Once a shiny Star, Democracy is quickly fading

If Democracy were a panacea that leads to progress, liberty and prosperity, every corporation in the world would be run by the rules of Democracy … but none is. That's because the mandate of a corporation is to produce goods or services or both while remaining profitable. For this to happen, the corporation was designed as a hierarchical system where authority flows from top to bottom, and dissent is presented as suggestion, not criticism––not even constructive criticism.

In fact, this is how society itself used to be organized. There was practically no opposition to the governing system till such time that megalomaniac feudal lords appeared on the scene and developed the kind of insatiable greed that led them to abuse their powers. They did so to satisfy their hunger for material possession and for more of the powers they craved to accumulate. In turn, such development caused the masses of subjects to revolt and demand that there be change.

After numerous attempts, the masses were finally able to force the lords to institute a kind of mechanism through which the masses were allowed to participate in the way they were governed. Instead of issuing decrees by whim on the spur of the moment, the lords now governed with the consent of the people whom they were consulting. And this was the beginning that led to a democratic system of governance whose main feature has been a Bill of Rights that safeguarded the liberties of individuals.

That development took place because the people asked a simple question: Who owns this land, anyway? When the people answered that the land was owned by those who live on it and work it to produce the goods that everyone needs to live on, the people realized that the land was theirs and they had the clout to force a change. The bottom line is that the masses moved to bring about change because the feudal lords were increasingly taxing them at higher rates. But the byproduct of the change went beyond that. It caused the birth of the democracy that eventually did away with the feudal system and replaced it.

Whereas this history happened to the governance of political jurisdictions, something resembling it happened to corporations centuries later. The change came about when it was realized that the shareholders, and not management, owned the corporation. This is how and why a shareholders' Bill of Rights is now incorporated into the charter of most corporations. But a huge gulf still separates the way that a corporation and a democratic country are run. Despite the fact that the shareholders were recognized as the ultimate authority, the management of a corporation still retains immense powers, running the day-to-day operations of the corporation, and viewing dissent as subordination that calls for automatic firing.

Because nothing remains the same, much has conspired to diminish the allure of the democratic system of governance. The effect has been that many around the world have started to experiment with new systems. Out of these, two trends have distinguished themselves. One trend, recently adopted by the previously autocratic regimes, has been to emulate the hierarchical system by which corporations are run. The other trend has been the transformation of Democracy into a burlesque kind of joke such as you can see in America and Israel at this time.

In fact, there is a recent article that gives a good idea as to how that spectacle is unfolding. The article came under the title: “Lebanon Prepares for War While Israel Is at War with Itself,” and the subtitle: “Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu needs a tough image to survive September's elections. But did his posturing just cross the line?” It was written by Matthew Petti and published on August 29, 2019 in the National Interest.

Reading the article, you discover the horrifying reality that those who continue to pretend they adhere to the democratic system of governance, can no longer make a political move without intertwining it with deceptive propaganda and war-like violence that ranges from “managed tit-for-tat skirmishes” to full blown wars conducted by armies that go as far as direct their fire at the civilian population. What follows is a condensed version of some passages in Matthew Petti's article, highlighting that horrible reality:

“With elections in Israel coming up, Netanyahu is cultivating his image with a military posture. The escalation conducted by Israel in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon is part of a campaign done by the IDF and Netanyahu to send a message to Iran. There is also a domestic component to this as Netanyahu is locked in a death match. The public messaging is meant to demonstrate to the electorate that Netanyahu is protecting them from Iran. He is currently facing corruption charges, and parliamentary immunity may be his last chance to avoid jail. Shifting attention to the northern front could also help his re-election campaign. Netanyahu and his staff were desperately trying to contact Trump to dissuade him from meeting Zarif. Netanyahu is worried about US-Iranian detente. If you are Netanyahu, you would exploit the current situation to its utmost, by dragging the country into a conflict”.

This is what Democracy has degenerated into. The rot is pronounced in Israel more than anywhere else because Judaism nurtures the ingredient that kills comity where it finds it.

Many places in the world –– throughout time and space –– were ruined by that ingredient. America that was thought capable of withstanding the Jewish onslaught and thrive, succumbed to the deadly ingredient like everyone else.

Can America be saved before it reaches the point of no return? That's what an increasing number of patriots is trying to do. We should wish these people good luck.

A serious Case of political double Vision

Let's imagine a story that will help us clarify a number of important concepts.

It is a nice summer day and you just parked your car on a street that's full of small shops and cafes. You turn around and, surprise, you see a friend you haven't seen since your school days. Together, you go to a nearby cafe, and he tells you what he's been doing since your school days long ago.

He says he inherited some money and bought a company that manufactures electric home appliances. He was getting by but not for long because the competitors were modernizing and getting ahead of him. He hired a team of engineers to work on a new product that should have propelled him ahead of the competitors. The engineers came up with a product based on a new concept for an appliance that outperformed anything produced before, yet costing less than anything in use today.

He had the appliance tested, approved and licensed by all the private laboratories and government agencies having jurisdiction in this matter. But then, it happened that one of the appliances caught fire, causing damage to a house but no injury to people. The licenses were immediately revoked, and he was ordered to recall every unit that went out to the public.

You are a lawyer that respects the rigors of the law even if you're acutely aware that the law can be an ass at times. You are also a student of philosophy that's deeply interested in the human condition. You sense the resentment that your friend has developed for a system that licensed him to make a product, then revoked the licenses for what appears to be no good reason. So, you probe him to assess his thinking.

Having gathered a great deal of information, you paint a mental picture of what your friend is about at this moment. You happen to see a man that's carrying on with two simultaneous narratives. They are going in opposite directions but not on the same track. Thus, they are unlikely to collide, but they produce a great deal of tension and anguish in him. Here is where he is at:

On the one hand, he is attacking the labs and the agencies that revoked his licenses after the malfunction of an appliance that's unlikely to happen again. On the other hand, he is attacking the same labs and same agencies for being lax when granting licenses to manufacturers that make unsafe products. So, you're puzzled as to how he views himself. Does he believe he's a good guy that should not have lost his licenses? Or does he believe he's a bad guy that was nabbed by a system that's there to protect the public?

Well, dear reader, you must have guessed this is an analogy for what comes next. You are correct. In fact, what comes next is a discussion of an article that came under the title: “Why Hong Kong has a right to self-determination,” and the subtitle: “Come to think of it, so does Greenland.” It was written by Clifford D. May and published on August 27, 2019 in The Washington Times.

The friend in the story is Clifford May representing Israel. The appliance that may or may not be defective represents the system of governance anywhere in the world ... be it a liberal and democratic system or one that is authoritarian and domineering.

Not knowing what Clifford May has written before, and reading his latest article, you sense that it's a normal piece unfolding along a track that's biased in favor of the democratic system of governance. But if you know who Clifford May is, and you're familiar with what he's been writing for decades, you'll find that this track goes in the opposite direction of what he's been writing all along to justify Israel's reckless behavior.

This is analogous to the friend that attacked a licensing system he views as lax when granting licenses. But also attacked the system for being so rigid, it nabbed him for a trivial reason. To bring this anomaly into focus, I condensed, and slightly modified Clifford May's current article to make it sound like those he should have written throughout the years, but never did:

“The time when you buy countries is over. Take Hong Kong (Palestine.) There was a quid pro quo: The Jews gave out Benjamins, the Americans gave out Palestine and the Golan. This was called a 'principle' and given a name: The Tel-Aviv/New-York crime Syndicate. Hong Kongers (Palestinians) responded taking to the streets to defend their way of life. Why didn't Britain (USA) hold a plebiscite and give the people of Hong Kong (Palestine) an opportunity to decide their future? China's (Israel's) rulers, when admitted to the UN, undertook certain obligations: People have the right to self-determination, their political status and the pursuit of economic, social and cultural development. Wouldn't it be inspiring if UN Secretary-General were to propose a vote so that Palestinians could exercise self-determination? The world has been attempting to address Beijing's (Israel's) chronic theft of Arab properties, its continuing military buildup, its encroachments on the freedom of Palestinians, and its abuses of the most fundamental freedoms. Geographically, Greenland (Palestine) is part of the Middle East, and most Palestinians are Middle Eastern Arabs. Not so the Jews who are impostors and robbers of not just properties, but also robbers of the Semitic identity”.

Now, it is up to you, my friend, to decide if Clifford May is confused or he is deliberately being dishonest.

The Rabbit Hole that trapped its own Rabbit

Let me start this discussion by stating a number of fundamental definitions to avoid getting sucked into the rabbit hole of Jewish haggling.

An occupied land is a war zone. The occupier is considered the aggressive war criminal no matter his excuses. His stock in trade is terror, mayhem and bloodshed. The occupied, on the other hand, is the victimized freedom fighter whose struggle is considered legitimate no matter how he finds it necessary to fight the fires of occupation with the fires he scrounges to gather.

When the occupier sends civilians into a war zone, he does so for one reason only. It is to get the civilian killed in the crossfire so that the occupier may blow his entrails out of his belly howling: Look what the resistance is doing. Pity me! Pity me! And while you're at it, can you spare a billion or two Benjamins … brother?

Two Jews were good enough to show us how their brethren blow their entrails out of the belly as they spread terror, mayhem and bloodshed in a region desecrated by Israel, then blame their heinous crimes on the victims they keep under occupation. Our two Jews are Moshe Phillips and Beth Bailey.

Moshe Phillips wrote: “Rashida Tlaib Condemns Terror Attack –– but not really,” an article that also came under the subtitle: “When is a 'condemnation' of a Palestinian Arab terrorist attack not a condemnation of a Palestinian Arab terrorist attack? When Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib is the person speaking. The article was published on August 27, 2019 in the Jewish publication, Algemeiner.

Beth Bailey wrote: “Rashida Tlaib Blames Israel For Terrorist Attack That killed Israeli Teen,” an article that also came under the subtitle: “Rep. Rashida Tlaib implied that policies of the Jewish state of Israel were somehow to blame for the heinous actions of terrorists who detonated a bomb.” The article was published on August 27, 2019 in the Jewish influenced publication, The Federalist.

Both Moshe Phillips and Beth Bailey took the typical Jewish approach of whining about someone (in this case Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib) doing nothing for the Jews, or doing so little it wasn't enough. What they wanted is what the Jews have always wanted: “a full-throated” condemnation of the victims (in this case, the Palestinians) for the terror of occupation that is maintained by the Jews, and for causing the death of civilians who were sent by Israel to die in the war zone known as the West Bank.

The two authors did not get what they hoped for from the American Congresswoman of Palestinian descent and so, in the name of the entire Jewish propaganda machine, they blew their own entrails howling: Look what the resistance is doing. Pity me! Pity me!

It is that Moshe Phillips wanted Rep. Tlaib to blame the victims for the sins of the aggressors … and that just didn't happen. As to Beth Bailey, she wanted Ms. Tlaib to label the resistance, “terrorists” instead of freedom fighters.

Terrorist being the label that was pinned on Nelson Mandela by the terrorist apartheid beasts in South Africa who spent a lifetime terrorizing Mandela till they could no more. We'll just have to wait and see if a similar moment of “could no more” will come to the Israeli beasts. That’s when they may decide to look up to human beings and step aside, letting the events take their natural course like it happened in South Africa.

The question now is this: Between now and then, where to from here? Well, each of the two Jewish writers has offered a thought. Speaking of Rashida Tlaib's duty, Moshe Phillips said this: “She can tell the Palestinians that murdering Jews is immoral, and that there can be no excuse for it.” As to Beth Bailey, she formulated her thoughts as follows:

“If our congresswoman continues to offer a one-sided truth about the Israel-Palestine conflict and fails to address the cult of 'heroic martyrdom' granted to those who kill Israelis, then it is the duty of Americans who support Israel to learn the truth and speak up loudly against Tlaib's emotionally charged lies”.

With regard to the saying of Moshe Phillips, it cannot be that he is ignorant of the fact that for every Jewish home-invader that's killed by the Palestinian owners of Palestine, a hundred Palestinians are killed by the invading Jews who came to kill them and rob them of their property. Thus, if Moshe Phillips believes that murdering Jews is immoral, he must also believe that Jews murdering Palestinians, is a hundred times more immoral. And he should strive to be human enough to say so in print. We look forward to that.

As to the saying of Beth Bailey, it cannot be that she is aware of what has been happening during the last two decades or so. It is that the American people –– unlike their zombie politicians –– did in fact take the trouble to learn the truth about the conflict in occupied Palestine. This is why they started speaking loudly against the tsunami of lies that the Jewish organizations have been pouring out for decades like a never-ending Niagara Falls.

The way forward is a deeper involvement by ordinary Americans on college campuses and elsewhere, or the Jewish lies will keep adding to the length of the hole, trapping its own rabbit deeper still.

When the Judeo-Christian attacks the Christian

Nature's preferred order is for all things to be and to remain in balance. When something goes out of balance for whatever reason, nature conspires to bring it back into balance no matter how long it takes it.

For example, if you pour a bucket of hot water into one that contains cooler water, some of the heat will dissipate into the cooler water so as to distribute the heat evenly throughout the mix. This is one of the ways that nature restores balance. There are millions more.

Of all the species that inhabit Planet Earth, only the human species has developed the mental capacity to appreciate the necessity to inject balance into its culture. Thus, whereas nature works to impose balance on all the species and between them –– such as maintaining the right balance between the number of predators and the number of preys in all kinds of environments –– the human species has developed a culture into which it has woven the equitable delivery of balance to all its members. The mechanism by which this is accomplished, is called “justice”.

We, human beings, recognize that we are endowed with a free-will that is supposed to supervise and manage our instinct, making sure that it does not get out of hand. This gift is the trait that separates us from the other species, collectively called animals. But things can happen at times that would give someone the power to hijack our free-will. And that someone will make other human beings work on destabilizing the existing order by throwing it out of balance and nullifying the sense of justice. There are many reasons why someone would do this; one being greed … aptly described as the manifestation of the “animal spirit”.

Needless to say, that in our ascent to the level that made us human, we learned to dampen our animal instinct by articulating codes of conduct that support our free-will as it struggles to reject the animal instinct, and chooses the “civilized” way of responding to external events.

Of all the people that inhabit the Earth today and those that came before us, only a handful of individuals –– sometimes called strong men –– were able to develop the ability to diminish the sense of balance in the people that surrounded them. They used that ability to turn their followers into hollow vessels, ready to be filled with the suggestions that the strong men put into them.

The tool the strong men used to achieve their goal, was a central idea with which they started a movement. They made sure that the message of the movement appealed to those who were crushed by the existing order and resented it. Thus, the central idea of the movement was a promise that tomorrow will be better than today, whether tomorrow will come in the afterlife as promised by religion, or come very soon as promised by the revolution whose goal is to reverse the existing order.

Towering figures of the Moses stature, in control of a nation, as were Caesar of Rome and Stalin of Russia, did accomplish a great deal of what they had in mind, proceeding as they did by converting as many followers to their cause as they could. However, their reign was finite in that it had a beginning, and had an end that usually coincided with their death. But the one movement that seems to have no end, is that which started with the original Moses, whether this man was real or was an invention of the Jewish folklore. In any case, the movement, called Judaism, refused to die during the thousands of years it has lingered on the Planet, detested by all of humanity throughout space and time.

We have the opportunity to probe into the secrets of this movement's longevity by studying the article that came under the title: “Lutherans Ask US to Subsidize Terror-Supporting Palestinian Authority,” written by Dexter Van Zile and published on August 26, 2019 in Algemeiner.

That article is but one episode in the millions of such episodes that were produced verbally and in written form over the centuries. Its method rests on the use of endless haggling to advance a flawed logic for the purpose of distorting the facts and clouding the morality of the issues. Thus, the Van Zile article and the millions like it, are meant to advance the conclusion that the Jews are owed everything by everyone, yet owe nothing to anyone.

Right now, the system is set up such that America is paying billions of dollars every year to feed the Israelis, and arm them to kill Palestinians and steal their properties. To minimize the appearance of depravity that is projected by this set-up, America has been paying the Palestinians a fraction of a fraction what the Jews are receiving. To convince the Americans that the system is still tilted in favor of the Palestinians –– the Jews, who kill Palestinians by the tens of thousands –– take American civilians into a war zone so that they get killed in the crossfire. When this happens, as it does occasionally, the Jews blame the deaths on the Palestinians, and quickly ask the Americans to stop sending the little that they do to the Palestinians.

The subtle argument that the Jews are using to justify their stance, is a version of the old argument about money being fungible. That is, the billions of dollars that go to the Jews, and the pittance that goes to the Palestinians, can be used for a specific purpose, or used for one purpose so as to free money that is then used for an entirely different purpose.

For this reason, say the Jews, America must not listen to the Lutheran Church that advocates sending money to the hospitals of Palestine. It's because, in their view, such move will make it possible for the Palestinian Authority to continue feeding the people who are kept under occupation by the murderous power of American weaponry.

And when the Palestinians are fed, say the distraught Jews, they continue to resist the occupation, thus produce the crossfires that kill the American civilians whom the Jews send to the war zone to die and produce the right kind of propaganda for Israel.

Thus, alleviating the plight of the Palestinians, contradicts the sense of Jewish justice, lament the whining Jews as they justify their attack on the Christians of the Lutheran Church.

And so, I ask you: How much more haggling of this kind can you take, my friend? If you say you’re totally fed-up, the way to end your agony is to end America’s ties with Israel. Just cut the thing loose and let it find another sucker on whom to sponge.

The self-administered Sting that did not fail

When a Jew lies to you, and you know he or she is lying but you cannot prove it, there is a simple trick you can use to catch them with the hand in the cookie jar … so to speak.

What you do is go along with them till they are convinced you swallowed their lie, hook, line and sinker. That's when they'll start bragging about their exploit, proving once and for all––as if coming from the horse's mouth––that they have been denying what they are bragging about now. And so, having inadvertently stung themselves in this fashion––making life easier for you––take advantage of the situation. Play the game of the opportunist for once, and nail those Jews for having lied to you before.

The reason why we're allowed to look at this trick and discuss it, is that Michael Rosen and Matti Friedman gave us and the world a valuable gift. What happened was that Matti Friedman wrote a book and Michael Rosen reviewed the book in the online magazine, The Federalist on August 23, 2019. Rosen published his article under the title: “How Arabic Jews Helped Form Israel's Legendary Intelligence Service,” and a long subtitle that reads: “Journalist Matti Friedman's book, 'Spies of No Country' examines the questions of identity surrounding Jews from the Arab world who worked as spies and helped create the state of Israel”.

While the book is meant to be an exercise in braggadocio about Israel’s spy agency, it yields a large number of truths that the Jews have been denying when they were not beating their breast but beating around the bush. Well, Matti Friedman has stung himself now, and went on to beat the Jewish breast. It is that in so doing, he has admitted to everything that was said about the Jews; the very things they have been vehemently denying not long ago. And as expected, Friedman and the other lying Jews are taking pride in their exploit; unaware that they did it to themselves as if to benefit the rest of us. Should we thank them?

Look what Matti Friedman has admitted to that the Jews were denying not long ago:

“Circa 1945-50, dozens of would-be agents––Jewish by religion, Arab by everything else––began appearing in Palestine from the surrounding Arab countries. The intelligence apparatus deployed these assets throughout Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and elsewhere. The spies gathered valuable intelligence and carried out courageous operations. Military officers in search of agents visited the young immigrants on the kibbutzim. The recruiters would pitch them on the virtues of a career in espionage. Once enlisted, they were deployed primarily to mixed Arab-Jewish cities. Riveting tales of their derring-do––attempted assassinations, car bombs, and the like––intensify and they are redeployed northward, tagging along with Arab refugees from Palestine. There, they gleaned intelligence blending in among the population, operating taxis and kiosks, occasionally taking side trips to Aleppo and Damascus”.

As you follow the Friedman narrative, you realize that before there was a serious war in the Middle East, dozens of youngsters, “Jewish by religion, Arab by everything else,” were lured away from the surrounding Arab countries by the Jewish agencies that gathered them in secret camps for preparation, and then sent them into the kibbutzim for indoctrination.

What this revelation does, is prove that the Jews were not chased away by the Arabs as claimed by those who tried to extort compensation from the Arab governments. The truth is that young Jews were lured away from their countries of birth by criminal Jewish organizations that beckoned them to exploit them. The revelation also proves that Judaism has a powerful influence on those who embrace it, confusing these people about their identity, and messing up their loyalties.

In fact, it is true today as it was then, that indoctrinated Jews are rendered so confused, they become vulnerable to the suggestions of the agents who work on brainwashing them. When this is completed, the victimized Jews are enlisted to start a career of betrayal; that of harming the countries of their birth.

In the past, the victims became disposable “assets” at the disposal of the Jewish organizations that sent them to sabotage the installations on which they depended in their daily living … and sent them to kill the people that played a role nurturing them as they were growing up. Today, the indoctrinated Jews are trained to infiltrate the strategic institutions of the country of their birth. They are instructed to work from the inside on turning the country into a colony of Israel. Sadly, this is what's happening to America.

Matti Friedman's narrative also proves that the Israeli spy agency was effective only for a short period of time when it could recruit traitors who betrayed the Arab counties where they were born and raised. The agency lost that edge after a generation to become just another impotent eunuch that wants the world to believe he is a stud that can still shaft his enemies. But no one is afraid.

Jewish Logic: Choose A over B, and B over A

When it comes to choosing between politicizing American support for Israel, the rank-and-file Jews are told to simultaneously choose YES rather than NO, and choose NO rather than YES.

If you've read yesterday's article, posted just below this one under the title: “They muddy the Issues but claim to clarify them,” you'd have seen how David Marcus was urging even the “enemy” that is the Democratic Party, to get back at being pro-Israel by doing nothing that's not politicizing their support for Israel during the ongoing election campaign.

In contrast, what you have today is a new article written by Dennis Ross and Stuart Eizenstat in which they make the point that, “Israel should resist Trump's efforts to politicize support,” which is the title of an article they published on August 22, 2019 in The Hill. In other words, they are advocating this: do anything you want but do not politicize your support for Israel during the ongoing election campaign.

So the question is this: what is it that these people want from others? Is it politicizing their support for Israel, or refraining from politicizing their support for Israel? The truth is that, like everything else, the Jews want to receive it from both sides. They want to see a gusher of political support for Israel from one extreme end of the political spectrum to the other extreme end. But they want such support to be expressed as love for Israel that is so pure, it is not tainted by any other message, however minuscule the tainting may be. This is what the Jews call, having a balanced view of the issues pertaining to the Middle East.

Unaware of the fatal flaw that's inherent to this logic, the Jewish propaganda machine, which is orchestrated by AIPAC, designed and executed a scheme for dealing with Jewish and Israeli matters that paralyzes the system of checks and balances conceived by the Fathers of the American Confederation. The scheme worked for a while but then started to crack in two places: internally and externally.

Internally, the two-party system that used to operate on the principle of standing in opposition to each other, morphed into being mortal enemies of each other. This happened when a faction of the Jewish Left embraced the neoconservative movement and defected to the opposition. Like any divorce, there proved to be no hatred in hell like former lovers feeling betrayed by the other significant half. In time, the loathing between the two Jewish factions spilled over to the rest of society and became blind hatred between the two main political parties in America and their respective followers.

This added to America's woes by causing a paralysis to its external standing and business dealings. Everyone around the globe; most especially the superpower's allies, were stung by this new trend. It was a development that happened because something fundamental was altered. You see, my friend, the normal course of action in any project, is to start with a vision of what you want to accomplish and design a plan to get there. America used to be a good team player, participating in the planning and the execution of these actions.

But then, it happened that instead of moving in the correct direction in concert with the allies, America started to move in a different direction while proclaiming it was doing what's good for America. But the truth was not lost on anyone. Everyone could see that America was trying to pull the allies into working for Israel and not for the American people or those of the allies. It is that America had been taken over by the Jews.

And this is when the Jewish plan of having it both ways was unmasked and allowed to go down. It left behind a wounded America both on the domestic and foreign stages. Instead of rethinking their approach, and working to save America, Ross and Eizenstat wrote an article –– addressed specifically to members of the Congress –– in an effort to save, not America, but save the scheme that ruined America. Imagine!

Look how Ross and Eizenstat started their article: “The two of us have long been committed to the US-Israeli relationship. Israel stands as a bulwark against radical Islamist threats, whether coming from Iran or ISIS. From this standpoint, it is both our values and our interests that have underpinned the US-Israeli relationship over the years”.

In the same way that they and other Jewish leaders, have been able to maintain a tight grip on the rank-and-file by scaring them about an evil world that's intent on harming them for no reason except that they are who they are, Ross and Eizenstat are trying to scare members of the Congress about an evil world that's intent on harming Americans for no reason except that they love freedom, and the bad guys hate freedom.

And in the same way that their recommendation to the Jewish rank-and-file has been that to survive, they must come under the protection of the Jewish leaders, their recommendation to the American political class has been that to survive, America must come under the protection of Israel. Imagine the gall of the Jews and the degree to which the Americans have been lightened.

There was a time when members of the Congress would buy that sort garbage and act on it. It took a little time for the American public to see what was happening but when it did, reacted by demanding change.

Members of the Congress got the message, but they are slow at digesting it and changing their ways. However, they did make a start at moving in the correct direction, and that's a welcome change.

This is causing the Jewish leaders to panic, and do what they can to keep the gravy train deliver for Israel and for themselves. But no matter what they do, they still remain on the losing side of history. What a pity!

They muddy the Issues but claim to clarify them

What better way is there to discuss the morality of honest communication in journalism than to cite the example of the late Walter Cronkite? After all, no less than President Lyndon Johnson recognized that if he were to lose Cronkite, he would lose the trust of the nation.

Yet, no serious study that I know of, was done to explain why some broadcasters, who did nothing more than read the news written for them by someone else, were able to cultivate such a loyal following. So, let me offer one idea. I studied drama in film and theater, and learned that gifted actors of the Marlon Brando caliber, use a technique called “the Method,” which boils down to the actor studying the characters that he or she is playing, and mimic them down to their minutest mannerisms and idiosyncrasies.

Since a broadcaster reads actual news and does not imitate someone, how does he or she apply the lesson of the Method? This is where Walter Cronkite offers a valuable lesson. He did not simply read the news, he reacted to it in a way that was subtle enough not to vulgarize the solemnity of the moment, but obvious enough to let his own humanity shine through the solemn facade.

An instance that remains stuck in my memory, happened at a time when America was free of the Jewish tyrannical albatross now weighing on its neck. It is that America used to speak its mind (not do what it does today, which is to regurgitate the words stuffed into its mouth by the Jewish lobby whose only interest is to tell the world there is no daylight between America and Israel) expressing the will of the American people.

And so, every time that America spoke its mind, the leaders of Israel asked for an explanation, and Cronkite did no more than dispassionately relay the news. But at some point, the Israeli habit of asking for an explanation had become so repetitive, Cronkite could not help but make a face pronouncing the word “explanation.” He thus expressed his profound indignation, and this was a moment that rivaled Marlon Brando's scream: Stella! This is how Walter Cronkite became the icon that he was.

But why is it useful for us today to be acquainted with that episode? It is useful because it helps us see what parts of America's culture the Jews have destroyed, and suggests a way to repair the damage. With that in mind, we take a close look at an article that came under the title: “It's time for Dems to make Israel an issue in their 2020 primary,” written by David Marcus and published on August 23, 2019 in the New York Post.

Whereas the leaders of Israel used to ask for clarifications long ago, today's leaders of the Jewish lobby, muddy the issues. Worse, they do it in the name of clarification, which is like doing sex in the name of virginity. You can see this mentality at work in the David Marcus article. That's where he went through many of the issues pertaining to the Middle East, and muddied them beyond recognition. He did all this, so that in the end, he could advocate the following course of action:

“The Democrats cannot in good faith criticize Israel while tolerating the view that the US should actively punish that nation, and place it at risk. The question facing Democrats is whether they will confront members of their own party whose disdain for Israel is worn like a badge of honor. The Democrats must make clear that they stand with Israel and the Israeli people in their quest for peace and security”.

This is what comes at the end of the article. To get there, David Marcus produced a great deal of muck, thus tarnished the issues so badly, they formed a pool of mud. What follows is a condensed passage that shows some of the techniques used by Marcus to confuse America's leaders and maintain the status quo. It is a system that has worked so well for Israel at the expense of the American and Palestinian peoples, the Jewish leaders will do anything to keep it going forever. Here is that passage:

“The Democrats paint Israel as a cruel oppressor rather than a vulnerable nation threatened by an entire region dedicated to its destruction. Somehow a handful of progressive congresswomen have instilled fear in the Democratic leadership on this and many other issues. This is shocking. It will not be enough to say there are divergent opinions in the Democratic caucus; men and women who wish to be president must decisively back the right of Israel to defend itself and vociferously oppose any efforts to punish Israel economically”.

As can be seen, David Marcus began with an assertion on how the Democrats paint Israel, but did not deny that Israel is indeed a cruel oppressor. Instead, he relied on the assertion that followed to hint at the denial. It went like this: “[Israel,] a vulnerable nation threatened by an entire region dedicated to its destruction”.

That is, David Marcus painted the image of an innocent little Israel surrounded by evil giants who are preparing to crush the thing. And so he appealed, not to the Democratic caucus, but to those running to be president, to drop the issues that interest them and adopt the single issue of what's good for Israel.

This shows that whereas the broadcasters can endear themselves to the audience by allowing their humanity to seep through the facade of solemnity, the pundits of the print media will antagonize the audience if, instead of respecting it by being discreet, they adopt the in-your-face approach of dictating to others what they must do.

This is how David Marcus proceeded, telling the Democrats how to serve Israel. It is why his appeal will not resonate with anyone, and why the Democrats will ignore him.

He whips his own Back to chase after a Ghost

Can you imagine a spoof in which a clumsy changeling that believes he sees a ghost, whipping himself in the back to run faster and catch-up with the object of his delusion? A spectacle such as this would be funny, of course, but it could also be revealing. And that's what is happening to Dennis Prager.

The man wrote an article under a title that reads: “Criticizing Israel is fine, but anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic,” published on August 20, 2019 in the New York Post. To make his point, Prager began by making a false analogy and then built on it. He wanted the readers to think of Israel as being like Italy. The two are so much alike, he said, if you think of Israel as being illegitimate, you must think of Italy as being illegitimate as well … and so would be many other countries.

The problem with this analogy is that Italy and Israel are nowhere near being alike. In fact, no country in the world except two –– Rhodesia and South Africa –– have ever resembled Israel. As to the abominable regimes that used to govern those countries, they are defunct now. This is what humanity is trying to do to the equally abominable Zionist regime governing Israel.

In fact, it happens that Rhodesia-cum-Zimbabwe and South Africa are now moving-on like normal countries where their citizens, who are of every origin you can imagine, practice their version of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Think about it: What better development could happen to the populations of Israel and the region if a similar situation were to be fashioned for them?

But why can't Dennis Prager and those like him see that reality? They can't see it because the propaganda to which they are exposed, subjects them to a hypnotic spell from the moment they get a first taste of their mothers' milk to the day when they exhale their last breath. This mental atrocity deprives them of the ability to see the similarities or differences that may exist between two or more situations.

Such ability is written into our DNA at conception but yanked out of the Jews and their gentile sycophants who get recruited by them. In lieu of that ability, which is an essential component that serves to upgrade our level of intelligence, the Jewish propaganda machine plants a demonic mechanism into the thinking process of the unsuspecting victims.

We can see how that mechanism operates when we examine Dennis Prager's inability to see the abomination that's inherent to the Zionist regime of Israel, as it imports people of the Jewish religion from around the world and uses them to replace the Palestinian indigenous population which happens to be composed of other religions. And we are horrified by Prager's inability to see that Israel's policy is closer to the former apartheid regimes of Rhodesia and South Africa than it is to any other regime around the globe … and certainly not to that of Italy.

As well, we are stupefied to realize that even then, it would be insulting to apartheid Rhodesia and South Africa to equate them with Israel. That's because those regimes imported people from abroad, not to replace the indigenous population, but to work with it in a supervisory capacity. This is in contrast to Zionism which imports Jews from abroad to displace and take the place of the indigenous Palestinians.

And then, when we hear or read Dennis Prager say that Israel is like Italy, we feel a jolt of disgust similar to what we would if someone had said that Jeff Epstein's female recruiting madams are the same as Mother Theresa. This alone, ought to tell the authorities in the district where Prager lives, they have a nutcase on the loose that should be locked up for his own good and that of society.

It is not surprising, therefore, that someone who is this screwed up, would think that: “Anti-Zionism is opposition to Israel's existence.” Well, it must be said that the people who first came up with that idea, explained that to oppose Zionism was to oppose the creation of a religion-based apartheid regime.

And so, they concluded that the intent of those who oppose Zionism, must be that they want to see a “democratic” Israel replace the existing neofascist regime. They figured that such move would be unacceptable to the Jewish settlers and to the leaders of Israel who believe they are implementing God's orders … that Almighty who operates in mysterious ways and must never be questioned.

But when this kind of argument did not go well with the rest of the world, the people that came up with the screwy idea, changed their tune and made it sound like they meant to say that to oppose Zionism, was to seek the destruction of Israel in the sense of razing it the way that Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were razed. And this is the falsehood that Dennis Prager is now peddling in his article.

Yanked of the ability to detect differences between situations, Dennis Prager has spent a lifetime chasing the ghost of antisemitism, and still does. The more he approaches the thing, the farther it gets away from him, and the harder he whips himself to run faster still.

Poor Dennis Prager, Sisyphus had an easier time rolling that stone up the hill.

A strategic Decision is needed not a new Plan

Thomas L. Friedman, a columnist with the New York Times, has written a piece, showing conclusively that Democracy has been severely if not mortally wounded in America thanks to the doings of the Jewish lobby, which includes the mob of Jewish pundits, of which Thomas Friedman is a prominent member.

The Friedman column came under the title: “How the Palestinian-Israeli Peace Process Became a Farce,” and the subtitle: “We have peace plans with no partners and movements with no peace plans.” It was published on August 20, 2019 in the New York Times.

The writer described the existing situation as follows: “The Palestinian-Israeli peace process has become a pathetic festival of magical thinking, performance art, reality denial, political fund-raising and outright political fraud,” which is an accurate description of the observable facts. But the problem is that Thomas Friedman has no clue how the situation developed to become what it is, or how to fix it.

You can tell that is the case from what Friedman went on to say, which is this: “[The peace process] has become about everything except what it needs to succeed: courageous, fair-minded, creative diplomacy and leadership.” And this is the kind of bubble-haggle that leads to nowhere because it means nothing. In fact, when you go over the article, you discover that there is nothing in it which goes beyond the rehashing of the same old talking points that formed the original bubble-haggle that led to nowhere.

To begin developing a vision for a possible solution that is real, we first need to understand what the problem is. Simply put, the problem is that the Jews in America and Israel drove their thinking process into a box from which they cannot exit. They run back and forth inside the box looking for something that isn't there, not realizing that there is space outside the box, which is a million times larger and more accommodating than the interior of the box. What follows is a condensed version of how Thomas Friedman sees a possible solution which, in reality, has already proven to be a failed attempt at a solution:

“The only hope is for an Israeli leader to make a unilateral separation from the West bank. The Israeli army would retain overall security control of the West Bank but cede much more day-to-day economic and political control to Palestinians, and curb Jewish settlement deep in the West Bank. There are currently about 105,000 Jewish settlers living right in the heart of where any Palestinian state in a two-state solution would be located. If that settlement process is not halted immediately –– and incentives created for those settlers to move –– there will be no hope ever for a two-states-for-two-people peace deal. The only option left will be one state for two people, a recipe for permanent strife”.

The Jews have been saying this much for half a century, and it hasn't worked. They pretended to go through several peace plans during that time but delivered nothing. It's because they constructed a monumental narrative with imaginary components that bear no resemblance to what's real, and then used that narrative to march into the box of no-exit. In fact, even if what they claim were real and true, they still would have no right to what they took by force of arms, helped as they were by the old colonial powers of France and Britain, and now by an America that is as wise as when Rome was governed by Caesar's horse.

That is, even if today's Jews were the direct descendants of the Hebrew tribes that imposed themselves on the indigenous Palestinians for a short period of time in antiquity, they still would have no right to displace the Palestinians who never left the place, but lived there continuously generation after generation. If this erroneous privilege is granted to the Jews, the two billion souls of European ancestry that now live in the Americas, Australia, New Zealand and other places around the globe, would have the right to displace the current population of Europe, and take over the entire continent. And I would have the right to displace an Egyptian family that lives in Cairo, and take over the house where I spent the first year and a half of my life.

This is so demented, so primitive, so backward and so beastly, I would feel like a cockroach for thinking I might have that right. And yet, look what Friedman says about the so-called Jews who proudly call themselves non-Middle Eastern Jews: “BDS demands the return of Palestinian refugees and their descendants to their villages while making no mention of the rights of the Jews to a state in their historical homeland.” What kind of history is that? No. Palestine was never the homeland of these impostors. But even if they were for real, they have no more the right to be in Palestine than a cockroach has the right to be in your pantry infesting your food with its droppings.

And that tells you where the thinking about a solution to the Middle East problem ought to start. It ought to start by ending the tsunami of Jewish lies, and by making a strategic decision. After telling the truth, the Jews must ask for forgiveness. They should then ask for mercy and pity. And they should beg to be accepted in the crucible where Civilization was born and raised to a mature age.

If the Jews do all that, they will find the Arabs to be as accommodating as the Africans have been toward the White Rhodesians and South Africans. End of story.

Bare Concept buried under Tons of haggling Trash

We should consider calling Clifford D. May a gift that keeps on giving for, he just demonstrated how a simple concept can be buried under tons of haggling trash, thus transform a situation that can be solved in a day into one that goes on for half a century, and ends up stalemated.

Clifford May wrote an article under the title: “The anti-Israel lobby,” that also came under the subtitle: “Reps. Tlaib and Omar are on a mission to defame and de-legitimize the Jewish state.” It was published on August 20, 2019 in The Washington Times.

What Clifford May did, thinking he was adding to the pile of haggling trash, is that he highlighted some important facts. What comes out from reading his article is that the Jews are entitled to a homeland given to them by the united Nations in Palestine. The size of the land they have title to, is contained within the 1948 borders, which is equal to less than 10 percent what the Jews occupy right now.

What they occupy at this time comprises, among other pieces of land, what's known as the 1967 border, also referred to as Israel proper. These are lands annexed by Israel during the period between 1948 and 1967 by a method known as “fait accompli,” which means accomplished fact in French.

What happened in the interim was that Israel got into a series of skirmishes with Lebanon, Syria and Jordan, trying to steal their water resources. It occupied small parcels of lands but got kicked out of them eventually. This prompted the Jews to plan the 1967 massive attack on its neighbors. The adventure was so well planned, Israel increased its size to something like 5 or 6 times what it was. It asked the neighbors to negotiate but they said no … not until it withdraws to the 1967 borders. Israel refused and a 6-year war of attrition ensued. Egypt and Syria finally counterattacked with force in 1973. The Syrians got back most but not all of the Golan Heights. Egypt got back all of the Sinai.

Jordan did not participate in the 1973 counterattack because it had not lost territory to Israel. All that the Jews had accumulated were Palestinian lands, known as Gaza and the West bank. When Anwar Sadat of Egypt agreed to the American proposal for the ceasefire that allowed Israel to withdraw in an orderly fashion, Manachem Begin of Israel tried to hand Gaza to Egypt. But Sadat would not take what belonged to the Palestinians, and urged Begin to negotiate with the Palestinians directly. Years later, Jordan did the same thing with regard to the West Bank.

Right now, the world, the UN, the Arab nations and the Palestinian people consider that the Jews (Israel) are only entitled to the 1948 borders ... but could get up to the 1967 border if they negotiated in good faith. As a bonus, the Arab League, speaking for 350 million Arabs in 22 countries, would agree to recognize Israel, to welcome it into the Middle East instead of seeing it masquerade as “European Semites,” and establish full diplomatic, commercial and cultural exchanges.

But the Jews rejected all that because what they wanted from the start was all of Palestine and what else they could snatch from the neighbors. They were able to con the American political class, and get the help they needed to pursue the twin tracks of siphoning America's blood while sabotaging the peace process and blaming the wreckage on the Palestinians.

The Jews used the power of the haggle to achieve all that. It is a process that Clifford May took pain to show how it unfolds. He wrote a 1,000-word article that contains many of the techniques used by the Jewish pundits to portray themselves as victims. They distort the truth, accuse others of the sins they see in themselves, and attribute to themselves the virtues they see in others. They understate some issues, and exaggerate others when it suits them, then reverse their position when the wind blows in the other direction.

Because it would take volumes to analyze May's article in its entirety, I shall only discuss one aspect of it. With the backgrounder given above and the analysis given below, the reader should be able to see the full range of what the Jews do to make “antisemitism” happen, then complain about it and ask for compensation as well as special protection not given to anyone else. Now look at the following passage in May's article:

“The goal of BDS, as stated by its founder and leader, Omar Barghouti, is Israel's extermination. 'Definitely, most definitely we oppose a Jewish state in any part of Palestine,' he has said on video. 'No Palestinian, rational Palestinian, not a sell-out Palestinian, will ever accept a Jewish state in Palestine'”.

Clifford May started the paragraph with the accusation that Barghouti stated his goal was to exterminate Israel. May was careful not to say exterminate the Israelis or the Jews, because if he did, he would have been caught with his pants down, and looked like the naked emperor. But May counted on the use of the word “exterminate” to give the impression that Barghouti meant extermination in the sense of a Holocaust. Having used that word, Clifford May then quoted what Barghouti had said in a somewhat mangled English.

The issue that's treated in that quote is one that came up long before the advent of the BDS movement. It happened that after a successful round of Peace negotiations, and before signing the agreement to seal it, the Israeli negotiators did what they always do, which was to come up with a new demand they knew the Palestinians could not accept. They asked that the Palestinians recognize Israel as being a Jewish state.

Because the legal ramifications of such recognition would be humongous, the Palestinians said no. They told the Jews they can call Israel anything they want, but they cannot demand that the Palestinians –– or anyone else, for that matter –– agree with the ideas that lurk behind such nomenclature. And that's how the Jews torpedoed the talks one more time on that day.

Ever since that time, the Jewish propaganda machine has been deceiving the American political class as well as the public by portraying the refusal of the Palestinians to drink from the cup of poison the Jews are handing them, as being proof that they want to exterminate the Jewish people.

That is, the Jews asked the Palestinians to drop dead, so that the Jews can be certain they'll survive. And the Palestinians protested: Who do you take us for? Americans? We're smarter than that!

The smart Aleck locutions that keep backfiring

Poor David Harsanyi, mindful that he'll have a hard time proving that Rashida Tlaib or Ilhan Omar lied, he avoided using that word. Instead, he used the word “untrue.” That's because you can say something that's contrary to the truth believing it is true … and that's not a lie. But when you say something that's contrary to the truth knowing it isn't so, you tell a lie. That's the difference between telling an untruth and telling a lie.

So, Harsanyi writes an article about the two Muslim Congresswomen, carefully avoiding the use of words that sound hurtful or insulting … and submits the piece to the editor who chooses a title for it. The thing gets published, and horror of horror, what does Harsanyi see? He sees a title that says: “Don't fall For Omar And Tlaib's Lies About Israel.” The editor made it sound like David Harsanyi is accusing the women of lying. He feels like being stabbed in the back by his own editor.

The article was published on August 19, 2019 in The Federalist. It is the writer's commentary on the press conference that the two women held on that day concerning the controversy that erupted when their trip to Palestine/Israel was canceled. It is clear that Harsanyi's objective in writing the article has been to minimize the damaging effect that the conference had on Israel's image.

David Harsanyi set out to show that what the women announced they were trying to accomplish, was at odds with what they actually did to bring about that accomplishment. To strengthen his argument, Harsanyi told of an alternative path that the congresswomen could have taken to succeed in what they were doing –– but a path they did not take. Here is how the writer put it all together:

“Omar and Tlaib could easily have joined a group of 70 of their colleagues and met with Israeli officials––if it's supposedly part of their duties, as they assert, to learn about the situation on the ground. Instead, they planned a separate trip to Palestine with an itinerary designed by Miftah”.

What's bizarre about this suggestion is that it mirrors the bizarre nature of the situation which Harsanyi is trying to whitewash. To understand this part, we need to acquaint ourselves with the situation on the ground in Palestine, which the two women said they wanted to see and assess for themselves. What they would have seen is a Jewish army of occupation that is armed to the teeth, in total and absolute control of a Palestinian population that is totally and absolutely disarmed.

For decades, America, which has been arming the Jews and disarming the Palestinians, has had Jewish AIPAC organize trips for America's legislators to go to Israel on guided tours aimed at brainwashing the Americans into believing they must continue arming the Jews and disarming the Palestinians to protect America and save the world.

And so, the two Congresswomen, one of whom is of Palestinian origin, said enough of this nonsense. They decided to start working on establishing some equity in this horrible situation by injecting a modicum of balance into it. Upon learning of this plan, the entire mob of Jewish bellyaching punditry, including David Harsanyi, responded by erupting in the usual ritual of lamentations and accusations of antisemitism.

Like Harsanyi, those pundits relied on the use of the one-word, one-term, one-expression and one-liner to throw accusations willy-nilly at their opponents––accusations of sin they did not try to prove because they had no proof that would back their accusations. What these people sought to do was pin on their opponents the accusation of being Holocaust deniers, anti-Semites or terrorists who are out to destroy Israel economically via the promotion of BDS, and the use of kites to battle against Israel's F-16 warplanes and helicopter gunships. As well, the Jews accused their opponents of a relentless campaign to delegitimize Israel by reviving old tropes, they said were effective at hurting the Jews in the past.

And of course, the corollary to denigrating the other side is to praise one's own side. And that's what David Harsanyi has attempted to do while badmouthing Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar. But in so doing, he repeated one of the smart Aleck sayings that the Israeli leaders are famous for. This one had come out the mouth of Golda Meier, doing considerable damage to Israel's image instead of enhancing it.

In fact, David Harsanyi seems aware there was something louche about that locution; the reason why he did not quote Golda Meier directly but only paraphrased her. This is what he wrote: “To paraphrase (perhaps) Golda Meir, the fact that Tlaib is more invested in hating Jews than seeing her grandmother...” What Golda Meier made reference to, was Palestinians hating the Jews more than they loved their children.

Meier stirred a worldwide uproar when she said those words because mixing Meier and children at the time, was like mixing a Weinstein-Epstein pair with a harem of young women. What happened was that Israel was going through a difficult economic period and Meier desperately wanted to see an increase in the number of tourists visiting Israel.

She popped in front of a camera and appealed to the world to come visit Israel, promising that the place had much to offer to tourists, and specifying: including very attractive young women. This coincided with a report that had unveiled a situation never seen before in Israel. It was the prostitution of young and attractive Jewish women from Eastern Europe that had gone to Israel believing it was a heavenly oasis full of milk and honey.

But instead of sweetness, the young women faced the bitter reality that to survive, they had to sell their bodies to tourists. For a time, people around the world talked about the pimping madam of Israel.

Harbinger of the Haggling that is to come

Recall the centuries-long history of the wandering Jews who went from empire to empire trying to seize control of the one that would succumb to their machinations and become their fiefdom. Now that you've done this, consider the situation of the Jews in this day and age.

Whereas they succeeded in taking near absolute control of America's ruling class as well as its institutions and levers of power, the Jews have failed to convince the general public they represent the paragon of governance that the country will ever achieve. And so, their request to be loved and adopted as the eternal rulers of the superpower, has been dismissed as a sick joke by the public. Refusing to accept this answer, the Jews pushed back, causing the tolerance of the American people to turn into resentment. And so, the American street as well as its college campuses turned hostile.

Now that the Jews have learned they have no choice but to repeat their history and turn to someone else, they discovered there was no one new, they could turn to, having exhausted the list of potential empires that can be conquered. Fearing for the future of the artificial concoction they patched together and called Israel, the Jews decided to sell their soul to Russia, a country that was once in dire straits and they took advantage of its weakness. They beat up on it while making unreasonable demands that the Russians never met, and the Jews never retracted. But now that the Russians are rising again, the Jews want them to forget the pool of bad blood they created between them. They want Russia to be friendly to an Israel that made such a mess of its situation in the Middle East, it found itself facing an uncertain future.

Sensing that the Russians may not turn out to be the protectors of Israel they would like them to be, the Jews decided to think of the Chinese as partners of Israel and potential protectors. But the Jews are aware of the one thing to keep in mind when dealing with China: They must not play silly games with the country that does not tolerate such games for more than a minute. That is, the Jews will have to behave in accordance with the laws regulating international relations. And they must respect to the letter, the protocols that were created to facilitate all transactions between nations and other entities.

And so, the question is this: What will happen when the umbilical cord connecting America and Israel will be severed? The answer is that the Jews will forget what America has done for them before the UN created Israel, and what America has done to keep Israel afloat during the decades that came after. So now, guess how the Jews will behave. If you're having difficulty guessing, there is an article that will give you an inkling as to how the Jews will behave. The article came under the title: “No, the United Nations Didn't Create Israel,” written by Ken Cohen and published on August 15, 2019 in the Jewish publication Algemeiner.

The paragraph that follows this one, is a condensed version of the argument that Ken Cohen put together to deny that the United Nations created Israel. It is a display of the ingratitude that the Jews habitually throw at those who do them good. Reading that passage, be mindful that Israel is only legally entitled to the UN-determined 1948 border. However, the UN has shown willingness to legalize Israel's claims up to the 1967 border if the latter would accept implementing Resolution 242. But the fact is that Israel has been violating that Resolution for half a century. And with people like Ken Cohen producing insane arguments for Israel to defy the UN, Israel risks losing the right to the 1948 border, and certainly what else the UN is prepared to give it. Here is the essence of Cohen's insane argument:

“Hanan Ashrawi stated a falsehood about the creation of Israel, one that's advanced by Israel's supporters and enemies ... holding that Israel was created by the UN in 1948. The partition is of merely symbolic value in explaining Israel's creation. The UN's Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) recommended the partition of Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state. UNSCOP's proposed borders for the two states were utterly impractical, and bear little relation to the frontiers Israel achieved after its War [on the Arabs.] The UN's partition lent endorsement to the Zionist cause as did European guilt over the Holocaust. In fact, the partition plan was never implemented. So, beware of the canard that Israel should respect the UN to whom it owes its existence”.

Ken Cohen has it all over his article that the work of the United Nations regarding the partition of Palestine, and the European guilt over the Holocaust, were instrumental in the creation of Israel. But he insists that Israel should have no respect for the United Nations because the Jews grabbed more than the land allocated to them in 1948. They achieved success, says Cohen, by launching a war against the Arabs.

And that's what the Jews will do if and when they find a protector to replace the United States. They will urge people around the globe not to respect America because they alone, kept Israel afloat during the decades.

Protecting Country from Treason is not idiotic

In the not too distant past, the murmur that did not get out in the open, used to sound as follows in a hush-hush level of voice: If it is kosher for the Jews, it should be kosher for us too.

Fortunately, it happened that after a long agonizing wait, a shift in paradigm has taken place. A trend has started among those deeply concerned about morality, to tell at a loud enough voice, what used to be said in whispers.

The shift has resulted in the shedding of light on the reality that most of the privileges, which the Jews had managed to secure for themselves, using bribes and/or blackmail, were later demanded by other groups and got it –– or if denied, created resentment among the general public.

For example, a number of privileges in the field of early education were first granted to Jews and then given reluctantly to other groups. But some municipal privileges as well as those granted to Jews at the state level in America, or the provincial level in Canada, were denied to others. This is how and why resentment began to build-up, leading some people to feel that the Jews were replacing them.

The lesson to draw from these examples is that whatever the Jews do, will inevitably have unintended and mostly nefarious consequences. It happens because the way that the authorities respond to the Jewish machinations does not remain hidden forever. When the truth comes out, as it always does, the sense of justice requires that private privilege become universal privilege. Failing this, the sense of injustice builds-up, and often creates a dangerously explosive situation.

With this in mind, read the article that came under the title: “Rep. Ted Lieu isn't an anti-Semite, he's just an idiot,” and the subtitle: “The education of Rep. Ted Lieu continues apace.” It was written by Becket Adams, and published on August 16, 2019 in The Washington Examiner.

Here is the issue: When a controversy flared-up about two American Congresswomen being blocked from visiting occupied Palestine to see for themselves what's going on in there, the supposedly American ambassador to Israel, did not keep quiet as diplomats are required to do. The Jewish ambassador, David Friedman spoke out in breach of protocol. Worse, he did not speak out in favor of America that pays his salary to defend it abroad, he spoke in favor of Israel that just insulted America and its Congress.

This prompted Congressman Ted Lieu to stand up and support his two colleagues. In so doing, he also defended the institution to which he belongs, and gave America the right to question what Israel is doing with the unlimited amount of money, weapons and diplomatic support it receives from America year after year after year. Here is how Becket Adams described what happened next:

“This did not sit well with Ted Lieu who appeared shortly thereafter on CNN to accuse Friedman of having dual loyalties. 'His allegiance is to America, not to a foreign power … It is outrageous that the US government is working against having an American go visit Israel,' Lieu added. I think he should resign”.

What Ted Lieu did not take into account, was that the forces of darkness, though challenged at this time, still commanded a strong presence in the struggle to keep America accepting life under Jewish tyranny and be happy. What happened was that the Jewish mob descended on Ted Lieu from above like a swarm of gluttonous locusts, and crawled up on him from below like an invasion of voracious termites, demanding that he eats his words or be eaten by a flaming Jewish rage that will vanquish him from public life now and forever. And so, Ted Lieu did as commanded to do: He ate his words.

There is no doubt, this is a defeat for those who wish to see a higher moral life take hold in America. But the consolation prize is that the case was cracked open, and the forces of the good have been engaged to do battle against the forces of darkness. And the expectation is that the good will triumph in the end.

But until this happens, and till evil has been crushed once and for all, we must guard against allowing potential traitors from other ethnic groups getting the idea of winding their way through the system and getting paid to serve a foreign country, protected by the kosher precedents that the Jews are establishing for themselves, and by the Jews silencing those who expose the immorality of the current system.

The way to prevent this from happening, is to raise our voices and speak loudly and clearly about the reality that characters of the David Friedman ilk should suffer more than being forced to resign; they should be tried for treason, and when convicted, thrown in jail where they should remain for the rest of their lives.

The noble Ashrawi vs. the deceitful Dershowitz

Thanks to David French, we can now endeavor to point out the nobility of Hanan Ashrawi, the Palestinian woman that's known for her sharp intellect and high integrity. We can do it by comparing the clarity of her thoughts against those of the confused and dishonest Alan Dershowitz.

What David French did to make the endeavor possible, is that he wrote an article which came under the title: “Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib Partnered with Vicious Anti-Semites to Plan Their Trip to Israel,” and the subtitle: “This should be a national scandal.” The article was published on August 16, 2019 in National Review Online (NRO).

Alan Dershowitz began the effort of turning himself into a national figure by enunciating what came to be known as the Dershowitz doctrine. The way he put it at the time, went something like this: “You cannot blame Israel for doing to the Palestinians what [fascist] regimes have always done to people under their control.” Ever since that time, his idea has been used to justify Israel's slow-motion genocide of the Palestinian people; activities that range from starving the Palestinians by ransacking their farms and stealing their food and water ... to carpet bombing their schools and residential districts, killing them by the thousands.

Years later, when the third generation of Palestinians, born and raised under Jewish occupation, found itself with nothing to live for, it reacted the way that other peoples did when they found themselves in a similar situation. From Spartacus in the Roman Empire to Charles De Gaulle under the Nazi occupation of France, they joined a resistance movement or formed their own. When this happened in occupied Palestine, the Jewish organizations around the world responded by parading a stream of professional whiners who lamented that the Palestinians were fighting back instead of feeling honored to live under Jewish control.

Hoping to trick Hanan Ashrawi by asking her a question that would make her say something they can use against her, or use to deflect attention from Israel's genocidal activities in Palestine, the tricksters of the Jewish propaganda machine asked Ashrawi to comment on the Palestinian resistance movement. Here is how she responded, according to David French's article: “You cannot somehow adopt the language of either the international community or the occupier by describing anybody who resists as terrorist.” That is, neither Spartacus nor De Gaulle were terrorists … but the Roman legions, the Nazi goons and the butchers of Zion proved to be the incarnation of terror itself.

Well then, when you compare the Hanan Ashrawi answer to that of Alan Dershowitz, you realize how ignoble the Jewish man has been to defend the indefensible, and how noble the Palestinian woman has been to defend the innocent. You know what else, my friend? Now that the Jewish lawyer has been relegated to the trash heap of history, an Evangelical lawyer named David French, is vowing to fill his shoes and carry on with the same kind of confused and dishonest message. What did French do to earn that honor? He did this:

“The Washington Post said that Omar and Tlaib's trip was planned by Miftah, a nonprofit organization headed by Hanan Ashrawi, a group that promotes global awareness of Palestinian realities. I started looking at the Miftah website, and it was like peeling an onion of evil. There was layer upon layer of anti-Semitism. First, the group published blood libel. When the article was condemned, Miftah minimized the reference as merely briefly addressed, then issued an apology. It also published an American neo-Nazi treatise called 'Who Rules America: The Alien Grip on Our News and Entertainment Media Must Be Broken.' And of course Miftah published an article asking whether Israel was a proper homeland for the Jewish people”.

David French says he started looking at the Miftah website, and it was like peeling an onion of evil. But he made the mistake of giving a link to that website. So, anyone that reads his words and checks the website, will see neither onion nor evil. The only thing that's noteworthy on that otherwise mundane site, is an apology for a mistake that was made inadvertently, that was quickly corrected and that was apologized for.

For the writer to claim that he saw layer upon layer of anti-Semitism, is to engage in intellectual dishonesty of the kind that Evangelical fanatics commit before asking for a donation to maintain the demonic faith and spread the satanic message. I don't know if David French or NRO will ask for donations, but if asked to justify his accusation of Miftah for publishing anti-Semitic tropes, David French will have nothing to say.

Or maybe he'll point to the white supremacist treatise that was printed in Miftah, a foreign non-white publication that, among other things, informs its readers of what goes on in America –– a perfectly legitimate thing to do for any publication. In fact, if David French believes it was a mistake for Miftah to publish that treatise, how does he justify quoting its two most “virulent” paragraphs in his own article?

Come to think of it, David French's latest piece, like all those he wrote over the years, is full of links that send the reader to all kinds of places.

And many of these places contain what David French characterizes as anti-Semitic tropes and yet, he doesn't call himself a layered anti-Semite. Why not? Does he not smell like an onion?