked at politics and saw, not a vehicle of convenience to move them from position A to position B, but a wormhole that could lead them to an entirely new universe. They worked on it, reshaped it and turned it into a network of passages that lead them to anywhere, anytime without anyone sensing what they are doing. You can see an example of that when you go over the article that came under the title: “Political Games at the Hague,” written by Gerald Steinberg, and published on December 26, 2019 in the Jewish publication Algemeiner.

So far, the Jewish effort to control events on the international stage, has met with failures. That's because the Jews tried to apply to the world, the formula they used in America with great success. Whereas they could politicize and subjugate just about everything they touched in America, they failed to politicize the world institutions, much less subjugate them.

Still, you see Gerald Steinberg try to accomplish the impossible in his article. Look how he started his conversation: “The ICC was created in the context of the negotiations that ended in 1998 with the Rome Statute. The facade may be legal, but in practice, this is a political institution.” He believes that by calling the ICC a political institution, other writers will do likewise, and before you know it, everybody will come to think of the ICC as a political institution. That's when the Jews hope to play the game they have been perfecting for centuries, and score the successes that have eluded them to this day.

For now, however, Steinberg is longing for the implementation on the international stage, of the blackmail that has worked well for the Jews in America. Here is how he expressed that sentiment: “The question is whether countries like Holland, Norway and Denmark will tell the court that its survival depends on ending this anti-Israel hunt”.

Because the Jews alone could not scare those sovereign countries, they will depend on the Americans doing the criminal act of blackmailing sovereign countries to please the only terrorist entity on the planet today. Will America do it? To be honest, nothing can be ruled out when it comes to the possible response of those who would give away their mothers and daughters to a Jewish brothel.

Meanwhile, Steinberg did another thing that is vintage Jewish. He slandered everyone he thought might be connected with the failure of Jews to take control of the important world institutions. He attacked people such as Kenneth Roth, Omar Shakir, Richard Goldstone and Fatou Bensouda. He attacked institutions such as Human Rights Watch, PLO, PFLP, Al Haq, Al-dameer, PCHR, Al Mezan and the UN Human Rights Council. And he attacked countries like Switzerland, Holland, Sweden, Denmark, the UK, Belgium, Germany as well as the European Union.

This is the era in which we live. To borrow from the Chinese, we must view ourselves as living in the most interesting of times.

He may chase the Goose but he won't catch it

How do you like the idea of the wolf inciting the shepherd to go on a wild goose chase? What would you say if this happens, and the wolf feasts on the sheep in the absence of their owner?

Like it or not, this is what the Jews are doing at this time, inciting the simple-minded Americans to go around the globe looking for Christians to liberate when there are no Christians that need liberating, and certainly not by the clumsy Americans who might even be commanded by the devilish Jews.

Meanwhile, those same Jews are busy in America, reviving the old idea of suffocating the Christian principles of forgiveness and peaceful coexistence. They do just that because those principles frustrate their efforts to turn the country's children into a Pax Americana of gladiators who would invade the world and try to make it safe for Jews. In fact, the gladiators are always drafted to do this kind of missions despite the Jewish obnoxious impulses that human beings find repelling, and compelled to turn against the Jews.

You'll encounter one such wolf, engaged in that sort of attempt when you read the article that came under the title: “The war against Christians,” and the subtitle: “It hit a peak in the last century but it's ongoing in the Middle East, Africa and Asia.” The article was written by Clifford D. May, and published on December 24, 2019 in The Washington Times.

What the writer has done in essence, is advise his readers that he has a contemporary story of Christian persecution to tell them about. But he'll begin with something that happened a little more than a hundred years ago. It is a story that was told a million times already, because it covers the events that have led to World War One, the crumbling of the Ottoman Empire, and the agreement among the colonial powers to break the nations of the Middle East, and reshape them in a manner that suited their colonial ambitions.

The reason why Clifford May wanted to retell this story, is that according to him, two so-called “Israeli” Jews claim to have found “incontrovertible” proof that Turkey committed genocide in the 1915-16 period. Clifford May does not tell what exactly they discovered that wasn't known before, but he quotes them as having concluded that: “there was a factor, one politically incorrect to discuss: As an ethos and ideology, Islam played a cardinal role throughout the process, in each of its stages”.

Having said that, the two Israelis quickly backtracked and made the following points:

“We're not arguing that Islam is worse than other religious dogmas. It has various streams, and individual Muslims feel differently about questions of practice, scriptural interpretation, and moral behavior. Inherent in Islam are humanistic and moderate traditions … and Christians lived in security under Ottoman rule for centuries. Indeed, their stand was more secure than that of Jews or Muslims under Christian governments during the same centuries”.

Believe it or not, all that was just a preamble that nevertheless took more than half the article's space to flesh out. Even though it unveiled nothing that is earth shaking, and despite the fact that the two Israeli historians did not find cause to demonize the Muslims, Clifford May went on to opine the following: “More important is to recognize that the war against Christians didn't end in the last century. It continues to this day in the Middle East, Asia and Africa … The de-Christianization of Syria, Iraq, Gaza and the West Bank is well underway.” And that was meant to be an indirect attack on the Muslims.

Clifford May also quoted the likes of Nina Shea whom he called “a religious freedom expert” despite the fact that she and the Hudson Institute out of which she operates, were instrumental in inspiring the likes of Bret Stephens, when he was with the Wall Street Journal, to make the proclamation that Egypt was being emptied of its Christians who were fleeing to the United States in droves. This claim turned out to be a lie as big as the credibility of Bret Stephens is small. Clifford May also quoted Bernard-Henri Levy who was instrumental in causing the Holocaust that the Libyan people continue to suffer to this day. Levy is now going after other countries in Africa because he is again thirsting for African blood.

But why is Clifford May doing all this? His is doing it because it is his contribution to the Jewish effort that aims to maintain America in a continuous state of war. This is important to the Jews because their plan is to prevent America from moving into a lethargic mode. They fear that America might get used to the idea that peaceful living is more rewarding than doing war all the time somewhere on the planet.

And so, in the same way that the Jews talk openly about the religious and ethnic divisions that can be taken advantage of in Iran, and bring about a regime change in that country, they talk about the religious divisions that exist in the Arab and Muslim worlds. They hope that the locals will hear them, and come to believe that America will reward them if they start a religious uprising against their governments and topple them.

Clifford May, Nina Shea, Bret Stephens, Bernard-Henri Levy and all those like them are in this together. They are conspiring in the most subtle of ways to bring chaos and destruction to the Arab and Muslim worlds so that the Jews may move in and take over from where the colonial powers left off.

Fortunately for America, times have changed, and the chances that Clifford May's article will help the simpletons he is addressing to catch the goose they are chasing, are slim to none.

Bastard Logic leading to serious Consequences

I was born in Cairo, Egypt. How would you like it if I had said I'm a Cairene, and someone objected? What if he went on to say, no, no, he's not a Cairene; he's Egyptian? Let's try another one. At this time, I live in Ontario, Canada. How would you like it if I said I'm an Ontarian, and someone objected? What if he went on to say, no, no, he's not an Ontarian; he's a Canadian?

If that thing stopped here, you might think it's a tryout for a comical sketch meant to make people laugh. But what if this is not the case? What if it is part of an elaborate orgy out of hell, whose ultimate goal is to give a native of Lithuania or Russia or some other place, the right to own the house in which I was born in Cairo, and the right to own the apartment in which I now live in Ontario? What would you think of that?

If you feel that this nonsense is making your brain swell to the point that your head might explode, get a hold of the following title for an article: “Jesus was not a Palestinian, He was a Mizrahi Jew,” and imagine seven billion heads explode. Do you know how they define, Mizrahi Jew? They define it as a native of the Middle East and North Africa.

This is the space that stretches from Morocco to Pakistan, and Palestine happens to be situated in the middle of that space. Because Jesus was born and lived not in Morocco or Pakistan but in Palestine, he is a Palestinian as distinct from being a Moroccan or a Pakistani. He can also be a Mizrahi, if that's the definition you wish to give that word. But this does not negate Jesus the identity of being a Palestinian … which is what the infamous title says.

In the same way that someone would have wanted a Lithuanian or a Russian to own the Cairo house in which I was born or the Ontario apartment in which I now live, Hen Mazzig who wrote the article with that idiotic title, has tried to explain the logic by which Jesus may be called a Mizrahi but not a Palestinian.

The writer's goal has been to find a way by which to give every Jew in Lithuania or Russia or some other place –– the right to own every parcel of land and every property in Palestine, while negating that same right to the Palestinians. You can see how he makes this attempt in the article that was published on December 24, 2019 in the Jewish publication Algemeiner.

I can't even begin to put together a condensed version of that piece of drivel, given the hodgepodge manner in which it was written by its author. Thus, I cannot give you the opportunity to have a full sense of how exactly the writer was attempting to reach his conclusions. But as painful as the experience will be, you'll just have to read the whole thing yourself.

I'll only mention the one aspect of Jewish logic that is of horrendous absurdity, yet is brought out by these people time after time without shame. It has to do with messing the chronological order of events. You'll catch Hen Mazzig say that the name Palestine was given to the no-name land in question by the Romans, a century or so after Jesus. Accordingly, the existing inhabitants came to be known as Palestinians.

He then vaguely refers to the reality that a thousand and eight hundred years later, in the year 1949, that same land –– now known as Palestine –– was renamed Israel by the Jews who invaded it, having come mostly from Europe. And this fact alone, according to Mazzig, makes the Jews more indigenous to the land than the Palestinians. Figure this out, my friend, and you'll deserve being compensated with your weight in gold. I gave up long ago.

As revoltingly farcical as this is, it comes with enormous consequences on top of that. It affects the people who are directly involved, the region and the whole world. You can see that when you go over the article that came under the mendacious title: “Just Another Way for the Palestinians to Avoid Peace,” written by the notorious Jonathan S. Tobin and published on December 25, 2019 in the Jewish publication Algemeiner.

Speaking of Fatou Bensouda, who is the chief prosecutor at the International Criminal Court at the Hague, Tobin says that the good woman started an investigation into Israeli war crimes, and that she “is also seeking authorization to treat Jews living in the West Bank and parts of Jerusalem as a war crime.” This is directly related to the Jewish idea that a native of Lithuania or Russia or some other place converting to Judaism, automatically gains the right to own the house in which I was born in Cairo, and the right to own the apartment in which I now live in Ontario.

Jews from everywhere around the world; most especially from America, use that kind of Satanic-Evangelical logic to displace the Palestinians that have lived in the West Bank since time immemorial––and rob them of their properties. They settle on that land under the protection of the American equipped Israeli army.

As to the Palestinians, with everything taken from them, they had no choice but to do the civilized thing and seek relief from the behavior of the uncivilized savages. They went to the International Criminal Court seeking redress for what the beastly primitives in Israel and America are doing to them. So, how do you think Jonathan Tobin responded to that move? Here is how he responded:

“As outrageous as her stand may be, the reason this is happening is because a Gambian lawyer [Fatou Bensouda] whose resume includes a stint as the chief legal adviser to a dictator, decided to target the Jewish state. The effort to treat the presence of Jews in parts of Jerusalem and the West Bank as a war crime is outrageous. The fact that her office refused to meet with Israelis and Jews also ought to taint her. This is an example of a hypocritical international community that judges Israel and the Jews by a double standard. Netanyahu's accusation that Bensouda's decision is pure antisemitism, is spot on”.

What can I say? Once a savage, always a savage.

A Home Invasion financed with American Taxes

Imagine a street gang of thugs such as those you hear about in Los Angeles or Chicago deciding that they need a home they can use to store the stuff they employ to commit crimes. It would also be a home to which they can go when they need to rest, and do the other things that humans do in the home.

Imagine such a gang invading a property, squatting in a large portion of it, and beginning the process of terrorizing its owners with the publicly declared intent of cleansing the property of them. The ultimate goal of the thugs, is that someday, they'll be in a position to claim that the entire property is theirs alone.

Confused about what's going on, folks of the immediate neighborhood didn't know how to react at first. But then, bit by bit, the neighborhood began to realize that the home invasion was a massive operation carried out by the street gang with the help of the more distant neighborhoods where the gang also used to roam and wreak havoc in its wake. And so, with a wink, a nod and a little encouragement, those neighborhoods have allowed the street gang to occupy someone's property far away from theirs.

Worse, the immediate neighborhood came to realize that the self-appointed police that's patrolling all the neighborhoods near and far, is in cahoots with the leaders of the invading gang, financing it to see it swim in money, and arming it to the teeth. The goal is to make sure that first, the gang will cleanse the property of its original owners and come to possess all of it. Second, the gang will go after others in the vicinity where it will snatch and annex as much as possible of their properties.

But then, it became clear to all the neighborhoods, near and far, which are patrolled by the corrupt police, that what's going on is so hugely ominous, it threatens not just the immediate neighborhood or even the surrounding ones, but the entire planet. And this is when the whole world sided with the inhabitants of the invaded property, taking a position that puts it at odds with the self-proclaimed police.

In real life, that hopelessly corrupt police, is America. It ceased to be viewed as policeman of the world by others in favor of the more realistic view that it has become a moral prostitute for the world. It is taxing its own people to arm and finance so-called Israel, a Jewish population made of the street gangs that used to wreak havoc in Europe and elsewhere. Pushed out of every place where they tried to set themselves firmly, the Jews were sent in the direction of Palestine where they formed terror organizations that battled the peaceful Palestinian communities. To this day, the Jews continue the attempt to ethnic cleanse the land of its people, and grab the patrimony that has been the property of Palestinians since the beginning of time.

Animating America and forcing it to dance like puppets to the tune of the street gangs, are the Jewish puppeteers that have extended a string to every limb of every member of the American moral prostitutes who continue to masquerade as policemen for the world. Made of the mob of Jewish pundits, as well as the Jewish publications and the representatives that roam the halls of American power––the strings that tie the limbs of the American puppets, gave rise to one prolific puppeteer named Jonathan S. Tobin.

Tobin's latest piece of work came under the title: “Time to Shut Down the Palestinian Hanukkah and Christmas Scams,” published on December 24, 2019 in the Jewish publication Algemeiner. His target this time, is the celebration that the Palestinians have been throwing every year to commemorate one of their own; the one whose message of peace has been a guiding light for humanity during the last two thousand years. And here is the passage that tells why Jonathan Tobin is vexed to the extent that he is:

“At the heart of this effort to promote the claim that Jesus was a Palestinian or that the inhabitants of Judea are the real Jews, is denying the Jewish identity. Though some think this is harmless, it is a classic theme of antisemitism, whose ultimate goal is the destruction of Israel and the genocide of the real Jews”.

Did you notice that word classic? It is derived from the word class as in classroom. That's because when something has been established as true beyond any doubt, it is taught in class … that’s what makes it a classic. And so, if you've been following what the Jewish strings are causing the American puppets to do, you'll have realized that whenever the Jews failed to establish something based on merit, they got the American moral prostitutes to make the classless move of proclaiming it as being true … by an edict of the State Department. An example of that is the Satanic-Evangelical view that to rob the Palestinians of their land and build Jewish settlements on it, is legal despite the international laws that America helped formulate before turning prostitute.

Of course, that sort of garbage is what they have been teaching in Jewish classrooms. It is why, in the eyes of the world, the State Department has become one giant classroom where they turn out American moral prostitutes of the most shameless kind.

But you ain't seen nothin’ yet. In fact, wait until the Jews will have succeeded to take over the entire system of education in America –– at which time they'll turn it into an institution of Evangelical debauchery like the world has not seen since Sodom and Gomorrah.

Changing the Testimony to suit the new Times

Here is the difference between a credible witness, you would want to call Mr. Truth –– and a trickster that wants to take you for a ride, and you would want to call him Mr. Liar:

JUDGE: Tell me this, Mr. Truth, how many apples fell from the tree on that day?

TRUTH: At first, only 1 apple fell from the tree, your honor.

JUDGE: Tell me this, Mr. Liar, how many apples fell from the tree on that day?

LIAR: At first, 3 apples fell from the tree, your honor.

JUDGE: But I have a picture that shows 2 apples on the ground. Why is this different from what you saw?

TRUTH: That's right, your honor. At first there was only 1 apple on the ground like I said. But a few moments later, a second apple fell to the ground before the picture was taken.

LIAR: That's right, your honor. At first there were 3 apples on the ground like I said. But a few moments later, one apple flew into the sky before the picture was taken.

JUDGE: Did you say an apple flew into the sky, and you want me to believe this?

LIAR: Yes, your honor. I made 1 apple fly into the sky by the power of my telekinesis.

The idea behind cross-examining a witness is to confront him with the evidence that came to light. If he maintains the same story till the end, or he can convincingly explain the contradictions as they arise, the probability is high that he is telling the truth. But if he changes his story to suit the new evidence, and he cannot explain the contradictions without sinking into absurdity, the probability is high that he is lying. This is true in judicial litigation as it is in history when you “quiz” the work of historians whose profession confers on them the label: witnesses to history.

But here again, there are two ways to report on history. First, there is the way that's verified through excavation and the discovery of ancient writings and relics. It is like Mr. Truth telling a convincing story. And second, there is the way that's based on religious mythologies. This one claims to be a true account of how history has unfolded in ancient times.

However, that last one can only be verified through the prophesies it makes about future occurrences … events that never come to pass. For this reason, the prophesies are re-interpreted over and over again to make them coincide with the unfolding of current events. This is like a Mr. Liar that cannot tell a straight story, and so, he sinks into absurdity.

Changing the story to suit the moment and sinking into absurdity is what you’ll encounter when you read the article that came under the title: “Hanukkah: The First Battle against Transnationalism and the Deep State,” written by Rabbi Aryeh Spero, and published on December 23, 2019 in The American Thinker.

As you can see in the title, the rabbi is already signaling that he intends to falsify ancient history to make it concord with the apparition of current realities such as transnationalism and the Deep State. He then begins telling the story with these words: “Many think of Hanukkah as a fight for religious freedom. While that was at stake, it was part of a battle in behalf of national identity”.

And then, to counter the legitimate slogan expressing Palestinian identity and patriotism, which goes, “From the River to the Sea, Palestine shall be free,” Aryeh Spero spoke, not of Palestine which has been the actual name of that land since antiquity, but of Israel which has been the phony name given to what he describes as, “the land between the Mediterranean and Jordan”.

But what should be the relationship of America's Jews with that of Palestine-cum-Israel piece of real estate? Well, reading the entire article, you'll be stunned to realize that the rabbi is telling America's Jews and every Jew on the planet, that Israel is their home. No matter where the Jews live, he is telling them that the message of Hanukkah is that all Jews must be Israeli patriots as were, “the Maccabees who battled not only an enemy from without but enemies from within, including civil servants and old-line families. These were the multi-culturalists, the cultural Marxists of their time,” he went on to say.

And what did these multi-culturalists and cultural Marxists of their time, do? “They were lured away by the same notions of transnationalism, and betrayed the Judea handed to them by their forebears. The perfidy ended when the temple was destroyed completely,” says the rabbi.

So, there it is my friend, the latest rabbinical interpretation of the stories in the Old Testament. It is to the effect that Jews in America and elsewhere must reject the philosophy of the Left that was brought to them by Karl Marx the Jew, and adopt instead the philosophy of the Right that was brought to them by Donald Trump; the one who was accused of being a closet anti-Semite.

They make them special; they make them odd

Even if the rumors are rife that something odd is happening, there is no substitute to seeing with your own eyes that what is purported to be happening, is indeed happening.

I have reported previously on this website that I heard recording of French speaking rabbis, speaking fluent English but with a French accent, giving English speaking young Jews in Montreal, advice that should revolt any well-adjusted adult, be they Jews or gentiles.

The rabbis were telling the young that to be authentic Jews they must develop the instinct that they were created to be so special as to own anything and everything they covet. That is, when they see something they like, the thing automatically becomes theirs regardless as to who owns it at the time. They, who are authentic Jews, must do everything they can to take ownership of the thing. They'll take it at no cost to them if they can, or they'll come to own it with the minimum of expense.

Some people were skeptical of that report, which is understandable given that such behavior on the part of anyone, let alone rabbis, was so outrageous, it would have exploded in the media. The immediate effect would have been that someone would have tried to locate those rabbis and quiz them on what they have been saying to the young audience they were indoctrinating with what amounts to be toxic rubbish.

Well, my friend, if you're one of the skeptics, I invite you to see for yourself what is advanced in the article that came under the title: “The Hanukkah Challenge for Young Jews,” written by Jonathan S. Tobin, and published on December 22, 2019 in the Jewish publication Algeneiner. It is not as outrageous as the sayings of the Montreal rabbis –– it is after all done in writing –– but you'll see the same kind of mentality at work, and you'll come closer to believing that Jews in authority, be they pundits or rabbis, do not shy away from indoctrinating the children of others with poison that would have been too virulent even for the Nazis to mess with. The following is a condensed version of what Jonathan Tobin is saying in his article:

“The message of the war on Hellenism is a survival mechanism for young Jews that should not be ignored. Many on the political left are so influenced by intersectional myths, they think any effort to push back is a restriction of free speech. That thinking is bad enough, but what should be the attitude of Jewish students? We should not encourage them to build bridges or sit down for dialogue with those who spread antisemitism. Refusing to accept intersectional lies about the Jewish state would also require Jewish students to run the risk of being ostracized. Those who counsel dialogue forget that the essence of Hanukkah is the willingness of Jews to stand up against popular culture. More to the point, the survival of the Jewish people has always rested on the notion that being a Jew means being willing to stand up against the pressure to conform. Anything less than that is betraying the true meaning of Hanukkah”.

As you can see, Jonathan Tobin begins his lecture by telling young Jews that the lesson of ancient Jewish history is that their survival rests on them adopting the instinct of fighting a never-ending war against someone. So then, what should be the attitude of Jewish students? he asks. And he answers that Jewish students should not attempt to build bridges with those who speak the language of intersectionality –– whatever that is. And they should never sit down and dialogue with them, Tobin warns.

That will cause them to be ostracized, says Tobin, but that's okay, he assures the young Jews. It's okay, he says, because the lesson of Hanukkah is that Jews must stand up against popular culture, not dialogue with those who adhere to it. And then, Tobin hits his young audience with a punch so powerful, it comes down on young minds like a sledge hammer on their heads. He tells them that being a Jew means standing up against the pressure to conform. He goes on to warn that anything less than that, betrays the meaning of Hanukkah, which means betrays their Jewishness.

Betraying their Jewishness in the sense of being unworthy of calling themselves Jews, was exactly the conclusion of the Montreal rabbis. They put it bluntly to the young Jews that if they do not feel they are so special as to own what belongs to others by virtue of being Jews, they must not continue the charade of pretending to be Jews. The suggestion is that they must excommunicate themselves from the Jewish body like you would amputate a cancerous limb that's about to infect the entirety of God's most precious creation.

This is how far Jonathan Tobin and people like him will go to maintain control over the Jewish rank-and-file. Imagine now, what they will do to children of other creeds, should the braindead zombies of America give them control over the system of educational, which they crave.

Don't just shudder to think, my friend, call your representative and tell him or her that moral prostitution has gone too far in America. The time has come to end it, and replace it with moral rectitude.

The world is both laughing at you and weeping for you, America.

They mutilate History to shape Foreign Policy

As usual, the intent of Richard N. Haass is to make America tend to Israel's every need, including coming to its rescue if and when Israel blundered into an adventure that would get it into deep trouble from which it could not extricate itself by itself.

This is the subtle message that Haass is advancing in his latest piece of work; the one that came under the title: “The Post-American Middle East,” and the subtitle: “The United States has dialed down both its presence and role in a region that it has dominated for nearly a half-century.” It was published on December 18, 2019 on the website of the Council on Foreign Relations.

To argue his point in a convincing way, Richard Haass relied on history to say to the current rulers of the United States that their country pursued a winning formula for half a century, but they are now deviating from that formula, which will result in unpredictable consequences. Haass's conclusion being that America must get back to pursuing the old policy or at least pursue something that approximates it.

The trouble with the Haass argument however, is that it is based, not on real history, but on mutilated history. He imposed the mutilation in four instances that altered the appearance of what America stood for in the Middle East during the half century that he took pain to describe. Here are those instances:

First, Richard Haass neglected to say that before George H.W. Bush (41) had publicly uttered the words: “This will not stand, this aggression against Kuwait,” he privately said that Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait was an inter-Arab affair, and that he will not interfere. When the Arab League got wind of this, it put pressure on the American president to interfere, and he did. He thus helped the Arab coalition, which included Syria, Egypt and the Gulf countries, to kick Saddam out of Kuwait.

When all was said and done, and to show their appreciation for being cooperative, Saudi Arabia handed America a check for a cool thirty billion dollars. What remains to be unveiled, perhaps by future historians, is how the idea of an Arab payment for American mercenary services came about. Did the Saudis offer the payment on their own? Did America ask for it? Was the deal negotiated before the war, or was it after the war? History will be served well if these questions are answered honestly.

Second, speaking of other American interventions in the Arab and Muslim worlds, Richard Haass neglected to mention serious facts that would show how asinine these interventions were. There was the invasion of Iraq by Bush (43). There was the unnecessary policy of overkill that was adopted in Libya. And there was America's withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal. Haass failed to mention that all these American adventures were carried out at the insistence of the Jewish mob that's occupying the American State Department, and the mob that makes up the foreign policy pool of Jewish punditry.

Third, Richard Haass says that, “increased domestic production of oil and gas has diminished the importance of the Middle East to the US.” What he neglected to say is that the statement belies the persistent American claim that America was spending a great deal of money, and was putting its own people in harm's way to ensure the free flow of oil, thus protect the economies of Europe and Japan. This was said even at a time when the Americans were expressing glee that the closing of the Suez Canal due to the 1967 war, was serving America well by making oil more expensive to the European economies that had grown enough to seriously challenge the American economy. No, the Americans were not paying a heavy price to benefit the Europeans and Japan; they were doing it to serve their own interests.

Fourth, Richard Haass says that the Trump “administration has not made any serious effort to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” when the reality is that every attempt made by the administration was torpedoed by the Jews of America who turned out to be fanatically loyal to Israel. This was proven time and time again by the fact that they unashamedly served as mouthpieces for Netanyahu's Likud Party.

In addition, the claim that's made by the Jews of Israel to the effect that they adhere to a system of liberal democracy, was proven to be a sick joke. In fact, an important precept of democracy –– that of having an election –– proved to be not a concept that leads to a way of governance in Israel, but a trinket that’s used by the Jews to distract the Americans and make them believe that the democratic mirage they see in Israel is an oasis in a desert that’s otherwise an arid expanse.

The Jews turn the trinket on or off to coincide with the events that develop in Washington. Thus, when the administration came up with a plan to resolve the Palestinian question, the Jews of both Israel and America joined hands, and had the unveiling and implementation of the plan postponed indefinitely by turning off having a government in Israel.

To that end, the Jews manufactured an incident and used it as excuse to dissolve the existing pseudo-government. They subsequently went several times through the motion of forming a new government only to fail for no apparent reason. They still don't have a government, which is why it has been nearly a year that the American plan to resolve the Palestinian question has remained in limbo.

In fact, that is where the Jews want the plan to remain until they determine whether the current administration in Washington will survive the predicament it has created for itself. After that, the Jews will decide on what kind of virtual government they'll have, and who will pretend to head it.

But no matter what they do, the governing blob in the Washington Beltway will remain subservient to the orders that will continue to emanate from the Likud basement in Tel Aviv.

All debts are bad, some are worse than others

One financial institution began the trend, and every institution that had a legitimate say in the matter or no legitimacy at all, joined the chorus and rang the alarm bell about the serious level of debt that's incurred by the governments, the corporations and the individuals around the globe. And so, it is fair to ask: What's real and what's exaggerated in this furor?

First of all, let's begin with the reasons as to why someone would want to borrow money. There are three basic reasons. First, someone cannot make ends meet, and he needs money to pay for his overhead expenses as well as feed his family, till such time he'll have an income stream that will allow him to resume his normal life, and also pay back the debt he incurred.

Second, the borrower's current income is such that he is left with a surplus at the end of every month. So he wants to buy a big-ticket item such as a car or a house, and pay back the debt over a prolonged period of time with the surplus he’s enjoying every month. Third, someone has an idea to start a business or expand the one he has now, hoping to increase his revenue stream, but he doesn’t have the capital to do it with, and so he wants to borrow.

It is obvious that in all three cases, the borrowers as well as the lenders are taking a risk in that they depend on things going fairly well for the borrower in the future. The expectation is that he'll have the ability to pay back the principal and the interest as they come due.

What the institutions that sounded the alarm are saying, is that compared to the income level of the entire planet, which comes to about 80 trillion dollars of GDP, the sum total of the debt levels is two and a half to three times that much. This would be like someone that owns a small business earning just enough to pay for the daily expenses of his family, but has an idea. He wants to borrow 250,000 to 300,000 dollars to expand the business after which he estimates that his income will rise to 100,000 dollars a year. He reckons that this will allow him to have a higher standard of living, pay back the monthly portion of the principal, also pay the interest. So the question we ask: Is this too big a dream to be realistic? Or are the financial institutions sounding the alarm needlessly?

Well, the assumption here has been that the borrower will borrow once, expand the business and start covering all his obligations. But what if he discovers after a time that his income does not pay for his style of life and his debt too? Instead, he finds himself obliged to borrow and add to his debt month after month just to meet his obligations. Is this what's worrying the financial institutions that sounded the alarm?

Yes, that's what worries the financial institutions, except that their message is getting polluted by a torrent of noise which comes in at such levels, it is difficult to make sense of what’s being said.

To overcome that noise, let's try to inject some clarity in what the financial institutions have said. They pointed the finger at the emerging economies as well as the two big ones: China and America. Well, let's put it this way: The emerging economies being mostly in Africa, we should rest easy because most of them are doing the right thing. They borrow and put the money into income producing projects that will be run by a young population that's also increasing in numbers. This population is eager to learn, and eager to put its knowledge toward building a more prosperous future. Such young men and women are the ideal people to whom any lender would want to lend.

In fact, most of those who lend to these African borrowers, be they individuals, corporations or the government, are their own central banks and the Chinese government. The latter comes in with some cash and a whole lot of blueprints for infrastructure projects that make it possible to build wealth producing businesses of the kind that these countries need the most.

So the question: Where does China find the money to lend to these countries? It borrows from its own central bank. Because the money is going to safe places, the central bank of China does not worry about losing it. And this brings out another point that has to do with the way that some financial institutions tabulate the debt level of the world. When China borrows a trillion dollars from its central bank and lends it to the African nations, this is only one trillion dollars-worth of borrowing. What some institutions do wrong is that they count it as one trillion borrowed by China and one trillion borrowed by Africa for a total of two-trillion dollars. This is redundant and false.

We now look at the United States of America. It borrows from itself a great deal, but also borrows much from foreigners. It uses the money, not to shore-up a badly crumbling infrastructure or build income producing enterprises; it spends the money on activities such as the military and a prison system that yield no return.

Moreover, year after year, America finds itself borrowing still more money to pay the interest on a national debt that keeps ballooning. This is why America is seen as courting disaster.

If the financial institutions that worry about debt levels should worry about someone, they should worry about the United States of America.

If the Shoe fits, have them try another Pair

The phrase, “Jewish occupation of Palestine,” being a true description of the current situation in the Middle East, it has been accepted as an irrefutable fact by the whole world.

In consequence of the above, the Jews of Israel and America have expressed unhappiness about such development, and are complaining about it bitterly. For this reason, the expression, “if the shoe fits wear it,” should apply to them, but because the situation is a little more complicated than that, a better expression would be: “If the shoe fits, have them try another pair.” That's because every time the Jews try to justify the Israeli occupation of Palestine, they fall flat on their faces and so, they try another justification as if hoping to find a pair of shoes that will not fit.

Unable to find an argument that would explain why the Jewish occupation of Palestine is the right thing to do, the Jews have reverted to what they do best, which is to publicly slander everyone who disagrees with them. They called these good people anti-Semites, holocaust deniers, Jewish haters and now terrorists. In fact, this is what you'll encounter in the article that came under the title: “The Ugly Truth About BDS and Campus Antisemitism,” written by Jonathan S. Tobin and published on December 19, 2019 in Algemeiner.

In addition to relying on the Jewish habit of slandering those who disagree with them, Jonathan Tobin is now relying on two new habits that the Jews have already started, but are still in the process of developing. One habit is to create a definition that suits them, and then cite it as being the goalpost of how things ought to be. An example of that is the definition they created for the word “antisemitism,” and you can bet there will be more such definitions in the future. The other habit which the Jews are in the process of developing is the writing of an essay and characterizing it by the official sounding reference: a report. In fact, you'll encounter one such report they named, “The New Anti-Semites” as you read the Tobin article.

With these fake tools under his belt, Jonathan ‘Don Quixote’ Tobin, went into combat against the evil windmills whose hidden desire is to kill the Jewish King and destroy his Israeli Kingdom. Foremost among the killers he is battling, says the Quixotic Tobin, is Omar Barghouti, whom he falsely accuses of being associated with terrorism, and to whom he falsely attributes the creation of the BDS movement. In fact, the truth is that the boycott of Israel was started before Barghouti was born, and the only terror involved in this saga has been the dread that the Jews have inflicted on Barghouti.

It was the Arab nations that came up with the idea of boycotting Israel as far back as the decade of the 1950s. It happened because the Arabs realized that the Jews who were fleeing Europe, wanted more than a home where they could live like Jews and be safe. The Arabs had determined that the reason why the Jews were pouring into Palestine carrying weapons in both hands, was to build an empire on the ashes of neighbors they were planning to destroy. And so, to develop the leverage that will force Israel to halt its policy of expansion, the Arabs instituted the boycott.

And then it happened that the Palestinians discovered they were not benefiting from the boycott of Israel because the message was not reaching the masses in Europe and America who continued to buy Israeli products. Worse, those masses were now buying even the products that are made in the West Bank, and falsely labeled made in Israel as if the West Bank had already been annexed by Israel.

And so, young Palestinians and their supporters started to talk to their schoolmates, and this is how the BDS movement sprouted among the grassroots in the West. At some point, one of the guest-speakers on a college campus happened to be Barghouti. The Jews seized on this moment and made him the symbol of everything they fear about the germination of the truth on European and American campuses. This development so completely shocked the Jews, it caused them to introduce something deadly into the American way of life. Here is a description of how and why this came about:

Living under the most patriarchal and most autocratic system ever devised since the beginning of time, the Jewish culture never developed the art of debate. The edicts come from the rabbis down the chain of command to a citizenry that is allowed to engage only in nonsensical haggling, and only as long as it does not violate the rabbis' edicts.

And so, when confronted with the real debates of the Liberal Democratic world, the Jews started the habit of whispering in the ear of people in power, begging them to do things their way, and do them quietly because if they don't, all Jews will end up in the gas chambers and the incinerators once again. The Europeans were not impressed with this argument. The Americans swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

Meanwhile, unable to win a debate against the Palestinians, the Jews took the American dumbos into the backroom, closed the door behind them, and whispered into their ears what they wanted done on America's campuses. And the dumbos gave them what they wanted.

And that's when the shoe did not fit. And that's when Jews like Jonathan Tobin smiled.

The Economy does not grow by Innovation alone

It is understandable that David Sainsbury would want to trumpet innovation in industry as a way to achieve growth in the economy, given that he was Minister of Science and Innovation in the British Government.

He is advocating the embrace of innovation as a means to keep up with and surpass China's growth rate, as well as the economies of other Asian nations. The trouble is that innovation alone will not do the job. In fact, achieving growth by innovation is a complicated endeavor that can also be a double-edged sword.

To expand on his ideas, David Sainsbury wrote an article under the title: “China and the West Race to the Top,” and had it published on December 18, 2019 on the website of Project Syndicate. He says that innovation can be achieved in two ways. One, is to improve on the method that you use to make your products, as did Henry Ford when he started the assembly line. The other way is to make your product more attractive to the consumer as did Steve Jobs when he introduced the Apple's iPhone.

The thing is that for every innovation as massively consequential as that of Henry Ford, thousands of smaller innovations are introduced every day in large and small companies. They help improve the method of production, and in the aggregate, may rival Ford's assembly line for some companies. These innovations come about because the employees who work on the production machines, are encouraged to come up with ideas to improve the products they make or the method by which to produce them, and drop the ideas in the suggestion box or discuss them with the production manager.

In addition, efficiency in production has undergone two more massively consequential changes since the days of Henry Ford. These were the transformations that took place first, from the mechanical and electrical systems of control and automation to the solid-state logic systems of control and second, the introduction of the now omnipresent robots on the assembly line.

Because the systems that make these changes possible, begin as scientific discoveries, which are published in specialized journals and seen all over the world, it is as likely that the technological applications they yield will happen in America as in China or anywhere else in the world. In fact, only what is innovated by the military is kept secret, but even these discoveries end up in the hands of rival nations sooner or later.

For these reasons, I wish to suggest a better way of doing things. To understand it, I must first explain how science and technology end up serving industry.

To make a product that you can sell to the consumers, you need machines. So you begin by making the machines. But in so doing, you realize you're missing something. To obtain it, you do research and development (R&D.) Now that you have the knowledge, you build the machines that you use to make the product. When you think about it, going through all that trouble to finally make a product is like paving the road that leads you to some destination. In fact, the pioneering nations at the leading edge of industrialization must add to the road on which they travel. Even if they are super-efficient, they can only go so fast and no more. It means they can only grow their economy at a modest rate.

But when it comes to the emerging nations that have lagged behind for some reason, they now travel on the part of the road that's already paved by someone else while avoiding the pitfalls that have plagued the early pioneers. The emerging nations put all their energy into catching up with those that are at the leading edge endeavoring to add to the road on which they will travel to a destination that may or may not prove to be worthwhile. This is what allows the emerging nations to grow their economies at a faster rate.

There was a time when the advanced nations used to keep their knowledge hidden from the developing ones. It did not work too well. Eventually, that attitude gave way to the current trend of helping the emerging nations move up the ladder of sophistication to the level of their potential.

In fact, the corporations that used to identify with one advanced nation or another, have now turned themselves into multinationals, and feeling at home everywhere they setup an operation. To be successful wherever they go, they transfer their knowledge, including the technologies they developed in the advanced nations, to their new home. Not only that, they also start doing research and development in the new homesteads, and take the discoveries made by the local researchers to the advanced nations. This is quite a reversal; wouldn’t you say so?

Innovation becomes a double-edged sword for the advanced economies when most of their scientists and engineers devote their energies to doing R&D while devoting little or no time to doing applications, such as inventing the consumer products that can be sold to add wealth to the nation.

In fact, what has been happening to many of America’s discoveries, is that the Asian countries, from Japan to South Korea, have been using them to make the products they now sell on the American market, facing no American competition. This way, they make the money which they use to bankroll their own research and get a head start on the Americans.

This is why it is better to have an international understanding that R&D and applications are open to everyone. Whomever comes up with a new discovery or application will make it known to everyone. As well, whomever comes up with a new product will license it to anyone that wants to make it.

Fighting the Ghost of Antisemitism won't do it

Jews of the Clifford D. May type, have a nebulous kind of definition for what is called antisemitism, and they use it to tranquilize if not hypnotize the rank-and-file to keep them eternally under the wing of their leaders, waiting for the messiah to come and deliver them.

When you assemble what they call a manifestation of antisemitism, you’ll easily see that all their descriptions have one thing in common. It is that if someone does not love, or at least pretend to love, Israel and the Jews like a devoted dog loves its master, he or she is viewed as being an anti-Semite.

And so, as far as these Jews are concerned, they begin by considering everyone as guilty of antisemitism until proven to be otherwise by committing a heroic act that demonstrates their intense love for Israel and/or the Jews, or being a low intensity loyalist to the Jewish causes for a prolonged period of time. Otherwise, the gentiles among these people, and even the non-fanatic Jews among them will be suspected of antisemitic tendencies, and treated as such by the fanatic Jews.

That mentality blinds the Jews from accepting the reality that the “Jewish question” is nothing more than a small pebble on a mountain of concerns that preoccupy most people. The main concern of ordinary people being the quest to provide the necessities of life for themselves and their families. In fact, most people spend 99.99 percent of their time thinking about themselves and their families while spending 0.01 percent of their time on all other matters, which may or may not include the Jewish question.

Thus, when you see people like Clifford May discuss the Jewish question as if it were the main driving force behind an event, you know you're entering the Twilight Zone of yet another Jewish fantasy aimed at keeping the rank-and-file on a leash. And that's the feeling you'll get when you read the article that came under the title: “Anti-Semites suffer defeats in the UK and the US,” and the subtitle: “Jews, like other minorities, deserve protection.” It was written by Clifford D. May and published on December 17, 2019 in The Washington Times.

Reading the article, you'll be exposed to Clifford May's view of a human race that is so much at odds with reality, you cannot help but view Clifford May himself and all Jews like him, as being at odds with the human race. For example, with his very first sentence, May reveals that he views himself as standing on a mountaintop preaching to humanity with these words: If you happen to be an anti-Semite, you've had a disappointing week.

He goes on to describe the British Labour Party and its leader Jeremy Corbyn as the losers in the election that just concluded in that country. Even though Clifford May admits that the subject on which the election was fought was Brexit, he still makes it sound like Corbyn's friendship with the people whom the Jews hate, had been a big factor in the Labour’s defeat at the poles.

And then, instead of accepting that this is a Jewish problem which concerns the Jews alone, and go from there to recommend that they look at themselves and fashion a solution to their problem, he makes the problem one of humanity. Why is that? Because humanity is sick, he goes on to say. Here is how he put it: “You should recognize that this is a forever war. Jew-hatred, an ancient and shape-shifting pathology, is on the rise almost everywhere, often with lethal results. Anti-Semitism can't be cured, but it can be treated”.

Again, to make it sound like the Jewish problem is as important to humanity as it is to the fanatic Jews, Clifford May mentioned that President Donald Trump signed an executive order, “giving Jews on college campuses legal protections.” And so, to elevate this political stunt to a level it does not deserve, Clifford May has mentioned minor incidents that took the readers to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Clifford May used the confusion that started at this point, and added to it a rant that turned it into a trick by which to reassure the Jews that if they are confused about their identity, so is everyone else. Here is how he did it: “Identity is a puzzle –– one we're unlikely to solve anytime soon. For now, suffice to say that such terms as people, nation, tribe, ethnicity and even race have fluid meanings”.

But being a Jew, he wanted to have it both ways. And so, he shot himself in the foot as usual. Here is what he did: “At issue now is what in past centuries was called 'the Jewish question.' Should the government turn a blind eye to discrimination based on this identity?”

First, he said that identity was a puzzle that had a fluid meaning and will not be solved anytime soon. He then asked if the government should not protect the Jewish identity, which means he does not think of identity as being fluid but that it is real. He blew his case like a Jew will always do.