Confused about what's Virus and what's Antidote

The metaphor that's known to most people is that of the inmates taking over the asylum. They think they are sane whereas the doctors, the nurses and the rest of the asylum staff are crazy.

An offshoot of this metaphor would be the one advocated by Clifford D. May who believes that humanity is a virus attacking the Jews who are the real human beings. He tells about this theory in the column he wrote under the title: “Ireland's surprise attack,” published on January 29, 2018 in The Washington Times. Here is the big announcement, which he situated in the first paragraph of the article: “Anti-Semitism is a virus that can be treated but not cured. It morphs”.

This suggests that anti-Semitism is a permanent state of the human condition. It follows that either human beings carry the disease or they are responding to a disease that's chronically infecting the human body. Could it be that they are responding in the way that a natural antidote responds to an ailment? Whatever the answer, this leads to another question that is just as pertinent. It is this: In accusing humanity of being a virus, has Clifford May not confirmed that Judaism is the virus? Which means that Jews, and not ordinary human beings, are the carriers of the deadly virus.

To find out, we look for an answer in Clifford May's description of the situation. He says that when the Jews were in Europe in the 20th century, the Europeans “cleansed” their continent of Jews. And now that Jews have moved from there to the Middle East, the Middle Easterners are attempting to “cleanse” their part of the world, or at least neutralize the effectiveness of the Jews. Well then, what does that say to you, my friend? Does it not say that the human body is made of organs? When infected, the European organ responded the way that the local condition required. Now that the Middle Eastern organ has been infected, it is trying to find the antidote that will cure it of the Jewish infection. It is clear this is the point that Clifford May is making whether or not he intended it.

And the more you get into May's article, the more you discover how the Judaism of Jews, and not the humanity of ordinary Humans, is infecting our species. Look at this: “The leader of Iran says that Israel must be burned to the ground and made to disappear from the face of the Earth,” says Clifford May. What is the significance of this? It is that Iran is not an immediate neighbor of Israel. The fact that it was forced to respond, says that the Jewish virus has metastasized beyond Israel's immediate neighborhood, and starting to threaten more distant organs.

What else might be there that points to the soundness of the metaphor which suggests that Clifford May is correct in saying there exists a struggle between a virus and its antidote, but that he is mistaken as to whom the virus represents and whom the antidote represents. Well, Clifford May himself offers two clues. First, he says that Hezbollah and Hamas are eager to set Israel on fire; and they happen to be friends of Jeremy Corbyn, leader of Britain's Labour Party. Second, Clifford May says that the lower house of the Irish parliament passed legislation offering to wage economic warfare against Israel. What do these situations indicate?

They indicate that Britain and Ireland, which are in Europe, are on the move again. This means that the European site from where the Jews departed to invade other organs, heard the distressing call of those other organs, and has responded. Thus, the May lament that Europe, which practically cleansed itself of the Jewish virus, has started to help producing the antidote that will neutralize or wipe out the disease in the Middle East and beyond it. There can only be one reason why the Europeans would want to do that: they know that when one part of the body is sick, the entire body is sick.

So then, how do the Jews of Israel and America respond to all of that? They are responding the only way that a virus knows how: They are increasing the coercive pressure on Ireland. Because they don't have the means to coerce Ireland all by themselves, the Jews count on the United States of America to come to the rescue. Here is what Clifford May has to say about that:

“There is a chance that the Irish legislation will fail to become law. Ireland has attracted some of America's largest companies. Obeying the Irish law could mean violating existing US federal law. The US accounted for two-thirds of foreign investment in Ireland. So, in the end, this could have more impact on Ireland's economy. The executive of the Irish government may find a way to shelve the legislation based on what it will cost Ireland”.

When the Irish people realize that they are not free to run their sovereign country in accordance with the norms of sovereignty, and they respond by making their feelings known about the Jewish infection of their body, Jews of the Clifford May variety will cry out: See? Didn't we tell you they are viruses?

Watch the Blimp rise as the Ground collapses

Before there was the airplane, there was the airship which was a notch higher than the hot balloon on the totem pole of inventions intending to improve the ability of humans to travel from place to place via the air.

Filled with helium, which is lighter than the mix of nitrogen and oxygen that make up the planet's atmosphere, the airship became the upscale mode of transportation for the rich and famous of their time. This went on till the Zeppelin came down in flames, and “balloon travel” as it was called, was retired for good. It was replaced by the motorized noisy airplane, which was made of spruce, and then made with aluminum and/or titanium.

But technology never forgets its past, says a wise adage, and it proved correct once again when the making of airships was revived in modern times. However, it was not revived to serve as a mode of transportation again, but to serve other purposes. Renamed the blimp, giant airships are produced nowadays to serve a small clientele, including companies that wish to advertise their products or services.

And then it happened that the blimp, which is filled with helium, was conflated in the mind of some people with the hot air balloon that is filled with — what else? — hot air. And the confusion was used as a metaphor to mock the pompous characters whose buffoonery was equated with pumped up balloons filled with hot air or cold helium. An example of that would be the work that's constantly being produced by trumpeters in charge of inflating the make-believe accomplishments of Israel.

One such trumpeter is Steven A. Cook. He wrote: “The Golan Heights Should Stay Israeli Forever,” an article that also came under the subtitle: “At least one of Israel's occupations will be permanent, whether anyone else likes it or not,” published on January 28, 2019 on the website of the Council on Foreign Relations.

The motivation behind the writing of this article is the state of panic in which the Jewish leaders find themselves, now that their past antics have caught up with them. In fact, having ignored the multiple warning that were thrown at them, to the effect that escalating the animosity with Israel's neighbors will work against Israel in the long run because time was working in favor of the neighbors, the predictions finally came true, and Israel now finds itself backed into a corner of its own making.

In the face of this, the Jewish response has been to pursue a two-track propaganda campaign. One track is to plead with the American Congress to take a stand and force the Executive to commit America's military to remain in Syria and be prepared to fight for Israel. The other track is to reassure the Jewish rank-and-file that Israel is on top of everything, and will come out winner in the upcoming fight that will center on the subject of the Israeli occupied Syrian Golan Heights. And this is where Steven Cook's disposition to turn Israel's accomplishments into a blimp-like mass of hot air, shines like a red-hot star that depleted its helium reserves. Here are some examples of Steven Cook's style of writing:

“Should the US recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights? Whether Washington does or not, the Israelis are never withdrawing from the Golan Heights—nor should they. Bashar's father had seen what happened to his former partner in arms, Egypt's Anwar Sadat, whose separate peace turned out to be a humiliation only partially salved with copious amounts of US assistance. Sadat also ended up dead. It was surprising that Israel's much-vaunted security establishment seemed eager to give up the Golan Heights. Quiet along the Israeli-Syrian front is a function of the capabilities of the Israel Defense Forces, and the advantage that the Golan heights gives Israel's armed forces. In reality, there is no need for American recognition. Israel is in Golan for its own reasons, and nothing the Trump administration decides will change that”.

You read those passages and get the impression that the Israeli blimp is rising into the air where the sky is the limit. This happens till you hit something that causes the bell to ring at the back of your head. Here is that thing: “Nothing the Trump administration decides will change that.” And you realize that Steven Cook would not have said this thing but for the fact that the Jewish leaders told him they got a big fat NO from the administration, having lobbied it for such recognition since he moved the American embassy to occupied Jerusalem.

He tried to make it look like the blimp was rising, but the reality is that the ground underneath it was collapsing — and it shows in the melancholic writing style of Steven Cook.

The economic Tale of two imaginary Islands

In vogue these days are people who accuse others of being economic ignoramuses, and yet do not explain the theories they pretend to espouse. Or if they take the trouble to explain; they sound like a caveman trying to explain rocket science.

And so, in the interest of having a more meaningful debate on economics, we should start with the most fundamental of principles. That is, let's not start with Economics 101 but Economics 001. To this end, we imagine two adjacent islands in the middle of the ocean; each inhabited by a hundred thousand people or so. They lived for generations on fishing, hunting small animals, catching birds and doing a limited amount of farming.

Given that these activities require the effort of every able-bodied individual to lend a hand, both economies remained stagnant during all that time. But then one day a small tsunami hit one of the islands, causing some damage to the meager installations on which the people depended for their survival. This forced the labor force that used to go fishing at sea, to stay home and work on fixing the resulting damage. The force also worked on constructing a barrier made with blocks of granite, to prevent future tsunamis from causing a similar damage.

But in building that structure, the workers unintentionally created an estuary that would fill up with seawater and fish at high tide. Hours later, when the low tide happened, the water would escape through the small spaces between the blocks, while the fish would remain trapped in the estuary, ready to be scooped up with the minimum of effort, and taken to market.

The resulting effect has been to provide the island with three times more fish than when the fishermen used to go out to sea. In addition, the island found itself blessed with a surplus of labor that can be deployed in other sectors of the economy. This prompted the island elders to get together and discuss the ways by which to distribute the freed labor force. When all was said and done, they had planned for the improvement of the housing situation, and for expanding the hunting and farming industries.

A year later, a delegation from the island that was spared the tsunami went to visit the island that was stricken. Instead of seeing devastation, members of the delegation witnessed the marked rise in the standard of living of an island that used to look like their own, but now looks distinctly wealthier. And so, the members wanted to know how this was achieved. They asked questions, and the elders of the now wealthy island explained it to them. What follows is a summary of what they said:

To create additional wealth for your society, you must have three ingredients: A need for goods or services, the knowledge to make them, and the manpower to produce them. When you have all these in place, the way you manage them will determine how much growth, if any, will be added to your standard of living.

We now turn our attention to the Americans who debate economics. The lesson they should draw from the story of the two islands, is that when the three ingredients for economic expansion exist, what counts as relevant is the discussion about how to manage those ingredients. And what's irrelevant would be arguments concerning how to pay for a given project. In fact, this question is such a bogus and destructive consideration, it must never be allowed to enter the discussion.

In America, like everywhere else in the world, there is a need for healthcare. No one doubts that the country has the knowledge and the manpower to provide that service. With these ingredients available, what keeps the project from being implemented, is the fake question as to how it will be paid for. The reality is that it is paid for right now ... in fact, it is paid for at a rate that is higher than necessary for the simple reason that the project is badly managed. How so?

What is painful for the debaters to admit, is that at the root of many contemporary American problems, lies a fundamental transformation of the culture. It happened in every profession, form the basest kind such as crass politics to the loftiest kind such as the medical arts. In the old days, people were guided by morality, and driven by a sense of duty as well as pride in their profession. What drives them today is greed, which they satisfy by shamelessly and openly coercing and milking those with whom they do business.

These people know that to succeed, they must have — here is the big word — leverage. And there is no leverage more powerful than what's in the hand of the healthcare practitioners and the middlemen who insure the practice. They are the people that have the means to hold as hostage the lives and well-being of the entire nation. The sad part is that they are using that leverage to make unreasonable and greedy demands.

Thus, for a debate on the subject of healthcare in America to be meaningful and bear fruit, it must begin with the search for ways to nullify the effect of the leverage that's in the hands of the insurers, and the few practitioners who play the immoral game of greed, along with them.

They teach Congress to spit on the Constitution

Theatrical representations come in different forms, ranging from the farce to the tragedy, and passing by the comedy, the drama, the melodrama and what have you. And then there is the phantasmagoria which sits on top of all of them as the ultimate in vacuous imagination.

And so, imagine a phantasmagoria in which a misfit named Mr. Nutcase slaps a lawsuit against an individual he never met before, and knows only by his name as Mr. Someone. They both go to court and the judge asks Nutcase what his suit is about. Nutcase responds that Mr. Someone insulted him. The judge asks: What did he say about you that is false? Nutcase says Mr. Someone uttered things that were never defined as insults. He then adds that he did not come here to define those things; rather he came to define what is insulting to him.

The judge insists he must know what Mr. Someone said before he'll allow the case to proceed. Nutcase relents and agrees to rattle off what Mr. Someone said. To that end, he takes a deep breath, looks in the direction of the judge, and with a straight face, says that Mr. Someone said A instead of B which makes him an antisemitic slanderer of Jews. He also said B instead of A which makes him a double slanderer of Jews. And since he, Mr. Nutcase, is a Jew, he takes those insults personally, which is why he wants to define antisemitism the way he just did, and why he wants the Court to grant him relief.

If you, my friend, believe that I'll tell you about a farce that's playing on some stage, where a dialogue of this kind is unfolding, rest assured it is not my intention. Instead, I'll refer you to an article that was printed in the Jewish publication, Algemeiner, under the title: “I'm a Jew, So I'll Define Antisemitism,” written by Sruli Fruchter and published on January 25, 2019. Here is how Fruchter defines what he says is insulting to him:

“To claim that Israel is like Nazi Germany with its treatment of Palestinians, is a demonization of Israel because it carries a comparison to the Holocaust. This litmus test can be utilized to explain why anti-Zionism is antisemitic. Zionism is the Jewish national movement of self-determination in the land of [Palestinians]. This definition suggests a belief that a people should return to their indigenous [Palestinian] homeland. Anti-Zionism, however, implies that the Jewish people are not entitled to self-determination and that is antisemitism”.

Whether or not you got it is not important because there are a few million Jews on this planet, and each one will give you 5 nonsensical new definitions every hour on the clock for as long as you're willing to waste your time listening to them. And this brings us to the article that came under the title: “Women's March Participants Colluded With Antisemitism,” written by Alan Dershowitz and published on January 23, 2019 also in Algemeiner. Here is the essence of what Dershowitz has said:

“Those who marched in the Women's March worship the antisemite Louis Farrakhan. They admire him for his impact on the Black community. They must understand that this impact includes influencing Blacks to consider Jews to be termites. Hitler inspired pride in Aryans, Mussolini made the trains run on time, and Stalin spread the wealth. But would the women who marched with Farrakhan's admirers have marched with these bigots? Consider the front-page story in the New York Times, which singled out the Palestinian issue as one of the great moral challenges of our time — ignoring Syria, Ukraine, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Chechnya, Tibet, Cyprus. Hitler was elected as the result of his policies by people who gave him a pass for his antisemitism because they approved of his other policies. People who support Farrakhan because of the good he does for the Black community and despite his antisemitism are complicit in bigotry”.

So, there you are. Alan Dershowitz does not like the idea that Farrakhan called the Jews termites. Does he prefer being called a hawk? Or maybe he likes dovish better. How about the lion of Judah? Or just lionhearted? Would he hate it if someone called him a tiger? A hyena? A snake? A cockroach? People are called these things every day by people who are themselves called these things every day. But nobody tears their entrails out of the belly hollering anti-one-thing or another.

Furthermore, Dershowitz complained that the New York Times once mentioned the challenge posed by Palestine while ignoring challenges in seven other countries, according to him. In so doing, he hit the reader in the face with such a massive insult, the perfectly understandable human reaction would be to cry out: The hell with these people. Why should I care what Hitler did to them?

That's because Alan Dershowitz is lying to the readers by pretending that the New York Times never in its history, criticized the situation in Syria or Ukraine or Iran or Saudi Arabia or Chechnya or Tibet or Cyprus.

Thus, Dershowitz wants it so that every time the New York Times or any publication mentions Palestine, it must immediately follow with: but to be fair to Israel and to avoid looking like we are anti-Semites, we advise you, the reader, not to forget Syria and Ukraine and Iran and Saudi Arabia and Chechnya and Tibet and Cyprus.

Well, like my Jewish friend used to do, throwing his hands up in the air — when exposed to this kind of logic — and crying out: The hell with this nonsense. Light up the oven!

Still, the indications are that neither Alan Dershowitz nor those like him, will ever stop spewing that kind of nonsense. The reason is easy to understand; it is that they have attentive ears in the Congress — characters like Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Tom Cotton who are just as rotten as they are.

And as long as America's legislators will be willing to get educated at the hands of the Jewish propaganda machine and its running dogs, they will spit on the Constitution and faithfully serve Israel instead of serving America.

Democracy used as Tool to deceive and exploit

Democracy is a word you can use any way you want. If you're a Jew adhering to a philosophy that has not evolved in four thousand years, and you live off the fools who listen to you, Democracy would be a tool you keep in the bag of tricks where you also keep the Marxist tool you invented long ago to deceive and exploit the suckers of an earlier era.

Because Democracy is an abstract idea that cannot be seen or touched, its existence is alluded to in the way that all abstract ideas are expressed: You stage a piece of theater, and show how the thing affects its entourage. That's what the regime in Israel is faking all the time. In fact, Israel is a piece of theater that started life as a Kibbutz-loving Communist vignette when Communism was expected to conquer America and the world. What happened instead was that America hung on to its democratic tradition, embracing liberal democracy anew. This development prompted Israel to wear the democratic mask and stage a fake democratic identity.

The difference between America and Israel is better understood by probing the way that each jurisdiction started life. Despite the difficult economic conditions that hit America and the world in the early part of the Twentieth Century, the American people remained faithful to their Constitution at a time when they were expected to revolt and embrace Communism. They governed themselves in accordance with the democratic principles that their forefather had chosen for the Republic. By contrast, the Jews that make up the population of Israel never had a constitution to tell them what inalienable principles should guide them as individuals, or the nation they dream of becoming. So the question to ask is this: Why did things turn out the way they did in those two places?

The answer is that America is a gathering of people who come from all over the world. They are individuals that go to a new home with one overriding idea in mind: to forge a better life for themselves and their descendants by producing things where there is nothing, and consuming what they make. Israel too is a gathering of people who come from all over the world, but they come with the idea not to make something where there is nothing; they come to grab what's already there. It would be what others had produced for their consumption; what the Jews grab by force, and claim is now theirs because God gave it to them — they who are his favorite children.

When you come down to it, the American piece of theater expressing the system of governance, is the genuine reflection of a productive system that exists in reality. By contrast, the Jewish piece of theater that's staged in Israel, is a farce that's played out by characters wearing a mask that suits the moment — ranging from the Communal Marxism of yesteryear to the Liberal Democracy of yesterday. The characters flip their principles to match reality as it evolves around them, seeing potential new suckers arrive on the stage all the time. They figure that the newcomers are ripe to be suckered, thus use the appropriate tool in their bag of tricks to pull off any and all the spoils they can siphon off; a tradition they repeat till someone stops them.

David Makovsky is a Jew that lives in America as an Israeli wearing the American mask. His sole purpose in life is to exploit America to the fullest, and transfer to Israel all that he can in terms of wealth, weapons and what else can be used by Israel to loot its neighbors. In fulfillment of his mandate, Makovsky wrote: “Netanyahu's Political and Legal Challenges in the Next Elections,” an article that was published on January 22, 2019 on the website of the Washington Institute.

The idea behind that piece is to highlight the democratic credentials of the Israeli system of governance. But those who are familiar with the Jewish propensity to pull tricks, and familiar with the recent history of the Middle East, will see that piece for what it is. They'll see it as a description of how the Jews use the democratic ritual of calling for an election to achieve, not the lofty goal of universal suffrage, but something that is truly wicked.

You'll find that the machinations of what they call Israeli politics always had the intent of forcing America to postpone the effort it is making at resolving the impasse in which the peace process finds itself on a regular basis. In fact, maintaining the status quo by fabricating one artificial impasse after another, has been the bogus democracy that the Israelis used repeatedly to maintain the genocidal regime of slow-motion annihilation of the Palestinian identity.

Consider the passage in which David Makovsky mentions Netanyahu raising “questions about whether his rivals can stand up to international pressure for concessions on the Palestinian issue.” This is the crux of the matter. Netanyahu is the Prime Minister of Israel, and has been for more than a decade. He alone was in a position to call on the opposition parties to buck the rule by which the opposition legally calls for a vote of non-confidence, and lets parliament decide whether or not there ought to be an election.

But that's not what happened in Israel. Like mafia rivals feeling the noose of the authorities closing in on all of them, the governing party of Netanyahu and the collection of opposition parties literally sat down and conspired together to hold an election in four months. It was the last ditch and desperate excuse they could come up with to tell the Americans to buzz off on account that they are too busy playing the game of fake democracy. And once again, the peace process found itself caught in an artificial Jewish impasse.

Thus, the inevitable conclusion we must reach that democracy in the hands of Jews was used once again like a hammer to keep America nailed to the cross of Jewish servitude.

False Pretenses to soothe the Rank-and-File

It is understandable that when a paradigm has worked for a time, you would be reluctant to change it even when it starts to weaken on delivering what it has promised. That's because you hope, or even believe, that the weakness is only temporary, and that things will soon go back to normal.

But when things fail to go to normal, or they get worse as demonstrated by your lagging behind events that keep racing past you, hanging on to the old paradigm becomes anachronistic. This, in fact, is the condition that the Jews brought to America. Two articles written on the subject of Iran, show how Jewish anachronism is playing itself out on the domestic level, and how it is playing at the foreign policy level.

One article came under the title: “Terrorism is making Europe think again about appeasing Iran,” written by Benny Avni and published on January 22, 2019 in the New York Post. The other article came under the title: “Marking four decades of Iranian decline,” Written by Ilan Berman, and published on January 24, 2019 in The Washington Times.

To better understand what’s wrong with those articles, we need to understand two things. First, there is the American doctrine that says: “Politics stops at the water's edge.” Second, there is the paradigm that worked for the nations that caught the Industrial Revolution at the start, and grew their economies organically in conjunction with the development of their industries ... and yet does not apply as well for the developing economies.

Before the Jews became influential in America, the paradigm adhered to by the political parties, was to the effect that they could attack each other all they want, as long as they did it at home. Once they left America and found themselves in a public forum in a foreign country, they did not snipe at each other across the ocean. But then the Jews loomed large in the country, and they blurred the line between their political activities in America and the country's diplomatic activities overseas. In time, the two activities were fused together, resulting in the old paradigm of distinguishing between home and abroad, being discarded.

As to economics, the old paradigm was that an industrial economy could only grow organically. That is, new and better production machines happened only because they developed in concert with the science, technology and engineering that were required to invent and build those machines. That's what made the economies grow. In fact, this is still true for the economies that stand at the leading edge of industry.

But that's not the case for the developing economies that must buy production machines from the advanced economies. To make their system work, the finance ministries of developing countries find themselves compelled to run two economies simultaneously. There is the local economy that's run with the local currency; and there is the foreign trade that is conducted with foreign currencies. The problem with authors that discuss economics without understanding this reality, is that they end up talking nonsense.

So then, when reading the Benny Avni and Ilan Berman articles, we should keep in mind that the Jews have fused the local politics and foreign diplomacy of America, when the two should be kept separate. We should also keep in mind that when talking about a developing economy, we must allow for the possibility that the local economy can do well even if the foreign trade is going through a difficult time.

Going over Benny Avni's article, you'll detect the fusing of America's local and foreign issues in the fact that America's foreign policy is conducted, not in a manner that serves the interests of America, but in a manner that serves the interests of Israel. This happens because the Jewish politics in America is entirely devoted to making America work for Israel. This is why America loses all the time, and Israel wins some of the time.

Going over Ilan Berman's article, you'll find it mind boggling that a writer would say Iran has experienced decline for the past four decades when in reality, it has advanced from being a backward Third World nation to become a nuclear power and space faring nation in that span of time.

So, you analyze how the writer is presenting his case, and find that he is giving credit to a fictitious Iranian decline to America's ill-advised sanctions whose aim is to wreak havoc on Iran's foreign trade. But the reality is that Iran has a dynamic local economy that's braving the Judeo-American effort to ruin it. In fact, Iran is winning this confrontation and getting stronger not weaker.

Another Chihuahua out on a fishing Expedition

Unlike bears that fish for and eat salmon to fatten up before hibernating, dogs do not like to plunge into water. In fact, they would eat fish only if there is no meat to appease their hunger.

But if dogs do not catch fish, whether they intend to eat it or not, what do you make of a Chihuahua, that is normally fed meat by its owners, going on a risky fishing expedition?

This is the case of Jim Geraghty that went out looking for something fishy about Ilhan Omar to catch and bring to his Jewish owners. It must be that they promised him a year supply of red meat if he'll help them take down the Somali-American congresswoman that's proving to be a thorn in their side. You can see for yourself when you read the article that Geraghty wrote under the title: “Ilhan Omar's Greatest Hits,” published on January 23, 2019 in National Review Online.

Out fishing, Geraghty discovered a few things about Omar, half of which is no more intelligent than to say something like this: “Look at this woman; she is breathing air. Since when do Somali women breathe air?” And the other half would fall in a category of this grade: “She was given a parking ticket; went to court; the judge accepted her excuse, and fined her a token sum to be paid in installments.” So, here is a condensed version of the small hill of beans that Geraghty was able to gather on Ilhan Omar. Count them, just a few beans gathered on a fishing expedition that failed to catch as much as a single sardine:

“Omar was late in filing her state-mandated disclosure, and requested an installment plan to pay the $1,100 in penalties. In August, when Keith Ellison faced allegations that he abused a former girlfriend, Omar said she would not comment, out of concern for the victim. In mid-October, she explained that she has not legally divorced her first husband but has religiously married her second. In 2002, she said they never finalized the application and thus were never legally married. In 2008, she entered into a relationship with a British citizen. Since 2011, she reconciled with Ahmed Hirsi, and are raising a family together. In November, the Board revealed it found probable cause regarding possible misuse of campaign funds by Omar. In 2017, she accepted payments from three colleges, a violation of Minnesota House rules. So far, Omar has repaid $2,500 of the $2,750 amount she should not have accepted. On January 3, she tweeted that she was the first refugee elected to Congress. There were at least four other refugees elected to Congress before her. She said that the current Congress was the first to include a Palestinian American, but Representative Justin Amash and former senator John Sununu are both Palestinian Americans”.

This being as valueless as a Jewish run-of-the-mill accusation of antisemitism, what is it that's really bugging the Jews? Well, we can find out from what else Geraghty says he discovered and fished out on Ilhan Omar. Here is some of what stirred his bile, and the bile of his Jewish owners:

“Ilhan Omar has become one of the most quoted Democratic officials in the country. In 2012, she tweeted that Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel. The notion that Jews hypnotize people is a longtime anti-Semitic trope. In May 2018, she contended that drawing attention to the apartheid Israeli regime is far from hating Jews. She said she always supported the BDS movement. Her 2012 tweet about Israel hypnotizing the world is still online”.

All of this will do no more to hurt Ilhan Omar than a fly can step on an elephant and crush it. But that's not where the Jews will stop. They will go on and on till they succeed at hurting her or they become convinced that she is unbeatable. I know this from experience because I lived with it for nearly half a century.

I know a story along that vein, and once again, I'll do what I don't like doing but feel compelled to do by telling it. However, I must caution the readers to the reality that I am relying on information I did not personally observe. I went through horrendous moments at the time, knowing only that something had happened but not knowing what it was. Decades later, I was told what was happening behind my back. Here is that story:

Having failed to silence me even though they succeeded at having me blacklisted, the Jews were afraid that someone might still give me a break after which my presence would “explode in the public domain where I'll outshine everyone, and eclipse everybody.” That's what terrified the Jews about me.

For this reason, they exploited every occasion they could catch — not simply to assassinate my character but — to warn of the danger I represented to the national security of the North American Continent … that's right the entire North American Continent.

Having convinced everyone that they were experts on me, the Jews interpreted everything I said and wrote in such a way as to insinuate I was planning to destroy the Continent without explaining how I would do it. And believe it or not, nobody asked for an explanation. Still, to lend more credibility to their accusations, the Jews would stage a fake criminal act and, by a process known as the innuendo of savage and cowardly animals — a specialty of Jews and their chihuahuas — they would talk about the act as if I had committed it.

And then it happened one day that they thought they hit the jackpot. It happened that a crazy guy went on a mass shooting rampage at a university in Montreal at a time when I had a school of my own. They wanted to make it stick to me as long as possible; as forcefully as possible. This meant they needed someone of high profile to spread the Jewish venom around.

Guess who they chose to do them the favor. They chose Lesley Stahl of CBS. She accepted the assignment and went around associating me with that horrible act, repeating her fake story day after day till such time that the true story was revealed. When this happened, Lesley Stahl went about living her normal life, not bothered for a moment by what she contributed to the ruin of someone's career.

That would be someone she didn't know; someone that did nothing to hurt her. But she knew that her activities would curry favor with her Jewish owners who might, at the end of the day, throw her a piece of red meat. And this was good enough for her.

Ilhan Omar should expect to see things like these happen to her because America is full of Jewish owned Chihuahuas that will prostitute themselves for a piece of red meat.

What they say now to keep sucking American Blood

It is amazing how creative Jews can get when searching for excuses to incite America to arm itself, attack someone or stay put where it sheds the blood of its children, and bleeds the public's wealth in the most irresponsible way you can imagine.

Over the decades, Clifford D. May created enough of those excuses to fill a filing cabinet, and he is at it again. His latest creation is contained in a column he wrote under the title: “The age of neo-imperialism,” published on January 22, 2019 in The Washington Times.

No longer able to rouse the public—that's tired of wars—with scary talk about an enemy that's preparing to attack America and rob its people of freedom, Clifford May chose to go for the works this time. He thought it wise to describe the danger posed, not by one, but five enemies. Three of those are hard powers, he says, and two lesser ones. Clifford May speaks of the ambitions that motivate the capable trio of China, Russia and Iran, as well as the lesser ambitions of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State.

Unlike the last two which are novices trying to replace the now defunct Ottoman Empire, Clifford May wants the readers to know that the capable trio of China, Russia and Iran were once empires in their own right. He goes on to say that they are currently ruled by men who wish to revive the glorious past in one form or another, but see America standing in the way. And this is why they will work alone or together when necessary, to diminish America's influence, and push it out of the regions where they plan to become the dominant powers.

Clifford May describes what each of the men is doing to get there, and then adds this: “None of this should surprise us. Empires have been rising, competing, conquering, exploiting, clashing and falling throughout history. But that history was supposed to end after World War II when Europe's colonies achieved independence.” This is correct, and should have led Clifford May to the realities that came next … but he did otherwise.

Unfortunately, he delved, not into what came next, but something that never was. He delved into a confused set of observations, which he mixed with fantasies about what should have happened but did not, because of what he says were the failures many. The examples he cited were the United Nations, the European Union and of course, the forever guilty of one thing or another, Barack Obama. And as certain as night follows day when dealing with Jewish matters, Clifford May omitted mentioning the real culprits, which are Israel, the Jewish lobby and the Congress of moral prostitutes that's in charge of all Judeo-Israeli affairs in America, and in charge of nothing else.

The writer then spoke of the United States and its allies attempting to build a new world order, instead of speaking of the nations that won the Second World War—all of which may not have been true allies—joining the multitude of nations that did not participate in the war, and coming together to build a new world order. Together, these nations succeeded at building what he described as “a new world order of independent states that would coexist peacefully and abide by international laws. The United Nations [has been] central to this effort”.

In fact, the United Nations (UN) being the institution where international laws are made, to abide by them meant to respect the UN. But having created Israel to save the Jews from themselves, expecting the survivors to settle down and live like everyone else, the UN was disheartened to see the Jews use Israel as a base from where they deceived the big powers into joining them at setting the clock back.

Instead of building a new world order in which the states would coexist peacefully and abide by international laws, the Jews wanted to go back to the colonial era. France and Britain, that were the two major colonial powers at the time, went along for a while but quickly pulled back. The Jews then dragged the United States into their demonic scheme where they are keeping it to this day.

Giving up on the European Union, which he says is helping the big three mitigate the economic and political pain America is imposing on them, Clifford May is advising America to go it alone because it can still accomplish all the wonderful things that “nation-building at home” can never accomplish.

In fact, Clifford May is dangling two possible choices in America's face, from which it can take only one. The best choice, in his view, is to squander the lives of America's young and the public wealth by antagonizing the world, and making more enemies propping up and protecting Israel.

The other choice, in his view, is to rebuild America only to see it destroyed in a 9/11 style attack, not just on a couple of buildings in New York City, but all over America from sea to shining sea.

No, Israel could not be so desperate as to require Clifford May to come up with a fantasy of this dimension. It must be that he’s been inhaling the wrong kind of fumes.

No mention of Farrakhan but still purveying Hate

In the everyday life of the real world, most people are familiar with the expression: “guilty by association.” It is an accusation that has the potential to apply in a multitude of instances, which it does some of the time. But in most cases, this happens when innocent people are viewed with suspicion because they worked in a place where someone turned out to be a notorious crook.

Separate and apart from that, the Jewish propaganda machine made it a specialty to create links between disparate events, however tenuous they may be, and call for action where none would be warranted under normal circumstances. The most infamous case being the time when the Jews took advantage of the lightest weight to ever occupy the White House, and convinced him that moral clarity was to think of those who committed 9/11 in New York and ran to hide in Afghanistan, and equate them with a Palestinian mother that was seen holding a toddler in one arm, and throwing a stone at an Israeli tank that was demolishing their house.

Thus, the fake association of a serious act of aggression that resulted in the death of thousands ... with a meager act of self-defense that resulted in no damage at all, was used to legitimize the Jewish genocidal acts of strengthening the occupation of Palestine, calling such acts legitimate exercises of a sovereign state. In addition, all acts of resistance committed by Palestinians against the military occupation of their country, became acts of terrorism in the eyes of the Americans who populate the Washington Beltway.

Buoyed by that kind of success, the operators of the Jewish Propaganda machine saw an opportunity to apply the old principle of doing to America what America allows them to do to others. And so, they brought to America the principle of making tenuous associations where it works for them, and then make demands. One such demand being the need to learn history to avoid repeating it. To that end, the Jews want to impose on America's children the compulsory memorizing of Holocaust stories.

It was inevitable that playing the game of fake associations, gave the Jews the idea of upgrading the game to now fabricate fake associations for a different reason; that of breaking-up existing legitimate associations. That is, if the association between A and B looked like a marriage made in heaven but beyond the control of Jews, they would want to break it up. The way they do it, is to accuse B of associating with C who is evil, and then demand that A break ties with B.

Given that the Jews maintain a long list of people in the C category, they never stop trying to break up associations between Americans and foreigners, and between Americans and Americans. They manage to score a number of successes in this area on a regular basis, where some of the cases are easy to break and some are a little harder to break. But there is one case that turned out to be an impossible nut for them to crack.

You can familiarize yourself with it by reading an article that came under the title: “Democrats Should Police Hate on Their Side of the Aisle, too,” written by Jonathan S. Tobin, and published on January 21, 2019 in National Review Online. For decades, their boogeyman had been the reverend Louis Farrakhan, an African American leader they spent much effort trying to isolate him from his followers, but failing to do so.

Not only that; they finally got it through their thick skulls that the more they try to malign Farrakhan, the more they make him look good in the eyes of the public. And so, while reciting the same old talking points, Jonathan Tobin chose not mention the name Farrakhan in his latest article.

Instead, Tobin employed a new trick. It is to equate two sets of associations, and go from there. On the one hand, there is the association that used to exist between the Republican Party and Steve King. On the other hand, there is the association that continues to exist between the Democratic Party and both Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib.

The Jews are saying that because the Republican Party disciplined Steve King when he made White supremacist remarks, so should the Democratic Party discipline Omar and Tlaib for complaining about the Jewish habit of shamelessly displaying a supremacist tendency, which the Jews do with words and with deeds they commission others to execute on their behalf.

What Tobin has not said is that no Black person has ever owned a White slave, and no Palestinian has ever occupied the property of a Jew anywhere on the planet where the Jews chose to live now or ever.

Until Tobin proves that such has happened, every American of African descent such as Ilhan Omar will have the right to complain about the supremacist attitude of Whites.

As well, every American of Palestinian descent such as Tlaib will have the right to complain about the Jewish occupation of Palestine, especially that there exists an active Jewish lobby paying rascals running for office in America, to go to Palestine and declare that Jews are superior to Palestinians.

Three-quarter-Century of self-deceit is too long

The better something is, the worse will be the process of its decay. This is true of natural organic matter as it is of the institutions we build to help us manage the complexities of the civilization we created.

Democracy is one institution that's turning into a serious problem. It was good while it remained healthy, but it started to decay. It is thus creating signs of what promises to be a horror show like humanity has never seen before. The question we face at this time is this: How can we avoid a fate worse than the two World Wars we endured at great cost to our human development during the Twentieth Century?

To answer that question, we need to understand what it is we're up against. So we begin with an article that came under the title: “Americans are Tired of Middle Eastern Mayhem,” and the subtitle: “Can Washington avoid spending another decade of being entrapped in the Middle Eastern quicksand? Or is it dangerously close to repeating the same poor judgment?” It was written by Daniel R. DePetris, and published on January 17, 2019 in The National Interest. Here are the relevant passages in that article:

“Words don't tell if the US has learned the lesson to avoid another decade of entrapment in the Mideastern quicksand. Washington is close to repeating the same poor judgment. For an explanation as to the region's turmoil, look to the governments of the region. Iran is one government contributing to the region's violence. So are Hamas, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria, the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia's boycott of Qatar and campaign in Yemen. The sectarianism that bubbled after the US invasion of Iraq plagues the region. The deployment of US troops, trillions of wasted dollars and missions with no end-game, are evidence that the underlying assumptions were counterproductive. The American people think so. The message to Arab leaders is this: The US will continue to be in the region to ensure that its interests are defended. They are: protect the homeland, prevent a hegemonic power from dominating the region's politics, and keep oil markets stable for the American consumer”.

What's wrong with this? A single word answers that question: Israel. Not once in the explanation offered by the writer, were the names of Israel or the Jewish lobby in America that's promoting it, mentioned. This is the kind of self-deception that has kept the Middle Eastern tragedy going, and kept it escalating among the various jurisdictions, decade after decade. And you don't have to go too far to ascertain this reality. Just go over the dozens of articles that were written on the subject of America pulling out of Syria, and you'll be convinced that Israel and the Jewish lobby are alone responsible for the horror show that the Middle East has become. Here are 5 articles you might want to consult:

“Trump's losing Syria. Will he lose the whole region too,” a column written by Richard Cohen and published on January 14, 2019 in The Washington Post.

“Middle East Chaos Will Escalate Following the Departure of the Americans,” an article that also came under the subtitle: “If America departs from the Middle East, then the region will become a free-for-all for others,” written by Tanya Goudsouzian and published on January 17, 2019 in The National Interest.

“Trump's Middle East Strategy and the Kurds,” an article that also came under the subtitle: “There's a problem with getting too close to Turkey,” written by Myron Magnet and published on January 17, 2019 in National Review Online.

“The New Battle Over Donald Trump's Foreign Policy,” an article that also came under the subtitle: “National Security adviser John Bolton is increasingly isolated, but the president can ill afford to bleed allies. Rand Paul wants to see through the president's prerogatives,” written by Curtis Mills and published on January 18, 2019 in The National Interest.

“Is Chechnya Putin's blueprint for Syria?” an article that was written by Anna Borshchevskaya, and published on January 17, 2019 in The Hill.

What you'll encounter in the 5 articles are Jewish lamentations of this kind: With America departing, we'll lose Syria if not the whole region. We're losing the Kurds who are joining Assad to avoid being crushed by the hated Turks. This is why John Bolton is going bananas … most likely because he foresees that Syria will fall into Putin's lap who will treat it like he does Chechnya.

And that's the larger part of the discussion which Daniel DePetris has failed to expose. This is due to a democracy that has decayed so badly, it created a kind of Jewish-only political correctness that causes everyone to censor the self.

The act of constantly attributing positive superlatives to Jews, and negative superlatives to those who refuse to bow to them, has created a system of self-deceit that made the devilish Jews look like capable paragons of righteousness; and made everyone else look like helpless wicked sinners.

And so, to borrow from the language of economics which says: “If you don't do it, the market will do it for you,” we can say that if pundits continue to shy away from discussing the Jewish shortcomings openly and honestly, the street mobs of the future will handle the matter their own unpleasant way.

In fact, you should know that you do not protect the Jews by hiding their shortcomings; you deliver them to their executioners, and do worse than wash your hands like a miserable coward. What you do is hide your head in the sand like the US Congress of moral prostitutes.

Between a silent Majority and a vocal Minority

Depending on your point of view, the United States of America is blessed with or suffering from a slow burning civil war that has been going on for half a century between a silent majority as defined by the late President Richard Nixon, and a vocal minority that is defined by as many oral passageways as a millipede has legs.

Still a majority but on its way to become a minority, this wing of the American society is made of middle-class blue collar and white-collar workers. It is increasingly becoming vocal, but doing things in accordance with the principles of law and order as championed by Richard Nixon. The rank-and-file try to effectuate the changes they want through the ballot box, but given that Washington no longer responds to the people that elect it, blocs of that majority are splitting away from the core, and forming separate groups that range in temperament from the moderate to extreme.

In the same way that the British generation of the 1950s was forced into seeing the reality of the new world order by the fiasco that resulted from the 1956 attack on Egypt, the American generation of the new millennium was forced to acknowledge the reality of the new, new world order by the disastrous involvement of its military in the Middle East. And just as the British reckoned that they had to retrench from their various involvements in overseas affairs, the Americans began to think along the same line.

As to the vocal minority in America, it is tackling a multitude of issues simultaneously. Such issues pertain to local matters as well as international ones. Locally, the members of this wing want to erase the lines that separate people from each other, be they of different skin color, status, religious affiliation, level of wealth, sexual orientation, gender or what have you. At the international level, they want to disengage from all military agreements, and bring the soldiers home. On the other hand, they want the United States to participate in all kinds of global institutions as an equal member among the nations of the world.

While these people are united in their embrace of those principles, they are separated into small groups on most other issues. It is not that they oppose each other on the issues; it is that each group sits snugly in its cocoon, feeling protected against the kind of outside influence which could damage the turf they have constructed for themselves.

Separated from those two wings are the Jewish organizations. They hover above them like a sorority of vultures, and watch for the opening of an opportunity to swoop down on them and exploit them. The Jews have an agenda of their own, which consists of promoting Israel without restriction or limit, as well as boosting it to become the undisputed hegemon of the Middle East ... possibly even what lies beyond the region. While this is their international agenda, the Jews know they cannot implement it without first taking control of the United States of America. This is why they have also developed a national agenda.

Two articles will help us understand how the Jews implement their two agendas. At the international level, there is the Shelley Neese article that came under the title: “Why the US and Israel Were Right to Leave UNESCO,” published on January 17, 2019 in Algemeiner. At the national level, there is the Philip Terzian article that came under the title: “A misplaced human rights award,” published on January 14, 2019 in The Washington Times.

Reading the Neese article, you get the impression that you're hearing a dirty old woman tell a teenager that if he came with her to the bedroom, she'll show him how the two of them can work together and accomplish exciting things the world will never know about.

That scene represents the Jews who failed to conjugate with anyone since the beginning of time. They now believe they discovered a receptive ear in America without thinking for a moment of the possibility that before Israel will have become the hegemon of their dream, their fate in America will have come to resemble what they met everywhere else in the world. Such fate came about each time that they thought they had discovered a receptive ear with whom to forge a weird relationship. The trouble is that they failed to realize then, as they fail to understand now, that the human species is not used to their kind of weird, if not deviant relationship.

As to the Terzian article, reading it gives the impression that you're hearing an ex-con that's out on parole, scream at a police officer for giving a traffic ticket to the driver of a speeding car instead of arresting him and throwing him in jail.

That scene represents the Jews whose problem is that they live in the fake world of negative superlatives about others, and positive superlatives about themselves. The consequence being that they grow up without developing the sense of proportion which allows normal human beings to differentiate between what is normal and what is beyond the pale.

The Jews do things that people tolerate for a while thinking that they will change at some point. But instead of changing, the Jews take the silence of others as a sign that what they do is kosher. And so, they double down, thus force people to become abnormally angry. The result is that the usually normal human beings begin to act in a manner that’s out of character; and before you know it, engage in a pogrom or a holocaust.

And the Jews never learn, so they begin the cycle all over again.

Beware the deadly Tricks of the morally Bankrupt

Think about it, a 95-year-old man that had been in the United States for 70 years, was deported back to Europe because the pretentious “humanity-loving” Jewish lobby told the mentally retarded zombies populating the Washington Beltway that a despicable act of this magnitude could win them a handful of Jewish votes.

One of the bullhorns amplifying the voice of the Jewish lobby, is the New York Daily News (NYDN). Its editors celebrated the deportation of the old man — not because it was meant to produce something good for America or Europe but — because it demonstrated to the world that the Jews were firmly in control of the Beltway, including everything and everyone in it. A few months later, the old man succumbed to his advanced age, and died a peaceful death in Europe. And guess what happened. The editors of the NYDN celebrated his death as if that day was Yom Kippur and Hanukkah rolled into one. This is how the Jews love humanity.

To the human race, this is hate expressed at a magnitude that can never be surpassed. But the Jews that had been at odds with humanity since the beginning of time, continue to try convincing anyone who listens to them, that what they did was correct because the man — when young and living under occupation — was hired to stand guard at the gate of a concentration camp housing Jews. He killed no one, did not mistreat the prisoners with whom he did not even come into contact, but stood guard instead of deserting his post. And this was enough according to the Jews, to merit the hate campaign they unleashed against him, till he was deported.

Now that they turned-on that same mentality, the editors of the NYDN came up with a piece under the title: “The Trump-protesting women's movement must stride past pockets of hate,” published on January 18, 2019. It happens that on the opinion page — where thousands of articles were published over the years in which the editors and their contributors praised the genocidal activities of the armed-to-the-teeth Jews occupying Palestine — the editors of the NYDN chose to denounce the leaders of the women's movement because the latter would not unleash hate in the way that the Jews do it.

The beef of the editors is that one of the women leaders is too friendly with Louis Farrakhan, a man that is not armed to the teeth with guns, tanks, helicopters or missile-bearing warplanes, but endowed with a big heart dedicated to the welfare of his people, in addition to sympathizing with the Palestinians who suffer in their own country under the yoke of a satanic Jewish occupation. This is the situation as of now, but the Jewish hate machine is not stopping here. It is preparing to move to phase two of the operation where it plans to turn the words into action. So, here is the passage in the article that heralds and describes that upcoming move:

“Today, thousands of women will march in New York and other cities, in two separate marches. That's because a leader of the Women's March organization that started it all, Tamika Mallory, is an avowed fan of Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan, one of the most noxious anti-Semites in America”.

The editors are saying, “two separate marches,” but do not fully explain what the words mean. Instead, they hint at the reason why something is bound to happen. It is that Tamika Mallory is a fan of Louis Farrakhan, they say. Well, my friend, if you missed the implied implication, here is what that means: Either Tamika Mallory steps down and the Women's March is handed entirely to a Jew, or the women's movement is splintered into at least two parts, with one part going to the Jews.

And then guess what will happen. Let me give you a hint: Bipartisanship. Does that word ring the bell? It means that the Jews will turn the women's movement into a lamentable whorehouse modelled after the two-party system that's in charge of the US Congress of hookers where every need that is meant to serve the American people is blocked in a bipartisan way; and every demand that is made by the Judeo-Israeli lobby, is approved in a bipartisan way ... all this without a debate or anything as silly as that.

And so, to avoid creating another institution that the Jews will dominate and use as a vehicle to plunder America and Palestine, the Women's March must sharpen its antennas and calibrate them to catch every hint at termite-like subtle activities meant to splinter the movement.

When they detect something, a task force must be assembled at once, and put to work on defeating the effort of the cowardly Jews and their Christian whores, be they male or female.

Once again, they fell flat on their Faces

Faced with mounting criticism that Jews do no more than throw accusations of anti-Semitism at others simply by mentioning histrionics cases without justifying their despicable habit of slandering those who are not in a position to defend themselves — Bill Kristol decided to do something about the matter.

He commissioned Daniella Greenbaum Davis and asked her to find an explanation as to why there is a need to call others anti-Semites. When she did, he published the article she wrote on the website of The Bulwark, a creation of his that is meant to replace The Weekly Standard which died ignominiously not long ago.

The Davis article came under the title: “Are Democrats Willing to Address Their Anti-Semitic Problem?” and the subtitle: “The DNC's withdrawal from the Women's March was smart, but Democrats have been largely silent on the matter.” It was published on January 18, 2019 on the website of the Bulwark. Here is the explanation:

“Intersectionality has led modern society to believe that white americans [sic] are always guilty of some crime or other, while marginalized populations are always the oppressed and never the oppressors. This explains why mainstream Democrats have been tepid about rebuking people like Tamika Mallory, Linda Sarsour, Keith Ellison, Rashida Tlaib, and Ilhan Omar when they say and do things that can only be characterized as anti-Semitic”.

Are you impressed? Are you satisfied that the above passage explains why the Black and Brown skins she named, deserve to be accused of anti-Whitism, and further accused that their stance automatically turns them into anti-Semites as well? While you're ruminating over this, let me tell you about something you can verify. It will explain why humanity has torched the Jews for what they have been doing since the beginning of time — and nobody is celebrating. It will also explain why an organization such as the DNC would do no more than withdraw from the Women's March — only to see the Jews celebrate what they consider a victory, then call for the imposition of even more punishment.

Here is what you need to do: Ask Fox News to give you copy of the half-hour portion of a show the network ran between 10:30 AM and 11:00 AM on Friday, January 18, 2019. You'll see in it a segment that was hosted by Bill Hemmer and Sandra Smith as they interviewed Ari Fleischer on that subject. Those who are familiar with the issues will find that Fleischer's responses were a repetition of the Jewish talking points they have adopted since flipping from asking the audiences not to conflate Israel's actions and those of America's Jews, to now tell the audiences that the two are one and the same. In fact, their new stance is to the effect that to attack any of Israel's actions no matter their nature, is tantamount to attacking the very existence of Jews.

And that's not even the big deal. To understand what else happened on that show, you need to know something that's known to teachers who worked with difficult students; also known to people who worked in correctional services. It is that criminals who were punished and have turned coward, yet cannot stop committing crimes, look for ways to commit forbidden acts that appear inadvertent or accidental.

Now watch the Fox News show and catch Bill Hemmer say that Ilhan Omar is of Palestinian descent. A few minutes later, catch Ari Fleischer say that Ilhan Omar is of Palestinian descent. You can be certain that this is a premeditated, meticulously scripted and choreographed “inadvertent accident” that is as Jewish as the rape of young and defenseless actresses by aging Jewish moguls. The truth is that Ilhan Omar is of Somali descent, and she is defending the Palestinians for the same reason that I do: It is the right thing to do, and the obligation of everyone that stands for human decency, and feels that he or she can do something about it.

Now that you know this is something that's happening, you need to know it has been happening all the time for at least the last 50 years ... even before Linda Ellerbee wrote a book to tell all about it. In fact, those who visited a public or college library even before the 1967 Middle East war, would have foreseen the advent of this Jewish plague. That's because while browsing the pages of books treating subjects of interest to Jews, the readers would have seen printed words crossed out and replaced with hand-written words that were insulting to Arabs; sentences that were savagely mutilated, and paragraphs that were redacted to hide their meaning.

And then it happened that decent people got fed up with that beastly Jewish behavior, and returned the favor by commenting on the phenomenon with words of their own that said things like: “Do you now understand why Hitler did what he did?” Other people called the Jews nasty names, and others called them viruses.

I do not know why someone called the Jews viruses this long ago, but if you consider that a virus spreads not by procreation but by entering the human cell and tricking it into producing more viruses — you'll see the analogy of the Jewish producers working with the operators in the control rooms, the copy writers and the guests they invite, to trick innocent hosts such as Bill Hemmer and Sandra Smith, into spreading the Jewish disease, not realizing how they were abused, how democracy was misused, and how the American public was raped morally.

Another thing that Ari Fleischer did is complain about the observation that Jews control much of the world. Well, Fleischer is old enough to remember a time when saying that Jews controlled Hollywood, meant the sudden death of your career, and your subsequent exile into oblivion. But then the Jews decided it was okay to say that Jews control Hollywood, and so they commissioned one of their own to write a book under the in-your-face title of: Jews control Hollywood, so what?

And so we ask: why the reversal? The answer is that everywhere the Jews go, they try to control what's around them. They hate being accused of it because they fear losing their grip on things. But the moment they feel they will maintain control no matter what is said, they come out and brag about their accomplishment.

That's what is happening to them now with regard to their attempt at controlling the world by controlling America. It is not that they feel innocent of the charge; it is that they fear seeing their plans derailed if the truth came out too soon … before they complete the control.

Schooled by Arcade Videos and Western Movies

Benny Avni wrote a column that is so superficial even by his standard, there is no way we can make sense of what we encounter reading it, and no straightforward manner by which to discuss it intelligently. For these reasons, I must employ an unusual method to dig out what may be going on deep inside the author's brain.

So, imagine a group of scholars coming from a faraway planet to study intelligent life on Earth. Because they have been to other planets in the Milky Way, they have determined that while history is made by random chance ten percent of the time, it is made ninety percent of the time when forces generated by the decision makers come into play. Such forces can be of the emotional type or be the product of a rational design.

The scholars from outer space know they will eventually have to study the history of human civilization going back to its beginnings before they will close the books on Planet Earth and move on to another planet. But they just arrived, and so they start as usual, by recording their first impressions of what they see. It happened that they caught a Benny Avni column which came under the title: “Trump can't just let the Treasury do the fighting,” published on January 16, 2019 in the New York Post. And they plan to make full use of it.

Their preliminary observation is to the effect that Avni's piece suggests that human beings are automatons endowed with some kind of rudimentary intelligence. Moreover, the humans appear to be animated by an algorithm whose origin remains mysterious, which is a challenge for the scholars, but one they plan to unearth and study in depth.

Nevertheless, to explain what's behind their early observation, the scholars from outer space pointed to the following condensed passages in the Avni article: “Four US troops and 15 Kurds were killed ... Erdogan wants to send troops to Syria; views the Kurds as terrorists; plans to go after them; what to do? Trump threatened to devastate Turkey economically if Erdogan harms the Kurds.” And they commented that they did not sense any kind of soul or spiritualism in what the people on Earth think or do. It makes them look like automatons.

Capable of changing their shape into the form that serves their purpose, a number of extraterrestrial researchers took on the human form and beamed down to Earth where they mingled with human beings across the planet. Their goal was to gain firsthand experience at living like humans without their identity being detected. To their surprise, they discovered that far from being soulless, most human beings brimmed with an active soul. It happened, however, that a couple of researchers encountered individuals who acted like automatons … of the kind that was alluded to in the Benny Avni article.

Done with this part of the mission, the researchers returned to the spaceship, and gathered in the convention hall to discuss their findings. Each researcher stepped to the lectern and described what they did, what they saw, and what they felt was worthy of note. They were followed at the lectern by observers who were sitting at the back of the hall, connected mentally to a hyper-computer. Together, man and machine instantly integrated the information they were hearing into hypotheses that represented something tangible.

They came up with ideas that explained the discrepancy between the soulless characters alluded to in Benny Avni's article, and the soulful human beings that the researchers encountered on the planet. One researcher had described a visit he paid to a video arcade where youngsters go to play games against an algorithm. The alien researcher played the game to experience it personally, and felt like he was turning into an automaton. And so, the observer that soaked in this information, concluded that this is what happened to Benny Avni who must have been a regular player at the arcade. Reduced to detecting only the automatism in others, Avni became a filter that discarded the spiritual side of people. It is what's reflected in his column, says the observer from outer space.

As to the second researcher, he said he was so intrigued by the last 6 words in the Avni article, he went into every relevant nook and cranny to find out what Avni meant by: “a bond now sealed in blood.” And he may have found the answer, he said. In fact, he went into a film library, hooked himself via a subspace frequency to the supercomputer on the spaceship, and spent the night viewing thousands of old and new movies. He discovered that in movies they call “Western,” solemn agreements such as treaties and weddings, are made official and irrevocable by the mixing of blood taken from the parties in the agreement. And so, the observer that soaked in this information, concluded that Benny Avni must have been an avid watcher of old Western movies.

Well, given these realities, I must admit it. From the looks of it, I owe Benny Avni an apology. His column may look superficial, but it has an extraterrestrial dimension to it. It could even be that the dimension extends as deeply as deep space itself … and just as vacuously.