They weaponized Chivalry and used it to abase

Did it ever happen that you were in a supermarket and your shopping cart accidentally hit someone else's cart? Did it happen that you and the other person turned toward each other at the same moment, and simultaneous said something like: I'm so sorry?

Whether or not this happened to you, imagine such a scene ... and then let me ask you a question. Do you really believe that people caught in a situation such as that, do feel remorse for what happened? Or is it that they say they are sorry out of a sense of chivalry to indicate that what happened was unintended? The reality is that you would want to communicate that if the other person was inconvenienced by the slightest, you'll consider what happened a regrettable occurrence. This is every day chivalry we express without thinking.

It is how things were during the decades and centuries that America was civilized. And then America was invaded by the Jews, and they weaponized everything in sight, including chivalry. And so, whenever their Judeo-Yiddish culture clashes with that of Gentile America, the Jews holler the aching in their bellies, and demand that the other side apologizes. To that end, they mobilized the entire mob of Jewish pundits and taught it to bark the refrain, “apologize, apologize, apologize.” The howlers attack from every angle, thus force an opponent to apologize, which he does, if only to get the Jews to stop barking.

But the move has always meant something else to the Jews. It meant they didn't have to get into a civilized debate with an opponent, and explain their point of view. In fact, they always feared getting into a debate because they knew they would lose as surely as they have no idea what goes into a serious exchange. But they also knew that when the howling mob forces someone to apologize, they can later claim they won the debate that never happened by the fact that the other side has apologized for the wrong reasons.

So then, what happens when a Jew that spent a lifetime stepping on everyone's toes, suddenly gets gripped with the fever of running for the presidency of the United States? Bear in mind that he'll be facing the reality that to have any chance at winning the race, he must apologize to those whose toes he crushed in the past. Well then, if you want to know what happens to one such Jewish man, you'll have to look for answers in one of the most fanatic Jewish-owned publications in America: the New York Post.

The fevered Jewish man in question, is Michael Bloomberg. He wants the Democratic Party to nominate him as its representative, which means he needs to win over the base of a party that's largely made of the people on whose toes he has been stepping in the past. When you consult the New York Post, you'll find that the story of that man up to now, has unfolded over two weeks; from November 14, 2019 to November 28, 2019, and was told in three articles, published on both the news and opinion pages of the Post.

The first article came under the title: “Bloomberg apologizes for sexist remarks as he plots presidential bid,” written by Carl Campanile and published on November 14, 2019. The second article came under the title: “Bloomberg apologizes for stop-and-frisk policy,” written by Carl Campanile, Daniel Cassady and Aaron Feis, and published on November 17, 2019. The third article is an editorial that came under the title: “Bloomberg should never apologize for NYPD's 'Muslim mapping' work,” published on November 28, 2019.

As you can see, Michael Bloomberg first apologized to the women he offended. But lo and behold and also note that the Post's editors saw nothing wrong with that. They did not even edit the part in which their reporter, Carl Campanile, called Bloomberg's comments about women “boorish.” And neither did the editors cringe at the fact that his spokesman, Stu Loeser told reporters that Bloomberg changed his mind about disbelieving women who report rape when there is no “unimpeachable third-party witness”.

Three days later, Michael Bloomberg apologized to an audience that was made largely of African Americans, for the stop-and-frisk policy that went on during his tenure. Despite the fact that the three NY Post writers who reported on this occurrence, called it a bombshell reversal, the editors of the tabloid did not see fit to edit that part of the article or repudiate it in a subsequent editorial.

Eleven days after that, the editors of the New York Post counseled Michael Bloomberg not to apologize to someone. Who was that, you ask? Well, it wasn't the women or the African Americans or the Latinos. It was the Muslims, for what he did to them with a project known as “Muslim mapping”.

And there is only one reason why the Post editors made that suggestion. It is that in their view, chivalry ends, not at the water's edge but at the Judeo-Christian edge. In fact, these editors turned chivalry into a weapon by the suggestion that Bloomberg should be “proud, not sorry” for what he did to the Muslims. And the editors want us to believe that this kind of preferential treatment is not a form of racism.

Well, let me inform these dumb-dumbs that their denial of reality is at par with the denial of the Holocaust. Of course, they have the right to believe or disbelieve what they want, as much as any Holocaust denier has the right to question the Holocaust. This is how America’s democracy used to work, and should be made to work again despite the howling of the Jews.

They made their bed and refuse to sleep in it

Way back then, when the Jews had been on the North American continent for decades and we, of Arab descent, were new to it, there happened a war in the Middle East. What transpired next was so unreal, if someone were to write a script about the story, it would be in the category of fantasy bordering on horror.

The year was 1967, eleven years after 1956, two moments in time when both witnessed a similar event. It was that Egypt, the country of my birth, found itself at war at a time when our family was not in Egypt. In 1956 we were in Djibouti, a French colony when France, along with Britain and Israel, went to war against Egypt. In 1967, we were in Canada, a country that was not at war with Egypt when Israel went to war against Egypt.

Here is the fantasy that's bordering on horror: When the war happened in 1967, we of Egyptian origin along with all the Arabs, felt like we were ambushed in a field surrounded by a million machine-guns firing at us non-stop day and night. The aggressors were not Israelis with whom Egypt was at war, but Canadians that happened to be Jews. We also felt the sting of other characters who seemed to curry favor with the Jews, hoping to get something in return for expressing extreme hatred toward us that never dealt with the programmed-to-hate characters or had anything to do with them.

One of the beastliest occurrences happened when the Coptic Church did not yet have a building of its own, and was borrowing one for the Sunday mass in downtown Toronto known as the Trinity Church. One day, even before the war of 1967, the police paid a visit to see what was going on in this building. The reason they gave was that someone had complained of scary cultist rituals being performed inside the building.

It turned out that the Jews had us under surveillance as if they were an independent government operating inside the Canadian Government. The worst part is that they were given full responsibility for the security and foreign affairs of Canada. These people knew what a Coptic mass looked like and sounded like, but the venom that runs in their arteries and veins was itching so badly, they had to harass us to dampen the hate in their hearts and feel relief. Being the cowardly things that they are, however, they ran to the police and defamed us behind our backs like barking dogs.

As to our experience in 1956, the French who were actually at war with Egypt treated us no differently from the way they did before the war. And here is the big thing: the French navy had sunk an Egyptian warship in the Red Sea. They rescued the sailors and took them prisoners to a military base in Djibouti, at a walking distance (a mile or so) from where we lived.

Also, at a walking distance from where we lived (100 yards or so) was the French CIA headquarter known as Deuxième Bureau. They sent someone to talk to us. They said the Egyptian POWs wanted to cook their own meals but since this was contrary to military rule, the French asked if we would volunteer to do it for them once in a while. But since my mother had her hands full, looking after a family of seven, she said she could not help. And the matter ended here till the POWs were repatriated.

This is the difference in behavior between the French who were actually at war with Egypt, and the Jews in North America who were not even at war with Egypt. It is the difference between normal human beings considered civilized on one hand, and savages that keep getting gassed and incinerated on the other hand, considered primitive by everyone and absolutely incapable of rising to a normal human level.

What happened here is that once again, the evildoing of the Jews has caught up with them. In fact, you can almost hear them squirm, as they witness the good treatment that the Arabs are getting in the English-speaking world, and the bad treatment they say they are forced to endure. You can read about it when you go over the article that came under the title: “America's early apologists for Islam,” written by Daniel Pipes and published on November 19, 2019 in The Washington Times. You should also read the following articles:

“Jeremy Corbyn Reminds Us Why Israel Exists,” written by David Harsanyi, and published on November 27, 2019 in National Review Online.

“British Media Tackles Leftist Anti-Semitism, While American Media Stands Idly By,” written by Erielle Davidson, and published on November 27, 2019 in The Federalist.

“The Labour Party's Anti-Semitism Is A Harbinger For The American Left,” also written by Erielle Davidson, and published on November 26, 2019 in The Federalist.

“British public figures sign letter refusing to vote Labour over anti-Semitism scandal,” an article that was published on November 15, 2019 in the Jewish News Syndicate.

“Concerns about antisemitism mean we cannot vote Labour,” an article that was published on November 14, 2019 in The Guardian.

By the time you've read all this material, you'll realize that the reason why the Jews find themselves in their current predicament, is that they were encouraged to do to us in North America what they were armed and financed to do to the Palestinians in Palestine. But as we predicted at the time, once the Jews were done with us, they started doing similar things to the hands that fed them.

And so, the world that had given them a Jewish home, started telling them they have gone beyond the pale. But instead of changing their ways, the Jews protested vehemently as if the whole world was at fault, and they were on the right side of history.

It is like they have been making their bed for half a century, and now they refuse to sleep in it, believing that the entire human race is conspiring against them.

American Liberal Democratic Street Gangs fighting over global Turf

Imagine street gangs such as those you find in Los Angeles or Chicago, getting together one day and trying to work out a truce between them by divvying up the city into a piece of turf for each gang. Think of the pieces as private property, considered to be territorial integrity, never to be violated by the other gangs.

Now imagine these savages unable to come to an agreement, not only between the gangs, but also between members of the same gang, who squabble among themselves while calling the other gangs unreasonable. And then imagine one member of one gang breaking off from this madhouse. He gets himself a loud megaphone, stands outside the conference room, and shouts at the gangs, telling them what he thinks of them and what they should do with themselves.

Call that breakaway member, Clifford D. May and read what he has been shouting at the other gangsters in an article that came under the title: “Troubles between Congress and religious freedom,” and the subtitle: “Some members disapprove of USCIRF's defense of faith communities.” The article was published on November 26, 2019 in The Washington Times.

Clifford May says he was once appointed by Mitch McConnell to serve on the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) that's now going downhill, having slipped into the process of being transformed into a politicized bureaucracy. He recalls that the Commission, “was created 21 years ago at the instigation of Frank Wolf, a Republican who was committed to defending freedom or belief in other countries, while believing in bipartisanship in foreign policy”.

May cannot hide his bitterness stating that, “the fight over USCIRF is part of a broader effort to drum conservatives out of the human rights community … Secretary of State Pompeo had launched a bipartisan Commission on Unalienable Rights to ground our discussion of human rights in America's founding principles, an idea that outraged the human rights establishment, as I detailed in a column at the time”.

That wasn't the only time that Clifford May had written about the subject. He did so when he visited several countries to assess what was happening in those places. One such place happened to be Egypt where he saw for himself a reality that proved to be diagonally opposed to what a herd of bloodthirsty Jewish American beasts in the business of punditry, were describing. In fact, there is not one spot on this planet where two major religious groups live in harmony as do the Christians and the Muslims of Egypt. Anyone that says otherwise is motivated by the desire to turn Egypt into another Iraq or Libya or Yemen or Syria where hybrid specimen created with the face of a human, the brain of a demon and the heart of a hyena, have managed to do to these places what they continue to dream doing to Egypt.

And so, when Clifford May visited Egypt, and came back to write about what he saw there, he thought it unwise to lie then, so he told the truth about the harmonious religious relationship he detected in that country. But, years later, Clifford May forgot what he had said then. Being no saint, he is now saying dishonest things like the following: “Commissioners should focus instead on the plight of Christians in Syria and Egypt.” And this proves that the poison which runs in the veins and arteries of these creatures, cannot be drained any more than you can drain the tongue of a viper of its deadly venom.

And that's not even the big story because all what you see here, are but the preliminaries of an America –– the already laughed-at self-appointed policeman of the world –– that’s now trying to appoint itself defender of the faiths around the globe. It is trying to do this much by the power it has conferred on a Commission on International Religious Freedom ... the one described by Clifford May in the following comical terms:

“USCRIF is being transformed into a politicized bureaucracy. To call attention to this danger, Kristina Arriaga, a commissioner has resigned, explaining that a proposed bill would shift USCIRF's stated purpose, and burden commissioners with new bureaucratic hurdles. She is convinced that members of Congress are determined to erode the commissioners' independence and do USCIRF irreparable damage. Commissioners are charged with monitoring the state of religious freedom around the world, and making policy recommendations. Under the reforms being proposed, all commissioners would begin and end their terms at the same time, a clever way to ensure that they'd depend on staff to tell them what they can, can't, should and shouldn't do. In this context, no deal is preferable to a bad deal”.

It takes people, totally disconnected from reality, to believe that they can be the way that the Americans behave, and yet impose their views pertaining to human rights or to religious rights, on a world that's already laughing at the burlesque spectacle of America's so-called liberal democracy –– while at the same time weeping at what has become of the America that used to be, and they used to feel comfortable with.

SCOTUS seeking Guidance from Jurors

There comes a time when even the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) sees the need to admit that it cannot operate solely in the abstract world of printed material written centuries ago, known as the Constitution, but that it needs the guidance of a contemporary jury to orient it as to the proper direction it must take, going forward, on hotly contested contemporary issues.

One such case has been percolating through the courts for half a decade already, and instead of pronouncing itself on the matter, thus put a closure to it here and now, SCOTUS punted, in the words of Rich Lowry, who is spokesman for National Review, the defendant in this case. You can see a summary of what the case is about in some detail, when you go over the article that came under the title: “Supreme Court proves hostile climate for free speech case,” written by Quin Hillyer, and published on November 25, 2019 in The Washington Examiner.

Put simply, this is a case in which Mark Steyn, a contributor to National Review, has maligned Michael Mann, calling him “the man behind the fraudulent climate-change 'hockey-stick' graph.” The dispute centers on the word “fraudulent” as used in this context. Well, to commit a fraud is a crime that even a journalist cannot attribute to someone without having the evidence that can stand in a court of law.

However, to characterize someone's act as being an intellectual fraud, is to express an opinion that a journalist can make without breaking the law. Well, Michael Mann says he was accused of a crime he did not commit therefore Steyn and National Review damaged his reputation, and they owe him restitution. On the other hand, Rich Lowry says that despite the way in which Mark Steyn expressed himself, his intent was not to accuse Michael Mann of committing a fraud, but that his work amounted to an intellectual fraud.

And so, National Review wanted the Supreme Court to rule in favor of unrestricted free speech, thus end the matter here and now. Michael Mann, on the other hand, wants the case to go to a jury where the chances are good that he'll win big, given that we live in an era where climate change is on everyone's mind, including the jurors who will be selected to make a decision on the verdict.

Given that National Review vowed to fight to the end, we can see how the case will unfold going forward. It will most likely go back for trial in a court of first instance, and Michael Mann will most likely win. National Review will appeal, and no matter who wins in this Court, the loser will appeal to the Supreme Court. That's when the justices of the High Court will have the opinion of a jury and the decisions of the Appeal Court's judges to guide them on the best way to rule.

One of the Justices, Samuel Alito, is the only one that dissented from the current SCOTUS decision, which means that he has his mind already made up, and he is unlikely to change. He is obviously squarely in favor of free speech, no matter what is said or what the intent may be. And in his dissent, Justice Alito made two important points: One is that the defendant will needlessly incur enormous expenses going through the full judicial process. Two, this will have a chill effect on those who may have important things to say, but will be inhibited, fearing that they might be sued and dragged through the courts, an exercise that will cost them time and money they may not have.

Two important questions come to mind: How valid is the Samuel Alito argument? Is there a better way for journalists to do their work?

With regard to the high cost of going through the full judicial process, this is a very real problem for most individuals and small companies. But in this case, National Review has been around for a long time, and a big part of its finances is made of donations. In fact, its publishers started a drive to collect donations to fight the case in court, and they seem to be getting good responses. They'll still be around at the end of the process. As to the chill effect this will have on the people who might have something to say but will be afraid to say it, I have advice to give that worked for me so far.

There is no need to pick on someone by name and accuse them of a crime you cannot prove. If you feel that someone deserves to be called the worst of names, train yourself to say what you want without having to mention the person's name directly. If the person is a scoundrel of the kind that habitually slanders other people because they cannot or will not defend themselves, get in there, defend these people yourself, and then unload on the scoundrel and make him drink a good dose from the cup of his own evil. The audience will forgive you for being brutal with this kind of characters, and so will the jury if the scoundrels ever dream of taking you to court.

They slander the Good to draft the Zombies

If you know who Daniel Pipes is, if you know that he founded the Middle East Forum, and if you know that he is preaching the total defeat of the Palestinians if not all the Arabs, if not all the Muslims –– you will not be surprised by what Nave Dromi has written.

Stationed in Israel, Dromi is a member of the American based Daniel Pipes’s Middle East Forum. She wrote: “Israel will only attain peace through victory,” an article that also came under the subtitle: “The Jewish refugees from the Middle East know the truth: Only a sovereign people seen as invincible and indestructible are secure in this region.” The article was published on November 24, 2019 in the Jewish News Syndicate.

What Dromi has done, is reflect what her boss has been preaching for half a century. It is an approach similar to what was taken by madmen as primitive as Genghis Khan and as modern as Adolph Hitler. Their trick has been to motivate the already braindead zombies, as well as those they brainwash or hypnotize, and then require them all to follow instructions on how to prepare for attacking the neighbors.

Ordinarily, the authentic leaders who emulate Khan or Hitler rely on their people to do the work, be that an easy work or of the dirty kind. They look forward to scoring victories, but if they are defeated without being killed, they take responsibility for the consequences of what they started, and deal with the misery they brought on their people.

But this is not what Nave Dromi has in mind because it was never what the inauthentic Daniel Pipes had in mind. In fact, it was never in the calculation of the Israeli or American Jews that have been advocating total war against the Arabs and the Muslims. What these people do, is incite the Americans, and require them to attack the enemy they choose for the day. All the while, those Jewish leaders prepare their rank-and-file to go in and collect the spoils after the Americans have done the dirty work for them.

Faced with the question of how to motivate the braindead zombies of the Washington Beltway, the Daniel Pipes clique discovered that nothing comes close to being effective like the old Jewish trick of accusing others of the sins they see in themselves. It is the trick they have adopted, which you'll detect throughout the Nave Dromi article. Other than that, the problem with the article is that––like an onion––it is made of layers upon layers of lies, each layer representing a Jewish sin that the author attributes to the Arabs. To grasp the full measure of the article, we need to peel off these layers one by one, and so we begin with the first.

Dromi says this: “Since the Muslim conquest, occupation and colonization of the Middle East and North Africa in the 7th century...” The truth is that the Muslims were smart enough not to impose themselves on any society. What happened was that many of these societies were under the savage occupation of the Byzantines, or the brutal occupation of the Persians. They clamored for the Muslims to come in and deliver them from the yoke of their oppressors. When the Muslims accepted the invitation and entered a country, they mixed with the local population, and treated everybody as equal.

It was not until the 12th century when the Crusaders declared war on the Muslims that the latter decided to put together a professional army to defend against the Euro-Christian military assault on them. Because this was a religious war, the Muslims could no ask the non-Muslims to participate in the fight. But they saw an inequity in the fact that young Muslims were required to go to war, leaving behind the properties and businesses they had built, for the non-Muslims to exploit and get wealthy.

For these reasons, the Muslim leaders did something they never did before. They borrowed from the Europeans the idea of levying a tax on their citizens to finance the war. Because those not fighting the war were Christian and Jewish, they made the money and paid the taxes. The Arabs did not call it a tax; they called it an obligation. It was an obligation on those making money to contribute to the war effort in exchange for the obligation of the Muslims to protect them. That's what the word “dhimmi” translates into.

Nave Dromi went on to say that the Jews were, “forced to place distinctive signs on their houses and clothing and sometimes brutally humiliated in other ways.” This is a sick lie of the kind that only a Jewish beast would tell. Nave Dromi got the idea of placing distinctive signs on Jewish houses from what their Old Testament says the Jews did in Egypt. They marked the houses containing a new born baby, which they killed like bloodthirsty murderers before running into the desert. And the Jews have been celebrating that day as Passover for thousands of years, indicating that their savagery has not diminished one bit in all that time.

As to placing distinctive signs on Jewish clothing, Nave Dromi got that idea from what the Nazis did in the 1930s when they required that the Jews wear a yellow Star of David, so that they be recognized for who they are by the non-Jews who might not want to deal with Jews.

As to the “brutal humiliation” part of Dromi's sick claim, this is what the Jewish soldiers of occupation do every day in Palestine. One of the most iconic moment came when they ordered a Palestinian teenager to strip completely naked and walk arms raised up in the air. The beastly savages filmed the boy, and sent the video around the world to be seen by the rank-and-file who wanted assurances that Israel had the situation under control.

This is how much there is to say, to rebut the first few paragraphs of the Nave Dromi article. But there are many more paragraphs to the article, and they need to be rebutted. However, now that the readers have got the idea of what the Dromi article is about, they should be in a position to peel off the remaining layers of the onion, and do the rebuttal themselves. Good luck to them.

The Danger in avoiding telling the full Truth

There is a reason why witnesses who are about to testify are made to swear they'll tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It is that telling a partial truth can be as bad as telling a lie, and in some cases, it can be even worse than telling a lie.

And there is nothing in the annals of human civilization to illustrate this point better than the record of the Jews as they moved around and settled in many places throughout the globe, from ancient times to this day. It is that the narrative of exploits they have been telling themselves, as well as their offspring and the world, has been nothing but a string of half-truths and outright lies. And this is precisely what has made the Jews step into one puddle of mud after another, unable to find their way to dry-land where they would have stepped into the trail of Civilization; the one traced by ten thousand years of human toil and ingenuity.

You can see the latest of Jewish fabrications about feats they never achieved, when you read the article that came under the title: “The Coming Nuclear Crises,” and the subtitle: “We are entering a new and dangerous period of nuclear competition.” It was written by Richard N. Haass and published on November 18, 2019 on the website of The Council on Foreign Relations.

In the same way that they wrote what they claim is their history, and made it their bible (a book also called Old Testament) and in the same way that they filled that book with a collection of battles they say they fought brilliantly and won gloriously––they are now deceiving themselves as well as their offspring and the world, into believing that what they are doing at this time, is brilliant in conception and glorious in execution.

Whereas the Richard Haass article is supposed to be an overview of the nuclear weapons and the nations that possess them, Israel is brought into the discussion as if it were at par with the eight nations that have nuclear weapons, that tested them and developed the means to deliver them. While no one in the world takes the Haass claim seriously, not even the Israelis who only get a kick dillydallying with the saying, “we neither confirm nor deny having these weapons,” America's Jewish pundits love to talk about Israel's nuclear arsenal as if it were a reality. Here is how Richard Haass is giving Israel the importance it does not deserve:

“Until just a few years ago, it looked as if the problem posed by nuclear weapons had been successfully managed, if not solved. Progress over the last generation was not limited to the United States and Russia. Israel thwarted Iraqi and Syrian nuclear development. It is as likely that Iran's actions will lead the US, or more probably Israel, to undertake a preventive strike designed to destroy a significant part of its program. Fortunately, the late President John Kennedy was proven wrong, and the number of countries with nuclear weapons is still nine [the known eight plus the imagined Israel]”.

Therein lies the danger to the world. Known as the Tel-Aviv/New-York crime syndicate, the Jews of Israel and America have paralyzed America's effort to get parts of the world, including the Middle East, to agree on declaring themselves nuclear free zones. America could not do a thing for decades because if it did, it would have blown the cover on Israel's imagined nuclear arsenal, and deprived its surrogates the dillydallying pleasures they enjoy when toying with the subject.

And that's not all because when you are the president of a country that's at war with Israel, and its surrogates say it has nuclear weapons, you are duty bound to respond in some way, even if you don't believe what the surrogates are saying. This is what prompted the Syrians to develop chemical weapons known as the poor man's bomb. And when dozens of terrorist organizations, backed by Israel and America, attacked Syria, the military that's mandated to defend the country, had no choice but to use those weapons on the terrorists.

And there is more to the story. It is that the Tel-Aviv/New-York crime syndicate has made it a policy to conflate the use of nuclear technology in civilian projects with its use in military projects. The syndicate did the conflating because from Israel's inception, the Jews had decided to embark on a colonial scheme that would work on keeping the neighbors backward by sabotaging every progress they make in science or technology. This is why the Jews went to a great length stealing the American secrets that allowed Israel to bomb the civilian nuclear power station in Iraq, and the agricultural irradiation project in Syria.

Those who know the full story of the Iraq caper, know that it has led to a chain of horrible events beginning with the war between Iraq and Iran, the subsequent invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, the First Gulf War, the invasion of Iraq, the rise of Iran to a great power, the involvement of Iran in the Syrian civil war, as well as the threat to Israel that's now calling on America to come and protect it.

If anything, this demonstrates to the world that the emperor whose surrogates used to sing that he was dressed with a nuclear shield, turned out to be a naked emperor.

And while the Jewish emperor is basking in the glory of his nakedness, old nuclear treaties that served humanity well for decades, are being abrogated and new weapons are being developed.

This proves once again that the Jews were the ones to cause all the wars that have plagued humanity since they came into existence. It is not antisemitic to say that; it is telling the truth.

The Fake were unmasked, the Mighty has fallen

There was a time when the Jews had managed to use their hypnotic knack to make America believe that Jewish lawyers had such extraordinary powers of the mind, it was futile to oppose them. This is how the reputation of Jewish lawyers preceded them. And when one of them took up a case, everyone else scurried to find a hiding place where to sit quietly till the Jew had his fill of whatever he came for, and left the place.

But then, it happened that bit by bit, the Jewish lawyers were unmasked and shown to be nothing more than clowns who memorized a load of gibberish they rattled off to make others believe they were saying something profound when in reality they were saying nothing but useless nonsense. One of these is Eugene Kontorovich who tried only recently to argue that Jewish thievery of Palestinian property in the West Bank was legal. He got crushed this time as he was many times before––like a bug under a steamroller.

So now, comes another Jew that goes by the name Douglas J. Feith who cried out desperately that no, no, no, what the settlers are doing in the West Bank should be discussed not as a legal issue, which is a loser, but a political one. He said so in an article that came under the title: “Israeli Settlements Are a Political, Not a Legal Issue,” published on November 22, 2019 in National Review Online.

If you wonder why Douglas Feith jumped to hang onto a political explanation rather than articulate say, a humanitarian or logical explanation, or any other concoction for that matter, it is that the Jews still have some sway in the Washington Beltway. This is the place that reeks of stinky politics, and continues to serve as refuge for Jewish scoundrels who lose everywhere else when they pit themselves against someone.

So the question is this: What is Douglas Feith arguing now? Well, he is doing two things. First, like the title of his article says, he contends that the settlements are a political issue and not a legal one. Second, he is reviving the discredited argument which claims that if the Jews are not allowed to continue robbing the Palestinians, Israel will vanish and the Jews everywhere will be subjected to another holocaust.

To understand the grotesque fallacy in the contention that the settlements are not a legal issue but a political one, we need to recall how a law is made in the first place. Whether you look at the national level or the international one, you'll find that a law has its genesis when a political debate is taken up by the various stakeholders of an issue. In America, for example, the genesis for making a law takes place in the media and the Congress. At the international level, the genesis takes place in the General Assembly and the Security Council of the United Nations.

When all the politics is said and done, a law is passed and given to the executive branch for enforcement. Disputes that arise after that, are handled by the courts and not by politics. For the Jews to come now and say that politics should settle the matter of the continued looting of Palestine after the debates and the laws that were passed in 1967 and 1968 by the Security Council, is to do what the Jews always do, which earns them the contempt of humanity. They are again trying to re-litigate the old issues in the hope of reversing the laws that do not serve them or serve Israel. That's what Douglas Feith is trying to do here.

The Jewish lawyers were unmasked long ago as being gibberish-rattling fakes. They were put aside in most part to make room for the Jewish political leaders who could always pull the ace card from their sleeves. Ever since that time, those leaders have been returning to the use of the crime known as quid pro quo to extort from America's politicians, recognition that what belongs to the Palestinians is fair game for the Jews to steal. In return for this cowardly complicity, the Jewish leaders have been paying the politicians –– not always with tangible things but also –– with the promise that the Evangelical moral prostitutes of America, whom the Jews own like a herd of sheep, will vote for the politician who will sell America’s honor to the Jews.

And then, to make the scheme sound like it was meticulously planned and gloriously executed, the Jews have been reassuring the Americans that the series of exchanges in which they were called upon to participate, amount to a win-win situation for America and Israel. The reason they gave is that the only losers would be the Palestinians whom nobody cares about anyway.

But that's a big lie because the reality is that the whole world cares about the Palestinians, so much so that BDS and antisemitism are rising everywhere. Thus, Israel and the Jews are the big losers here. As to the once mighty America, it is also losing because every time that Israel sinks one notch, so does America in standing around the world, having anchored its fate with that of Israel and the Jews. In fact, the predicate being that the Jews can survive only by robbing the Palestinians has translated into America can be great again only if the Jews are allowed to rob the Palestinians. Oh, how the mighty has fallen!

William Buckley did not think of the Mole

A mole is a small insect that lives inside a fruit, eating from it, defecating in it and reproducing inside it. A metaphor arose around the mole, representing the individual humans who would infiltrate a functioning organization and sabotage its work from the inside.

This has been the unintended effect of William Buckley's essay (later turned into a book) which he wrote under the title: “In search of anti-Semitism.” Interpreted by the Jews as an effort by William Buckley to question the attitude of the conservative stalwarts of the day toward the Jews, the latter saw the conservative movement as being on the defensive, put there by one of their own. And so, the Jews who were the stalwarts of the liberal movement, switched to the conservative side and became known as the neoconservatives or neocons.

The Jews did not waste time working on dominating the conservative movement the way they had managed to dominate the liberal movement. It took them little time to become the liberal mole inside the conservative movement in the same way that they had been the authoritarian mole inside the liberal movement. The net effect is that the Jews spoiled both movements while transforming them into institutions dedicated to serve nothing and no one but Israel and the various Jewish causes.

Today, some Jewish leaders are witnessing a massive revolt of their liberal base against the blind allegiance to Israel they once imposed on their followers. They feel that antisemitism is rising on the hard-Left of the movement. Other Jewish leaders see a conservative base that is split between those who pledge fanatic allegiance to Israel, and those who yearn for a return to the old days of opposition to the infusion of Jewish precepts into their culture. And this is what the Jewish leaders perceive as a return to an antisemitic attitude on the alt-Right of the movement.

Pushed out of many strategic institutions which the Jews used to dominate, those who lead the conservative movement today, are trying to return to their old positions through the backdoor, so to speak. They have calculated that they can get there by first indoctrinating a new generation of Americans with what they call the precepts of freedom. What they want to do is plant moles into schools and colleges, thus gain control of America's children from when they are toddlers to when they'll pursue a college degree.

You can see how they'll try to accomplish this feat from the blueprint that was described by one of their architects. He is Scott Walker who wrote: “Bringing conservatism back to colleges,” an article that also came under the subtitle: “How organizations like Young America's Foundation (YAF) make a difference.” The article was published on November 21, 2019 in The Washington Times.

This is not something new. In fact, the right-wing Jewish institutions have all sorts of organizations like YAF, trying to do what Scott Walker wants to duplicate. They are failing for the simple reason that they do not understand what freedom is. When they go on a campus and try to impose their brand of freedom on those who wish to remain free of indoctrination, they get the kind of push back that a rapist would get from the woman who would say to him: Get away from me, you animal. What you're trying to do is not give me love; it is violating my person and robbing me of my dignity.

Look what Scott Walker is saying and judge for yourself:

“Despite having the deck stacked against us, we must find a way to make a greater impact. We need to expand the impact of YAF. The young people of America need to hear about the benefits of conservative values. YAF educates and inspires young people to defend and articulate free enterprise principles. YAF is an incredibly effective organization. Looking to the future, it has to build off of that success. Here are some clear goals: There should be a YAF chapter on every campus. In addition to expanding chapters on high school campuses, YAF should aim to reach students at an earlier age––ideally in their pre-teens”.

One wonders what William Buckley would be saying to Scott Walker had he not died prematurely sitting behind his desk promoting the true values of conservatism. Leading by example rather than the forced indoctrination of pre-teens, Buckley would most certainly have found the ideas of Scott Walker abhorrent, and would not have been afraid to tell him so in the face.

One of the tragedies of modern living is that the values of a culture are no longer transmitted solely from parents to children by example, but also by intermediaries who interpret the values left behind by the great ones –– in a manner that suits the biases of the intermediaries. And Scott Walker is a sorry example of that.

They ‘victimize’ the Self to claim Privileges

Let me begin this discussion by clarifying a historical event that's used by the Jewish mutilators of history to turn themselves into victims, thus claim privileges that no one else has.

In the same way that just a few years ago, the Jewish pundits and self-styled historians used to invoke the events of 1938 to claim that the Arabs and the Muslims of today were leading humanity to a world war, they are now invoking the Nazi requirement of the 1930s that the Jews wear a yellow star, to claim that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is singling out the Jews for discrimination. They were proven wrong when they accused the Arabs a number of years go; they are wrong accusing the CJEU today.

What happened with the false claim of 1938 was that people familiar with the deviousness of the Jews pointed out that it was the Israelis and not the Arabs who emulated the Nazi annexation of the neighbors' lands, a move that led to the Second World War. Likewise, annexing lands that belong to Syria and Palestine, is what Israel is doing today, and that's what has the potential to lead to war. Faced with a strong rebuff by people who did their homework––including this website––the Jews shut the heck up.

As to their new quarrel with the CJEU, the Jews now claim that requiring the labeling of products as being made in the West Bank, which is occupied territory, rather than say they were made in Israel, which is the occupying power –– is the same as requiring the Jews to wear the yellow star during the Nazi era. Of course, this is a false and devious claim designed to make the Jews look like victims when in reality, they are the wrongdoers trying to victimize the Palestinians even more than they are doing it already.

The goal of the CJEU ruling is to give the European masses a way to know where a product was made, therefore freely choose between encouraging the occupation of the West Bank or boycotting the companies that operate there in contravention of international law. What the CJEU has blocked is the Jewish ability to lie to the public with a label that says made in Israel when the product is actually made in occupied Palestine under atrocious conditions.

In fact, never before did an occupying power make products in a colony, and labeled them made in the occupying country. For example, products made in Algeria were labeled made in Algeria and not France. The same goes for the Congo and Belgium; for Rhodesia and England; for Indonesia and Holland and so on and so forth. And no company from anywhere in the world would today make a product in occupied Palestine and voluntarily label it made somewhere else –– but the Jews want to make an exception for themselves and the European High Court responded. It said: No, you cannot make us a party to your demonic deception. The subtle message being that just because the moral prostitutes of America allow the Jews to regularly screw their people, does not mean that the Jews can go to Europe and try the same stunt on their people. They respect each other out there; they are not Americans.

In fact, when you take a close look at this scheme, and when you place it in the context of what has transpired during the past half century, you'll come to the conclusion that the Jewish plan is to have the whole world participate with them in the cultural cleansing of Palestine by the simple act of unguarded people, innocently buying products made in occupied Palestine but labeled made in Israel. Europe found a way to protect itself and its people against this horrendous crime, and we should hope that the rest of the world, especially America, will wake up to this reality and follow suit.

You can familiarize yourself with the reaction of America's mob of Jewish pundits to the European ruling, by reading the article that came under the title: “European Union Slaps 'New Kind Of Yellow Star On Jewish-Made Products'” and the subtitle: “A survey of 2,504 French adults found that 69 percent of respondents would not buy products labeled 'made in Israel.'” It was written by Melissa Langsam Braunstein and published on November 19, 2019 in The Federalist.

Braunstein quotes a number of Jewish lawyers who argue, as usual, that the latest controversy has nothing to do with the politics of occupation, and everything to do with the new anti-Semitism that's rearing its ugly head in Europe. But when, you read a passage like what follows, you can’t help but ask yourself: Who are they kidding? Here is that passage: “If a consumer factors politics into those decisions and wants to avoid Israeli goods, why is it so important to specify where in Israel those goods are produced?” There it is, my friend; did you catch the Freudian slip of the tong? The passage calls the whole place (including the West Bank) Israel. This is how the Jews want to erase Palestine from the face of the Earth. Yes indeed; who are they kidding?

Here is another revealing passage: “A survey of French adults found that 69 percent would not buy products labeled made in Israel. That number rose to 75 percent if labels read West Bank, Israeli colony/settlement. So, more detailed labeling would clearly shift some shoppers' habits, but those figures are already high”.

And this is what tells you, the reader, that the potential loss of money, money, money (as in Benjamins) is another motivation for the Jews to shout anti-Semitism at the European Court.

The Jews are not happy that the CJEU ruled they cannot deceive their people by making them believe the products they are buying were made in Israel when in reality they would have been made in occupied Palestine, and the Jews are crying their eyes out, standing as they often do, in the red-light district of American perverted morality.

They celebrate aplenty for small Blessings

Did you ever hear the expression: “Nero is fiddling while Rome is burning?” It applies to people who get excited about the small things they see while ignoring the big things that threaten to consume the small things as well as everything else.

If you think of this as a metaphor, you can tell it applies almost exactly to the Jews who rejoice every time that they see a small disturbance in an Arab or a Muslim country, while ignoring the big trends which are transforming the region at a pace never seen before anywhere around the globe.

You often hear the Jews speak, and you hear them make comments as they joyfully describe how an Arab or a Muslim official was embarrassed when some little thing happened to him. You also hear a more muted noise come out from between the lines. It is the ticking sound of the Jewish brain cells as they yell to each other: “The messiah is coming; the messiah is coming”.

That's right, my friend, the Jews have associated the coming of the messiah with troubles they believe will lead to the destruction of the Arab and Muslim countries. And so, a disturbance in any of those places, however small it may be, fills the Jews with the great expectation that what the Arabs and the Muslims will lose, the Jews will gain.

This docket is exactly what Clifford D. May is delivering in his latest piece of work. It came under the title: “Palestinian Islamic Jihad provokes Israel and finds itself a lonely combatant,” an article that was published on November 19, 2019 in The Washington Times. Clifford May started the discussion by describing the woes of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) but could not help himself from sliding down the slope of dragging other Muslim countries into the discussion. He sees a massive windfall for Israel, even if what's happening in the Middle East pales compared to what's happening in the Far East or Latin America, for example.

As usual, May started his presentation by putting down the ground rule as to how the readers must perceive what he is saying. The rule being that before anything else, the audience must begin with the notion that PIJ ought to be considered a hated entity. The way he did this, was to accuse PIJ of wishing to burn Israel to the ground even if what's actually happened is that the Jews are the ones who burned Palestine to the ground. Not only that, but they keep pouring gasoline on the debris to make sure that Palestine will never rise again. Here is an example of what tickles the fancy of Clifford May and everyone else like him:

“Tensions between the two groups went public when Mahmoud Zahra, a senior Hamas official, attempted to pay his condolences to the family of Baha Abu al-Ata, a top PIJ commander assassinated by Israel. PIJ supporters blocked his car, threw rocks and chanted anti-Hamas slogans. Mr. Zahra's bodyguards hustled him away”.

And while May and his people are rejoicing over small blessings of that nature, they ignore the bigger picture that would require them to make hard decisions. To understand what the big picture is made of, we begin with this statement: “PIJ fired 450 rockets at Israel, whose Dome missile defense system knocked out most.” When they say most, they mean 90 percent, which comes to 405 rockets. Assuming there is some truth in this statement even if the evidence is to the effect that it's a lie through and through, it would have cost Israel a minimum of 405 million dollars to intercept 405 PIJ rockets.

That's ruinous already, but it's only a harbinger of what's to come, given that Hezbollah has 150,000 rockets. This will cost Israel well over $150 billion (that's billion with a B) to intercept, assuming that Israel has enough launchers and enough missiles to do the job. But Israel doesn't have a fraction of a fraction this number of launchers or missiles or money to blunt a Hezbollah full rocket assault.

In fact, this is the view of many Israeli military people who wrote dire scenarios as to how a war with Hezbollah will cripple Israel, and cause the death of hundreds of thousands on both sides. That's assuming that neither Syria nor Iran will move in to settle the scores they have with Israel. But when you add this to the mix, you get the full picture of the horror that awaits the region.

What can be done to avoid this calamity? There is only one thing to do. America must stop giving Israel what makes it believe it can keep on doing the same thing and expect a different result from what it has been getting for half century. Indeed, America should push Israel to accept the Arab initiative, end the occupation of Palestine and Syria's Golan, and pledge to behave like a normal and civilized entity.

War in the Offing and no Law to regulate it

The Jews of Israel and America are sending two signals in the air at the same time. One is that war is about to break out in the Middle East involving Israel; the other is that Israel will not abide by the rule or law regulating the conduct of war.

It is therefore expected that the neighbors who will be dragged into the fight –– and have always respected the rule of law –– will finally decide to fight fire with fire and adopt the same free-for-all style of warfare. So the question to ask is this: Why are the Jews sending those signals out at this time?

We can get a sense of what the Jews are up to by reading two recent articles that were written on the subject. Both were published on November 18, 2019 in National Review Online. One article came under the title: “Israel's New Way of War,” and was written by Seth J. Frantzman. The other came under the title: “Pompeo Announces US Will Not Consider Israeli Settlements Illegal,” and was written by Zachary Evans.

Frantzman's message is ambiguous. This style serves the Jews well because ambiguity is a technique by which the Jews hypnotize America's politicos and keep them in their state of trance during the time that a battle is ongoing, and Israel needs help. The Jews get that help for Israel because a hypnotized bunch is never aware of what it's doing, responding as it does to commands.

Usually, you get a feel of the ambiguity that the Jews employ when they write a piece and you read all of it. Fortunately, however, there is in Frantzman's article the added bonus that one passage, standing alone, reflects the ambiguity all by itself. It goes like this:

“The ability of millions of Israelis to mostly go about their day while Israel's air force carries out precision air strikes nearby is due to Israel's latest achievements in fighting war. It also comes with questions about whether Israel is being effective and what this latest revolution in military affairs means in the long term”.

This is akin to saying the following: Every operation we performed was a success except that the patient died each time. But what effect does that have on the listening politicos of America? Well, the intended effect is to inform the hypnotized zombies of the Washington Beltway that Israel is very close to delivering what it has been promising for decades. This would be a military deterrence of such power, everyone in the region will put down their weapons, surrender and sue for peace.

But since the opposite has been happening, in the sense that the more America gave Israel, the more the neighbors were able to outdo it, the Jews saw the necessity to unleash their psychological war on the Americans by pulling on them the hypnosis trick. But why is that? Why work on the Americans and not Israel's foes? The Jews work on the Americans to prevent them from deciding that America is done breastfeeding little Israel.

And so, the situation as it stands now, is that the Jews have told America's politicos that the outbreak of war is imminent, that Israel is simultaneously capable of winning it and being overrun by the enemy. For this reason, America must consider Israel a victor, and be proud to give it more money and more weapons. Also for this reason, America must consider that if left alone, Israel will be crushed by a superior enemy. This is why America must get ready to rescue Israel when the time will come, as surely it will.

As to the Zachary Evans's article, the only thing it is good for, is that it confirms what was known for decades. It is that the self-appointed policeman of the world is a corrupt cop, turned into a bullying thug by the hypnotic powers of the Jews. You see this confirmation when you read the first sentence in the Evans article, which also stands as the first paragraph. Here is how it reads: “Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that the US would no longer consider Israeli settlements in the West Bank to be in violation of international law.” This is like Epstein declaring that he will no longer respect the virginity of under-aged women.

Of course, neither Mike Pompeo nor Donald Trump came up with that idea. It is purely the concoction of the Tel-Aviv/New-York crime syndicate whose goal is to provoke a flare-up so destructive, Israel's enemy will start the process of shredding it like confetti. This is what the Jews want because the spectacle will force America to enter the fight with all its might, and do more than rescue Israel. It will attempt to completely destroy Israel's enemy. But how much America will succeed is another question.

This scenario has a good chance of playing itself out because the Americans and the Jews have declared that they will no longer abide by the international laws. This will also release Israel's foes from having to abide by those laws.

And since the Jews have had the right to a homeland within the 1948 borders, a foe of Israel will have the right to cross those borders and fight the Jews even there.

By the time the war ends, there will not be an inch of land that the Jews can claim is theirs. These people are masters at miscalculating, and this time they are gambling the very existence of Israel.

Here is why Europe can do it but not America

The Jews of Israel and America wanted the Europeans to allow them injecting the morally reprehensible syphilitic ejaculations of one, Eugene Kontorovich into the heads, hearts and souls of their people. To their credit, the Europeans said no, this is not going to happen.

According to the Washington Free Beacon and The Federalist, the Jews of Israel and America then turned to America's Donald Trump and asked for the same thing. And the Beacon is reporting that America will not only allow the ejaculated moral syphilis of Kontorovich to be injected into the heads, hearts and souls of Americans; it will mobilize America's resources, and mortgage the future of generations to come in an effort to force the Europeans to follow suit. Apparently, Donald Trump believes that the way to make America great again is to make it swim in a swamp of ejaculated Jewish moral syphilis.

The issue that's causing the squabble this time, is that the Jews have tried to do an end run on the established laws of Europe. In the same way that they instructed Jewish women in America to get pregnant and go deliver their babies in Jerusalem, thus force the State Department to recognize Jerusalem as Israeli territory, they tried to force the Europeans to recognize the occupied territories of Palestine as being Israeli territory by allowing the labeling of products made in those territories as being made in Israel.

What happened in the case of Jerusalem, is that the Supreme Court of the United States ruled against the devious Jews. But the latter got what they wanted anyway because Donald Trump gave them the store. And now that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled against the Jews, they ran teary eyed to Donald Trump and asked him to stop everything he is doing for America, and do battle with the European governments for the benefit of Israel. They asked Trump to force the European governments to allow the Jews the opportunity to force the masses of Europe into a swamp of ejaculated Jewish syphilis, like they did in America. And if we are to believe The Washington Free Beacon, Trump said yes, he'll do just that.

Because the current squabble is made to sound like a derivative of the bigger issue known as BDS, the Jews are again invoking the Kontorovich argument. It is similar to the one he used to convince the morally depraved governors of some States in the American Republic, to make the rulings that forced their populations to buy products made in the occupied territories but labeled made in Israel.

That move had the effect of turning every unwary American into an accomplice in the de facto criminal annexation of Palestinian territory, a move that is meant by the Jews to be a prelude to the Israelis calling this virtual annexation a fait accompli, and then formally annexing what’s left of Palestine. The pretext they'll use will be based on the argument that the annexation was endorsed by the American people every time that someone purchased a product made in occupied Palestine but labeled made in Israel.

And here is what Eugene Kontorovich has been arguing:

“No other territory, occupied, disputed, or otherwise is subject to such requirements … In no other case does any origin labeling require any kind of statement about the political circumstances in the area. This is a special Yellow Star for Jewish products only … Products around the world are made in many situations that raise ethical and legal questions, from Chinese prison factories to Moroccan drilling Sahrawi oil. Only such concern that requires labeling in EU is Jews living in neighborhoods where they are not supposed to be”.

As can be seen, Kontorovich admits these are “situations that raise ethical and legal questions.” Well, somebody took these questions to the CJEU and got the correct adjudication –– file closed. This being the case, what is it that Kontorovich is still arguing? Believe it or not, he is arguing what the Jews have always argued. To see what that is, here is a fictitious example that illustrates how their minds operate: A Jew in the Epstein-Weinstein mold is taken to court. He jumps up and down protesting that he has been singled out when others do what he does. Those around him explain –– something like a trillion times –– that everyone that's caught, is treated the same as him. But he doesn't get it.

Likewise, the Jews always protest that Israel is singled out for what it does –– which are reprehensible, they admit –– but these are things that everybody does, and yet nobody is reprimanded. And the Jews are told something like a trillion times that whenever a case comes before a competent judicial body, such as the International Criminal Court, they are dealt with appropriately. In fact, the only one that has escaped such treatment is Israel. And that’s due to America's criminal obstruction of justice on the international stage.

Thus, if Kontorovich believes there is a case to be made regarding the Chinese or Moroccan situations, let him work on earning legal standing, and then take those cases to court. This would be the civilized way to proceed, which is better than waiting for more American governors to be infected with the degenerate disease of Evangelism, so that he may grab them, take them behind closed doors, and whisper-ejaculate a load of his moral syphilis into them.

For reference, you may want to read: “Europe's oldest hatred is back with new EU labeling law for Jewish products,” an article that was written by Brooke Goldstein and Yaakov Berg, and published on November 18, 2019 in The Washington Examiner. There is also: “Trump Administration Vows To Fight EU To Put Warning Labels On Jewish Products,” an article that was written by Erielle Davidson, and published on November 14, 2019 in The Federalist.

They know the Truth is out there, yet they lie

When toddlers do something they are not supposed to, and they are asked about it, most of them lie. The reason they do, is that they have no idea how resourceful the adults can be at discovering the truth.

When teenagers do something they are not supposed to, and they are asked about it, some of them lie. The reason they do, is that they hope the adults will not bother checking the veracity of their assertion.

When adults do something that's contrary to what is expected of them, and they are asked about it, a small minority will look you in the eye, and with a straight face lie to you. The reason they do, is to communicate the utter contempt they have for you, knowing that you know they are lying. It is their way of saying: I don't care what you think of me; I did what pleases me and you can go to hell.

There was a time when the mouthpieces of the Jewish establishment in America used to act like teenagers handling the truth. They would tell lies hoping that nobody will check the veracity of what they said. And the Jews had good reason to so believe. It is that America's politico-journalistic crowd worshiped them, believing they were chosen to be more important than the rest of us. And so, the Americans treated everything that was uttered by the Jews as gospel truth, and did not bother verifying it.

But then, bit by bit, it dawned on some Americans that maybe the Jews are not what they are cracked up to be. And so, they started checking the Jewish assertions. They discovered that lying is the beating heart of the Jews. If they stop lying, they die, and so they don't stop lying till they die. When the Jews became aware of what was happening, they modified their communicating techniques. Instead of telling outright lies, they began to confuse their audiences by telling half-truths and ambiguities, as well as communicating the simultaneous and contradictory narratives they are famous for.

You can see an example of that in a piece that was commissioned by the Likud party of Israel, and published by its most trusted mouthpiece in America: The New York Post. It is an editorial that came under the title: “Behind the Israel-Islamic Jihad flareup,” and published on September 16, 2019.

The editorial begins with the question: “What's up with the latest hostilities between Israel and Islamic Jihad?” and uses the rest of the space to answer the question. It takes little time for the reader to establish that the committee which wrote that piece was interested in achieving two goals. It wanted to say that Israel's action was not an assassination –– which would have made it a war crime, and possibly a crime against humanity –– but that it was a response to a specific Palestinian provocation.

The committee also wanted to say that the Palestinians are terrorists whereas the Jews are not. The way the committee tried to achieve this goal, was to claim that by launching rockets at Israel, the Palestinians “intended” to kill civilians but failed, which is unacceptable behavior despite the failure. At the same time, however, the Jews retaliated, “intending” to kill Palestinian combatants but killed civilians instead, which is acceptable collateral, according to the infamous editorial.

So, here is a condensed version of the piece that was published by the editors of the New York Post:

“Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) fired a rocket at Ashdod, timed to hit as Netanyahu was taking the stage in a campaign rally. It was an effort to humiliate Bibi and turn the election. Israel waited until it had a clear shot at Baha Abu al-Ata. It pinned down his location; a jet launched a missile, killing the terrorist and his wife and leaving the rest of the apartment building untouched, though several of their children were reported wounded. PIJ's response was to launch rockets indiscriminately at civilian Israeli targets –– most intercepted by the Iron Dome defense system or hitting only empty ground. Israel answered with its own attacks on PIJ military targets, with greater success”.

With that, the editors of the New York Post are saying that the Israelis did not assassinate Baha Abu al-Ata as a matter of policy; they killed him in response to the Palestinians launching a rocket that was meant to disrupt a Netanyahu rally, and that’s provocation enough. But the English headline in the November 14, 2019 edition of the Israeli publication Haaretz, reads as follows: “Israel Approved al-Ata's Assassination Two years Ago, but Postponed It Several Times.” Clearly then, the editors of the New York Post lied; and did so knowingly and deliberately to hide Israel’s war crime and crime against humanity.

The editors also said that the bomb which killed al-Ata and his wife left the building untouched except for the children who were wounded. By that, the editors have suggested that no one but the man and his wife were killed. But the Israelis have been bragging about the big ball of fire that was caused by the explosion. In fact, they filmed the ball of fire and have been showing the video clip with great pride around the world, as the symbol of their military prowess.

And then, the same Haaretz article with the headline about the premeditated assassination of al-Ata, clearly stated that at least five (that’s 5) Palestinians were killed and dozens were injured. Clearly then, the editors of the New York Post lied; and did so knowingly and deliberately to hide Israel’s war crime and crime against humanity.

It is not that these editors don't know the truth is out there; they know it as well as anyone. And yet they lied, knowing that someone will point that out. So, why did they lie?

They lied because lying is a disease which they cannot be cured of it. It is why they are known as pathological liars –– a pathology being a clinically diagnosed disease.

You can only pity these people.

Will this be a British Model for America?

Michael Curtis wrote an article under the title: “Corbyn and Labour: A Fish Rots from the Head,” and the subtitle: “Something is rotten in the state of the British Labour Party.” He had the article published on November 11, 2019 in The American Thinker.

Hoping that an article in the British publication “Jewish Chronicle” will produce a miracle, Michael Curtis reached back a hundred and twenty years to an incident known as the Dreyfus Affair which happened in France. He speculated that the success of an article written then in defense of a Jew who was accused of treason, will serve as model for the Jewish Chronicle to “rouse the power of the media,” thus result in the hoped-for miracle concerning the affairs of the British Labour party.

The article in the Jewish Chronicle was titled: “To all our fellow British citizens,” and was addressed to non-Jews. It attacked Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the Labour party, who has a reasonable chance of getting elected prime minister of Britain. What the Jews do not like about this possibility, is that they consider Corbyn to be an anti-Semite whose failure to deal with a similar trend in his party, emboldens other people in and out of the party to follow suit.

It should not come as a surprise to anyone that Michael Curtis is drawing a parallel between what happened to an individual in France a hundred and twenty years ago, and what he sees happening today to the Labour party of Britain. It is that the Jews have a universal sort of nexus that ties everything which relates to Jewish misery. This would be the anti-Semitism they see running as an undercurrent in all these affairs.

Be that as it may, a more accurate parallel to draw would be the situation in America as it relates to what's happening in Britain. Election fever is gripping both countries, where the parties that are removed from the hawkish and warmongering Right, are being attacked by the Jews. The reason is that the latter fear for the future of Israel if the West, under American leadership, decided to abandon the Jewish inspired and Jewish supervised perpetual war against Islam.

In fact, such a decision may come in response to the masses in America, and Europe who want to see an end to those wars. It is that the multitudes in these places are demanding that their leaders work to solve the problems faced by the masses as they try to adapt to a changing world. The people want their leaders to look after their interests rather than create new and costly problems just to please a minority of Jews that developed the ability to hypnotize those who get into the politico-journalistic profession, and have them work to promote Israel at their expense.

That is the reality, and not anti-Semitism, which is pitting the Jews against the parties in Europe and America that have decided to listen to their populations, and started campaigning for an end to those wars. The parties also started a process of reconciliation with the Arabs and the Muslims they have been hurting for decades to please the handful of Jews among them.

The British Labour party is ahead of the American Democratic Party in this regard. Already, a great deal of fear has been expressed by America's mob of Jewish pundits who see that the Democrats are emulating the British model. The trouble with the American Jews, however, is that they want to solve their problem the way that the British Jews want to solve theirs, an approach that will fail in both countries. In fact, what the Jews are doing at both sides of the Atlantic Ocean is precisely what has transformed what used to be a politico-diplomatic dispute into a resentment for what the Jews are doing to exploit the places where they live so as to promote what they call the Jewish homeland, a foreign entity that's out there on another continent.

As to the approach that's used by the Jews in both places, here is a condensed version of what they believe is proper, whereas everyone else considers it to be incriminating:

“Jewish Labour MPs called on their supporters not to vote Labour. Ian Austin called on Labour voters to vote conservative. Tom Watson resigned as deputy leader. Luciana Berger, Louise Ellman and Joan Ryan, chair of the Labour Friends of Israel resigned. Ryan, MP for a London constituency, quit the party. Corbyn had associations with anti-Semites such as Paul Eisen, Stephen Sizer, and Raed Salah. He wrote a letter defending Sizer. Salah was called by Corbyn a very honored citizen. Corbyn hosted representatives from Hamas and Hezb'allah. He defended a mural considered anti-Semitic. He attended a ceremony in Tunisia honoring Palestinians. Chris Williamson, a Corbyn defender, was himself defended by Corbyn, and called a very good and very effective Labour MP. Anti-Semitism is everywhere. In Sofia, fans of a Bulgarian soccer team gave Nazi salutes. In Halle, an attack was made on a synagogue on Yom Kippur. The Italian-Jewish Senator, Lilian Segre, received hundreds of hostile messages on social media”.

What comes out of that discussion, is that the Jews want to divide the world into the good people who support them, and the bad people who don't. They want those on their side to be in a permanent state of dispute if not war against the other side.

They'll leave those on the other side alone only if they keep their mouths shut and do nothing that might get in the way of the Jews promoting the interests of Israel... which they intend to continue doing on a non-stop basis. Impede this effort, and they promise that Satan’s hell will break loose on everyone's head each and every time.

And the world is saying to the Jews: No way. No deal. No surrender. Fight us and we’ll fight back. And as always, we’ll win and you’ll lose.