A golden Chance to let them do the right Thing

Imagine the following scenario:

You are an employer, you interview an applicant for a vacancy in your enterprise and you hire the guy, based on letters of recommendation from previous employers that praise him no end.

He starts working, but after a few weeks, you realize that he bungles most of what he touches. You talk to other employees that have been with you a long time, and happen to be collaborating with the new hire on a daily basis. Pressed to speak honestly, they give you a poor assessment of the man’s abilities.

You go back and look into his file where you see inconsistencies in the letters of recommendation that you glanced at superficially while interviewing the guy. But now that you're examining the documents closely, you discover that some letters came from companies that never existed. Others came from companies that went bankrupt. And still others seem to indicate he was working full time in several companies at the same time.

You realize that the man pulled a fast one on you. You get angry and think of him as a con artist; a man that lacks scruples who abused your trust. But you also blame yourself for failing to be so careful as to avoid making the mistake of hiring him in the first place.

Back to reality. That kind of scenario is not a farfetched story. It is true that some employees exaggerate their credentials when applying for a job. But it is also true that other employees do not bother writing resumes, relying instead on the intelligence of the employer to assess their abilities during the interview. And there is wisdom in taking this approach. It is that an employee that's secure in his professional abilities does not want to work for a boss that doesn't know what he is doing. Thus, while the latter is assessing the applicant through the verbal exchange, it also happens that the applicant is assessing the prospective boss.

This brings us to the characters who manage, by some trickery, to get hired as advisers to government departments in the so-called democracies. They do it by supplying professional writers of resumes with false information, and get them to write glowing documents about them. Armed with such documents, they manage to get jobs advising what they know little or nothing about, and never get reprimanded because reprimand never happens in government jobs. One such character is Payton Knopf who is now loafing in the halls of an outfit calling itself the US Institute of Peace, and wants to get back advising the State Department on the Sudan and South Sudan.

In fact, Knopf was there a few times before, helping the American government as well as an assortment of shady characters and organizations from around the world, to make a mess of Sudan. These were the know-nothing self-proclaimed do-gooders from Hollywood, their pedophile sidekicks and the money grabbing wannabe colonial predators who relied on the work of con artists that posed as advisers. They got into Darfur, Eastern Sudan and South Sudan, and turned the country into a hellhole. The same bunch is again looking for an excuse to get back into Sudan and resume doing the evil deeds they miss so much.

In fact, when you go through his article (Golden hour in the Horn of Africa, Washington Examiner, April 27, 2019) you find very little that says: here is what's good for the Sudan and its people. On the contrary, it's all about what's good for America, itself a euphemism that's known to mean: what's good for Israel. What follows is a condensed version of what the Payton Knopf article is saying:

“Political changes are underway in the Horn of Africa, at the strategic crossroads of the Middle East, North Africa and the Sahel. The region is at an inflection point. The US response to events in Sudan will determine whether it emerges more stable or tips into the abyss. The military deposed the President, establishing a council to rule, subsequently receiving support from Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. State failure in Sudan would be catastrophic for the US and its European allies. The US is operating from a deficit of credibility. Together with its partners, it should articulate a road map for Sudan. The pledge by Saudi Arabia and the UAE to provide $3 billion of aid to Sudan could lead other regional states to back different elements inside Sudan. Congress can ensure that the administration has sufficient resources to align its strategic ends with its means”.

Given the way that America has performed in the Middle East during the last two decades or so, it is unlikely that any Arab or Muslim country will again join the United States in a military coalition or any coalition.

It also goes without saying that the United States will find it extremely difficult to persuade European countries to go along with it and do something in Africa, having assessed America as a potential employer that’s not good enough to be their boss. What this means, is that America will operate alone in Sudan, pretending to serve American interests but in reality, doing the dirty if not criminal work for Israel.

And if you want to know how dirty that work will be, you'll find the answer by recalling a time when America was under Republican rule, and “Democratic” Susan Rice was so hungry to be hired as adviser by anybody, she turned to the Jews and asked them what to say or do.

They told her to go out and advocate the bombing of the oil installations in Sudan. And Susan Rice went on national television and advocated the bombing of the oil installations in Sudan. She could not have gotten closer than this to advocating the commission of crimes against humanity.

In consequence of all that, let it be known that the Sudanese people do not need any more help from the Hollywood types or from pedophiles or from money grabbing colonial predators or the likes of Payton Knopf or Susan Rice.

They want these characters to stay as far away from them as can be, so that they may do what's right for the country and for its people without being disrupted by the evil incarnates who almost annihilated them once before.

But what is it that CNN is hoping for?

CNN is running an article on its website under a weird title that goes like this: “Egypt's era of hope has ended,” written by Sarah El Sirgany and published on April 25, 2019.

Nowhere in the article does it say who or what is referred to by the term “Egypt,” and what exactly the thing was hoping for ... that has ended so abruptly. And then, instead of starting the article by explaining that riddle to help the readers understand what the article is about, Sirgany began by telling the readers about protesters in Sudan and Algeria that distrust their militaries because “those made in Cairo have since been broken.” Be that as it may, what happened after the distrust? Did the protesters abort the protests and go home to mommy? We'll never know because the editors at CNN never asked Sirgany to clarify.

Sarah Sirgany had nothing more to say about the protesters, and this left the readers wondering what damage Egypt did to Sudan and Algeria by unknowingly ending its own hopes … whatever they may have been in the eyes of the geniuses at CNN. But instead of fixing this literary defect, the writer of the article went on to tell that President Sisi of Egypt, who ran twice and won, may run a third time.

And given that there was mention of the neighboring states of Sudan and Algeria for whatever obscure reason, you'd expect Sirgany to admit that even if Sisi will run a third time and win, it will be less than Netanyahu's five runs in Israel, the adjacent entity that is a closer neighbor to Egypt than is faraway Algeria, and closer to its capital city of Cairo (as well as the still unnamed new capital) than is adjacent Sudan.

The article says there has been a referendum in Egypt, and the people approved several measures, one of which extends the electoral cycle from the American style four-year term to the European style six-year term. This will give the current president and sitting parliamentarians, the right to run again for their respective positions in 2024 and if successful, remain in power till the year 2030. So the question is this: What's wrong with that? And the answer is this: Nothing really is wrong to a normal person.

But the reality is that CNN is staffed with a bunch of abnormal people that have no right to vote in Egypt, thus lament the decision of the millions who voted and gave their support to the man that delivered on the promise of transforming what used to be called “basket case Egypt” into a modern economy that's on the path to become the seventh most powerful in the world by that very same year 2030. This being the cold eye assessment of those who do high level economics for a living.

In fact, that's when, according to a major British team of economists –– backed with figures published by such institutions as the IMF and the World Bank –– Egypt  will by then, be ahead of every African and European country without exception, ahead of every North American country except the United States, ahead of every South American country except Brazil, and ahead of every Asian country except China, India, Indonesia and Turkey. Get this: Egypt will be ahead of such juggernauts as Germany and Japan by that time.

Whether or not this prediction will come true by that date, the reality is that President Sisi has put the country on a path of tangible gains that have turned the old era of idle hopes in Egypt into a new era of abundant opportunities for everyone to realize their dream. So the question to ask is this: How did Sisi do it?

We recall a time when the late President Anwar Sadat started to implement a policy of “infitah,” which is Arabic for opening. That is, he started the process of opening the Egyptian economy to the world. For this to succeed, he needed the stamp of approval from the IMF, and so he asked the world organization for a loan. As usual, the IMF attached conditions to granting the loan, and this meant applying austerity measures that would have affected the subsidy programs entrenched in the Egyptian system since the Second World War. The people protested vehemently because they were never consulted ahead of time, and Sadat backed out of the original plan. He implemented a less stringent one that was nevertheless successful by all measures.

Decades have passed, much water has gone under the bridge, and Egypt was ready for another attempt at infitah, now known as globalization. Sisi was there to implement a realistic program, but needed the IMF stamp of approval to make it work. Rather than be deterred from implementing the conditions that come with the loan, as did presidents before him, Sisi got down to earth and was open with the people of Egypt.

He told the people they'll be going through hard times brought about by the austerity measures, but the country will come out of that period stronger than ever before, and he asked them to be patient. The people trusted Sisi and accepted his argument. He started the program, and the people went along with it.

When the success of the policy became obvious to everyone, Sisi asked the people to vote in a referendum and approve his continued leadership so that he may complete the program by 2030, subject to another general election that will be held in the year 2024. And the people gave Sisi a strong yes.

And this was the development that ignited –– not a fire of apprehension in the belly of the clowns at Wolf Blitzer and Jeff Zucker’s CNN –– but a volcano of self-induced terror in their collective tummy. Guess why.

Investigate this pathetic one-sided Haggling

Everywhere in the world, when arguments happen between two sides, each side turns out to favor an outcome that's the opposite of the one favored by the other side.

The same thing usually happens in the United States of America except when one side is Jewish, at which time the give-and-take ceases to be an argument, and becomes a never-ending haggling between a Jew representing Jewish matters, and a Jew representing other Jewish matters, with both sides calling for an outcome that’s favorable to Israel. And they call this charade, free speech protected by the First Amendment.

This has been the shameful scene for at least half a century in America, a span of time when the Jews monopolized all discussions about the predominantly Arab Middle East, turning the talks into a haggling match between Jews spewing one Jewish point of view, and Jews spewing another Jewish point of view without Arab participation. And contrary to a normal discussion in which one side or the other wins unless the two forge a compromise — the haggling has always centered on the best way to serve the interests of Israel.

In fact, this is what's happening now ahead of the American administration releasing a plan that promises to resolve the issues related to the Jewish occupation of Palestine. Every Jew and his sidekick have been writing about the subject, and three of them got into an actual, Jewish-style haggling match.

Two of those, Aaron David Miller and Richard Sokolsky, got together and wrote an article under the title: “Trump Isn't Just Reversing Obama's Foreign Policies. He's Making it Impossible for His Successor to Go Back to Them,” and the subtitle: “How the administration will fundamentally damage US national interests for years to come.” It was published in Politico Magazine on April 23, 2019.

Two days later, Jonathan S. Tobin responded to the Miller and Sokolsky's article with one of his own that came under the title: “Trump's Middle East Policies Are Not 'irreversible,'” and the subtitle: “Don't worry Democrats, you can still reinstate Obama's failed approach to the region.” It was published in National Review Online on April 25, 2019.

What Miller and Sokolsky are saying is that the Trump administration is not just killing the Iran nuclear agreement as well as foreclosing on the idea of a two-state solution in Palestine; it is stopping the Iran deal from coming back to life, and making it impossible for a Palestinian state to happen at all.

They explain that the decision to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization will stand in the way of a future administration reversing the Trump decision on the nuclear deal because it will be accused of enabling state sponsored terrorism. As to the issue of Palestinian statehood, by allowing Israel to annex the settlements, the idea of creating a Palestinian state will become a physical impossibility.

Enter Jonathan Tobin who calls these arguments nonsense. He seems to indicate that Aaron Miller and Richard Sokolsky were trying to scare members of the Democratic Party into believing that the Republican administration of Donald Trump was working on a doomsday scenario that even if they win the upcoming presidential election, they will not be able to reverse the Trump doings, or save humanity for that matter.

Fearing that the Democrats will be so energized as to go all out and try to defeat Donald Trump in the upcoming election, Jonathan Tobin wanted to reassure them that there will always be a way for a Democratic President to reverse the Trump doings anytime they win the White House, be that in the near future or the far future. Here, in condensed form, are his own words in that regard:

“Miller and Sokolsky believe that Trump's successor won't be able to reverse his approach to the Palestine issue or his withdrawal from the Iran deal. But it is not beyond the Democrats' power to send us back to the situation Trump inherited from Obama. Iran and the Palestinians hope that these setbacks can be reversed because they are told by Western interlocutors they should sit tight until 2021, when a Democratic successor to Trump will reinstate Obama's policies … Any Democrat who seeks to reverse these moves will face opposition. Yet, Trump's measures have not blown up the region, leaving open the possibility of returning to the old policies”.

But Jonathan Tobin shows signs that he is the one that's worried now about Trump losing the upcoming election. And so, he took pain to warn the Republican voters that: “Trump is justified. His policy changes strengthen America's position in the Middle East. But the permanence of those changes remains in the hands of the voters.”

In other words, Jonathan Tobin is telling the Republican masses to go out and vote on election day or else.

Single Word Characterization and the Boomerang

Read the following paragraph, and please do not pass any judgment till you've read the explanation that follows it. The explanation tells what this whole exercise is about:

“The Jewish mob of pundits has added another 'pearl' to its library of remarks about Louis Farrakhan, characterizing him as 'antisemitic.' As with previous attacks, the mob didn't explain its use of one of the deadliest insults that exist in American and Western discourse. Average readers were expected to simply believe the mob. The problem is that there are millions who will. And worse — even those who don't believe it — will be influenced. The term 'antisemitic,' which the mob applied to Farrakhan by an irresponsible turn of the phrase, will take root in the public consciousness, and every time Farrakhan is mentioned, the word will be associated with him. That is how propaganda works, and the mob knows it very well”.

Here is the explanation: This paragraph is a slight modification of the first few paragraphs that started the article written by Ariel Bolstein under the title: “Sanders Slanders Israel … Again,” and was published on April 24, 2019 in Algemeiner. The difference between what you've just read and what Bolstein wrote, is that the name, Sanders was replaced by 'mob of Jewish pundits.' The name, Israel was replaced by Louis Farrakhan. And the term, 'racist' was replaced by 'antisemitic'.

Therefore, instead of this being a complaint registered by Ariel Bolstein about the unfair treatment of Israel by Bernie Sanders, it became a complaint about the unfair treatment of Louis Farrakhan by the mob of Jewish pundits. The intent behind using this method to illustrate my point, is to show that Jews project onto others the ugliness they see in themselves.

Another reason for doing this, is to show that the Jews know exactly what they are doing when they slander someone. I mentioned Farrakhan because it is a name that's familiar to many readers, but the accusation of antisemitism, which the Jews throw at every individual and every organization that refuse to toe the Jewish line, is so pervasive, the damage that the mob causes to innocent people is incalculable. And when you take into account what the slandering organizations do to people behind their backs, you realize how filthy, cowardly and savage these Jewish organizations are.

And then, there is another dimension that must be added to this story. It is that Israel has many ways by which to defend itself against such accusation whereas victims — of the Jewish outfits that operate in public or in secret — have no way to defend themselves most of the time. Just recall that when a UN panel equated Zionism with racism, the US government mobilized all its resources to have the finding repealed. Who would do a similar favor for Louis Farrakhan or the countless victims who are hurt by the Jewish habit of attacking those that cannot defend themselves?

Finally, Ariel Bolstein ended his presentation as follows:

“The fact that Sanders is Jewish was a great boon for those who slander Israel. When a Jew hurls accusation at his own people or the Jewish state, it always sounds more convincing. That is nothing new, either — for antisemites, Jews who turned on their own or made up stories about them were always especially valuable”.

The truth is that Bernie Sanders is a Left wing, Progressive politician whose conscience requires him to stand with the oppressed by revealing the sordid truth about their oppressors. This is why, at the risk of taking a political hit to his political campaign, Sanders spoke not against Israel, but against the rightwing government in Israel that's in charge of implementing the harsh policies imposed on Palestinians in the occupied territories of the West Bank, as well as imposing a genocidal blockade on Gaza.

Moreover, whereas no one is paying Bernie Sanders to say what he says, the nobility of this man can be gauged by contrasting his moral stance against what else is going on in the world of American politics. All you need to do is turn your attention to the Fox News Channel which pays Muslims to come on the air and denigrate Islam. Pays African Americans to come on the air and denigrate African Americans. And pays Asians to come on the air and denigrate Asians, be they Asian Americans or those minding their business at home in Asia.

The phenomenon of a Jew speaking against another Jew is a sign that things have gone too far, and that the boomerang is about to turn around and hit the source that produced it.

But like all men and women of goodwill, Sanders loves the principles he grew up with to let charlatans serve their own interests by defiling those principles, and by hurting innocent people in the process.

And so, Bernie Sanders decided to speak out and tell the truth. For this, he should be praised by everyone, including Jews, not attacked by anyone as did Ariel Bolstein.

Grown-ups in Power playing with Baby Toys

When we think of baby toys, we think of physical objects that attract the attention of small babies because the little ones can play with them and be entertained.

But babies can also be entertained with other things we do not consider toys because they are not physical objects. For example, the thing can be a light of different colors that blinks, or it can be a sound that plays a joyful tune.

However, the joy of having toys and playing with them is not restricted to babies. Grown-ups too like to have toys they can play with and be entertained. The difference is that the appearance and function of the toys change to suit the age and maturity of the children as they grow from being toddlers to adults and go on to become geriatrics. Parallel to that, preference to sounds and imagery alter as human beings go through changes in life.

What is notable in all of this, is that babies of all cultures respond in the same way to the same toys, the same sights and the same sounds. But as they grow up in different cultures, their taste in sounds and imagery adapt to the culture. Thus, what might entertain grown-ups in one culture might annoy, even offend grown-ups in another culture.

This reality explains why, despite its general popularity, Hollywood has raised the ire of those that looked critically at its portrayal of different cultures. In fact, Hollywood took liberty stereotyping negatively peoples that ranged from the savage native Americans in the old Westerns movies, to the helpless child-like Africans in the Tarzan movies, to the unruly and mindless Arabs often portrayed as running around like a bunch of chicken that had their heads cut-off.

With this in mind, it is easy to see why ordinary Americans that grew up feeding on that kind of stereotypical diet, grew up believing that if their politicians will do something to offend the Arabs at the behest of Jews, the Arabs will run around and denounce America like unruly and mindless chicken that had their heads cut-off. But when the politicians did what the Jews had asked for, and the Arabs shrugged it off, the Jews that advocated offending the Arabs, took credit and said: See? We told you the Arabs will not dare shake their fist at America; so let us offend the Arabs some more.

In any case, what Hollywood had been doing to the Arabs over the years has abated somewhat in recent years. But the Jews who created the false image of the Arabs in the first place did not forget. What they are doing now, is train the mob of Jewish pundits to paint that same image of the Iranians who replaced the Arabs as bete noire in the eyes of the Jews. And this is what you'll find underlying two articles that were published on the same day, April 23, 2019 in two different publications.

Benny Avni published: “Iran is putting its hopes on a Democratic president,” a column that appeared in the New York Post. As to Jonathan S. Tobin, his column came under the title: “Trump's Iran Sanctions Are a Risk Worth Taking,” and was printed in National Review Online. Both writers are discussing a decision by the Trump administration to tighten the sanctions on the countries and companies that will continue to import Iranian oil after a certain date.

And so, you have Benny Avni alluding to masses of Iranians running around, sooner or later, like a bunch of chicken that had their heads cut-off because, “with the economy faltering, Tehran will be forced to make a do-or-die choice: Renegotiate the nuclear deal … or face regime collapse”.

And you have Jonathan Tobin asserting that, “with the Iranian economy tanking, this is the right moment for the US to tighten the noose around Tehran.” Again, the image here is that sooner or later, masses of Iranians will be running around like a bunch of chicken that had their heads cut-off.

But why did we not hear protests come from the Arabs; or for that matter the Muslims, the Iranians, the Turks and the many others whom the Jews have maligned at one time or another, and where successive American administrations have acted on the Jewish calumny as if it were true?

There aren't protests coming from the rest of the world because the planet has adjusted to the reality that an armed madman called America is holding it hostage, and threatening to blow up the place if anyone would harm his Jewish companion.

Meanwhile, the madman has needs; one of which being to relieve himself once in a while. When he asks the Jew what to do, the Jew replies: unzip your trouser, pull your penis out and pee without turning your back on the hostages … and keep your eyes on them all the time.

This is what madman America has been doing, taking instructions from the Jew. The world has gotten used to it, and so, does not get shocked anymore. But the world is waiting for the madman to get exhausted and fall asleep.

Is there a toy that will help a big baby fall asleep any faster?

He keeps calling for a War of the Religions

You may not be convinced that the cycle begins with the Jews aiming for all or nothing where they most likely end up with nothing. They respond by going “all the way” one more time but when the result comes in, it proves to have been a bungled attempt that led them to a pogrom or a holocaust, as well as the specter of a Final Solution. And they don't like it either.

If you're still not convinced this is the perpetual cycle in which the Jews have been operating since time immemorial, there is something that will convince you. It is a column that came under the title: “The Battle of Afghanistan,” written by Clifford D. May and published on April 23, 2019 in The Washington Times.

Look how May started the discussion, and then marvel at the way that Jews create a chain of fake links to ultimately reach conclusions that relate to the start of the discussion as well as a squirrel relates to the Brooklyn Bridge. Here is Clifford May's first sentence: “Afghanistan is often said to be America's longest war, but that's imprecise … When did the conflict begin?”

It takes the writer a complete essay to answer that question. But as you'll find out, he ends up saying that the war between Afghanistan and America started eight centuries before America was even discovered. To make a leap of the kind that's possible only in fiction, the writer speaks not of Afghanistan but of Islam, and speaks not of America but of Christendom.

From there, Clifford May proceeds on the basis that America's war in Afghanistan is an extension of the war of religions that started in the Seventh Century with the rise of Islam, long before the Fifteenth Century discovery of what he wants the readers to believe is Christian America … even if America's Constitution says the country is unbiased when it comes to religious preferences, regardless of whether or not a warmongering Jew wishes it were.

In addition, the truth is that no historian has ever said that a state of war has always existed between Islam and Christianity since the rise of Islam, any more than there has been a perpetual war between Christianity and Judaism since the rise of Christianity. In fact, there has never been a perpetual war between those religions and any of the Asian or African or indigenous religions that have existed in the new worlds.

If anything, some religions have been more active than others in proselytizing the faith and in recruiting members of the other religions ... in the same way that sects of the same religion have always tried to attract members of the other sects. But these activities were never considered a war of the religions.

So, where did Clifford May get his information? Well, here is the passage in his column that answers that question:

“The rulers of the Islamic Republic of Iran, al Qaeda, the Islamic State and the many other jihadi groups now operating in dozens of countries all agree that the war they are waging began in the 7th century, when the first Islamic armies sprang from Arabia, conquering kingdoms, lands and peoples throughout the ancient world”.

Well, well, well, if Clifford May has any self-respect, he would pray we shall refuse to believe that the characters he mentioned have actually said what he attributes to them. That's because if it is true that these people said those things, and he came to believe them despite the fact that no historian has ever made such a claim, we shall be forced to conclude that Clifford D. May is in league with the likes of al Qaeda, the Islamic State and other jihadi groups. Is this the company he likes to keep?

It seems so because he and they are soul brothers –– almost twins that think alike and want the same thing: an endless war of the religions. Lest we believe Clifford May developed his views alone, he took pain to tell us about his collaborators. Here, in condensed form, is how he tells that story:

“Zalmay Khalilzad has been negotiating with the Taliban, and has announced a draft agreement. My colleagues, Thomas Joscelyn and Bill Roggio characterize it as a charade. They are convinced that it will provide the United States with a decent interval. They believe the Taliban's relationship with al-Qaeda is strong. Bolstering their thesis, the Taliban announced a new [initiative]: Al-Fath Operations”.

All of which tell that Clifford May is not an aberration. Instead, he is a mainstream Jewish leader that's taking his flock to its doom while reserving for himself an escape hatch that will convert him to another religion and give him another life where he'll prosper and live the good life after the doom, as if nothing had happened … as if he did nothing to make it happen.

Behold Jason Netanyahu and Benjamin Greenblatt

When the captain of the ship of state proves to have no moral compass, his lieutenants stop taking orders from him, and start heeding the messages that come from the pirate ship tailing them.

This is what's happening to the United States of America where the supposed commander in chief was banned by his foreign policy lieutenants from even asking what's happening in that department. In addition, they linked-up with World Jewry, the killer pirates that have been plaguing the planet with endless wars and extreme misery since the beginning of time.

Watching the mutineers function with precision like that of a war room operation that’s preparing to do battle, an observer interested in these matters could not miss detecting what the mutineers were up to. He would have seen them collaborate with their new masters. And he would have guessed that their mission was to engage in a massive operation of cultural genocide –– so massive in fact, it was meant to dwarf the Nazis' physical genocide of the Jews as happened in a bygone era.

Adept at handling and applying the arts and science of division of labor, the pirates picked an elite group from the mob of Jewish pundits, and gave them the task of creating and disseminating arguments that would lead to the conclusion it was okay to empty the part of Palestine known as the West Bank –– of its Palestinian population –– and give the land to the Jews.

Some of the work done in that vein by said pundits, was discussed on this website in previous articles, and they can be accessed further down on this page. As to the work of the mutineers, a new article was written by one of their highest-ranking lieutenants, Jason D. Greenblatt. His article was published in the New York Times on April 22, 2019 under the title: “Care About Gaza? Blame Hamas,” and the subtitle: “The world wants to help. The terrorists won't allow it”.

Jason Greenblatt is supposed to have been assisting President Trump, as well as representing America in international negotiations. But he is a Jew, and when it comes to dealing with matters affecting Israel, he does what Jews that held the position before him, have always done. It was to turn the deal upside down. That is, instead of representing America to Israel, they represented Israel to America … and Jason Greenblatt is no exception.

And so, to understand what the man is saying as you read his article, you must take into account the reality that his voice is the voice of chief pirate, Benjamin Netanyahu, while his message is meant to impress the crew that’s running the American ship of state, the very team against which Greenblatt mutinied. Thus, we must ask the obvious questions: what is Jason Netanyahu telling America? And why is he saying it?

To find answers that will chime-in with reality on the ground, we need to have an understanding of the underlying history behind it all. It is that when Israel lost the ground war in Gaza, its settlers were kicked out of the strip of land. But Israel continued to wage the war from afar using weapons against which the people of Gaza had no defense. These were a fully equipped air force and a fully equipped navy.

What Israel did, was throw an air and naval blockade on Gaza. With this, it maintained the state of war that has allowed it to do what the old colonial powers set it to do in the Middle East. It was to keep the nations of the neighborhood underdeveloped and weak. Israel did that in a number of places, and did it in Gaza where it continually bombed the roads, bridges, utilities installations, and other infrastructure constructs –– all of which were necessary to implement a solid economic development. This did not take place in Gaza because Israel never allowed it to take place.

Hamas, that defeated Israel's ground force, and has managed against all odds to maintain its population reasonably well nourished while defending it against an Israeli army of terror equipped with the most lethal weapons produced by the American military industrial complex, now appears to the world like the little guy that defeated a giant monster by the sheer force of his determination. And the Jews hate this image of Hamas because they fear its consequence.

Worried by the thought that the reputation of Hamas is eroding Israel's ability to terrorize the groups and small countries it used to scare in the neighborhood, the Jews have mounted a vicious campaign to denigrate Hamas. And the Jason Greenblatt article is nothing more than his contribution to that campaign.

It is nothing worth talking about in any serious sense.

Madness approaching cosmic dimensions

To speak of cosmic dimensions such as objects being billions of light years away, or to mention the mass of a black hole as being billions of times that of the sun, is beyond our ability to wrap our heads around. But we learned to live with these realities, and that's a good thing.

It is good that our species was made so flexible as to adapt to extreme conditions because it happens at times that individuals among us, do come up with propositions which are so far out of bounds, it is impossible to discuss what they are proposing when we use normal language. And so, to make ourselves clear, we resort to speaking in cosmic terms.

In fact, we are at this time facing one such moment. It so happens that the usual suspects, known as the Jews, have come up with a new proposition that is astonishing in its own right but more than that; points to the massive level of contempt that the Jews have for America's political leaders. It is a level that can only be discussed in cosmic terms, the reason why I decided to create a fictional story that should help me illustrate the ideas contained in my argument. Here is that story:

Rumors are circulating throughout the galaxy that a race of super-advanced beings is going around, collecting samples of intelligent and semi-intelligent beings for study and classification. Their intent is to draw a chart that will represent a zoological map of the entire galaxy. Needless to say, that no one on earth likes the idea of handing one of us to the creatures from outer space. So then, if you were asked to do something, what would you do?

Here is what you might propose: Let's catch a dog that's afflicted with typhoid. We train half a dozen pit bulls to hound it without hurting it physically, but harass it enough to turn the poor thing into a confirmed psycho. Now that the dog is physically and mentally a basket case, we implant a device in its brain. The device will take signals from a remote control we'll be using to command the dog to act stupid. When the super beings will get here to beam one of us aboard their spaceship, we let them have the dog. Believing it is one of our species, they'll think we are too stupid to deserve going on the galactic chart, and they'll leave us alone.

Well, my friend, if you can wrap your head around this story, you can wrap it around the image that the Jews have of America's political leaders. Time after time, the Jews have treated America's political bosses as if they were remotely-controlled, physically and mentally wrecked dogs –– specimen which are prone to being hypnotized, permanently acting as less than semi-intelligent beings, and often behaving like downright stupid. The Jews proved to have assessed those leaders so well, they do not use a remote device to control them. They do it simply by the power of their hypnotic suggestion.

And you can see how that is done when you read the latest of their proposition, written specifically to impress America's political leaders at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. It came under the title: “The new state solution,” and the subtitle: “A creative, big idea to jump-start peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.” It was written by three Israelis, Yaacov Peri, Amir Avivi and Benjamin Anthony, and published on April 21, 2019 in the Jewish publication, the New York Daily News. Here is what those clowns are telling America's hypnotized, mentally and physically sick dogs:

“We call our approach The New State Solution. The plan calls for the establishment of a free, independent, sovereign and viable Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip, where half of all Palestinians live, that would be expanded southwards, to incorporate the northern, coastal area of the Sinai Peninsula. That should be the site of the state for all Palestinians. It can happen in the near-term”.

What the Jews are saying is that instead of thinking in terms of the two-state solution, Egypt should donate part of its territory in the Sinai to the Palestinians to prepare for the eventual transfer of three million Palestinians from the West Bank to the new place. It is adjacent to Gaza, a convenience that will give the Palestinians the contiguous state they always wanted. It will also give the West Bank to the Jews, which is what they always wanted despite the cosmic size lies they have been spewing during all these years.

But why do this, when it is more logical to let three million Palestinians remain in the West Bank where they have lived since the beginning of time, and where they should be allowed to have their contiguous state?

And this is how the Jews have responded to that question: “Any plan calling for the traditional two-state solution would require Israel to forcefully evacuate up to a quarter of a million Jews from their homes in order to make way for a Palestinian state in the area vacated”.

That is, the Jews believe it makes more sense to tear out three million Palestinian roots from the land where they have flourished since the beginning of time and send them to live in a faraway place, than to move a quarter of a million Jewish thugs just across the 1967 green line where they first landed when they came to kill Palestinians and steal what belongs to them.

And the Jews know that the hypnotized dogs will be quick to mortgage America’s honor, as well as mobilize its dwindling material and moral resources to give the Jews what they want.

The Structure of obviating political Theatrics

Just about 50 years ago, I was a freshman in college taking a course that listed as required reading, a book written by Thomas Kuhn, which came under the title: “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”.

These days –– more precisely on April 18, 2019 –– Richard N. Haass of the Council on Foreign Relations, published an article on the website of his organization, in which he drew a parallel between the way that Thomas Kuhn said how scientific revolutions occur, and how he––Richard Haass––believes, a diplomatic revolution should occur in our thinking with regard to the Middle East. In fact, the title of his article is: “The Structure of a Diplomatic Revolution,” and the subtitle: “It is time for a paradigm shift about the Middle East”.

I have not read Kuhn’s book in fifty years, but I am confident enough to take issue with Richard Haass regarding his assertion that Thomas Kuhn believed: “breakthroughs in science occur not through the gradual accumulation of small changes to existing thinking...” In fact, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell and Einstein would be the first to say –– as some actually did –– that they weren't born knowing what they knew. Instead, they made their discoveries standing on the shoulders of the giants that came before them. The reality is that it was the accumulated weight of the small changes that made the scientific revolutions inevitable, and Thomas Kuhn was well aware of that.

Still, based on his misunderstanding of what Kuhn had said, Richard Haass proceeded to suggest that we should reject the paradigm we currently hold with regard to the existing situation between Israel and its neighbors, and come up with a revolutionary new paradigm … though he did not come right out and said what the new paradigm should look like. But did he stop here and let the readers decide for themselves what the new paradigm should be? No, he did not.

Richard Haass did not respect his readers enough to do that. What he did was create two baskets. He put in one basket what he says are the elements of the existing paradigm that must be rejected. And he put in the other basket the same old Jewish arguments which, time after time, have led the diehard fanatics to conclude that Jews must be allowed to ethnic cleanse Palestine of its indigenous Palestinian population, and take the whole thing for themselves.

To help him advance his theory, Haass came up with the fallacy that would have stunned Kuhn. It is this: “The sudden emergence of radical ideas causes existing models to be replaced with something different as was the case when astronomers determined that the earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa. These shifts usher in a new model that becomes the basis for study and experimentation”.

But the reality is that study and experimentation, conducted by many researchers over a long period of time, have been the ingredients that led individuals (usually working alone) to put it all together and come up with a theory that caused the paradigm to shift. In fact, there was in the second century BC, the Ptolemaic system which had it that a celestial sphere was going around the earth. It then took researchers one thousand and eight hundred years of painstaking observations and theorizing before Copernicus was able to look at all the data, synthesize them, and assert that it was the earth which revolves around the sun.

But having confused what happens in the realm of science, Richard Haass felt he could now draw a parallel with the situation in the Middle East, thus suggested what he termed, the revolutionary idea of rejecting the existing paradigm; the one based on UN Security Council Resolution 242 –– and he urged coming up with something new. But this was never revolutionary because it is what Israel has been doing for more than half a century. In fact, it is a reality that was marred by wars and a series of military defeats for Israel. But look how casually and falsely Richard Haass has interpreted an important piece of history that lasted 52 years:

“Nearly everything said and written about the issue reflects the outcome of the 1967 War, which left Israel in control of territories that belong to Jordan, Egypt and Syria. Since then, the normal diplomatic model has assumed that Israel would trade this territory in exchange for security and peace. For some time, the paradigm appeared to have validity. Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt, allowing the two countries to sign a peace treaty that has endured to this day”.

No, that's not all that happened. There was a sneak Israeli attack on its neighbors in 1967 that started a 6-year war with Egypt known as the War of Attrition. In 1973, the Egyptians smashed through the Bar Lev line and went after the Israeli army in the Sinai. Lest Egypt enter Israel itself, America intervened, accepted Egypt's victory, and asked for a ceasefire so that Israel may withdraw from the rest of the Sinai in an orderly fashion. To save lives, Egypt accepted the deal, and Israel withdrew what was left of its forces as planned.

Concurrent with Egypt's crossing of the Canal, the Syrians moved to take back the Golan Heights that Israel had occupied in 1967. Having retaken the important province of Quneitra, the Syrians stopped their offensive in accordance with the American initiative, thinking that they too might recover the rest of the Golan without further bloodshed. This did not happen, and Israel remained in control of a narrow sliver in the Golan.

After 1973, the people of Gaza were able to kick the Israeli army out of their territory, and had several wars and skirmishes trying to diminish the effect of the air and sea blockades which Israel is maintaining against a population that has neither an air force nor a navy with which to break the blockade. As well, Israel kept trying to steal the fresh water sources of Lebanon, but the Lebanese fought back and repeatedly kicked the Israelis out of their territory.

The lesson that emerges from this 52-year history, is that Israel takes land by force and never gives it back through negotiations. With the exception of the West Bank and a thin sliver of the Golan, Israel was kicked out of everywhere else it has tried to expand its territory. This is the paradigm that has persisted for more than half a century. Now, the Jews see credible signs that the status quo can no longer be maintained, and they are panicking.

This is why Richard Haass has suggested the creation of a new paradigm without describing one. However, he tried to lead the readers in the direction of accepting the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, and the eventual transfer of the entire territory to the Jews.

As shown over and over again, these people never give up staging fake theatrics to fool someone, in their eternal quest to get something for nothing … and they never escape their morbid fate.

For their sake and for the sake of humanity, let us resolve to pull the curtain on that hellish stage before someone gets the idea of working on another Final Solution.

They predict for Others their own familiar Fate

The way that the French understand Marie Antoinette's locution, “let them eat cake” is different from the way that the English interpret the thing.

Here is the explanation: In every language that I know of, the word bread has come to represent food of any kind. That's in addition to the dough which is normally baked in the oven.

And so, when Marie Antoinette, who was born with a silver spoon in her mouth, heard that the people of the kingdom had no bread to eat, she did not think of them as hungry people that had nothing to eat; she thought their table was full of meats, vegetables and fruits, but no bread from the oven. And so, she thought of a substitute that also comes from the oven, and suggested that the people eat cake till the baker had the time to bake the dough and make the bread.

This is why, at worst, the French might think of Marie Antoinette as having been insensitive due to ignorance, given her upbringing, and not out of malice. To the English, however, Marie Antoinette's words were uttered contemptuously, even maliciously as if to mean, let these people go to hell.

Well then, think of that story as the ancient analogue to what happened to Ilhan Omar who, in a more modern setting, referred to a tragic event by the shorthand, “someone that did something.” Some people interpreted this performance as a deliberate act of contempt on Omar's part, whereas other people saw it as no worse than an insensitive utterance, if that.

Each of those who saw Omar's performance as an act of contempt, interpreted what she said from their own point of view. Bret Stephens is one of these people and as usual, filtered his point of view through the prism of Jewish fanaticism. To explain himself, he wrote a column under the title: “Omar, Harbinger of Democratic Decline?” and the subtitle: “With political power comes rhetorical responsibility.” The column was published on April 20, 2019 in The New York Times.

Like the English interpretation of Marie Antoinette's locution, Bret Stephens's interpretation of what Ilhan Omar has said, is lamentably devoid of depth. Instead of probing the mental process that has led Ilhan Omar to use the style that she did when communicating, Stephens resorted to the usual technique of asking his readers to imagine the furor that would have ensued if someone from their Conservative side had used that same style to communicate thoughts the other side considers offensive.

And once Stephens had chosen that track, it was inevitable that he would jump headlong into the use of the incident as a weapon to attack the Progressive Democratic side of the political spectrum, which stands as nemesis to the Conservative Republican side. Thus, Stephens added his two-cents worth of political gamesmanship to a situation that is already drowning in a deluge of crass politics.

And being a Jew who is never shy displaying his fanatic side, Bret Stephens could not ignore the opportunity to mooch all that he could for the benefit of (a) the Jews whom, he says, are being subjected to a new wave of antisemitism, and (b) Israel which, he says, is being demonized by Ilhan Omar, and increasingly let down by those in Democratic circles who used to be on Israel's side.

Having done all that analysis on the Bret Stephens column, but failed to locate the answer to the question that's in the title of the column: “Omar, Harbinger of Democratic Decline?” you go through the column one more time to see if you missed something. Alas, all you can find in the body of the column which comes close to relating to the question in the title, is the following:

“As for her views about Israel, she's practically mainstream for her segment of the Democratic Party — a harbinger of what's to come as the old guard of pro-Israel liberals like Majority Leader Steny Hoyer gives way to the anti-Israel wokesters typified by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez”.

Thus, the implication of the title is that the Democratic Party will suffer a decline because young Americans are waking-up to the reality that their country is being sucked of the wealth that belongs to the current and to future generations. Those young Americans are calling for an end to the financial hemorrhaging of the country, and they want it done by closing the opening to Israel. This would be the aperture –– more than any other –– through which American blood is siphoned off to nurture a foreign entity whose evil presence would have diminished America even without the hemorrhage.

But either Bret Stephens or the editor that chose the title for the column, is warning by their choice, that closing the Israeli aperture may save a little of America's wealth, but will also cause the decline of the Democratic Party.

What Bret Stephens chose to ignore, however, is the history of the Jews through the centuries. They are the ones that lost the game every time they tried to pull a fast one on the people that treated them well. The Jews are repeating that same history in America, and they will evoke the same old familiar fate.

No, the Democratic Party will not be the one to decline; it will be the Jewish organizations.

Freedom Witch-Doctors Teaching Brain Surgery

If you ever wondered what it would feel like to submit to the scalpel of a witch doctor doing brain surgery on you, there is a kind of simulation to which you can submit, and generate the same sensation.

What you can do is read the editorials of The Washington Times, an act whose effect is to cause an unpleasant feeling inside the brain. And once in a while, the editors of that publication come up with a piece that changes the sensation from unpleasant to revolting. This is the case with the editorial they wrote under the title: “A lesson in free speech,” which they published on April 15, 2019.

The subject matter that these characters have used as vehicle to carry their views, was the reaction that followed words uttered by a congresswoman. Because this discussion is about the competence of the editors at The Washington Times to discuss freedom of speech –– or heaven forbid be its guardians –– it makes no sense to give details about the congresswoman or what she said. For this reason, our discussion of the subject shall remain limited to what the editors have said, as well as evaluate the question whether or not those editors should do humanity a big favor and find something else to do for a living.

A good way to understand how the brain of these characters operate, is to go over what they said on the subject, and sort out what they seem to consider legitimate speech that should be protected, and what they seem to consider illegitimate speech that must be banned. So, here is how they chose to put in context what they view as legitimate speech:

“Trump's video was within the bounds of political discourse. Politics ain't bean bag, politicians revel in attacking one another. That's the point of a democratic republic. The American system of government is predicated on uncivil disagreement at times. Politics is a game any number can play, but nobody gets immunity from criticism, sharp or extra-sharp”.

And here is how the editors of The Washington Times chose to put in context what they view as illegitimate speech:

“The congresswoman has made several vicious remarks about Israel, including a tweet suggesting that Israel buys the loyalty of American politicians. In a speech to the Republican Jewish coalition, Trump drew attention to the congresswoman's remarks in a perfectly fair exercise of political speech. He said she doesn't like Israel”.

We conclude from what these characters are saying that their “lesson in free speech” consists of advocating a no-holds-barred approach to speech as long as you do not criticize Israel. But the moment that you do such a thing, the scalpel of the witch doctor will drift down your neck to the jugular artery, and will cut-off the blood supply to your brain. And you'll die career-wise almost instantly.

Before this happens to you if it will, and while your brain is still alive, you may be so curious that you want to know what Donald Trump thinks is most importance to the Jews who live in America and pretend to be Americans when in truth, their hearts reside in Israel, and they remain Zionists through and through. Here, in the editors' own words, is what Donald Trump believes: “He drew the attention of those Jews that the congresswoman did not like Israel.” Did you get Trump’s drift, my friend? He means to say that the Jews to whom he was speaking, loved Israel more than they did America, and that everyone in American politics should learn to be like them.

So, you wish to know what is crucial to these Jews in view of the fact that they are asking America to permanently remain in the service of Israel, all this at a time when people such as the congresswoman, are working to change the status quo. And you’ll find the answer to your query in what the editors of The Washington Times have said. It is this: “The congresswoman has made several vicious remarks about Israel, including a tweet suggesting that Israel buys the loyalty of American politicians”.

That remark is the most illegitimate thing for someone to have said in the opinion of the editors at The Washington Times. It's because the relationship between America and Israel is the jugular artery through which the blood of the American people –– produced by the hard work they do day in and day out –– is siphoned off and moved to Israel.

When you or anyone draws attention to that reality, you contribute to the act of pulling America's politicians out of their state of hypnosis. You make it possible for them to wake up and realize what’s going on; and you hear them say: no more of this nonsense. From now on, we dump Israel and work to improve life for our American compatriots.

And so, the politicians will tend to cut-off the artificial jugular artery that's taking America's blood to the Jews of Israel. This will cause the Zionist entity –– that was never meant to be born in the first place –– to die instantly. And the entire human race will, at long last, put out a joyful sigh of relief.

As to the editors of The Washington Times, because they have shown an enormous love for the smell of rot, they can always get into the business of tending washrooms in the executive suite of Jewish enterprises.

Policing your Speech and your Associations

Nothing demolishes your self-esteem like the realization that what you thought was the object of your pride during all these years, was actually the object of your shame; a reality that was known to everyone around you but remained hidden from you all that time.

This is what's dawning on ordinary Americans who are beginning to discover that two of their most cherished freedoms had been taken away from them by the connivance of their political leaders who sold the nation's patrimony for fake promises made by Jews that live in America physically, enjoying the privileges of citizenship, but have their hearts in Israel, the entity to which they continually pledge their total allegiance.

Ordinary Americans began to realize they were robbed of the freedom to express their thoughts, and the freedom to assemble with others of their fellow citizens. These being the cornerstones from which freedom of speech, freedom to form associations and many other freedoms are derived, the Americans began to react in an effort to restore the self-esteem that was stolen from them by their political leaders. These are the people that turned themselves into moral prostitutes and volunteered to serve their Jewish masters.

Think about it, in America you can engage in any inquiry, ranging from the scientific to the legal to the religious or whatever. You can even question the existence of God if you have doubts in this regard. But what you cannot do is question anything of what the Jews say about the Holocaust, or inquire as to what Israel is doing with the money and the weapons it receives from America. If you do that, you're as good as dead because the Jews will ruin your career and your life; something they will do in full view of the authorities that are supposed to protect you, if not in collaboration with them.

And there is more. In America, you can associate with anyone you want. You can visit criminals in prison, pray with them and lend them moral support. You can even hire an ex-convict that's out on parole, or one that has served his time, and is out of jail. And you can form an association with an ex-convict if you determine that he or she is the right person for what you're trying to do. But what you cannot do is associate with someone the Jews have put on their blacklist. If you do that, you're as good as dead in the marketplace of ideas because the Jews will come out like a horde of pit bulls, assassinate your character and pressure everybody to treat you like an invisible thing.

If you wonder how something like this can happen in a country that calls itself a democracy, there are three articles — published over three days — you can read; and see for yourself how this is done. The first article came under the title: “To Defend Ilhan Omar, Democrats Use Identity Politics as a Shield,” and the subtitle: “To elevate her, they use identity politics as a sword.” It was written by David French and published on April 15, 2019 in National Review Online.

To unpack what goes on during a time in America that David French has characterized as “record-level absurdity,” we question if he has not, himself, contributed to the absurdity. He tells the story of Ilhan Omar who gave a speech touching on the 9/11 incident, and no one said anything about it for a long time. Later, Dan Crenshaw stumbled on the speech, and called Omar's comments 'unbelievable,' which David French said was in-bounds criticism.

As a lawyer, now a pundit in the business of popularizing cases the way he sees them through the legal angle, David French should have dismissed the firestorm that ensued. Having made it clear that Crenshaw responded appropriately, and that the firestorm that followed was absurd, he should have calmed the situation and declared it case closed.

But that's not what David French did. He failed to do the right thing because, like all the others, he was caught in the vortex of the “American political discourse,” he called absurd. What he did instead, is jump into the fray, and started to attack his opponents on the Left, those that had defended Ilhan Omar. The effect was that each side in this shenanigan spent time and energy trying to assert its right to engage in free speech while limiting that of the other side.

The spillover from this dismal performance is seen in the two articles that followed during the next two days April 16 and 17, in that same publication. Both articles were written by Jack Crowe, who is a news writer at National Review Online.

On April 16, 2019, Jack Crowe wrote an article under the title: “Farrakhan Defends Omar's 9/11 Remarks, Appealing to Conspiracy Theories,” starting the discussion by calling Louis Farrakhan a “notorious anti-Semite”.

Crowe went on to describe the firestorm that followed while lamenting that, “Omar, who has been accused of making anti-Semitic remarks continued to enjoy the support of fellow freshmen.” But Crowe also joyfully proclaimed the good news that, “Omar has received an onslaught of criticism from Republican lawmakers and conservative pundits”.

The next day, Jack Crowe published an article under the title: “Rashida Tlaib Hosted Activist Who Called Palestinian Terror Attack 'Heroic,'” lamenting this time, not about Ilhan Omar's speeches but Rashida Tlaib's associations. This is how Crowe started the discussion: “Rashida Tlaib hosted an extremist anti-Israel activist at her office to celebrate the American Muslims for Palestine Advocacy Day.” And that's how he went on and on till the end of the article.

Now you know what the Jews have been doing to screw America real good, while being paid by America's taxpayers for their trouble. Go figure.

He was for it before he turned against it

Despite reviewing more than a hundred articles written by Clifford D. May on this website over the years, a mystery was never solved. It was this:

When and how did it happen that Clifford May came to conflate America and Israel so intimately, he spoke of America's interests and security but meant Israel's interests and security even when that could only be achieved at the expense of America's interests and security?

Well, we have an answer to that question now. It was given by Clifford May himself, perhaps because it is true what they say about people mellowing when they get older. In fact, the man has even admitted to stances he adopted when he was younger, but now considers them to have been foolish stances.

He decided to fess up to a past he kept hidden for several decades, but no more. You get a sense of his transformation when you read the article he wrote under the title: “Socialist eras and errors,” published on April 16, 2019 in The Washington Times.

To make sure that no one will damn him for the stances he adopted as a young man, or the zeal with which he promoted his views at the time, Clifford May began the article by laying out the excuses for his going astray. He said this: “Socialism has been cool before, notably during the Great Depression, and the Sixties: era of the Vietnam War, the civil rights movement, the hippies and the (old) New Left.” In other words, he says blame his foolishness not on him but on society.

He got caught in that draft, he says, thus as a high school student, interviewed for the school's newspaper, the man who once headed the American Communist Party. When he finished with high school, and was ready for college, he was astute enough to know he would not make it into a prestigious college had he said he admired William Buckley on his application. So, he named Norman Thomas of the Socialist Party of America as the person he most admired. And Clifford May expects you to believe that.

His foolishness was not limited to writing things about a system of governance he later grew to despise; he went on to say. What he did next with his life was this: “I went to the Soviet Union on a study program … I decided to major in Russian and, a couple of years later, won a place on the exchange program between the United States (US) and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) … I then comprehended that Communism was toxic to freedom and prosperity”.

What Clifford May omitted from this narrative was that the era of the Sixties was more than that of the Vietnam war, the civil rights movement, the hippies and the Left. It was also the era of the Israeli kibbutzim, of the Jewish love affair with Uncle Joe Stalin, and of the Jewish drive to send young Americans to Israel where they learned all about the charm and beauty of communal life.

Time moved on, and the era was approaching the end of the 1960s. It was a moment right after Israel had scored a propaganda coup, having mounted a sneak attack on its neighbors; one that so impressed the Americans, they acceded to the idea of lavishing Israel with unlimited amounts of money and weapons.

Look at it anyway you want, you cannot escape the conclusion that this was the event which motivated Clifford May and many like him, to “comprehend” that Uncle Joe Stalin may not be as good as Uncle Sam, after all. And so, he and they decided that the time had come to join the crowd of Israel-worshipers, and shift their allegiance from the USSR to the good old USA.

To harmonize his mental processes with the moves that Israel was making, Clifford May changed his tune. He began to attack the Soviet system, and praise the American system … warts and all. Here, in condensed form, is how he described what went on:

“Soviet Communism was a failure, as were the various forms of utopian socialism. In the 1980s I moved to Africa. Virtually every African government in the post-colonial era chose the socialist path to development and failed. In Latin America, too, socialism has led to dismal outcomes. China's socialist market economy creates wealth, though without liberty or basic human rights. But at least there's income equality, right? No.

And what about Scandinavia? Well, Denmark is a market economy. It is an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security for its citizens, but it is also a successful market economy. Back to me: Disenchanted with both communism and socialism, I began reading up on capitalism”.

If you, my dear reader, are young, you may live long enough to see Clifford May or the younger crowd that's following him, dump America like a scorned lover, make a hundred-and-eighty allegiance pivot, and start singing the praises of China's socialist market economy for, this is the Jewish way.

Taboos, Obligations and Deities of a flaky Cult

Most people have a definition in their head as to what the word 'religion' means, but many do not know or care to know what the word 'cult' means. The reality, however, is that there is only a very small difference between the two.

Here is that difference: Religion is to think that you believe in and worship a spiritual God you do not see. Cult, on the other hand, is to think that you believe in and worship a God that inspires spiritualism, but one that you can see and touch. The reality, however, is that you worship not the person you see or touch, but the ideal of what you believe that person represents. Thus, in both cases, you worship an image you have formulated in your own mind, giving it superlative attributes that make you feel they will be used to protect you if and when the time will come that you'll need to be protected.

Cult figures come and go all the time. There are Oriental gurus who surround themselves with an aura of holiness, and promise their followers wisdom as well as internal peace and harmony. And there are Western gurus who promise their followers the delivery in this life of a power that no enemy can defeat, as well as the delivery in the near future of a glory that no one has ever achieved before.

And then there are the Jews who catch a potential follower at a time when he or she hungers for something they cannot have. The Jews promise to help these wretched individuals achieve what they long for if they will agree to go on a pimping tour in which they'll sing the praises of the Jewish masters, and speak of the power that the Jewish leaders possess to achieve anything they want. And so, the wretched souls fulfill their task by going around and spinning current events in such a way as to present them like brilliant Jewish triumphs, even if they are nothing but miserable failures.

Needless to say, the Jews have been at this game for thousands of years, trying to get the human race to accept them as the chosen children of God, and owners of everything that exists. This includes the entire gathering of human beings who will acknowledge they are of a lesser breed than those taken into the fold for being authentic Jews, and those who will convert at a future date, thus be anointed and added to the assembly of the chosen.

But once again, the Jews have reached the end of the road, this time in America, the way they did throughout time everywhere they went around the globe. It is that the American public, like the others before it, has finally realized what the Jews were doing, and has rebelled against the tyranny they were trying to implement. Ordinary Americans are rebelling, and you can get a sense of how this is unfolding by reading an article that came under the title: “Ocasio-Cortez says cutting military, economic aid to Israel 'can be discussed,'” written by Chris Perez and published on April 15, 2019 in the New York Post.

What you'll encounter in the article, is the ongoing struggle between the Jews that have implemented a system of taboos they said must never be violated, and the ordinary Americans who are so fulfilled, they hunger for nothing, therefore cannot be bribed. And so, they refuse to think of the Jewish taboos as inviolable. In fact, these good Americans are challenging both the taboos and those who guard them, which is what’s sending the Jews into a hysterical tizzy.

Look how Chris Perez started the article: “Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez believes the US should consider cutting military and economic aid to Israel — and Jews are blasting her for it.” Ocasio-Cortez later elaborated on her views by expressing the following thought during an interview: “I think it's something that can be discussed … the idea should certainly be on the table”.

Speaking more broadly about world affairs, she also expressed this view: “I think what we are really seeing is an ascent of authoritarianism across the world.” And this is how the Jewish Council responded: “We recommend that Ocasio-Cortez engage with Eliot Engel, Nita Lowey, and Ted Deutch before contemplating the future US military aid to Israel. US-Israel ties must supersede politics”.

In other words, the Jewish Council is saying that the taboos established by them are so inviolable, not only must they never be rejected or altered, they must never be discussed in public either. If someone like Ocasio-Cortez has misgivings about them, her obligation is to do what's done with dogmas in the religions that enforce the adherence to dogmas with stringent rules.

That is, Ocasio-Cortez must walk into a confessional booth, and speak privately and in whispers with a high priest of the Jewish cult … people like Eliot Engel, Nita Lowey or Ted Deutch who will, at the time, be representing the deity for the occasion. The high priest will listen to the confession; will pardon a repenting Ocasio-Cortez, bless her and counsel her. When done, she will voluntarily get back to toeing the Jewish line … and forever hold her tongue.

But Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is laughing off all of that, saying to the cultists of the Jewish variety: Go jump in the swamp.