Is it that 'Cash is King' or 'Cash is Trash'?

If we understand what “depression” is, and if we understand what “galloping inflation” is, we'll have a better grasp of what's happening to the world today.

Depression is the expression of lost confidence in the prevailing economic system. What happened in the United States of America in the late 1920s and early 1930s, is that the people who were overconfident in the soundness of the economy and abused it to the breaking point, saw their mood swing to the other extreme when the economy began to falter.

Fearing what tomorrow will bring, they sold at give-away prices, the hard assets they owned, and hoarded the cash waiting for the situation to clear up. Hard assets –– from tools to instruments to buildings –– being what's used to produce goods and services, it was the idling of these assets that reduced the production of those goods and services. In the end, that's what defined the word depression. In practical terms, it was like the economy had gone into a coma.

As to the expression, galloping inflation, it is a phenomenon that usually begins when shortages in one or more vital staples become chronic. Prices rise and people ask for raises. If the economy is otherwise sound and has the export potential to attract foreign currencies, the jurisdiction will import what it needs, pays for it and the problem is solved there and then.

But if the economy develops shortages and has no means to pay for imports, an internal leapfrogging effect develops. That is, when a segment of society –– such as the private sector, for example –– gets a raise and causes prices to go higher still, the public sector will want to leapfrog ahead of the private. It asks for, and gets a raise, which causes the private sector to ask for still more money. The two sectors begin the process of leapfrogging ahead of each other, causing inflation to gallop, and the value of the currency to diminish to near zero.

What's happening in the world today, is that most economies were hit by a virus named Corona. It forced governments to take measures that save lives. The measures entailed telling people to stay home and not go to work or any place where they might have conducted economic activity. And so, whereas depression resulted from the economy going into a coma because of loss of confidence, today's coronavirus forced the governments to send the economies into a coma to save lives. Whether or not the economies will tailspin into a real depression will depend on how long the pandemic lasts.

Having learned the lesson of the twentieth century depression, the central banks and the treasuries rushed to flood their economies with cash instead of tightening their monetary and fiscal policies, the way they did nearly a century ago. Today's move is meant to maintain a semblance of economic activity, thus raise the level of confidence before people start selling their hard assets cheaply, and cause a real depression.

In the wake of two trillion inflation-inducing dollars being injected into the economy, what will happen when the pandemic will have been defeated? Upon reopening their doors, the companies will do what they always do, which is to recall only some of their laid-off employees, keeping the others out, and causing unemployment in the country to rise. It is that the companies will find ways to produce as much if not more than before using a smaller workforce, which is good for business. But will the rise in both inflation and unemployment result in consequences we cannot foresee at this time?

Richard Phillips sees some very real changes coming. He wrote an article to that effect under the title: “The Sad State of US and Global Affairs,” and the subtitle: “If –– or is it already when –– the current crisis ends with the United States of America fiscally and monetarily bankrupt, the idea of a full-blown depression becomes all too real.” It was published on March 27, 2020 in The Globalist.

Here is some of what Richard Phillips has said:

“It is safe to assume that the federal budget deficit in the current fiscal year will zoom past the $4 trillion mark –– and approach $5 trillion before it's all over. Assuming there is a 15% decline in fiscal 2020 due to the pandemic, GDP looks like it will come in at around $18 trillion. It would put the projected US budget deficit at around 28% of GDP! That would translate into a potentially massive expansion of the Fed balance sheet. Just don't forget about the massive US corporate debt. It stands today at over $10 trillion. If the crisis ends with the US fiscally and monetarily bankrupt, the idea of a full-blown depression becomes all too real”.

And this is the advice that Richard Phillips is giving out:

“The wiser solution now might be to judiciously provide limited financial support to the needy and encourage forbearance in both the public and private sectors for the next 60 days”.

But not everyone in the private sector will listen to him. A good many, especially in the crowd of stockholders, will want to sell now, and perhaps buy back later.

And this raises an interesting question: Is cash king under these circumstances, or is it trash?

Apart here and there; Apartheid in Palestine

The Jews have offered many excuses as to why individuals and groups of every ethnic background, every color of the skin and every religious persuasion that convert to the Jewish politico-religious philosophy of life should be given treatment so special, it amounts to travelers sojourning through life in a private compartment aboard the planetary ship named Earth.

Aside from considering the excuses offered by the Jews as being fake and rejecting them, most of humanity, throughout time and space, has reacted badly to a Jewish behavior that was clearly motivated by a way of living and a treatment of others that ran afoul of every norm considered inalienable by human beings everywhere on Earth and throughout time.

In fact, humanity has looked with suspicion at the Jews who set themselves apart from everyone else, choosing instead to live behind the walls of ghettos they built for themselves in Europe centuries ago. More recently, humanity ran out of patience with the Jews who constantly invent fake excuses as to why, in the name of security, they steal Palestinian lands and build apartheid walls on them; walls that push Palestinians out of their properties, and add to the Jewish possession of stolen properties.

The Jewish philosophy of life being the culprit that's keeping the Jews apart from the rest of the human race, all kinds of theories have arisen as to why this is happening. Some of the theories even touched on the possibility of bridging the gap between the two sides, but no workable solution came of that effort. If anything, the gap that might have been narrowing for a time, is starting to widen again, threatening to unleash a period that presages the potential of reviving old horrors of a kind no one wants to see again.

This is why we should analyze every piece of new evidence that comes to the surface, and renew the effort to understand the situation in the hope that this may lead to bridging the gap between the two sides. To that end, the coronavirus may have given us that chance this time. It came in the form of two articles, one Jewish and one secular, in which the core of the subject at hand is treated from two different angles.

One article came under the title: “Two orthodox Jewish approaches to the coronavirus,” and the subtitle: “The principle of living by religious laws but not dying by them is integral to Jewish practice.” It was written by Devorah Goldman, and published on March 28, 2020 in The Washington Times. The other article came under the title: “Church and state can work together to ease coronavirus tensions,” written by Jeremy Dys, and published on March 29, 2020 in The Washington Examiner.

Despite all the verbiage that was used to treat the secondary and tertiary concerns attached to the core of the main subject, what comes out clearly from the two articles, is the intense preoccupation that pundits and ordinary people have for the subject of separation between church and state. Here is what Devorah Goldman has said in this regard:

“Saving a life trumps any other religious act, no matter how sacred … If following a commandment entails a risk of death, then, according to this principle, Jews are enjoined to violate that commandment”.

And here is what Jeremy Dys has said in that regard:

“Government may not burden the free exercise of religion unless it has a compelling reason for doing so. It must use the least burdensome approach that achieves that interest. Temporary action to reduce the spread of a global pandemic is a compelling reason, so long as the government treats religious gatherings with other comparable gatherings … Church and state have an opportunity to work together to reduce the impact of the virus on our communities while encouraging calm and preserving liberty”.

This is where you see the difference between the expansive modes of thinking expressed by Jeremy Dys in the name of all human beings, compared to the narrow modes of thinking expressed by Devorah Goldman in the name of Jews. Whereas both agree that no law is so absolute you cannot disregard it if doing so will save lives, Devorah Goldman said this much and went no further.

By contrast, Jeremy Dys who espouses a secular point of view that is rooted in Christianity, said that much as well, but went on to plead that government treats religious gatherings the same way it treats all other gatherings. He also took the opportunity to urge both the church and the state to work together so as to reduce the impact of the virus on people, as well as preserve liberty for the people.

All in all, this alerts us to the reality that the problem plaguing Planet Earth and has been for ages, is none other than the Jewish politico-religious philosophy of life.

That is, if the Jews were to reform their ways in reality and not in pretense, they must reject what makes them Jews in the first place. But if they do that, we don't know what other form of evil will replace them.

Unfortunately, we find ourselves in a Catch-22 situation.

Global or no Global? That is the hard Choice

As far as I can tell, globalization began in earnest with the Japanese auto industries in the early years of the 1980s. To understand what happened there, we need, first of all, to highlight the differences between the manufacturing requirements of a new industry, and those of a mature industry.

At the start of the computer industry, all the parts and semi-finished components were made in the United States. They were also assembled into a finished product locally. As the industry began to mature, the assembly was done in countries where labor was cheap. Later, the production and assembly of semi-finished components followed suit. Now, computers and spin-offs are designed and produced in whole or in part in several countries, but the industry is still developing, and cannot be said to have reached full maturity.

The auto industry, on the other hand, has been around for nearly a century and a half, and can be considered a mature industry despite the innovations that were added to it, such as self-parking and self-driving. What makes a car a car is the fact that it is run by the internal combustion technology. The day might come when every car on the planet will run by an electric motor, but the auto industry will still be thought of as a mature industry.

Having recovered from the shock of the 1973 sudden rise in the price of oil, the American auto industry was again in a position to challenge its Japanese counterpart by the early 1980s. It did so by designing and producing smaller and more fuel-efficient cars. To respond to that challenge, the Japanese came up with a slew of innovations, having to do mostly with the process of manufacturing rather than product design.

The first thing that the Japanese did was rely on their dominance of the small car market, to devote their attention to producing high quality cars that left the American novices in this market way behind. What helped the Japanese in this regard was the introduction of the team-work concept, which replaced the drudgery of the assembly-line. Later, the robotic revolution changed all that. But what began the process of globalization in my view, was the failure of the “just-in-time” concept.

To be even more efficient, thus reduce the price of their cars, the Japanese thought of saving money on the storage of the parts they bought from suppliers and kept in warehouses till needed. The auto industries wanted the suppliers to send the parts “just-in-time” so as to be taken directly to the production floor and used right away. Unfortunately for the Japanese, the usual “force majeure” and other delays caused the assembly line to shut down for hours or even days for lack of parts.

Just-in-time being a cure worse that the problem it was trying to alleviate, the Japanese automakers thought up new ideas to reduce the cost of producing cars. One idea was to produce the parts they needed in the countries where labor was cheaper than in Japan. The idea produced good results and was taken up by other companies in Japan and elsewhere. It expanded with the passage of time to the global phenomenon we see today.

And then, the COVID-19 materialized. A whole new debate is just beginning as to what might happen or what should happen to globalization. Two pundits have opposite views in this regard, and each has written an article to expand on those views.

One article came under the title: “COVID-19 pandemic reshapes global societies and economies,” and the subtitle: “The world will not be the same.” It was written by Brahma Chellaney, and published on March 26, 2020 in The Washington Times.

Chellaney puts the blame for the rise of the pandemic squarely on the shoulders of the Chinese leaders. He believes that the world and globalization have changed forever. And he has ideas on how else they should change. He believes that China should be ostracized and made to pay for the damage it has caused the world. He ends his tirade against that country with this advice: “China cannot have its cake and eat it too. It must fundamentally reform”.

As to the other article, it came under the title: “Globalization here to stay, but will need reform,” and the subtitle: “populist forces that see once-in-a-lifetime chance for dramatic turn will find the genie is out of the bottle.” It was written by Henry J. Barkey, and published on March 23, 2020 in The Atlantic.

Here, in condensed form, is how Barkey views the situation:

“There is no doubt that this crisis is taking an enormous toll. Yet, precisely because the shock has been great, when the coronavirus has been defeated the need to restart the global economy will be urgent. No one will want to reinvent the wheel. There will be a natural return to how things were. Companies and institutions will go back to what they know best”.

Time will be the final arbiter on this question. It’s because only time can tell what will happen in the future. But two things are certain at this time. One is that no country is self-sufficient in everything. The other is that the more civilization advances, the larger the variety of products it will need to make, and will make.

This means that the immediate trend is for more jurisdictions around the globe getting the chance to make new products to satisfy more of the world’s markets.

This says that globalization will be with us for a while yet.

Loosening of the autocratic Grip on America

For the umpteenth time the Jews are being taught the lesson that nothing lasts forever, and they still don't seem to get it.

A recent article in the Jewish News Syndicate clearly indicates that these people are a long way away from accepting that change has come to America, and they better get used to it or they’ll suffer consequences that will again prove to be dire.

The article was written by James Sinkinson under the title: “The Coming election will test Jewish Democrats' commitment to Israel,” published on March 26, 2020. The writer began the discussion by mentioning an incident that took place in occupied Palestine. Nonetheless, that incident has deep roots in America, and promises future consequences that will run just as deeply.

Here, in condensed form, is what happened according to the account given by Sinkinson: “Israel destroyed a building constructed by Arabs in East Jerusalem … Israel commonly destroys residences that are built illegally, a practice whose legitimacy has been consistently affirmed by Israeli courts.” And this is the reaction that ensued: “More than 60 Democrats in the US House of Representatives sent a letter to Mike Pompeo demanding assurances that Israel is not using US military equipment to demolish Palestinian homes. This gesture was clearly meant to express disapproval of Israel's legal measures”.

What escapes James Sinkinson and those like him, is that every despicable entity, from Fascist Italy to Nazi Germany to Apartheid South Africa had their laws, their courts, their judges and their enforcers of the law. And it was precisely the existence of these institutions that made these regimes the despicable entities that they were. Like it or not, this is the league in which Israel finds itself today.

The trouble is that when it comes to Jewish affairs, what's in Israel does not stay in Israel. Thus, you'll find that every fascist foible the Jews come up with in Israel to control the Palestinian population, other Jews bring to America to control the governing setup in this country. Since the work of an occupation is fascistic by definition, what the Jews bring to America are fascistic ideas on how to control the legislative and executive branches of the American government.

It happened that the first thing the Jews did after landing in America, was to turn the most fundamental principle of American governance into a toilet paper. From the principle of checks and balances that are meant to keep everyone honest, the Jews turned that idea into billion-dollar checks that go to Israel on a regular basis. As to balance, the only balancing act the Jews do, is to weigh the benefits they can get in return for the bribe they may have to give someone.

So now that the Americans in the House of Representatives have identified the hellhole toward which the Jews have been dragging America, those legislators have started to take the necessary steps that will help them break free of the demonic clutches which are gripping them and gripping their country. But as you can imagine, this did not sit well with the Jewish establishment that knows no other way to operate. And so, you’ll find that the said establishment began the next phase of its maneuverings by lamenting.

Lamentation is what you'll find in the James Sinkinson article. Unable to find a sympathetic audience that would hear his complaint, he directed his lamentation toward the Jewish electorate in America. Here, in condensed form, is what he said:

“One thing should be clear to every Jewish Democrat––a fact they must own––is that they are about to lose their party to powerful forces that threaten Israel's well-being and even survival. What will you do to keep support of Israel bipartisan in this country? Any pro-Israel Jew who allows without furious protest the hijacking of their Democratic Party by the rising anti-Zionist juggernaut will be guilty of betrayal of their people and their ancestral homeland, Eretz Yisrael. If Jewish Democrats fail to exert sufficient influence on their party, the fate of the Jewish state and the Jewish people will be harmed irreparably”.

So, here it is my friend, despite the phrase, “bipartisan support for Israel” being well known to call for the destruction of the American system of checks and balances and replacing it with a system of Jewish autocracy, James Sinkinson is asking Jews what they will do to make sure that support for Israel will forever remain bipartisan.

But why would Sinkinson advocate the destruction of an American institution? Here is why: It is that or it is betrayal. Seeing the situation only in terms of a tradeoff, he wants the Jews to mount furious protests or face the charge of betraying Israel their ancestral homeland. In his view, it is the destruction of an American institution and the survival of Israel, or it is the other way around.

However, the truth is that even though Sinkinson and the Jewish establishment, speak of the survival of Israel, they are thinking survival of the apartheid system in occupied Palestine.

The goal pursued by the Jews is the continued American support for apartheid. It is what the whole world has known for some time, except for the Americans. But now that they are told about it, will they move to save the honor of their Republic?

The Tug of War between a Cannibal and a Saint

What does eating a nice meal and watching an entertaining movie have in common? They both give you pleasure. Eating gives the physical pleasure of taste, and the appeasement of hunger. Watching a movie gives the moral pleasure of entertainment, and the proverbial food for thought.

Massive industries arose to cater to these forms of pleasure. In fact, everywhere you look around the globe, you'll find that the agri-food business and the entertainment industries are predominant sectors of the national economy. They provide their populations with a large variety of products that serve to enhance their pleasurable experiences.

And yet, despite all of this, you'll find that some people go well beyond any limit you can imagine doing the unthinkable. Some people –– undoubtedly very sick people –– turn to cannibalism, not out of necessity, but for the supreme pleasure of eating the flesh of another human being. The entertainment parallel to that, is the kind of pleasures that Jews seek. When looked at closely, you'll find them to be pleasures that would sicken rather than entertain normal human beings.

A common pleasure that Jews, as young as teenagers and as old as retirees, are not ashamed to enjoy publicly, is seeing men in their nineties being punished for doing nothing worse than having been in the wrong place at the wrong time when the Second World War broke, and they were forcibly drafted––as the innocent kids that they were––to stand guard at the gate of a concentration camp. No one sane can avoid seeing this as being a moral cannibalism that is specific to Jews.

But that's what the Jews do regularly to individuals who cannot defend themselves. As to what they do to the people that can defend themselves, it so happens that two recent articles tell this story with clarity.

One article came under the title: “Ilhan Omar Is Using The Wuhan Virus To Shill For Iran,” and the subtitle: “It is bad enough that Ilhan Omar has a penchant for blaming America first. Actively aiding our adversaries is even worse.” It was written by Ben Weingarten and published on March 24, 2020 in The Federalist. The other article came under the title: “America Must Have a 'Regime Collapse' Strategic goal for Iran,” written by Michael Makovsky and published on March 25, 2020 in The National Interest.

Here is the scene that Ben Weingarten the Jew, set up, and bitterly complained about, accusing Ilhan Omar of ingratitude: “Ilhan Omar retweeted a thread blaming a medical supplies shortage in Iran on US sanctions, writing, 'We need to suspend these sanctions before more lives are lost.'” Weingartein can blow his entrails out of his belly all he wants protesting that he is misunderstood, but if he doesn't care about the lives of the Iranian people, he doesn't care about the lives of the American people either––or anyone of us, for that matter. It is as simple as that. He is a cannibal who will lie about the morality of his culinary preferences, and that's all there is to it.

We now look at a condensed version of the Makovsky article, who is also a Jew. It reads as follows:

“The US tools had been limited to economic ones. Sanctions have undercut Iranian resources and exacerbated internal tensions but alone are inadequate. With the killing of Suleimani, the US added a military component to its campaign. To build on the momentum the US needs to adopt the goal of regime collapse. The implication should be to advance the decomposition process in Iran. To achieve regime collapse, the US should exacerbate the domestic tensions. The implication of a US strategy is a policy of pressure: economic, military, diplomatic and political. The US must cement the gains accomplished by the Suleimani strike. This requires the implementation of sanctions on critical regime revenue sources, in particular oil, natural gas, petrochemicals, metals and banking sectors. That means beefing up Israeli military capabilities to prepare for a war with Iran”.

Here too, you cannot avoid having the feeling that this guy is motivated by cannibalistic impulses such as you see expressed by fanatic Jews only. Who else would incite a superpower, telling it that: it is not adequate to starve a people and see them die for lack of medicine, you must resort to the military option as well and bomb to kingdom come the now weakened people of Iran?

And while advocating this much, Makovsky is also asking America to give Israel right now, the weapons it was slated to receive over a ten-year period. He wants it done so that Israel can participate in the cannibalistic ritual of America weakening a people by first starving them, and then softening them by crushing their defenses, and letting Israel move in to claim the spoils.

Endowed with a sense of history that no mutilator of history of the Weingarten variety can ever garner, Ilhan Omar, who on several occasions, took a chance as big as standing up to the treasonous Jews to defend America, is once again standing up to Ben Weingarten.

His apparent aim is to paint a picture of America that will horrify future historians because they’ll see in it a declining superpower that lived its dying days adhering to the cannibalistic dictates, as do the most fanatic of Jews.

But thanks to Ilhan Omar, those same historians will realize that Ben Weingarten was the cannibal, whereas she had been the saint that saved America from his clutches and those of the other Jews.

Clifford May is insulting America's Military

When you have a good case, and it is taken up by a prosecutor, you welcome the case going to trial and you rely on the facts as well as the law to prepare a good defense for your client.

When you have a bad case, and it is taken up by a prosecutor, you protest the specter of the case going to trial, and you attack the character of the prosecutor instead of relying on the facts or the law or both to prepare a good defense for your client.

Clifford May does not have one word to say in defense of the horrible crimes that Israel has been committing in Palestine during the last half century. And so, he did what was expected of someone like him. He attacked the character of Ms. Fatou Bensouda, prosecutor at the International Criminal Court (ICC) who, at long last, turned her attention to that festering problem.

But knowing that the whole world, including most Americans, welcomes the prosecution of Israel's criminals, Clifford May has attacked Bensouda for wanting to prosecute, not the good soldiers of America's military, but the criminals who soil the name of that military by wearing its uniform and committing horrible crimes.

These are the reasons why Clifford D. May was motivated to write an article that came under the misleading title: “International Criminal Court prosecutor Fatou Bensouda puts American soldiers in her crosshairs,” and the subtitle: “Globalists gone wild.” It was published on March 24, 2020 in The Washington Times.

Attacking Fatou Bensouda is not the only thing that Clifford May did to protect Israel by pretending to protect America. He also attacked the ICC itself, and made a big deal about America not being a member of the Court. In fact, what happened in that regard, is that America signed but did not ratify the Rome Statute. It later notified the ICC that it does not intend to ratify the Statute at all … and then Israel followed suit.

With regard to the vehement protestations, which are raised by the likes of Clifford May to the effect that America and Israel cannot be taken to court because they are not members of the ICC, the world has rejected that excuse. In fact, the norm that's followed in the world, is that in the absence of a ruling by a competent international body on a specific inception, a number of countries can get together on an ad hoc basis, make the rules and abide by them.

In fact, no one knows this reality of contemporary life more than the United States of America that appointed itself policeman of the world and started acting accordingly. America also came up with a doctrine known by the name, “The responsibility to protect” and added it to the many doctrines it came up with over the decades, concerning its relation with the rest of the world.

But the difference between America and the ICC is that the latter does not act like prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner the way that America does. The ICC does not use drones and warplanes to kill people. All it does is establish the guilt or innocence of someone, and lets other jurisdictions take care of the enforcement part of the verdict.

In fact, this is where Clifford May could have contributed a basket of good ideas to resolve this important and yet lingering matter. Being a lawyer and eager to see the legal approach triumph where and when it is asked to get involved, Clifford May can still suggest a practical way as to how America can work out a deal with the ICC. Such a deal will specify that if an American soldier is convicted by the Court, he will be sent to the United States to serve his sentence.

And while there, the soldier can use the American military or civilian courts to appeal his sentence. If it can be proven that the ICC has erred, the sentence will be altered or quashed altogether. If after all this, there will be a popular outcry to the effect that the accused was wrongly convicted in the first place, there will always be the presidential pardon that can put an end to the controversy.

But why is it that Clifford May or even a non-Jewish lawyer did not come up with that idea or something similar in the first place? That’s because the Jews are always on the scene of every event, pushing everyone aside and elbowing their way into the heart of every controversy. They come into the fray not thinking about America or the world or anything like that. They come with the pretense of talking about America but only think about Israel, and always act to further its interests.

In fact, you'll find the Jews on the scene almost instantly after the break of a controversy. They'll be there, not with ideas they put on the table to contribute to the debate, but come with a bag full of insults they throw at everyone.

Before the good people had the time to think about the subject and come up with ideas of their own, the Jews would have polluted the scene with a ton of nonsense, and will have moved on to another topic.

Once there, and before anyone else had the chance to get in, the Jews would have hijacked the subject and treated it in the same nonsensical way they always do.

Read the Clifford May article, my friend, and be amazed at all he should have added but did not, and all he should not have omitted but did.

Selling the political Capital of their Offices

In a triumphal tone, Zac Schildcrout has announced the welcoming into the Jewish fold of three brand new moral prostitutes. As usual, it happened through the use of the bribe-and-blackmail set-up for the slow-motion subjugation of America. The three prostitutes this time are Representatives Paul Gosar, Denver Riggleman and George Holding.

Schildcrout made the announcement in an article he wrote under the title: “Stop Using Federal Money to Finance Anti-Zionism at US Colleges,” published on March 22, 2020 in the Jewish online publication, Algemeiner. However, despite a title that sounds meaningless if not perplexing, the Jewish command to America, “stop using federal money” aims specifically at creating a vast and federally funded network that will participate in the Nazi style indoctrination of America's young and not so young.

We can see this clearly when we begin from the premise that the relationship between two institutions stands on one of two foundations: voluntary or coercive. Right now, the relationship between the US Department of Education (DoE) and the University of Arizona's Center for Middle Eastern Studies (CMES) is based on the voluntary transfer of funds out of the DoE, and the voluntary acceptance of same by CMES. The transaction is completed on the basis of the interpretation that both sides have made with regard to what Title VI of the Higher Education Act (VI/HEA) is saying.

What Zac Schildcourt –– who calls himself campus adviser and online editor for the Jewish wildcat Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis –– wants to do, is change the relationship between DoE and CMES from voluntary to coercive. He wants to do it by subjecting what CMES teaches, and how it teaches it, to the whims of the Judeo-Zionist commissars. These will be armed with the full investigative powers of the law, ranging from the issuance of subpoenas to the recommendation that the professors who refuse to promote the Zionist doctrine, be jailed and stripped of the right to teach ever again.

Schildcrout pretends that he and the Jewish establishment behind that scheme are only interested in seeing that the law is implemented as written. They want the readers and the legislators of America to believe that they honor the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights but where Title VI/HEA clashes with the amendment, they want it taken into consideration.

Of course, the Jews know that the students and their parents as well as the college professors and the administrators are adults who know right from wrong, and do not need a Jewish chaperon to protect them from themselves or from each other. But principle is principle, the Jews contend, and they are such sticklers to principle, they'll pursue this matter to the end, and never let go of it whatever the consequences.

They also contend that depriving the university of the little money it receives from the DoE, is not an attempt to starve it of funds with the goal of forcing it to promote the Judeo-Zionist agenda, and be eligible again to receive DoE grants. But if money is not an issue in this dispute, why is it that Schildcrout is complaining about Qatar and Saudi Arabia contributing millions to the University of Arizona and many others?

This is proof enough that the Jewish establishment wants it so that every course on the Middle East taught in America be favorable to the Judeo-Zionist causes. It is also obvious that the Jewish establishment is employing a Nazi-like approach to education with the aim of maneuvering the federal government into financing a program for the Zionist indoctrination of America's pupils and students.

Suppose now that the Jews have it their way, and the colleges and universities in America are cut-off from receiving DoE checks, and forced by law to refuse foreign donations. What do you think the universities and colleges will do? Can you not imagine that they will turn to their alumni for help?

It is a certainty that the colleges and universities will ask, not only for money from their alumni, but also for political support in the form of pressure directed at the politicians and opinion makers of the country. Can you not imagine the start of a debate that will end up with the alumni asking for an end to the scourge of Jewish tyranny in the country?

And there is always the possibility that at some point, a lowlife legislator will commit the one act of political prostitution that will represent the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back. It may turn out to be the event whose consequence will cause a bad ending for the Jews; one that will stand in line with those they suffered since the beginning of time.

America already has a federal executive that spent the political capital which used to impress the world and maintain it in tune with America's vision of what constituted peace and order.

What is at risk now is the hope that the world has for seeing a change in the White House, at which time the congress will start working on giving back to America what it lost during the last few years.

But with the political capital residing in the Congress being slowly eroded by the moral prostitutes who are drawn into the Jewish fold, the world will despair about America and consider it a lost cause.

Diluting the Force of Language by abusing it

Every race, every ethnic group and every religious group that moved into a new environment were resented by the locals at first, but then accepted as an integral part of the societal fabric, and treated as such.

Despite the fact that officially, America was created to be a refuge for those fleeing discrimination, groups such as the Irish, the Italians, the Poles, the Chinese, the Pakis, the Sikhs and the Muslims were discriminated against by the populations that existed at the time.

What happened then was that the normal human interaction took its course, and all these people got integrated into the American family. But this did not happen to one group of people that called themselves by many contradictory names depending on what suited their purpose at any given time. And so, as you could then, you can still catch them call themselves simultaneously: Semitic and Caucasian, white-skinned and brown-skinned, Middle Eastern and European, Jewish and Judeo-Christian … or simply Jews for short.

At first, the Jews were resented in America, and then accepted like everyone else. But shortly after that, the American people turned against the Jews again not because of their origin or color of their skin or their roots or religion. Americans, like the rest of the world, turned against the Jews because of what the latter have been doing in America and Palestine. The reason for the resentment is easy to understand as you'll see.

It is that individuals have a voice with which to express their thoughts, thus can accomplish the things which are dear to them. A group of people, considering themselves kinfolks on account that they share a common ethnic origin or a religion, can have a collective voice to speak for them. To that end, they create a common voice by launching a newspaper or an electronic sight that speaks for the collective. In America, most groups have one or two such outlets mostly used for the dissemination of social news about the group.

This is true for all the diaspora groups wherever they come from and wherever they live, except for the Jews. No matter where the Jews come from and no matter where they live, you'll find that the publications they put out exceed in number all the other publications put together. You'll also find that most of the content in these publications is opinion based, telling how good Jews are and how bad everyone else is.

The Jews incessantly complain about everything big and everything small, and tell everybody what to do to rectify the situation. But given that the number of words in a language is finite, you'll find them echo the same words ad nauseum. Readers and listeners to their message find this Jewish habit a grotesque abuse of the language. They are neither impressed nor amused, and in most cases feel annoyed by it.

The Jews do not attribute such human reaction to their behavior. On the contrary, they see it as a defect in a human race that is predisposed to turn antisemitic on a dime. This leads to a chain of reactions and counter-reactions between the Jews and society, events that always end badly for the Jews.

You can get a sense of how things develop and go from bad to worse by reading an article in which the writer accuses everyone of being a terrorist determined to terrorize the Jews. The article came under the title: “Soros' Anti-Israel Funding,” was written by Rachel Ehrenfeld, and published on March 22, 2020 in The American Thinker. Here is a condensed version of that article:

“George Soros compares Israel's self-defense to Nazi atrocities. Defense against terrorism, is never appropriate in Soros' book. After the war, Jews resorted to terrorism against the British, Soros writes. Eventually Israel suffered terrorist attacks. OSF funds organizations affiliated with terrorists, especially the PFLP, a terrorist organization. The Israeli government reports that Terrorists in Suits, show the tie between NGOs and terror organizations. The oldest terror organization controls the US Domestic Terror Affiliate. An OSF terrorist-linked NGOs include the Center for Human Rights. OSF has close ties to the PFLP, Hamas and Islamic Jihad – all terrorist groups. OSF supporting terrorists, shows that it and other Soros foundations pass funds to terror-affiliated groups, and violate the laws banning support of terrorists. BDS groups with links to the PFLP violate US laws banning support of terrorists. Because of the veneer of human rights, environmentalism, and other causes, NGO support of terrorists is pernicious”.

This article is one of the best examples to show that in the way the Jews have diluted the value of the word “Holocaust” by accusing everyone that did well articulating the Palestinian causes, of being a Holocaust denier, the Jews have also diluted the value of the word “terrorist” by accusing everyone that refuses to be deterred by Israel's show of force, of being a terrorist.

As demonstrated, there is nothing that the Jews can do right, which is why you can only pity these people.

A Justification as ugly as the Crime itself

Iran is not occupying someone country, it is not suppressing another people, and it is not bombing them just because it suspects they are up to no good. Israel does all these things, and does something else too. It constantly incites America to bomb this population or that one, and incites America to impose sanctions on this country or that one, including Iran, just because the Jews do not like this one, that one and Iran too.

Despite America's ill-advised pressure on the world, including its own allies, the world is sympathetic to Iran's plight, and doing all it can to alleviate the savage punishment it is suffering at the hands of the Americans. Despite America's ill-advised pressure on the world, including its own people, humanity rose up in unison to communicate to Israel that it must change its behavior or continue to suffer boycott, divestment and sanction.

This being the situation in the Middle East and around the world, what do you think is happening in America? What's happening is that a percentage of the Jews in that country pretend to be American but live with their hearts in Israel. They function as an Israeli Fifth Column in America while enjoying the privileges of citizenship. They rely on those privileges to snatch from America all that they can, and send it to Israel whether or not it is put to good use over there.

In fact, money and weapons being most of what is siphoned out of America and sent to Israel, you'll find that both contribute to the erosion of Israel's legitimacy in the eyes of the world. That's because the savagery that Israel commits against the people of Palestine, is committed with American weapons. And when the Jews are done killing Palestinians and ethnic cleansing a new swath of Palestine, they use America's money to build the settlements that make the occupation a permanent Jewish stay in someone else's home.

Unable or unwilling to see that their wounds today, like their wounds throughout history, have been self-inflicted, the Jews of America continue to incite that country to keep inflicting maximum pain on the people of Iran. Their excuse for adopting this stance is that they want to see Iran change its behavior. But what the Jews fail to realize is that the more they advocate that cause, the more they shed light on the fact that if Iran needs to change by a foot, the Jews––and not just Israel––need to change by a mile.

The trouble however, is that the Jewish voices advocating the wrong things while inciting America to bring those things to fruition, are much louder than the voices yearning to become normal human beings. The latter wish to integrate into the family of the human race, and want to see Israel transform from the pariah entity that it is to being a normal nation. This quest for normalcy and the opposition to it can be detected in the article that came under the title: “The Coronavirus Is No Reason to Let the Iranian Regime Off the Hook,” written by Jonathan S. Tobin and published on March 22, 2020 in the Jewish publication Algemeiner.

The Jewish argument for the last three years had been that (1) money is fungible, therefore any money that goes to Iran can and will be used to achieve the nefarious ends of the ayatollahs. (2) That the elites in Iran own a big chunk of the economy, thus are wildly wealthy and will not suffer the effects of the sanction. (3) For these reasons, America must apply maximum pressure so as to hurt the people of Iran and force them to rise and topple their leaders. Look now what Jonathan Tobin is saying:

“The problem in Iran is twofold. The toll of victims there is high for the same reason that the virus killed many people in China. As soon as cases of coronavirus began there, the despotic Iranian government sought to cover it up rather than spread the alarm about the peril. There's also the fact that the country's leaders control much of Iran's economy, and are sitting on vast fortunes that could alleviate much of their nation's suffering. While Americans are sympathetic to the suffering of Iranians, the answer to their problems is in efforts to force the regime to change its behavior. The only way to do that is to continue Trump's pressure campaign”.

As can be seen, Jonathan Tobin calls despotic the countries where the toll of victims is high. This makes Italy a despotic regime, followed by Spain, followed by a number of other European countries where the toll continues to rise. On the other hand, many countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America where the toll is low, remain liberal democratic in Tobin's eyes until such time that the toll there too will have risen to a given threshold. And this makes it so that China, which is now free of the virus, has become liberal democratic in Tobin’s eyes, while America where the toll is rising, is gradually becoming despotic.

Tobin is also making the point that Iran's leaders are sitting on vast fortunes that could be used to alleviate the people's suffering. He offers no evidence that there is this much money in Iran, but offers the opinion that money could solve the coronavirus problem. He thus defeats his earlier assertion that starving Iran of money while applying maximum pressure did not aggravate the virus problem in Iran. A typical Jewish shooting the self in the foot trying to have it both ways.

Finally, the Truth. But not yet the whole Truth

It is refreshing that after decades of wait, the truth has finally come out even if it's only a small part of the whole truth.

It is what happened when The National Interest decided it was important for its readers to know that: “The U.S. Army Just Dumped Israel's Iron Dome Rocket Defense System,” which is the title of the article that was written by Charlie Gao, and published by the National Interest on March 21, 2020.

Familiar with the scientific and technological mediocrity of the Israelis, the US army did not want to have that fraudulent system in the first place. So, what do you think happened that had the Army end up having it anyway? You must have guessed it by now. It was AIPAC that commanded the congress of treasonous prostitutes to warn the Army with reduced funding for its other projects if it didn't buy the Judeo-Israeli piece of trash. But how did the US Army determine this was a fraudulent scheme, and how do I know it myself? Well then, look at the following passage:

“Israel's reluctance to provide source code and other technical details have contributed to the Army's reluctance to keep funding the project. The lack of source code and technical models prevent the Army from judging how effective Iron Dome [is.] This is ironic, given that the US shared source code with Israel on the F-35 project”.

That trick is so familiar to me, my jaw dropped when I learned that a Jew tried to pull it on a US auto company (I believe it was GM.) To know now that the Israelis tried to pull it on the US Army as well, is beyond stupefying. So, let me tell you what happened when I was running my own school in Montreal. I had a good friend that was a Jewish lawyer. He told me about an Israeli client of his that invented a gadget everyone should have in their car. It indicated how much “juice” was left in the battery at all time.

The lawyer said the client had a difficult time convincing other people it was a good idea, and he wanted to know from me what I thought of it. I said I needed to see the technical details because, at first blush, the gadget made no sense for many reasons. The lawyer said the gadget was operated by the secret programming of a microprocessor, and his client was not going to reveal the program to anyone. But you know what, my friend, this is what told me that the Israeli was a modern-day hi-tech snake oil salesman.

This must have also been the determination of the auto company that looked at the gadget. Likewise, it must have been the determination that was made by the US Army about the entire Israeli scientific and technical set-up. In fact, this should be the determination that everyone ought to make upon hearing Fox News or CNN tell that Israel does not make finished products to sell directly to consumers because it makes components that go inside the finished products other countries make and sell to consumers. The truth is that Israel has not the wherewithal to make any useful component for anyone.

You might be mystified as to why the Israelis would not share –– at the risk of losing a client as important as America –– the source code and technical details of a system as mundane as the launch of rockets, when America shares with Israel the source code and technical details of systems as advanced as the F-35, given to Israel free of charge. But there is no reason for you to wonder because the truth is that the Israelis know America doesn't need that stuff from them. Let me draw from my experience and tell you why this is so:

When I was doing maintenance, if I had an old piece of equipment to work with, but no blueprint or technical details or source code to guide me, I could still reverse engineer what I was looking at because I was familiar with the combination that made-up components such as a Schmitt Trigger, or an oscillator, for example. Knowing what signals these components required to operate, and what signals they produced, I could work out what circuits were feeding them at the input, and what circuits they were feeding at the output. Starting from there, I could figure out the operation of the entire circuit board.

But when faced with a technology that was new to me, I had to have technical manuals to guide me, or I could not figure out how the thing worked. America being advanced, and Israel being backward, you can be certain that the Americans reverse-engineered the Israeli circuits and found them to be a jumble of Jewish technological and scientific hocus pocus. A simple way to determine the usefulness of a circuit is to bypass it and see what that does to the equipment. The Americans must have done just that, and established that the so-called secret components of the Israeli equipment were as useless as a dead skunk.

Both the Americans and the Israelis knew all along what was going on. Their whispered give-and-take pertained, not to the capabilities of the Israeli equipment –– they both knew it was junk –– but the capabilities of AIPAC to inflame passions in the American congress of treasonous prostitutes.

They both knew that AIPAC could call on the likes of Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio to start working on forcing the Army to buy an Israeli piece of garbage that will result, not in protecting the American people, but in getting them killed.

Understanding the Bailout

If you've never been interested in how the economy works as long as you were given a decent paycheck every week, but now find yourself bewildered by all the talk about the bailout, and the protest that's generated by it, there is an article you can look at that might clarify some things for you.

The article came under the title: “Why Congress's Trillion-Dollar Coronavirus Bailouts Will Shackle the US Economy,” and the subtitle: “Like the New Deal, every additional billion dollars in stimulus and bailout spending will further delay the economic recovery we all want and need.” It was written by Blaine Conzatti and published on March 18, 2020 in The Federalist.

I must caution at the outset that the assertion you see in the title to the effect that the bailout is that of the Congress alone, does not reflect the thinking of the writer, but screams the intellectual dishonesty of the editors who chose that title. Here is what Blaine Conzatti actually wrote: “The White House and congressional lawmakers have proposed packages with a running price tag of more than $1.3 trillion”.

But why did the editors of The Federalist choose to distort a piece submitted by their own contributor? They did because even though Conzatti sits at the right-center of the spectrum, the editors wanted to make his piece sound more to the right than it is, and with that protest the government's decision to give out money to the poor and middle class rather that give it to the rich.

The core of Conzatti's argument rests on the relationship that brings together the money supply, the debt and inflation. Although anyone that's familiar with these matters, will have no trouble understanding what the writer is saying, other “laymen” may not. I shall therefore try to unpack the subject in a way that will make it easier to understand. And the best way I know how to do that, is to tell a fictitious story. So here it goes:

You work on the floor of a machine shop with three other employees. All of you have been faithful to the owner, and he has been good to you. He is old now, and has decided to retire. His children are lawyers and doctors, and will have nothing to do with their father's machine shop. He wants to give you the company but each of you has a dream of your own, and prefers to take some of the equipment to start your own business rather than stay together as a group.

The old man says he is okay with that but the distribution of the equipment will have to be done the right way. And so, he proposes that you gather in the conference room later in the day. You get there, sit around the table and listen to the man. He says the equipment in the shop is worth one million dollars, and you'll get all of it. But each of you will have to earn his share by participating in a short contest.

He says he also has one million dollars in cash, which he'll give to his children. But he'll pretend that he brought the money here to facilitate playing the contest with you guys. To start the game, he gives each of you 40,000 dollars for a total of 160,000 dollars. He says if you all agree, you can say that the equipment is worth this much and stop here. Accordingly, each of you will buy a 25% share of the equipment, and there will be no contest.

However, you'll all have the right to tell why you deserve to get more money, thus buy more than 25% of the equipment by telling what great project you have in mind. With that, the contest begins, and everyone describes the project he has in mind. Listening to the other three, you can tell that unlike you, they have a clear idea of what they want to do. You believe you had a weak presentation, and feel that you're going to lag behind money wise.

And sure enough, the old man says he'll give you only 40,000 dollars and give each of the others 80,000 dollars. If you all agree to stop here, a quick calculation reveals that a total of 440,000 dollars have been handed out, of which you only received 80,000 dollars. So, if you quit here, your share of the equipment will have dropped from 25% to 18.2%.

You all agree to go another round, and the old man asks that you describe the kind of philanthropy you'll be doing when you become very rich. You tell your stories and the old man decides to give you 50,000 dollars, give two of the others 100,000 dollars each, and give the third 200,000 dollars. This means that a total of 890,000 dollars have been handed out of which you only received 130,000 dollars or 14.6%. You go one more round and only one of the others gets the remaining 110,000 dollars. Your share drops to 13%.

What does that say? It says that even if you got more money after each round, the fact that someone else got more than you, has resulted in that you got a smaller share of what's distributed. If this were a real-life situation, it would mean that raise or no raise, the fact that others were getting paid millions of dollars when they pretended to work, and millions more as severance pay when they were booted out for misbehaving, made you poorer. 

It is therefore the expression of a legitimate concern and not that of jealousy to protest the big sums of money which are handed out to others.

What's asinine this time, is that the protest is coming not from the poor but from the rich. And why is that? Because part of the bailout is going to the poor and the middle class, and not the rich as it has always been.

How Fanaticism makes them eternal Pariahs

First, you meet a religious fanatic that wants to convert you to his religion. He says it is the truest religion of all. You ask how he knows that, and he says God said so. You say, let's go meet that God of yours and have a talk with him. He says you cannot do that because God works in mysterious ways, which is why he never makes mistakes. You ask for proof that this is true, and he says the proof is that God said so himself, and you cannot argue with God. End of discussion.

Second, you meet a hardcore criminal that was just sentenced to life in prison. He says that the judge and the jury were biased against him because of his good looks. You ask him to provide proof of that, and he angrily snaps back that he is saying so himself, and that’s proof enough. As you try to ask another question, he commands that you stop arguing with him. End of discussion.

Third, you read the work of a Jewish fanatic that says, it is preposterous to accuse Israel of committing war crimes and ask it to stand trial. You inquire as to why she makes this assertion, and the fanatic says that Israel exceeds the purity and nobility of the best angel you'll meet in heaven. She adds that Israel must never submit to trial. Puzzled, you ask the innocent question: Says who? And the fanatic Jew responds: Israel and I said so … and you cannot argue with either of us. End of discussion.

Now, my friend, do you believe I’m writing a horror novel about the ravages of a potential mental illness that could reduce the quality of life on our dear Planet? Let me assure you, this is not a novel. It is horror alright, but it is real. It is as real as the American-made bombs in the hands of Israel's Jews who drop them like rain on the unarmed population of Palestine whenever the Jews feel it is necessary to remind their base they remain as alert as ever and as savage as they'll ever be.

You can ascertain that such is the case by reading the article that came under the title: “How the ICC [International Criminal Court] is encouraging greater civilian casualties,” written by Evelyn Gordon who lives in Israel. She had the article published on March 18, 2020 in the Jewish News Syndicate.

A blurb that serves as the summary of the article's content sounds as follows: “By prosecuting Israel, the International Criminal Court has essentially said there's no point even trying to uphold the laws of war because as the court interprets them, they are incompatible with self-defense.” With this, Evelyn Gordon is saying that she and Israel have determined that Israel was engaged in self-defense when it committed the acts that looked like war crimes. Their word being as good as that of God, they contend it is sufficient proof that Israel is innocent, that it must not be investigated and that it must not be tried.

Evelyn Gordon and those like her do not live in a forsaken planet. They live here on Earth, and when they write something, it's because they know they have an audience––however small it may be––that will listen to and be impressed by the moral pornography they have been spewing. In fact, we don't have to go too far looking for that audience; it rears its ugly head like a bunch of hookers who beat the pavement of the political red-light district, looking for lobbying johns with deep pockets to turn a trick on them. That unspeakable audience has a name that goes like this: The hungry-for-money state and federal legislators of America.

But what is there in the words of the Jewish fanatics that convinces the hookers in the red-light corridors of America's halls of shame, to block what they are elected to accomplish for America, and work instead on expediting the demands of Israel and the Jews? Well, to find the answer to that question, we look at the way that Evelyn Gordon started her article. Here it is:

“The ICC prosecutor's decision to open a criminal investigation against Israel poses a much bigger problem: Contrary to the court's stated mission to trying to reduce the harm caused by war, it may well result in even higher casualties and more extensive property damage”.

This is the combination of two tricks often used by the Jews. The first trick goes something like this: “If you don't do what we tell you, America, there will be another holocaust, and you'll be responsible for it.” The second trick goes something like this: “If you listen to the Palestinians, there will be no peace, only violence and bloodshed in Palestine and the whole region”.

The first saying is very much a part of the Jewish exploitation and monetization of the Holocaust. It scares the Americans to be told they might be responsible for the next holocaust. Too stupid to know this cannot be true, they cower upon hearing the fake warning, and respond by handing the Jews everything they ask for.

As to the second saying, it is a threat that aims to terrorize the listeners, and then place the blame for the terror on someone else.

In this case, the terror is that Israel will increase the punishment it inflicts on the Palestinians. The blame will come when the Palestinians will be forced to defend themselves, and the Jews will accuse them of committing violence. That would be violence as serious as flying a kite or throwing stones at tanks that come to demolish Palestinian homes.

Now you know why it is that the world feels pity and sympathy for the Jews after each holocaust and pogrom, but then the Jews turn themselves into pariahs by flooding that same world with unbearable obnoxiousness.

He stitched small Events into a big fake Story

Throughout history, countries around the world, have experienced financial trouble and have recovered. Like then, countries around the world, are today experiencing financial trouble and are recovering. One of these countries is Lebanon, which is going through financial difficulties at this time, but will recover as it did through several cycles in the past.

There are many reasons why a country might go through a period of financial trouble. To suggest––by indirect inference or otherwise––that it happens to all of them as a result of one and the same reason, is to show an appalling level of ignorance and delusion. And guess what, my friend, it took none other than Clifford D. May to make such inference, not realizing that such is the implication of what he is saying.

He did so in an article he wrote under the title: “Iran's Hezbollah virus infects Lebanon while attacking the world,” and the subtitle: “More debilitating than COVID-19 are the terrorists beholden to Iran's rulers.” May had the article published in The Washington Times on March 17, 2020.

Like it or not, the indirect inference that Clifford May is making, is that Hezbollah alone was responsible for the financial disruptions experienced by the various countries throughout history. But that is obviously an absurd proposition. It is absurd––if for no other reason––than Hezbollah has been around for only 40 years, and could not have developed the influence to affect anyone before that.

As to what happened after Hezbollah was formed at the start of the 1980s, it must be said that its financial clout amounted to only a fraction of Israel's clout that was combined to that of the World Jewry supporting it. Let us not forget that Hezbollah was formed in response to Israel's aggression against Lebanon, and has been busy ever since, struggling to get on its feet while at the same time defending Lebanon against a vicious enemy whose savagery knew no bounds. With all this on its plate, Hezbollah could not have been responsible for the financial disruption of Lebanon or any other country.

But how can someone like Clifford May be so confused about the situation in Lebanon and the surrounding region? Well, you'll get an inkling as to what the answer to that question may be when you take a close look at what Clifford May wrote in his article. Here is a pertinent passage: “Lebanon might not be in terrible shape today were it not infected by Hezbollah, agent of Iran ... Iran's rulers created Hezbollah”.

The truth is that in the early 1980s Iran was the friend of Israel and the enemy of the Arabs. Iran cheered every time that Israel attacked Lebanon or any Arab country. Rather than Iran creating Hezbollah as falsely claimed by Clifford May, it was Israel's aggression that did. Fed up by the failure of the Arab countries to protect Lebanon, the newly formed militia, now calling itself Hezbollah, turned to Iran for moral support and for the kind of material assistance that its fighters needed to defend against Israeli incursions into Lebanon, and to fight America's military occupation of the country.

Had Clifford May been faithful to history, he would have written a different article. But he didn't for a reason that is too obvious. In fact, that reason is detected in the second half of May's article where he spews his vitriol and reveals his paranoia with regard to the magnificent system of defense that Iran has assisted Hezbollah to build in Lebanon. As can be seen, the effect of that system has been the deterrence that’s keeping Israel at bay. It has helped enforce the state of peace at a border that used to be a feasting ground for a cannibalistic Israeli army equipped with deadly American weapons.

But the Jewish establishment, of which Clifford May is a member, knows that its reliance on America to protect and encourage Israel's savagery, is eroding. So then, what can someone like May do to bring to Israel the protective umbrella it needs to resume behaving savagely along the Lebanese border? Well, what May can do is look in the Judeo-Israeli playbook, and repeat what the Jews have been playing for centuries. It is a game that's played in two approaches simultaneously.

In one approach, you slander the opponent to make it sound like he is so evil, he deserves what he is about to get. Clifford May did that. In the other approach, you call on someone powerful to do the job for you by delivering to your opponent a punch so severe, he will not recover for a long time, if ever.

You’ll find that being unsure about continued American support, Clifford May addressed the international community. He slandered Iran and Hezbollah, but did not ask the world to fight for Israel. What he did instead, was use fear to scare the world about a Hezbollah whose interest is only the protection of Lebanon. And that is in contrast to the Jews who believe they own the world because God gave it to them, telling them to take it by hook, by crook or by the military of the suckers who will send their children to die for the Jews.