A religious Fanaticism that produces doorknobs

Look at this headline: If Rashida Tlaib believes Israel has the right to exist, why does she support BDS?”

Well, here is what can be said about this headline: It takes the IQ level of a six-year old to ask her mother a question in that vein. How about something that runs like this: If you love me, mom, like you say you do, why do you make me wash my hands?

That headline is the title of an article that was written by Kaylee McGhee and published on July 29, 2019 in The Washington Examiner. The article is McGhee's reaction to words that were uttered by Rashida Tlaib during a television interview. She was asked by the host if Israel has the right to exist, and she responded, yes. The host did not pursue the matter further, so McGhee took it upon herself to pour into the well, buckets of poison like that produced by the Jewish propaganda machine.

Here, in condensed form, is how McGhee presented her thoughts:

“The goal of BDS is to force Israel to accept a two-state solution. Its goal is the delegitimization and ultimate demise of the state of Israel. BDS masquerades as a peaceful mission. It should come as no surprise that BDS has been endorsed by various organizations and is regularly justified in mosques, churches, and other religious organizations. BDS was created to ensure the destruction of Israel, this isn't a secret. Israel's policies toward Palestinians are well worth criticism. But advocating for a movement that introduces bigotry and exploitation is naive and hateful”.

So here it is, my friend, you have it in black and white. Whereas the Jewish leaders have been saying publicly that the Palestinians are the ones rejecting the two-state solution; the reason why the occupation continues after more than 50 years –– those same leaders have been telling their Christian and Jewish followers something else. They have been telling them that the Palestinians do want the two-state solution but that the Jews are the ones rejecting it because it threatens to end the current apartheid regime.

Repeating what she heard the Jewish leaders say, Kaylee McGhee is intimating that the goal of BDS is to force Israel to accept the two-state solution. In the Jewish view, this is the way to delegitimize Israel and ultimately cause its demise. McGhee explains that the Jewish leaders believe that the Palestinians want to destroy Israel. The proof they offer is that everybody (organizations, mosques and churches) support BDS. Well, it looks like the Jewish leaders did not give Kaylee McGhee a handwash; they gave her a brainwash.

As if this was not enough for one day, you had Erielle Davidson come out the same day with an article that carries a message to gentiles regarding the phenomenon of anti-Semitism. She wrote the article under the title: “No, You Don't Have To Be Jewish To Oppose Anti-Semitism,” and had it published in The Federalist.

Davidson started the argument by taking-on other Jews who do not buy her view that gentiles who oppose anti-Semitism ought to be lauded and encouraged to do even more. But you quickly realize that she is carrying on with a debate that has degenerated into a haggling match of the Left-wing Jewish kind versus the Right-wing Jewish kind.

She, being of the Right-wing variety, Davidson surprised no one by complaining that those on the Left are saying bad things about her and those of her ilk. Here is how she expressed her complaint: “If any side has treated me as if I have the intelligence of a doorknob, it is the left, which continues to tell me there is no anti-Semitism as I witness it so clearly and so frequently”.

But what is it that Erielle Davidson witnessed? Good question. Here is what she says she did:

“I'm supposed to pretend I don't recognize a majority of the House Democratic leadership has met with anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan. I'm supposed to pretend I don't recognize that many within the BDS movement, would love to wipe Israel––home to more than six million Jews––off the map”.

The one thing that comes out clearly when we pay heed to a spectacle of this kind, is that it is driven by paranoia. When we look for the source of that paranoia, we find it to be artificially produced by the Jewish leaders. It immediately comes to mind that those leaders use demagoguery as a potent tool to maintain control over the Jewish rank-and-file.

And then, it occurs to us that it takes a certain amount of brainwashing to induce this kind of paranoia in the public. This being the case, we cannot escape the conclusion that having succeeded in taking control of their rank-and-file, the Jewish leaders have now developed a massive appetite for controlling America's future generations. The way to do it, is to approach them as captive audiences of kids in the classrooms of the nation and teach them the chapter and verse of the Holocaust.

It is how the Jewish leaders plan to transform America's future into one of fanatic Judeo-Christian doorknobs.

You may now visualize future leaders of the Sino-Russian alliance singing a tune called: Go ahead Jewboy, make my day, my boy.

Foreign freelance Traitors organized by Likud

The deep state is alive and vigorous, but it is not the beast we used to visualize when trying to imagine how it might look like. In fact, we don't have to imagine anymore because the new beast has revealed enough of itself, that we can begin to see what it is like in real life.

The new beast is made of a pathetic collection of traitors, useful idiots, halfwit clowns and grand style losers who are caught by the Likud dragnet periodically and taken to Netanyahu's court where they are instructed on how to betray their previous allegiances, and leave behind everything they grew up with and used to cherish. Once fully trained, these individuals are additionally drilled about the rituals of leading a lifelong dedication to promote the Judeo-Israeli agenda, which they will do at the exclusion of everything else.

One such clown was given the name, Lord Maginnis of Drumglassis. He wrote a piece that shows the world what a dumbass he is –– whether or not this was his intention. The piece he wrote came under the title: “The Iranian regime,” and the subtitle: “One can never convert an evil nuisance like Iran through being careful.” It was published on July 26, 2019 in The Washington Times.

The piece is an anti-Iran diatribe that gives off a lot of heat and very little light, to use an old cliché. But having revealed himself as a member of the Jewish-conceived British Committee for Iran Freedom, you'll understand that this individual is a player in the band that's orchestrated and led by maestro Benjamin Netanyahu. Cocooning with the other members, he learned to play the Likud tune while shamelessly displaying his true colors as a treasonous member of the UK House of Lords.

But while Maginnis of Drumglassis seems like a big fish in the pond where he finds himself, it happens that the pond itself is not the biggest in the English-speaking world. This honor is held by America where the stakes are higher, the game that's played there is more savage, and the fishes that swim in it, are the deadliest of sharks. You'll get a sense of all that when you read the article that came under the title: “Diplomatic Drawdown,” and the subtitle: “Why America has an ineffective Department of State.” It was written by Paul R. Pillar and published on July 28, 2019 in The National Interest.

Here, in condensed form, is how Paul Pillar describes the current scene at the US Department of State where foreign policy used to originate in times past but no more:

“Trump's degradation of diplomacy includes vacancies at the State Department, nominating unqualified people for ambassadorial posts, and the disavowing of agreements negotiated under previous administrations. Trump withdrew personnel from the US embassy in Iraq. It is unclear what development, if any, triggered this move. Skepticism is appropriate regarding this White House's interpretation of security hazards in that part of the world. Now it appears that the drawdown of US personnel in Iraq has become permanent. This means wasting the talent of US diplomats. It means wasting the big embassy compound the US constructed after the war in Iraq. And it means US business in Iraq will not get done”.

And this prompts the inevitable question: If Americans are not running America's foreign policy today, who does? Well, my friend, the answer is that Netanyahu does. You know this to be true because no one but the Jews and those they are training, keep their hands on the console where the levers of American power are located. The way the system works, is that the Jews and their sidekicks get instructions from Netanyahu, and like the dedicated operators that they are; they promote the interests of Israel and do nothing else.

These are the people who make up the deep state. They are allowed to do more for the causes they espouse than ordinary spies because they were recruited openly at the places where they work, under the guise that they are loyal Americans that happen to be Jews and love Israel only because Israel loves America. Strange as it is, they make it all sound like the two entities are one and the same nation –– the twisted logic being that working for Israel in America is like working for America in Israel; it is all kosher.

That explains why strange things seem to happen in Baghdad when in reality, these things make perfect sense when viewed through the prism of service to Israel. Anyone that knows how the Jews operate can easily see that the Jews are emptying the American embassy building in Baghdad because they intend to fill it with new people. These will be hardcore Judeo-Israeli spies who will run a massive reconnaissance operation covering the entire region from Baghdad. And they will do it under the cover and protection of the American flag that will flutter on a mast high above the embassy’s roof.

All of that was made possible because Netanyahu figured that the Donald Trump who gave him an embassy in Jerusalem will let him have the American embassy in Baghdad. It is as simple as that.

Endless Haggling and no Hint of a Solution

The foreign policy think-tanks that wish to project the image of thinking, seem to always find the characters who will whip up articles that float like a silvery blimp capable of reflecting light but not producing it. The tanks then proceed to publish the articles under their own name, not realizing that they are nothing more than shallow haggling loads of rant carrying no useful message.

An example of this asinine reality is the Council on Foreign Relations whose record in the area of shedding light on matters of importance, looks like the notes of a witch doctor who took pain to describe the brain operations he performed “successfully” on hundreds of patients even if all those he treated died before he was done with the song and dance ritual that's performed at the start of each ceremony.

Whether they are retained by the Council on Foreign Relations or by any other so-called think-tank, the characters that consider themselves experts in the fields they choose to pontificate, repeat the old mistakes over and over. It is that they refuse to let go of the many false assumptions they grew up with. Instead, they build on them, thus construct monstrosities that bear no resemblance to anything you'll find in real life.

A case in point is the article that came under the title: “Hormuz and Oil: The Global Problem of a Global Market.” It was written by Amy M. Jaffe and published on July 24, 2019 on the website to the Council on Foreign Relations.

Jaffe starts with a preamble which reminds the readers of the known fact that oil is a commodity which behaves like any other commodity that happens to be in demand worldwide. In fact, in the same way that the price of gold or wheat or copper or cotton, fluctuates the same way everywhere in the world when influenced by events in one place –– so does the price of oil, says Jaffe.

But having brought attention to this bit of truism, the writer left the real world behind to enter the fantasy world of tailor-made false assumptions, stereotypes and preconceived characterizations. She unavoidably reached the same old conclusions and repeated the same old empty recommendations; those that were proven to have been dismal failures time after time.

All of this boils down to the reality that unless and until the self-nominated experts begin their thinking process with the acceptance that nations take defensive measures only because they are threatened –– the so-called experts will not leave the table around which they all sit and drink from the same delusional brew. And so, they'll keep producing the same old witches brew and inflict its aftermath on the public.

But if these people wish to become more useful, they should be told they can serve their readers better by first admitting to themselves that the Soviet Union, China and North Korea would not have developed nuclear weapons, were they not provoked by the reckless policies of the United States. Likewise, Iran's behavior today would not be what it is, were it not for the American provocations that cause its leaders to take what they see as appropriate measures to protect the nation and its people. This is their duty after all.

On her part, had Amy Jaffe started her thinking with those notions, she would have written a different article. For example, the preamble to her argument might have sounded like this: “To avoid a conflict whose expanse we cannot fathom at this time, it behooves us to find out what America is doing that's unsettling the Iranians, forcing them to behave the way they do.” And Jaffe would have gone on to discuss one or more possible solutions that would have satisfied all the parties affected by the same issues. Instead of doing that, however, here is the mindless speculation with which the author started her argument:

“The problem is Tehran is showing the world what a problem it could become if it had nuclear weapons. A future nuclear-armed Iranian declaration that only the oil Tehran dictates will be allowed to transit the Strait of Hormuz would present a more complex situation than today's challenge of sanctions and shipping. The military problem of protecting shipping would become more dangerous, requiring a military campaign to destroy active warheads before engaging the conventional forces blocking free transit of the Strait”.

That’s why Amy Jaffe did not write a better ending for her article than what follows:

“All this means that now is a good time to study up on years of US military gaming exercises regarding the Strait of Hormuz. The US military has years of study and knowledge to fashion and lead an effective coalition for diplomacy and deterrence in the Strait of Hormuz. It should use it”.

And it should be clear to you by now, my friend, that this is how and why America's foreign policy was pushed into a Jewish sewer so deep, Washington is unable to pull the country out of it.

In fact, Washington cannot even get its own head above it, if only to look around and see if other options are available.

Unable to learn, they repeat the failed Model

Imagine you're a partner with someone in a company that was successful for decades. Suddenly, differences of opinion arose between you and your partner on how to run the business. Unable to resolve the differences, you both decide to split the company into two parts: one for you and one for him.

You each hire a lawyer and an accountant to negotiate on your behalves as to who will get what parts of the company, and how the modality of the split-up will proceed. It soon becomes clear that the negotiations are not going smoothly, and you're constantly asked to make hard decisions before the lawyers and the accountants can proceed with the negotiations and produce a workable agreement.

This is an agonizing time for you. It requires much concentration lest you neglect a detail that could cost you enormously in the future. The last thing you want is someone distracting you for something that would normally be important, let alone for something that's trivial compared to what you stand to lose if you give your lawyer or accountant a bad instruction.

But to your surprise, getting distracted is what happens to you. While going over legal briefs, balance sheets and projections about future operations, you get interrupted by an acquaintance. At first, you think he came to wish you luck, give you courage and offer to help in any capacity that he can. But that's not what he does. He came, he says, to ask –– rather remind you –– of something he cares about deeply.

As it happens, this acquaintance of yours has a nephew that's not doing well when it comes to getting along with other people or holding on to a steady job. He once asked you to give the young man a light position in which he can learn a trade, build confidence and go on from there. He promised he'll be forever in your debt if you'll do him this favor. You said you'll think about it and give him an answer when possible. You subsequently discussed the matter with him in passing but never made a final decision.

Soon after that, the differences between you and your business partner surfaced, and the last thing on your mind at this time, is the case of someone's nephew. Yet, here is the man, at the most inconvenient moment of your life, reminding you of the conversations you had about this subject. You're angry but restrain yourself, not to get out of line. You let him know you can do nothing now but will call him when you're ready.

Whether absentmindedly or by design, the acquaintance leaves on the table a stack of notes he had with him and walks away. You cannot help but glance at the notes. You are shocked to discover that they are a kind of diary which he compiled about the conversations he had with you concerning his nephew. The diary is divided into two columns. One column is headed: The positive things he said. The other column is headed: The negative things he said –– “he,” being you. And so, you understand that the man had come to remind you of those conversations, and to insist that you deliver on them.

Well, my friend, this story is not as weird as it sounds. In fact, you'll see a real-life parallel to it when you read the article that came under the title: “Is Boris Johnson good for the Jews?” It was written by Melanie Phillips and published on July 25, 2019 in the Jewish News Syndicate. The following is what the writer says is preoccupying Boris Johnson, the new prime minister of Britain:

“Britain is convulsed by Brexit. Boris Johnson has become prime minister in the middle of a crisis over Iran. Iranian commandos hijacked a British-flagged tanker in retaliation for Britain's seizure of an Iranian tanker. This crisis for Britain is ironic since the British government has been working with the EU to circumvent the resumed sanctions against Iran. So, will Johnson continue to defy Trump who suggested that Johnson was a clone of himself?”

And yet, amid all of this, look what the Jews are asking: “As with all social or political developments of note, the Jewish world is predictably asking about this one: “Will it be good for the Jews?” And look what they are reminding Boris Johnson of:

First, the negative column they produced as to the things that Boris Johnson has said, and could be of interest to Jews:

In 2006, he wrote that Britain should help Iran get the bomb.

In 2017, he expressed optimism that the Iran nuclear deal would survive.

Now, his views have progressed into further incoherence.

He ignored pleas to ban the Al-Quds Day marches through London.

Second, the positive column they produced as to the things that Boris Johnson has said, and could be of interest to Jews:

In 2013, he scoffed that Iran posed no threat to anyone.

When he visited Israel, he was preoccupied by the Iranian threat to Israel.

He advised Iran not to take steps that would break the agreement, and not to acquire a nuclear weapon.

He expressed support for Jews and spoke out against anti-Semitism and the BDS movement.

He repeated his claim to be a passionate Zionist and would visit Israel as prime minister.

Will Prime Minister Boris Johnson be able to restrain himself, not to get out of line, and let the Jews know he will do nothing for them at this time, being too busy with other matters that may take him an eternity to resolve?

That will be the polite way to tell the Jews to buzz off. Otherwise he can just blow up in their faces and tell them to take a hike.

Legitimizing Israel by delegitimizing America

Even before the 1967 Israeli surprise attack on its neighbors and the resulting occupation of Palestine –– a situation that continues to this day –– Israelis were committing terrible acts in the Middle East and Europe.

In the Middle East, Israel was stealing water from Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. It was sending letter bombs to European scientists and engineers working in Arab countries. It was luring Arab Jews and training them to bomb American embassies and other installations in Arab capitals. And it was sending squads of Jewish terrorists to assassinate prominent Arabs working in Europe or just traveling there.

These activities were such an embarrassment to America's Jews, they distanced themselves from Israel. In fact, their distancing was so forceful, they loudly complained it was unfair to attribute to America's Jews what Israel was doing because America is America, and Israel is Israel.

And then, the Israeli attack on the Arabs took place in 1967 using French (Western) warplanes at a time when America was being decimated in Vietnam at the hands of people that looked somewhat like the Arabs and used Russian made weapons like those used by the Arabs. Thus, instead of seeing the treachery inherent to Israel's Pearl Harbor style attack on its neighbors, the American spirit was lifted by the fact that Western weapons had demonstrated their superiority over the presumably (Eastern) weapons of Russia.

Despite the fact that the Jews were playing a major role in weakening the home front (making a large contribution to the defeat of America in Vietnam) for a reason that was not understood at the time, the Israeli attack on the Arabs and its effect on America's psyche marked the start of the Jewish conquest of America. This happened because the Jews who were distancing themselves from Israel only days before, were now proudly displaying their kinship and close association with Israel.

And then, bit by bit, the reason why the Jews had worked to defeat America in Vietnam, became clear. They wanted America to pivot from the Far East to the Middle East and stand as sentinel to protect Israel while the latter implemented the ancient dream of setting the region on fire and taking possession of it. Well, the Jews obtained the American pivot they wanted, were given American weapons galore free of charge, were given oodles of money at perpetuity and were given diplomatic cover for all the crimes that Israel was committing at the time, and for those it intended to commit in the future.

These were the events that motivated the whole world to join the Arabs in condemning Israel's criminal activities in the region as well as denounce America's complicity in the matter. In addition, the world that had taken pity on the Jews and gave them a homeland, was now experiencing buyer's remorse. But seeing that Israel was delegitimizing itself to dangerous levels, the Jews pressured America to do all it can to restore to Israel what it was losing. America complied by vetoing every reproach that someone leveled against Israel's activities. And the inevitable consequence has been that America's status as a member in good standing with the human family became suspect. Do you know what else, my friend? Israel was not helped one scintilla.

When you familiarize yourself with this history and read the superior article that Ilhan Omar published in The New York Times, then read the inferior response that Cheryl K. Chumley published in The Washington Times, you feel pity for those who were born in ignorance, are condemned to live their lives in ignorance and remain slated to depart this world in the full glory of their ignorance, never to see light even for a moment.

See for yourself. Ilhan Omar's article came under the title: “It Is Not enough to Condemn Trump's Racism,” and the subtitle: “The nation's ideals are under attack, and it is up to all of us to defend them.” It was published on July 25, 2019. Cheryl Chumley responded on the same day with an article that came under the title: “Ilhan Omar, New York Times, partners in latest anti-Trump hit”.

Here is what Omar did: She introduced herself and then explained that she was prompted to write for a personal reason (crowds at a Trump rally chanted “send her back”), and a civic reason: being elected to serve and defend the Constitution of the United States. She spent little time talking about herself, and a great deal of it explaining that: “The beauty of this country is not that our democracy is perfect. It's that embedded in our Constitution and democratic institutions are the tools to make it better”.

And here is what Cheryl Chumley did: She accused Omar of falsely accusing Trump of being a racist for allowing the chant, “send here back” to go on during a political rally. Apparently Chumley is incapable of seeing why someone might detect a hint of racism in such performance. She also accused Omar of anti-Semitism, not because she knows what Omar said or did to be labeled anti-Semitic, but because someone accused Omar of anti-Semitism, and this was good enough to make it so in the eyes of Chumley.

Now my friend, imagine what Cheryl Chumley would have said or would have written or would have done, had Ilhan Omar chanted: send the Jews back to Europe or to Israel or whatever.

A Sewer Pipe dirtying the Water where they fish

Looking at life –– from the most primitive organism to the most complex –– you'll find that life is sustained because a constant state of exchange takes place between the organism and the environment in which it lives. In the case of human beings, for example, we could not survive more than a few minutes if not for the exchange of oxygen we inhale against the carbon dioxide we exhale.

While this operation is true at the biological level of our existence, it is also true at the cultural level of our existence. In fact, from the moment that we are born, we engage in a lifelong series of cultural exchanges with the various environments in which we find ourselves as we move on from childhood to old age. The most visible form of exchange we do along the cultural line, comes about when we take a job. This is the time when we exchange our labor for the wages and salaries that we receive; money we then use to exchange for the goods and services that we need to sustain the standard of living we can afford.

All these exchanges are done in the open and above board, but they are not the only kind of exchanges done by human beings. Another kind is done illicitly, and so remains for as long as the transactions go undetected and unpunished. And it is precisely because there exists the possibility of getting caught and punished that some devious operators have devised ways to do illicit exchanges with the minimum chance at getting caught. What they do is create the kind of confusion that prevents everyone else from seeing what's going on. In the melee, the devious operators grab what they can in exchange for giving back very little or nothing at all. This kind of transaction is usually described as fishing in dirty water.

The most proficient fishers in dirty water are the Jews. They earned the label because they have become masters at dirtying the waters in which they regularly fish. Looking at their method of operation is like looking at a sewer pipe discharge its content into the pond where they fish. One such example is described in the article that came under the title: “How Washington backed itself into a corner with Iran,” and the subtitle: “Why diplomatic and economic engagement is better than the maximum pressure policy.” It was written by Bonnie Kristian and published on July 24, 2019 in The Washington Times.

The pond in which the Jews went fishing this time is called the Iran Nuclear Deal. The discharging sewer pipe they brought to it, is none other than the notorious John Bolton. What follows is an abbreviated version of how Bonnie Kristian described Bolton's incessant activities to dirty the pond's water:

“The maximum pressure campaign is spearheaded by John Bolton. It has caused Washington to mangle relations with Tehran and exhaust its options for punitive measures. Any new misdeed from Iran can prompt an attack. Bolton has pushed the White House to go to war with Iran. He was overruled once by James Mattis. He was likewise trigger-happy when Iran prepared to test a missile and when Tehran launched a satellite. The maximum pressure has not led to Bolton's desired conflict with Iran because war is not wise, not popular with the American people and not an appropriate response to Iran's provocations”.

As can be seen, the Jews want America to bomb Iran in the same way that it bombed Iraq and Libya at the behest of Jews. America did it not because the bombings were warranted, but because of something else. In fact, that something else mirrors what Israel and the Jews –– the two most prominent incarnations of evil –– have been doing since Israel came into existence. What they did was try to sabotage every effort that the Christians and the Muslims who inhabit the neighboring countries were making. Israel and the Jews engaged in this practice to give themselves an edge over the other religions.

Beyond that, the Jews began dirtying the pond by convincing America to prevent the World Bank from financing economic projects in Egypt, among these the Aswan hydroelectric station. Israel followed that cowardly act by stealing American military secrets and used them to bomb a civilian nuclear power station in Iraq. And now, John Bolton stands on alert, looking out for the occurrence of any development that may give America the excuse to bomb any progress that Iran may achieve in any field.

If fishing in dirty water could serve a useful purpose, the Jews would be today the founding fathers of a Jewish superpower, but they are not. After nearly four thousand years of hustling people of every ethnicity, they remain one of the smallest communities on the planet. They tried to permanently harness the power of someone else in their quest to achieve larger than life goals but failed miserably each time. Their handicap is their inability to learn from their mistakes.

At present, the Jews have latched on to superpower America, hoping it will do for them what no one else did. They count on John Bolton pouring enough sewage into the pond to confuse America, thus allow the Jews to catch the kind of fish that has eluded them since their beginning. They’ll have to wait a long, long time.

How they fool the Americans but not the World

If someone is fundamentally dishonest and wants something that's not his, he can employ any number of tricks to acquire what belongs to someone else. The reaction to such an attempt will vary depending on many factors, ranging from mild to extremely severe.

Even without a clear understanding as to what belongs to whom, disputes over territory, food, mating rights and what have you, are common among primates of the same species and between the species. The start of a dispute over such matters may scare a potential foe and convince him to back off without a fight, or the dispute may degenerate into a fight in which one opponent injures the other or even kills him. Thus, we recognize that disputes and the necessity to resolve them are a big part of life itself.

Because we, human beings, are endowed with a trait called reason, we were able to set-up dispute-resolving mechanisms, and used them to avoid the violent consequences of our disputes. But the reality is that while these mechanisms have helped keep the peace among human beings most of the time, they did not always perform as well as expected. The sad reality is that tragedies continue to happen at the domestic level even in the households of the most advanced cultures. Tragedies also occur too frequently at the institutional, national and international levels –– sometimes with consequences that can be reversed, and sometimes with consequences that cannot be reversed.

Still, we cannot ignore seeing how much we have developed as a species since ancient times when litigants in a dispute used to seek the wise counsel of the village elder for resolving disputes among them. In fact, we can see, and be proud of the way that we have progressed over the centuries in setting-up a modern system of justice to handle cases that range from juvenile delinquency to cases of sedition at the local level, to the skirmishes and the wars that flare-up at the international level. And we can attribute our success in this discipline to the part of our brain that developed algebra, invented the electric motor, established space flights, codified the precepts of human logic and did much more.

But there are some things in our human culture that continue to defy logic. You'll find an example of that in the article that came under the title: “Using the Bahrain strategy as a model for the world,” and the subtitle: “The United States offered a fresh approach to negotiations that can be applied to conflicts worldwide.” It was written by Maayan Hoffman and published on July 22, 2019 in The Washington Times.

Hoffman is pointing to a strange attempt that was concocted by people calling themselves Jews. They are a group that came together from disparate ethnic backgrounds. Their history since the beginning of time, has been marred by one colossal failure after another, causing them to suffer one deadly tragedy after another. Nevertheless, these Jews have managed to convince America, the superpower of the day, to play the role of village elder, and take up the cause of mediating between them and neighbors with whom they are having an ongoing dispute. That's what Maayan Hoffman calls the Bahrain Strategy.

Behaving with their neighbors the way they did throughout history, it happened that the Jews tried to resolve their current dispute with various neighbors without a mediator but failed each time. They failed because their approach was never based on an equitable exchange of concessions that would have made both sides feel they achieved a win-win situation. On the contrary, the Jews never sat to negotiate with someone without first obtaining leverage over the other side. And having gained leverage, they would attempt to dictate a settlement that would transfer every disputed item to them. And this wasn't all because the Jews always wanted all of that and still more than that.

In fact, what the Jews crave even more than any tangible item, is a recognition that they are given the entire enchilada, not because it is the equitable thing to do by the measure of any logic, but because they are a people that elevated themselves to the status of “privileged” by the fact that they chose to adhere to a culture they consider to be a religious belief. And because no one on Planet Earth has ever accepted this absurdity, the Jews were condemned to live in the eternal state of misery that refuses to part with them.

From the looks of it, the Jews have not gotten the message yet. The proof is encapsulated in their latest attempt –– the one they call the Bahrain Strategy. It started as the Jewish attempt to have America get into the business of convincing the Palestinians to give everything to the Jews, and convincing Israel's Arab neighbors to bankroll the Jews for being so good as to relieve the Palestinians of their possessions.

The attempt has mushroomed into a silly effort to convince the entire human race that the Bahrain Strategy is such a good idea, it must become a model to be emulated around the world … thus have all of humanity agree that the Jews are a religious group that must remain privileged till the end of time. And the Americans may well allow themselves to be fooled again.

Identifying War Hawks reveals what they want

If you accept as truism the adage that says you are what you want, then it can be said that to know what someone wants, you must first establish their identity.

It follows that if you seek to dress-up a complete portrait of someone's desires, you can only do it by gathering an exhaustive number of markers as to who that someone is. But if you only seek to ascertain a limited side of their desires, then you only need to identify a restricted number of their markers.

Thus, if we have a question as to what those who call themselves war hawks really want, we must first establish who they are. To find out, we consult an article that came under the title: “War hawks are mad Rand Paul might use diplomacy to avoid war,” and the subtitle: “Just like they did with Ronald Reagan.” The article was written by Jack Hunter and published on July 22, 2019 in The Washington Examiner.

And what we find in that article is the following:

“Mark Levin had a complete meltdown, calling Rand Paul 'reckless.' Adam Kredo, Philip Klein, and Eli Lake all wondered if Paul was an Iran dupe. This is how hawks reacted when Ronald Reagan broke bread with Mikhail Gorbachev. In 1986, neoconservative godfather Norman Podhoretz slammed Reagan's Russia efforts as appeasement. Similarly, Klein wrote of Trump and Paul's willingness to reach out to Iran. For hawks, dialogue is unwelcome. But bombing? They are less hesitant about that. Kredo writes, Iran is making outreach to Rand Paul and Tucker Carlson. In the 1980s Reagan was called 'fronting as a useful idiot for Soviet propaganda.' Charles Krauthammer called Reagan 'ignorant and pathetic.' Reagan whispered to Gorbachev, 'I bet the hard-liners in both our countries are bleeding when we shake hands.' They still bleed. Reagan proved his haters wrong. Every last one of them”.

So, we ask who are these people that call themselves hawks? And we find them to be Jews that have long established their interest in life as being the promotion of the Judeo-Israeli agenda, and nothing else.

Having identified who the people are, and what their interests have always been, we can now answer the question: What do these people want to accomplish ultimately? Well, we already know from where they get their instructions. It is from reading a Stone Age manuscript they call the Old Testament. Apparently, this is a manuscript in which it is written that God has decreed that the Jews must dedicate their lives to setting the world on fire and watch it being consumed. When this is completed, the Jews ought to rebuild the world and claim it as their own. This is the will of God that cannot be disobeyed, the Jews are told.

But the Jews have never been able to recruit enough people and bring them into their ranks to put together a workforce that's large enough to brave the entire human race and set the world on fire. So, the Jewish leaders did the next best thing; and that’s to invent a slew of tricks based on bribes and blackmail. They employed the tricks to go after the leaders of the leading world powers and scared them or charmed them or hypnotized them into doing the dirty work for the Jews. Foremost among such works, was the setting of the world on fire by starting wars whenever and wherever it was possible.

This is what Mark Levin, Adam Kredo, Philip Klein, Eli Lake, Norman Podhoretz and Charles Krauthammer have been trying to achieve in the modern era. But these are only half a dozen from among the hundreds of Jews who are known to be members of the mob of Jewish pundits that incessantly incite America's decision makers to bomb someone. In addition to these pundits, there are Jews whose hands rest on the levers of American power. They do more than incite others to bomb; they are the ones deciding who to bomb, when to bomb ... and then command their underlings to do the slaughter.

It is how the second war on Iraq was conceived, planned and executed, causing what has come to be known as America's worst mistake. Not only that, it was a war that started a chain of events with consequences that engulfed all of the Levant, and then extended their nefarious effects into Europe.

Well, the Jews have not achieved full victory yet, and that’s why they are hellbent on getting America to bomb Iran as well as remain in Syria and Afghanistan indefinitely. Failing this, they want America to remain in those countries long enough to give them the time to achieve the nuclear holocaust of their dream. Since time immemorial, the Jews have been consumed with the desire to see the world consumed in a hellish ball of fire, and they will not rest till they see it happen.

These are the war hawks in charge of America's Judeo-Yiddish culture, and increasingly in charge of America's conventional and nuclear armaments.

Having identified them, we know what it was they always wanted, what they want now, and what they will want tomorrow. And that's not what the rest of us want.

Theirs is a system of religious beliefs that was conceived not in a pastoral Haven presided over by God; it is a flaming Hell that’s presided over by Satan.

They do it because someone lets them do it

If you ever wanted someone to come up with a blueprint that will show you how authoritarianism can creep unnoticed into a fortress of democracy, you have one such blueprint now. The project is still in the early stages of implementation, but you can already see the potential it will have to turn an oasis of enlightened freedom into an oppressive Stone Age kind of authoritarian rule.

Much of what you need to know about the calamity that's trying to descend on Academia –– recognized as America's last bastion of freedom –– is written about in an article that came under the title: “CAIR Joins Antisemitic Palestinian Advocacy Groups to Protest New Jersey BDS Bill,” authored by John Rossomando and published on July 18, 2019 in the Jewish online publication, Algemeiner.

What happened is that the Jewish lobby in America has proposed a bill in the Jewish-leaning Legislature of New Jersey, to ban on college campuses and in public schools, whatever the Jews will deem to be anti-Israeli rhetoric or deem to be related to the BDS movement. Seeing the horror show that this bill will create in America if turned into law, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has opposed the bill.

This is when John Rossomando decided to intervene. He put together an argument to push back against CAIR's own argument. His goal is to give a foothold to Jewish authoritarian rule in “friendly” New Jersey and make this accomplishment a precedent that can be used as model to metastasize the Jewish deed and spread it all over America like a terminal cancer.

Here is the argument upon which the Jewish bill is proposed: “Evidence from college campuses across the country shows that anti-Zionist activities against Israel lead to antisemitic actions against pro-Israel Jews”.

That is, Israel does the following: (1) It sends warplanes to bomb water treatment plants in blockaded and occupied Palestinian territories; (2) sends helicopter gunships to bomb UN run schools for Palestinians; (3) sends naval frigates to strafe and bomb Palestinian children playing on the beach. Watching this horror show unfold from afar, jubilant Jewish students in America celebrate on campuses and in schoolyards, encouraging Israel to do more of the same because it is God's command that must be obeyed without question.

Seeing this level of moral pornography brought onto their campuses and schoolyards, students, teachers and professors of every religion and ethnic background speak in opposition of the predatory and savage behavior they are witnessing. This kind of talk causes a thousand lungs to instantly shout from the rooftops: antisemitism, antisemitism. A thousand bellies crack open. And a thousand Jewish entrails pour out onto the landscape.

The aftermath remains there as enduring testament that will be recalled for centuries, testifying to the Jewish pain and suffering for being told they behaved badly at a time when they expected to be hugged and kissed for the good work they did to promote the interests of Israel and implement the will of God.

As if all this were not enough, the Jewish lobby intervened, and John Rossomando took up the task of explaining to the American public that CAIR is being unfair to oppose the Jewish bill before the New Jersey Legislature. If you ask why CAIR is being unfair, Rossomando will say it's because CAIR and other citizens wish to engage the Jews in a debate that the latter can never win. Why is that? Because the arguments relate to Jewish and Israeli indefensible crimes that were committed for decades and remain unpunished.

In effect what John Rossomando is whining about is the reality that if the Jews get in an open debate with somebody –– anybody at all –– about those activities, the Jews will be blown away like a toy in a hurricane. Here are the arguments against which neither Rossomando nor the Jewish lobby can offer any kind of counterargument with which to push back:

“Making allegations about the power of Jews as a collective. Accusing Jews of being loyal to Israel. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. Comparing ISIS to Jewish guerrillas who used violence, terrorism, foreign fighters, clandestine arms shipments and foreign money, along with horrific ethnic cleansing of hundreds of Arab civilians, to create Israel. Calling for the freedom of Palestinians that live in all of historic Palestine. Referring to Israel as 1948-occupied Palestine. Arguing that the Zionist structures on the land of Palestine are illegal. Equating Israel's military with ISIS”.

And this is why the Jews want the government of New Jersey to step in and act like no Hitler, no Mussolini and no Stalin would have acted because they would have been loath to do something that's too Nazi-like even for Hitler, too Fascist-like even for Mussolini, and too Communist-like even for Stalin to stomach. But as you can see, this is behavior that's perfectly compatible with the Jewish culture.

It is a culture that the Jews are trying to inflict on the American people because––for some strange reason––the Jews are under the impression that of all the nations in the world, only America can be suckered into letting them do it.

And so, the Jews are doing it, believing they'll get away with it today, tomorrow and the day after.

Bastardizing Legitimacy is getting them nowhere

Let's agree on a simple concept before we continue with this discussion.

There is the law and there is you. If you abide by the law, you are legitimate. If you break the law, you are illegitimate whether or not someone points it out to you. What someone cannot do, however, is “delegitimize” you when you abide by the law. Thus, the conclusion that must be drawn is that only you can delegitimize yourself. You do it by breaking the law and by refusing to change your ways.

This is the dilemma that so-called Israel is facing. Created by the United Nations as an entity named “Jewish Homeland,” the thing never stops going through the laws of civilized man the way that a bulldozer goes through a glass house. It wrecks everything in sight and tramples on the debris. When someone looks at the horror show and describes it for what it is, the Jewish lobby in America gets working on hypnotizing the politico-journalistic crowd, and has it mumble the whining cry: delegitimization, delegitimization.

This is what's bogus in this whole affair. And yet, in a typical Jewish fashion, Philip Klein has done what you expect a Jew to do. He looked in the mirror, saw what's ugly about the Jews and attributed it to someone else. To that end, he wrote: “Ilhan Omar's bogus free speech argument in favor of boycotting Israeli Jews,” an article that was published on July 17, 2019 in the Washington Examiner.

What you'll see in that article is the latest installment in the Jewish epic of turning America into a mindless attack dog trained to protect Israel while the latter implements the ancient Jewish project of wrecking every progress made by others, to take possession of the wreckage and rebuild it to fulfill the Jewish agenda.

The main action in this installment may be called battle of the Congressional resolutions. It started the way that things have been happening in America since the Jews began their conquest of the superpower half a century ago. But the Jewish method of creep-clawing their way into the American culture and burning the scoops they take-in to fuel their made-for-America Judeo-Yiddish culture –– came to a screeching halt when the effort bumped into the iron will of Ilhan Omar.

This is what happened: The Jewish lobby had managed to convince a number of states to force their citizens to buy what they don't need simply because it was made in Jewish occupied territories. Mindful of Federal laws that prohibit this kind of behavior, other states refused to follow suit. And so, the Jewish lobby drafted a resolution aimed at getting the Federal Congress to encourage the reluctant states to join what is beginning to look like the gang rape of the American public by the various levels of governments simply because the Jews are demanding it.

That's when Ilhan Omar came up with a counter resolution that would nullify the criminally minded toxic effects of the Jewish resolution. This is what triggered the ire of Philip Klein, prompting him to write the article that he did. He called Omar's argument bogus, instead of accepting the concept that to accuse her of delegitimizing Israel, is the bogus argument, given that only the Jews can do it to themselves.

Philip Klein's complaint is that Omar's resolution describes itself as, “Affirming that all Americans have the right to participate in boycotts in pursuit of civil and human rights at home and abroad, as protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.” He calls this, “a complete straw man,” and affirms that, “Nobody is arguing that any American be denied the ability to boycott Israel”.

He then does the thing that shows how Jews always end up shooting themselves in the foot. He says this: “State-level laws combating BDS prevent states from doing business with entities that boycott Israel. It means the restrictions only apply to entities seeking public money. Also, there are no restrictions on individuals boycotting against Israel –– just businesses or other entities.” There are two problems with all of that: One is of substance; the other of form.

At the level of substance, businesses pay tax, therefore have the right to all the services offered by the government, including a share of the public money to which they contribute. Yes, a government can prohibit individuals and companies from doing business with an enemy government –– especially in times of war –– but it cannot force individuals or businesses to do business with a friendly government at any time. To do so is as much an abomination as taxation without representation.

At the level of form, chaos will ensue when trying to enforce the anti-boycott provision on businesses. This will happen because every fanatic nobody of the David French kind will want to target company executives they don't like and accuse them of not buying Israeli products because they adhere to BDS and not because it makes no sense for them to buy Israeli products.

This will put the executives in the absurd position of having to prove a negative to defend themselves. And that's a satanic trick that could only have been produced by a fascisto-Nazi mentality of the most Jewish kind.

This is what Philip Klein is advocating for America in the name of all Jews; and this is what begs the question: How much longer will America put up with this kind of behavior?

Our Benjamins are greener than your Benjamins

Here is an example of how the Jews shoot themselves in the foot right after they con the Americans into believing that the foot and mouth disease from which they suffer, was God's precious gift to them.

You'll find the example in the article which came under the title: “Ilhan Omar's Pro-BDS Resolution Isn't About Free Speech –– It's about Hating Israel and Jews,” written by Adelle Nazarian and published on July 19, 2019 in the Jewish online publication, Algemeiner.

After raising a journalistic hell with a destructive force equal to the combined power unleashed by the carpet bombing of Dresden and the nuclear bombing of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki –– concerning the claim that Jewish money (Benjamins) influences America's foreign policy, Nazarian began her article like this: “Rep. Ilhan Omar revealed her hypocrisy, double-standards, and antisemitism when she took to Congress to introduce a bill lauding the boycott of Israel”.

But why was that revealing of Omar's hypocrisy; of her double standards and her antisemitism? Here is how and why it is so, says Adelle Nazarian:

“Omar's funding sources encourage her continuing disdain for Israel and the Jewish people. She receives a treasure trove of campaign cash from [Muslim] groups. Hatem Bazian donated to Omar on three occasions. There is also CAIR. In addition to CAIR's donation, the group's Executive Director donated to Omar. James Zogby also donated to her campaign. And that's just a small taste of Omar's base of support”.

In other words, it's all about the Benjamins, says Nazarian. Well then, if America's foreign policy is influenced by Jewish Benjamins and Muslim Benjamins, why not let this level playing field sort itself out by the power of the Benjamins, given that the Supreme Court has ruled that money is a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment? Why subject the public to ugly scenes of Jews blowing their entrails out of their bellies as they holler the accusation of antisemitism now that Christians and Muslims of Arab descent are beginning to play the game that the Jews have forced on them?

Aha, there is a good reason for that, says Adelle Nazarian. It is that our Jewish Benjamins are greener than the Christian and Muslim Benjamins of the other side. Here, in fact, is a condensed version of her words:

“Omar's resolution likens the boycott of Israel, a free and democratic state, to previous boycotts of historically evil regimes in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Israel is our traditional ally. It is the lone Jewish state in the world. Labeling our ally Israel as 'evil' and an 'apartheid state,' they should remove Ilhan Omar from her post on the House Foreign Affairs Committee”.

So, there it is. Nazarian complains about Israel being likened to the old Soviet Union which used to practice communism, a political creed that seeks to get its members elected. But once in power, these people abolish elections because they don't intend to relinquish the power they gained. And then, in the same breath, Adelle Nazarian called on “they” to remove Ilhan Omar from her post –– a Communist trick, learned from the followers of Karl Marx the Jew. Do you see how things go round and round in circles, my friend?

But why on earth do these things happen to America? They happen because, like Communists, the Jews do not want their arguments tested against those of other people in a free and fair marketplace of ideas. Instead –– like immature little Communists –– the Jews have developed the habit of running to someone higher up and asking for the competition to be thrown out before they get drawn into a debate, where they know they'll be run-over like a bug under a steamroller. You know what else my friend? There is an expression that applies perfectly to this situation. It goes like this: With an ally like Israel, who needs foes?

In fact, the importance of that last expression is shown in an article that came under the title: “The First Amendment Shouldn't Be An Empty Promise To American Jews,” and the subtitle: “Since Congress just introduced the first-ever resolution to boycott Israel, the DOJ's combating anti-Semitism event couldn't come at a better time.” It was written by Melissa Langsam Braunstein and published on July 19, 2019.

As a whole, the article is a repeat of the old Jewish arguments which proved ineffective over the decades, and a waste of time. But there is this time, mention of two important observations; one of which was made by Attorney General William Barr. It will help clarify a few things about the phenomenon of anti-Semitism. So, here is what Melissa Braunstein wrote: “Attorney General William Barr compared various forms of anti-Semitism to different forms of cancer”.

What was left unsaid in that statement, is that despite its various forms, cancer has a single source. It begins in one place in the body and metastasizes to affect other organs, taking on forms recognized as liver cancer, prostate cancer, skin cancer and what have you. Likewise, antisemitism has none other than the Jews themselves as the single source for the appearance and growth of antisemitism in a society.

That anti-Semitism takes on different forms when the Jews infest the different institutions of society. As they move to take control of foreign policy, the universities, the banking system, the Congress, the public-school systems and so on –– they create an anti-Jewish resentment that looks and operates differently in each place. And that's what’s viewed as different forms of antisemitism.

In addition to that, there is now a catalyst to all these flare-ups. It is the Jewish support for the horrendous crimes which Israel commits by its continued occupation of Palestine, and the Jewish determination to make America Israel's accomplice in these crimes. Here is Melissa Braunstein's second revelation, showing how the phenomenon has become ingrained in American life: “92 percent of American Jews support Israel.” That says it all.

This being the case, there is a way to worsen the situation and cause it to metastasize, and there is a way to stamp out what came to be called anti-Semitism. The way to worsen the situation is spelled out in the Braunstein article. It goes like this:

“While Congress and state legislatures have been taking steps to oppose the boycott movement, federal agencies are clearly also making an effort to push back against various forms of anti-Semitism with the tools at their disposal”.

Well, you could not hire a crack team of satanic demons to devise a more potent conception that would pave the way to trigger the next holocaust. Do that, America, and you'll make the next holocaust inevitable.

But if you want to stamp out so-called anti-Semitism, then every authority in America that passed a resolution favoring the Jews in the past, must rescind such resolution. As well, every authority in America should resolve to never again do anything that pampers the Jews or imposes them on the rest of society.

As to the rights and obligations of Jews, if they want something, let them get into an open debate with the members of society that will be affected by their request. If they win the argument, they get what they want. If they lose the argument, they live with the loss in the way that everyone else does. And no exception for the Jews. None.

He finally unveiled his criminally insane Logic

David French has finally dropped the mask on how he has been coming up with screwy ideas about giving legal cover to a bunch of criminals who want to keep on committing crimes like they have been since the beginning of time.

He wrote: “The Anti-Semitic BDS Movement Advocates Illegal Discrimination,” an article that also came under the subtitle: “In their zeal to punish Israel, the movement's proponents push for violation of non-discrimination laws.” It was published on July 18, 2019 in National Review Online.

French's beef this time is that “Ilhan Omar co-sponsored a resolution designed to support the anti-Semitic BDS movement against Israel.” His complaint is this: “The resolution doesn't mention Israel and is crafted as an ode to free speech.” And so, he explains: “Individual anti-Semites have as much right to boycott Israeli products as individual racists have the right to refuse to patronize black-owned businesses. The fact that the Constitution protects such conduct doesn't render it less repugnant”.

Watch now how the devious lawyer employs a convoluted logic to argue that this constitutionally protected but “repugnant” refusal to buy Israeli products leads to the commission of an unlawful act. He does it by warning that to exercise one's right to support BDS “often leads to advocate violations of the law.” How is that, you ask? Well, it's because the movement is anti-Semitic, he says … and that's how the law is violated.

To prove his point, he gives the example of how he intervened in one such case in 2014 and won the argument. He says he served as counsel at the ACLJ where he co-authored a letter to a hotel informing it that it might violate California's nondiscrimination law if it hosted the ASA's annual meeting, given that the latter had declared it was honoring BDS. This veiled threat apparently had the effect of the hotel working to convince the ASA to allow the Israelis to participate in the meeting.

David French goes on to say that later that year, he coauthored another letter, making a similar argument to Janet Napolitano, president of the UC system, warning her that if the student-employee union voted to join the BDS movement, the UC system risked violating the law. Well, David French does not say what happened to this warning, but Janet Napolitano is known for her robust will to resist intimidation, especially when it comes from a little fart of the David French caliber. And so, we must assume that she ignored him or that she gave him a very robust Italian middle finger.

Unable to show a big win he can be proud of; David French borrowed the Jewish trick of immersing himself in a vitriolic rant aimed at slandering those he calls anti-Semites. After a short preamble, he found nothing else to say, thus repeated some of the quotes that were gathered by the Jewish Virtual Library, in which anonymous “anti-Semites” were said to have expressed the desire to see the apartheid system of Israel end the same way that it did in South Africa.

But not even for a moment was David French able to show why those who honor BDS are anti-Semites or that they help promote anti-Semitism knowingly or inadvertently. Do you know why this cannot be done, my friend? Because –– as shown in the two examples cited by French –– no one at the hotel and no one at the UC system tried to ban or curtail the activities of Jews. It's because people who honor BDS do not hate Jews, they only want to see the Jews of Israel stop hating the Palestinians so much as to ban them from going into their homes, plowing their fields and living their lives like everyone else on the planet. In fact, nobody in America or anywhere else is advocating the BDS of Jews. They only advocate the BDS of products made in Israel by enslaved Palestinian workers.

In fact, if you want to see swarms of Jewish diplomats gathered in one place, go to an American embassy in an Arab capital, and you'll find it overflowing with Jews that came into the country using an American passport or any other passport that is not Israel's. That's because there too, nobody is boycotting the Jews; they only boycott the entity of Israel that's boycotting the Palestinian people simply because they are Christian, or they are Muslim, but they are not Jewish.

Finally, a David French article would not be a David French article if it did not end with a glaring exhibition of the criminal insanity that inspired it. Look how David French ended his article this time:

“When Ilhan Omar supports BDS … the Constitution grants her the same rights it grants all other bigots, but for the movement to mean anything it has to violate the law, including the very non-discrimination statutes that were designed to lead the United States out of its Jim Crow past”.

This prompts the question: Does this mental case realize that the Jim Crow of America's past is dead and will remain buried as long as there are Ilhan Omars to keep it at bay lest it migrate from Israel where its twin is alive and well –– the way that everything else that's evil migrated to America from Israel over the decades?

Watch that treasonous Donald Ceausescu Trump

There came a time when most thinkers in America could no longer define American Exceptionalism as the movement to take in immigrants and let them flourish to their full potential, thus benefit all citizens while benefiting themselves. It is that the thinkers were beginning to see that things had changed so much in America, the definition was becoming obsolete, and had to be amended to comply with the new realities.

The thinkers were now seeing an America that was changing for the worse in a world that was changing for the better. Whereas the world, that was rife with local wars and abject poverty, was becoming more peaceful and more prosperous, America was seeing its moral compass so deteriorate, its native-born children could not learn anymore, and its business leaders preferred to invest their money abroad.

And so, American exceptionalism had to be redefined as (1) the movement of taking-in unskilled transient laborers who work, save a few dollars and return to the places from where they came, and (2) the exodus of the manufacturing and knowledge-based businesses to countries that promise a brighter future.

No longer operating at full potential, America could not maintain its middle class at the level that it used to enjoy. Discontent began to intensify throughout the land, resulting in the election of Donald J. Trump who promised to restore to America its former greatness. To that end, he took steps to keep out the cheap transient workforce that used to give much to America while getting back very little. He also took steps to bring back knowledge-based businesses as well as manufacturing but failed big time. And he took one more crucial step that will be viewed as his undoing by future historians.

Eager to duplicate the economic success of Ronald Reagan, Donald Trump added billions of dollars to the national debt. He gave most of the borrowed money, not to the middle and lower classes that would have spent it on local products and services, but to the upper class that was investing abroad and eager to fatten its foreign investment portfolio with a windfall of new cash. It must be acknowledged, however, that some of the money was spent locally, boosting the economy temporarily. This gave Trump the opportunity to claim that he duplicated the Reagan economy like he promised he would.

But there was another side to the Reagan economy that nobody dared mention. Well, to be accurate, it must be said that one person mentioned it in passing. He was Daniel Patrick Moynihan who said this: “We borrowed a trillion dollars from the Japanese and a had a party.” The consequence of that policy showed up a few years later when the country went into a recession, causing Reagan's successor (George Bush 41) to lose his re-election bid.

Now, the promise under Donald Trump, is that the deficit will reach a trillion dollars not once, but year after year after year, as far as the eye can see. It makes the Reagan-Bush era look like a model of fiscal restraint. But does Trump care about the long term damage he is inflicting on the economy? No, he doesn't. He doesn't because when it comes to character, he is the opposite of Ronald Reagan.

The truth is that Reagan was a true patriot. His desire was to make America the best that it can be. Donald Trump, on the other hand, is such a selfish individual, he refuses to face the fact that every move he makes turns into an act of treason. He disguised himself as a patriot, however, because he discovered that it was a good way to sell America and pocket the benefits without anyone realizing what he was doing.

And this is what he's doing: Keenly aware that he will have a hard time making the big bucks he dreams of, hustling Americans after he leaves office, he is cultivating close relationships with foreign leaders he believes will still be in office when he'll be out of office in 2020 or 2024. Some people call these leaders dictators, but he sees them as men he ought to love and be loved by. That's because he foresees he'll have “phenomenal” opportunities to do business with them, helping them develop their countries. He dreams of becoming very wealthy in the process, if not the richest man ever.

And so, sitting at the helm of an America that has much to offer to foreign leaders, Donald Trump gives the foreigners what they ask for no matter how much it costs America financially, diplomatically and in terms of national security. He is doing it, anticipating that he'll personally cash in phenomenally in the future –– and perhaps become the first trillionaire in history.

But sooner or later, the Trump bubble will burst. And all the promises that he made to his followers will blow away like thin smoke in heavy wind. And those who loved him intensely for what he promised, will hate him just as intensely when he fails to deliver.

Because the circumstances in America of the twenty first century are different from what they were in twentieth century Europe, Donald Trump will only be humiliated.

But the historians of the future will think of him as being the moral equivalent of a Ceausescu or a Mussolini, both of which were loved intensely and hated enough to be executed by a mob of angry citizens.

No such thing as empathic pain of the collective

Jonathan Deluty is a character that never served in the US military but served in the Israeli military. Still he wants you to believe he is as much an American as he is an Israeli. He earns his living not by producing something, but by making big bucks flipping real estate in America. He takes the profit and flies by night to Israel where the money is used by others to build more settlements for Jews on stolen Palestinian lands.

Jonathan Deluty is unhappy about something these days, and he is talking about it publicly. In fact, he wrote an article to express his sorrow under the title: “Don't compare the Situation on the Border to the Holocaust,” and the subtitle: “Doing so shamefully downplays the scale of the 20th century's worst horror.” It was published on July 16, 2019 in National Review Online.

This is just one of dozens of articles written mostly by Jews, “warning” gentiles about using language or certain expressions or certain words that the Jews have appropriated for themselves. In fact, the use of the word warning in this context is not an exaggeration when you consider the scandal that has erupted in Montreal some 25 or 30 years ago. It's the story of a judge that was hounded off the bench because he compared the suffering of a man whose vengeful wife tied him up and slowly cut his throat with a dull knife to make him suffer as much as possible while in the process of bleeding to death.

Well, those who hounded that Montreal judge did not have to explain themselves. They were herded like sheep into expressing horror without knowing what they were supposed to be horrified about. Unlike them, however, we know what we're supposed to be horrified about because we have an eyewitness account of what happened during the Holocaust of the 20th century. It is a letter that “grandfather Moshe” wrote to his relatives. Its content is revealed to us, courtesy of grandson Jonathan Deluty. Here it is:

“‘They expelled us in cattle cars to Auschwitz. My brother and I were sent to a concentration camp.’ Moshe and David were starving slave laborers for more than two years in a concentration camp, after which they were forced on a death march. When he finally escaped the Nazis by jumping off a transport train and running through the forest several weeks before the end of the war, my grandfather weighed roughly 100 pounds. That is what an actual concentration camp does to a person”.

Was that suffering more painful than the man whose vengeful wife tied him up and slowly cut his throat with a dull knife to make him suffer as much as possible while in the process of bleeding to death? Was it more painful than the suffering of children that died while aching physically and psychologically as they called out for their mothers and fathers who weren't there to comfort them because the authorities had decreed that the children must be separated from their parents?

Surely, the Jews that write articles similar to that of Jonathan Deluty know they are not going to persuade anyone that every Jew of yesteryear's concentration camp had suffered more than any gentile can possibly suffer today. So, why do they keep fishing from the archive examples of Jews whose suffering in the past pales compared to the suffering of thousands of gentiles today? Worse, they mindlessly discuss these examples as if they were the winning trump card of their argument. What are these Jews up to now?

Well, there is no escaping the conclusion that the Jews seek to establish the concept of collective empathy. They want to make it so that every past example will come to represent the collective pain and destruction of all the Jews. And here is the catch: It is not only the pain and destruction of the six million that perished in the twentieth century; it is also the pain and destruction of all the Jews alive today and those who will be tomorrow and thereafter. Well, whatever scheme this is, it's ambitious. But what's the utility in all of this?

When you come down to it, you'll find that the utility is hidden in two convoluted concepts.

First, they want to bestow the power of victimhood upon every Jew to wear on their chest like a medal of honor from cradle to grave. They want all Jews –– be they paupers in Israel living on Christian charity or pedophile billionaires running shady financial schemes –– to have a claim on society they can monetize anytime they need to. And they want to make the expression, “I am a Jew” the password that opens all doors into which the Jew can walk and get what he or she desires without being asked to explain their actions.

Second, they want to make it so that the Jews can automatically claim ownership of every precious art object or what have you that's discovered in some neglected warehouse anywhere in the world. And they want to take possession of that treasure if no one else can conclusively establish ownership of it.

All of this says that the time has come for society to tell these Jews, they can no longer claim they feel the pain of those who suffered decades ago, and ask to be treated preferentially simply because those who suffered then were thought to be Jews, and those who live the good life today claim to be Jews.