How they brought authoritarian rule with them

One day, long ago, I rode the subway, and it just happened that I found on the empty seat beside me the editorial page of a Newspaper I had stopped reading long before. So, for the heck of it, I picked up that page and read an editorial that could have given me a heart attack years before I had an actual one.

I cannot remember the title of the piece, but the text of the editorial was a short thing bursting with anti-Arab diatribes that gave no basis for throwing insults at the Arabs, except for making the false accusation that the Arabs who come to Canada bring with them arguments they have in the old countries. And so, the editorial advised the Arabs to stop spreading their propaganda in this country.

Imagine how I felt when I saw that piece of garbage, knowing that dozens of Jewish and non-Jewish publications printed in Canada and the US, as well as dozens of radio and television stations ... all of them hosting Jews and their lackeys but no Arabs, espousing the Judeo-Israeli point of view. And this was happening at a time when you'd be hard-pressed to find a letter to the editor from an Arab, printed in a Canadian newspaper even if you were patient enough to spend a decade or two looking for one.

The thrust of the Jewish effort to indoctrinate the public, was built on the idea of making the people believe that the Arabs were trying to rob them of their liberties, and that the Jews were here to protect their liberties. This being the exact opposite of what was happening, as anyone that had eyes and ears could see and hear, the Jews eroded their own credibility by themselves with no one standing beside them to help them.

Fast forward to the year 2020, when even the Jews who grew up being fed the Jewish propaganda with their mothers' milk, began to taste the rotten quality of what their leaders were forcing them to consume. So, guess what's happening now, my friend. Well, let me tell you that you can see what's happening by reading the article which came under the title: “Why Seth Rogen's Anti-Israel Rant Matters,” and the subtitle: “He overlooks the reasons Israel was founded in the first place, and what makes it unique today.” It was written by David Harsanyi, and published on July 29, 2020 in National Review Online.

The story that Harsanyi tells, is that of Seth Rogen, a Jew whose parents first met in an Israeli Kibbutz, then traveled to America where they got married and settled in the new country. They begot Seth, raised him in the Jewish tradition and taught him all that's necessary to know about Jewish life, and how all of this relates to the creation and continued existence of Israel.

But then, like many young Jews these days, Seth Rogen began to realize that the narrative from which he was told to draw inspiration, turned out to be nothing more than a massive edifice made of cardboard blocks stuck together with chewing gum, yet sold as the Rock of Gibraltar that will never be shaken. And Seth Rogen spoke his mind, expressing doubts about the whole idea.

Enter David Harsanyi who decided to respond to Rogen. To that end, Harsanyi adopted the standard Jewish formula of starting a response by attacking Rogen. He did the following, having forgotten or perhaps not knowing, that Seth Rogen exists today because there was a Kibbutz in Israel where Harsanyi never spent a day in his life:

“You probably won't be surprised to learn that Seth Rogen has, at best, a facile understanding of basic history, faith, or politics. We shouldn't expect anything else. The problem, though, is that Rogen increasingly feels the need to share his illiterate opinions about serious issues with millions of people”.

And the rest of the Harsanyi article rests on that last point: “sharing opinions with millions of people.” This forces the question: Who may be granted the right to share their opinion with the public, and who may be denied that right? So, I ask you this question, dear reader: Do you see shades of Nazism, Fascism or Communism in Harsanyi's ideas? If you detect any of that, just remember that it wasn't the Arabs who brought these ideas to North America; it was Jews of the David Harsanyi variety. And yet, it is the Arabs who are regularly blamed for the sins committed by Jews. Look now what David Harsanyi inserted in the last paragraph of his article:

“People who challenge the status quo for the sake of challenging the status quo have the intellectual sophistication of a child –– which is fine if that child isn't given a massive megaphone”.

The megaphone being access to the media. Harsanyi wants to deny that access to the people whom he decides are challenging the status quo for no good reason. So, I repeat my earlier question to you, my friend: “Do you see shades of Nazism, Fascism or Communism in Harsanyi's ideas”?

They brag, lose at their own game and cry foul

They brag about their system of governance being the best in the world because they want others to adopt it.

The funny thing about human beings, however, is that they respond to both logic and sentiments. And so, even if you logically sell them on the idea that you have the best system, they'll be reluctant to adopt it if you fail to win their sentiment.

If you do nothing to ruin your image in the eyes of the people you intend to win over, you're halfway to doing just that because you'll start the relationship with them having a neutral opinion of you. With this under your belt and a strong argument that can appeal to their intellect, you need to do nothing more to win converts to your system of governance.

On the other hand, because you're not alone in the world, other groups will be promoting their systems as well, which will differ from yours by a great deal or by just a little. In either case, the competition against these systems will be the major factor that will cause you to make mistakes. In turn, this will result in the loss of the goodwill you're trying to develop among the people you want on your side. This will happen because the contradictions between what you say and what you do, will come to the surface, and will erode the confidence that people have in you. This is a bad condition to have hanging over your head when you're trying to sell an idea.

To be sure, you can look or sound contradictory by doing or saying two opposite things. Or you can generate a state of contradiction in a different way. In fact, engaging in this kind of contradiction would deliver a more destructive blow to your credibility as well as cause the loss of goodwill you wish to develop among the people you're trying to win over. So, here is an article that shows how a state of contradiction is generated. It was written by Clifford D. May under the title: “Putin's agents and cronies run amok in Britain,” and published on June 28, 2020 in The Washington Times.

The kind of contradiction that's generated by Clifford May, is the most prevalent in the English-speaking world these days. It consists of––rightly or falsely––accusing others of committing the kind of wrongs that America and Canada and Britain and Australia commit day in and day out as a matter of routine. However, nobody talks about this state of affairs when practiced by Western countries because it has been the norm for ages. It is only when someone like Russia or China or what have you, engages in something similar, that voices of anger rise in the West … thus create the notorious state of contradiction.

Examples of Western violations abound in the area of human rights, police brutality, systemic mistreatment of the indigenous populations and so on. And that's not to mention Israel whose existence alone is a crime against humanity; a setup that is armed and bankrolled by America, and that is morally supported by the rest of the English-speaking world. Conveniently and mysteriously, however, Clifford May forgot all of that, and drew up a list of the Russian wrongdoings. Very briefly, the list went like this:

“The Russians assassinated Anna Politkovskaya, a journalist, as revealed by Alexander Litvinenko who had sought asylum in Britain and was himself assassinated by Russian agents that traveled to Britain to carry out the crime. In fact, 14 Russian exiles in Britain were assassinated by Russian agents according to one report. In addition, there was the attempt that failed to assassinate Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia”.

In addition to that, Clifford May contends that Russia does the following:

“Russia spreads disinformation, illicitly funding foreign political parties and organizations, using malicious cyber activity to influence the democratic elections of other countries, dumping electoral mechanics, and carrying out hack and leak attacks on election campaigns”.

This is the extent of Clifford May's complaint about Russia's nefarious activities. He does that at a time when America brags about the surveillance capabilities it has around the world; when it drags Israel along and brags about the ease with which they can sabotage Iran's scientific research in the nuclear field, and do so at a time of their choosing. It is also a time when Iranian scientists are mysteriously murdered at home and abroad; a time when drones owned by Western powers indiscriminately and regularly assassinate foes along with the innocent people who might be around them.

When you look at this kind of performance, you know that people of all cultures reject it because it represents a double-standard. But what the double standard does, is create a condition that can be labeled “state of contradiction” which is offensive to the intellect of all cultures regardless as to their system of governance.

Melissa Braunstein singles out Ilhan Omar

What does it mean to single out someone? The best way to answer this question is to give an example.

Here it is: In 1968, one year after the Israeli sneak attack on its neighbors, the Jews had not yet taken control of North America, and people could still criticize what Israel had done and continued to do at the time. I was one of the people who spoke my mind, which I did without criticizing Israel or the Jews. I only stated some known facts about Egyptian civilization, to make the point that we are reasonable people.

In fact, in response to a savage Jewish attack on the Arabs, especially Egypt, I had written a letter to the editor of the Toronto Star under the title: Don't believe the propaganda, Egypt is a civilized country. That was enough for the Canadian Jewish Congress to send someone to my house and warn me in the presence of the community's priest, that I was risking a great deal by getting into activities as innocent as saying that Egypt was good, which I did without even attacking someone.

Well, my friend, that was the Jewish Congress singling me out. And this was the day that I decided I was going to study an aspect of Jewish culture I had not seen in Egypt among the many Jewish friends I had there. What I saw in North America –– during the 52 years since that day in 1968 when I started to study the Jews –– is a combination of merciless savagery and extreme cowardice.

What these people do, is single out and zero-in on individuals that cannot defend themselves, and demand that they become lackeys of the Jews or else. But if the Jews had not gathered the dirt on someone they wish to destroy, they go behind his back and recruit the security apparatus of the country, and have the thing do the filthy work for them. This is what they did to me and, in addition to the security apparatus, there were enough political and journalistic prostitutes to help them do what would shame –– not Hitler or Mussolini or Stalin who are after all human beings –– but the dogs of Hitler and Mussolini and Stalin. In fact, you cannot look at those things and say they belong to the human race. No way can they be of the same species as us.

All of this comes to mind when I see the Jews do one of two things: (1) They complain they were singled out by someone. (2) They single out someone like Louis Farrakhan or Ilhan Omar, and go after them with a savagery and cowardice that is truly sub-human. In fact, this is what Melissa Braunstein just did in the article she wrote under the title: “Ilhan Omar singles out her opponent's Jewish donors with anti-Semitic campaign mailer,” published on July 27, 2020 in The Washington Examiner.

It would be redundant, therefore a waste of time, to go over the article, sentence by sentence, and point out that Melissa Braunstein has done nothing more than replay the standard Jewish accusations of antisemitism, and repeat the old insults that the Jews have thrown at Ilhan Omar since she was elected to represent her American constituents, and not become a traitor working for Israel under the pressure of loyal-to-Israel Jews, such as Melissa Braunstein.

Instead of doing that, it is time to show the Jews what playing their game has earned them over the years. It happened that when the Soviet Union collapsed, the American Jewish organizations ran to the newly liberated Eastern European countries and told them that Jews own and operate America. They pointed out that they had the influence in the American Congress to get those countries anything they want. All they have to do to earn the favor, is clamp down on the “anti-Semites” among them, and love both the Jews and Israel ... or pretend to.

At the time, those countries were already trying to implement the American system, and were having doubts about its quality. When, on top of that, they discovered that the Jews were trying to sell them a bill of goods drowned in a bucket of snake oil, they told the Jews thanks but no thanks. They added what amounts to something like this: get lost before we do something that you and we shall regret.

And while this was happening, one more layer of Jewish antics was peeling off. It is that the Jews were now saying in-your-face that keeping all of Palestine had always been their intention. They played the game of deception so well that they got the Americans to help them, and give them the means to hold on to Palestine for all these years. In return, the Americans got the shaft right up their rear end while the Jews savored the ill-gotten gains.

Bit by bit and drip by drip, the peoples of the world became aware of these realities. From Africa and Europe, from Asia and the Americas, they all expressed their disgust at the Jews. This disgust is what Melissa Braunstein and those like her are complaining about. But instead of looking inward and working to solve their problem by changing their ways to accommodate humanity, they bellyached and kissed-up to those above them, while kicking in the teeth those below them.

As they continue to behave in that manner, the world is becoming even more disgusted, and continues to build still more disgust at a Jewish population whose members would rather bellyache the anti-Semitism refrain and ask to be loved than cure themselves and become sociable like everyone else.

The short Attention Span and the Age of instant Gratification

Long term planning in the age of instant gratification is a contradiction in terms, and yet this is what's pursued nowadays in many fields of development, especially what concerns economic strategy.

Instant gratification does not just mean a child asking for candy, and he is instantly given a package of Smarties. No. The concept is more complicated than that. In fact, to better understand what's involved, it would help to recall an observation once made by the geneticist David Suzuki.

Speaking of students he used to teach, he said that they had the attention span of a fruit-fly. The significance of using the fruit-fly to draw a parallel, is that the critter has a very short lifespan. This allows the geneticist, in a short period of time, to see how an acquired genetic trait is passed on from generation to generation.

And so, if in the absence of a credible scientific study, it can be postulated that a short attention span, and the desire for instant gratification are the two sides of the same coin, we can see why it was possible to fool the short-attention-span generation that grew up to be in charge of the ship of state –– into believing that it can have instant gratification by doing this and that in foreign policy, or doing this and that in economics.

The first people to take advantage of this phenomenon were the Jews who, time after time, convinced the hungry for instant gratification zombies in the Washington Beltway, that if you bomb an Arab or a Muslim country, and nothing happens in the first 24 hours, it means that nothing will happen in the long run.

Therefore, said the Jews, you can spend the next month or two bombing the country into the Stone Age and you'll be safe. America took the advice to heart and never removed its finger off the trigger. It was not until years or generations later that America realized there are long term consequences to its behavior.

Now that the world is going through an economic upheaval, the subject that's foremost on the mind of most people is economic performance. What you see, is a short attention span that’s playing a major role at motivating the decision makers in Washington. It pushes them to use the tools at hand to implement strategies they did not fully develop. A good example to study and see how that works, came under the title: “China's Export Performance Will No Longer Threaten the US Economy,” written by Desmond Lachman, and published on July 26, 2020 in The National Interest.

If you set aside the notion that a superpower's economy can be threatened by that of another superpower, and you only wish to understand how––in the view of Desmond Lachman––the economies of America and China relate with each other in some ways and yet contrast against each other, you'll find that Lachman is basing his argument on two dubious notions.

One notion has to do with the premise that on paper, the Chinese economy looks shaky, therefore it is about to grind to a halt, if not collapse entirely. Well, that notion is easily dispelled if you were to remove the word “China” from Lachman's passage, and placed the word “America” in its stead. In fact, the reality is even more shocking. It is that if America had China's woes, it would be much better off than it is today.

The other notion has to do with the premise that there was a time when the Japanese economy was threatening the American economy, and then by some miracle, the threat disappeared. Therefore, Desmond Lachman expects that the same thing will happen with China, and things will get back to normal, which is that America will again lead the world with no challenger nipping at its tail.

And this is where you’ll see how the short attention-span/instant-gratification mentality plays a role not only among the talking heads of the boob tube and the unruly mob of print journalism, but also among the highest-ranking officials of America's decision makers. Now, my friend, I ask you to carefully read the following passage from the Lachman article because you'll be asked to reconcile a few things:

“This year, there has been a marked slowing in Chinese economic growth. In response, the Chinese government has resorted to increased credit growth to kick-start the economy. This will only further inflate the Chinese credit bubble, which will further mortgage the country's future economic growth potential. China very much needs rapid long-run economic growth if it is to grow its way out of its credit bubble”.

So, here is what you have to reconcile: (1) Lachman wrote the article to study the effect of one economy on the other. (2) Lachman described a Chinese economy that may have suffered a few hits due to the current pandemic, but remains much ahead of the American economy that suffered even greater hits. (3) Lachman has concluded that the Chinese economy will no longer be in a position to affect the American economy.

How can you reconcile these 3 points without accepting the notion that the attention span of the people doing the deciding, is so short, they would have forgotten point (1) by the time they reached point (2) and would have forgotten point (2) by the time they reached point (3)?

These decision makers can no more see the relationship between the three points than a fruit-fly can. And so, they instantly gratify themselves by falling back on the folklore that says, America will always win no matter how bad things look at this point. And so, there is no reason for them to do long term planning.

A long overdue Correction of the Civil War's Omissions

Everett Piper wrote an article under the title: “Embers of racism, with Obama's help, turned into an inferno,” and the subtitle: “Racism now rife in America.” It was published on July 25, 2020 in The Washington Times.

The content of the article is exactly summarized in that title and that subtitle. That is, Everett Piper is saying that the old fire of racism in America was brought under control as a result of the Civil War that happened some 155 years ago. Left burning were a few embers that could have been completely extinguished, says Piper. But he contends that the advent of Barack Obama changed all that. Not only did Obama bring back the old fire, says Piper, he turned what was ordinary flames into an inferno.

This is so curious given what is common knowledge, we cannot help but ask the question: Does Everett Piper remember that Barack Obama rose to political stardom following the speech he gave at the 2004 Democratic convention when he said in essence, something to the effect that there are no Red and Blue Americans nor White and Black Americans nor Republican and Democratic Americans; there is only one people, all of it American? Surely, Piper must remember this, given that he is old enough to have witnessed the related events that have led to that moment.

Moreover, does Everett Piper remember that, hungry to become president of the United States, a third rate showman thought he could make his dream come true by pitting Americans against Americans, be they Red or Blue, White or Black, Republican or Democrat –– with the simple trick of questioning Barack Obama's place of birth? Surely, Piper must remember this, given that he is old enough to have witnessed the related events that have led to these moments of infamy.

In addition to all that, can Everett Piper point to a period in American history when millions of Black, White and Brown Americans held hands and descended into the streets of the nation's cities, day after day in solidarity with each other ... and together, demanded that the trappings of racism inherent to the system of law and punishment in America, be terminated to give African-Americans a level playing field on which to grow and be rewarded for what they accomplish? Can Piper point to one such period?

There is now a crucial question to ask: Will Everett Piper develop the intellectual honesty to look at this evidence, and do what millions of Americans of every stripe and every racial background do at this moment, which is to tell the pollsters who do political surveys, that Barack Obama is popular in their neck of the woods? Will Piper admit that this is the case because America was a W. Bush train wreck when Obama got into office, and that he handed Donald Trump an America as efficient as a Swiss watch 8 years later?

From the record he is leaving behind, it is doubtful that Piper will ever be honest with himself or with others; and his latest piece of work does not say he is about to change. On the contrary, having neglected to mention that the people of America are currently on the move across the nation –– prompted by a nine-minute video that shows how the police force of White America continues to implement the deadliest kind of racism on its Black citizens –– Piper dishonestly proceeded to argue that racism is back in America because Barack Obama revived it.

To expand on his point, doing it in defiance of the evidence, Piper falsely asserts that America was, “a nation close to realizing Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream of being a color-blind society.” To cement the assertion, he used a trick that shows him to be a sophisticated liar. He says that just before Obama took office, confidence rating concerning racial relations was at 70%. He does not say how much confidence had improved during the following 8 years when Obama was in the White House. But now, after almost 4 years of Donald Trump, Everett Piper asserts––without giving a percentage––that, “today openly boast of judging people by the color of their skin rather than the content of their character.” Well then, tell us what would be the percentage value of that “today,” Everett? It is clear this is a naked fraud by which Piper hopes to stick to Barack Obama the failures of Donald Trump.

This leads to the following question: What does Everett Piper wish to see America become? Well, it is obvious from what he said, that he was comfortable with the lies that used to permeate White America before the advent of the body camera, now used by the police, and the widespread use of electronic cameras by the citizens. Back then, the word of the police trumped that of the victims and the witnesses. But now that the cameras are here to record the truth, Piper wants the public to ignore what it sees and hears, and do what he does instead, which is to exercise the art of lying to the self by attributing the sins of the Trumps of this world to the character of the Obamas of this world.

Adept in the art of deception, including the deception of the self, Piper does not worry that the movement unfolding before his eyes will eventually prove him to be the naked emperor of dishonest punditry.

He figures he'll fool himself into believing he is wearing the tunic that was worn by Moses when he came down the Mountain, holding the Commandment Tablets under his arm.

And he’ll feel good about himself.

2 Days to clean-up the Refuse of a grown Baby

It took three quarters of a century for the English-speaking world to finally see an aspect of the Jewish culture that was known to most other peoples.

That would be the habit of Jews to project powerlessness, peacefulness and helpfulness until they can maneuver themselves behind you, at which point they plunge the knife in your back.

This is what happened to most editors in charge of the English publications. What they could not see watching the behavior of the Jews in occupied Palestine, what they could not see watching the Jews trample on the rights of Arab immigrants in North America; the editors finally began to see and understand what the Jews were thinking and doing when the latter gained the power, dropped the mask of innocence and began to act as their true selves.

It happened, first at National Review Online (NRO) and then at The Federalist, where they took-in a whole bunch of young interns to teach them the art and science of punditry, and allowed them to practice the craft in their publications. What happened was that instead of learning, the interns thought they already knew all there was to know about the profession. They acted like babies stricken with diarrhea, trying to outdo each other in a contest that honors the biggest load and smelliest discharge. And both NRO and The Federalist quickly discontinued or greatly attenuated their internship programs.

And then, it happened to the Washington Examiner. This is where you'll see how in 2 days, the full force of a horrible presentation, hit the editors of the Examiner in the face. It forced them to take a sharp turn at the point of inflection from where the stinky business of babies outdoing each other was taking the Examiner, to the business of adults deciding to rein-in the kind of journalistic permissiveness that had sent the entire North American continent to the bottom rung of human development.

It was on July 23, 2020 that the Washington Examiner published an article, written by Tiana Lowe under the title: “Democratic Party draft platform tries to placate Ilhan Omar.” And it was 2 days later on July 25, 2020 that the Examiner published its editorial under the title: “Democrats embrace foreign policy delusions”.

Even if no connection is apparent between the two titles except that both deal with the subject of the Democratic Party, the sharp difference in tone between the two as exhibited in the treatment of the articles, speaks volumes about the embarrassment that the editors must have felt at the stinky load that Tiana Lowe had discharged on their plates two days earlier. And from this reality, you must conclude that the editorial was the publication's way to apologize for running Lowe's article in the first place, and show the readers it is better than that. Here is the most embarrassing part of Lowe's article:

“The party platform issues this concession: 'We oppose any effort to delegitimize Israel, including through Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement, protecting the Constitutional right of our citizens to free speech.' Paying lip service to the notion that anti-BDS laws constitute an attack on free speech brings to mind a controversy. Although Ilhan Omar campaigned on opposing BDS, she voted against a nonbinding resolution to condemn anti-Israel BDS. She supports the eradication of the world's only Jewish state because she hates Jews. She introduced her own pro-boycott resolution. They let her use free speech as cover. That the free speech canard made it into the platform means they'll do it indefinitely. They are acquiring the political clout to force a fight over recognizing Jerusalem as the nation's capital”.

Shocked by the appearance of something as insulting to the profession as this in their publication, it took the editors of the Washington Examiner 2 days to find a formulation by which to transmit their shame and sorrow that a piece of filth as disgusting as the work of Tiana Lowe, had managed to make it to the pages of the Examiner. And so, they wrote an editorial on the subject of the Democratic platform in which they mentioned neither Ilhan Omar nor BDS nor Israel as if to signal that this fake subject is of no concern to them. Here is what the editors of The Examiner preferred to talk about:

“When it comes to military spending, Democrats would allow allies to spend less toward defense. They rebuke Trump by adopting the narrative that he poses the greatest threat to the alliance. As to Germany and South Korea, Joe Biden's party ignores that both should be doing more to counter our shared threats. The Democrats' platform also articulates a commitment to make responses to disinformation, corruption and economic coercion, priorities in our agenda. But there is no mention of Germany's support for Putin's economic coercion. The Democrats' commitment to abandon domestic energy extraction, makes their policies as pro-Putin as those of the Germans. It gets frightening when Democrats pledge to abandon legacy platforms –– that is, the modernization of nuclear weapons programs. They say they will end the forever wars. This is absurd. Most foolishly, they recommit themselves to the disastrous nuclear deal”.

With this, the editors of the Washington Examiner tell the world that what came in the Tiana Lowe article does not represent them. They want the world to know that the article got in their pages by a freak accident. And they want the world to believe they are better than that.

There is never a good Time to do bad Things

The relationship between Iran and America has been very bad during the last seven decades.

It also happened during that time that the relationship between Iran's rulers and Israel was very good as the Jews were trying to woo the Iranians into a pact that would group the non-Arab Muslim Iran and Turkey into an anti-Arab alliance with Israel. But this relationship turned sour when both the Iranians and the Turks told the Jews to take a hike.

Today, the relationship between Iran and Israel is at its lowest point. That's because the Iranian people made sure no leader of theirs will ever again play along with Israel for the purpose of antagonizing the Arabs or any other purpose. On the other hand, recognizing that this development will stand as a major impediment toward the realization of the “Greater Israel” dream, the Jews of the world, especially those of America, mobilized their foot soldiers, operating in politics and the media, to work on harnessing America's power and prestige, and put them to work on bringing down the Iranian regime.

One such attempt came in the form of an article that was written under the title: “Time to tighten the vise on Iran,” authored by former United States Federal Senators, Mark Kirk and Joe Lieberman, and published on July 23, 2020 in the New York Daily News.

A striking feature of this article, is the fact that the two authors began their piece of work by making a subtle suggestion that is totally false. It is to the effect that the world is siding with America in its war-like dispute with Iran. To pull off this deception, the authors relied on the fact that once upon a time, members of the Security Council had agreed to pressure Iran by imposing an arms embargo on it for a limited period of time. Well, that period is about to come to an end, and America wants to extend the embargo beyond its sunset limit. This is when, even America's closest allies, told it to take a hike.

Alarmed by this development, and being members of the self-styled semi-comical outfit which goes by the name, “United Against Nuclear Iran,” Mark Kirk and Joe Lieberman ran to their computer keyboards and composed a piece, which they hope will convince the readers that America is the good party in this fight, that Iran is the evil party, and that in the war which has been raging between them for decades, the world should side with America because it is the right thing to do.

Another striking thing about the Kirk-Lieberman article, is that the former senators have shown by the debilitated state of their thinking process, why America is in such trouble when it comes to the art of practicing governance. What they are saying, in effect, is that America is good because it reneged on the agreement that was negotiated between Iran and the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany. And that Iran is bad because it continued to honor the agreement despite America's child-like behavior. Pretty screwed up logic; would you not agree?

Unaware of the laughable condition of their reasoning, and eager to make their points as clear as Jewish mud, Kirk and Lieberman drew up a litany of the evil activities they say Iran has committed in the execution of its war against America. Here is a sample of that:

“Iran has carried out drone and cruise missile attacks on two Saudi oil facilities, seized ships in the Persian Gulf, shot down a US drone, funded and targeted deadly attacks on US soldiers in Iraq, as well as escalated the scope of violence in Syria, Yemen and Lebanon and, most recently, engaged in cyberattacks. Tehran has also been violating limitations on advanced centrifuges, as well as enrichment level and uranium stockpile restrictions. The regime has made steady improvements in its ballistic missile technology. And it has stonewalled inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency”.

What did these two characters believe happens in a war? Did they visualize American soldiers going overseas, being met by Japanese geisha girls and given a massage before being turned over to Korean comfort women for an Oriental style hanky panky? Someone ought to tell the senatorial zombies that war is hell. If you don't want to experience it, don't go halfway around the world starting wars in fulfillment of the Judeo-Israeli agenda or any other satanic agenda.

In case they are ignorant about Newton's Law which says that for every action there is an opposite reaction, someone ought to explain to them the content of a passage they wrote themselves. It goes as follows:

“Today, we face a new threat from Iran. China and Russia are planning to sell Iran fighter jets, main battle tanks, attack helicopters and modern naval capabilities. We should expect the Iranian regime to strengthen the destructiveness of its military, substantially bolster and modernize its conventional air and ground forces, which could be used to guard its nuclear facilities”.

The lesson to be learned here, is that the more America will poke Iran to please the Jews, the more the Iranians will make America regret its dumb decision.

Advised to spurn the heat, and pressed to get out of the kitchen

The late American President Harry S. Truman once advised that, “if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.” Of course, what he meant by heat, was the pressure of having to perform under the constant gaze of the media. And what he meant by kitchen, was the public life that comes with being in politics.

The advice was addressed to the politicians who used to complain about their work being scrutinized to the minutest detail, and reported to a public that reacted ... not always favorably. As to the people who were not bothered by the irritations of public life, they ignored the President's advice, and continued to discharge their duties as serenely as can be.

Well then, suppose you are one of the serene politicians who may even enjoy the rough and tumble of public life. Suppose you have a so-called friend who constantly hounds you about the misery of having to live and work under the gaze of the media, which is the public's eyes and ears. He (she) constantly advises you to leave the profession and find something else to do. How would you feel about finding yourself in this kind of a situation? What would you be inclined to do?

Believe it or not, something like this is happening in real life. It is that the Jews and their lackeys are constantly hounding the Americans to leave every forum that has an international tinge to it, and get with other nations into a grouping where they will not be scrutinized for everything they do, or questioned for everything they say.

You can see one such hounding, delivered in the form of an article that came under the title: “UN's Iran, China and Russia failures point to why Trump must get tougher, and reduce payments,” and the subtitle: “Only reason to remain a UN member is veto power in the Security Council.” It was written by Jed Babbin and published on July 22, 2020 in the Washington Times.

To justify urging America to leave the international kitchen where the global sausage is made, Jed Babin treated the article he wrote as follows:

After a short preamble about the League of Nations that was replaced by the United Nations (UN), Jed Babbin insulted the latter for being a forum that serves the leaders of the world and being good to them, while being nasty to America and Israel. Without mentioning Donald Trump that's facing daily riots in the major cities of America, or Benjamin Netanyahu that's facing jail time, as did most of Israel's leaders who came before him, Jed Babbin explains his anti-UN outburst by saying that the world organization is not run as efficiently as the mafia. Where are you, Godfather now that you're in demand?

Babbin also says that the UN is useless in every way except for the fact that America has the right of veto in the Security Council, which it uses to protect Israel every time that the latter violates international law such as those pertaining to war crimes and crimes against humanity. In addition, without mentioning a single instance in which someone other than America or Israel made a mockery of international law, Jed Babbin falsely accused everyone of violating international law, and stuck it to the UN because he says that the World Organization repeatedly fails to do its job.

When done with attacking the UN as a concept, Babbin turned his attention to its specialized agencies that do the actual work on the ground, and spewed loads of venom attacking them as well. Among these are the World Health Organization, the system of rapporteurs and the Human Rights Commission. Funny, he forgot all about the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) despite the fact it had been the target of Israel and pundits like himself for ages.

In any case, for all of the above reasons, says Jed babbin, it is not enough for America to withdraw from those agencies; it must get out of the international kitchen that is the UN, altogether. That's because America should not have the mettle to endure the heat that’s generated by officials of the world organization, especially the rapporteur that had the gall to argue that when America assassinated an Iranian general, it breached international law. It is that Babbin and all those like him, believe that America and Israel are so high above the law, they do not commit crimes when they assassinate those whom they detest; they do the world a favor.

Not only does Babbin want America to withdraw from the UN, he wants it to set up a parallel organization, and invite nations acceptable to Israel to join-in, even if this means only Israel will accept the invitation and join. In fact, this is a distinct possibility given that America's (former) close allies, such as those in NATO, can no longer stand being associated with America, because they see it turning unreliable and destructive, living and operating as the puppet of World Jewry and serving no one but Israel.

And there is more. Jed Babbin wants America to do more than go away quietly and mind its business. He wants America to attack, “the UN's failures on Iran, China and Russia.” Here we go again.

So, I ask you this question, dear reader: If that were you in that kind of a situation, what would you do? What would you advise America to do now?

The very messy Business of Human Rights

Whatever your age and whatever the culture in which you were raised, you do not need to be reminded that if you live in a clan of human beings, you abide by the rules of a hierarchy that restricts some of the things you do, but leaves you free to act as you wish in all other matters.

You know instinctively that all this is true because it is written in our genetic code, and is so mandated by it. In fact, long before we became human, existing organisms as primitive as insects, and organisms as advanced as chimpanzees, had arranged themselves into hierarchical societies that made it possible for them to survive the challenges of the elements and those of predators who would have annihilated them.

Consequently, we recognize that the freedom to act as we wish––as long as we obey the rules guaranteeing the survival of the species––is a trait that's indigenous to us as real as the material that makes-up our genetic code. This is what renders the term “Human Rights” a misnomer, given that it is something we share with non-human organisms.

Why then, is there such a fuss around the globe about the application and enforcement of Human Rights? To answer this question, we first need to know something about the “abuse-revulsion” dichotomy. In the same way that we separated ourselves from the other species by becoming makers of physical tools we use to do chores we cannot do otherwise, we learned to make moral tools of our impulses –– be they positive or negative –– even weaponize them and use them to score moral victories over our opponents.

When this kind of destructive behavior became ingrained in some cultures, human beings began to develop an antidote to the habit. It is the empathy that we have acquired for the weak among us when their rights are trampled on by the more powerful. But given that we are complicated creatures, it happens that sick individuals among us pretend to fake empathy, and use it as a weapon to go after the people who do nothing worse than enforce the legitimate restrictions imposed by the clan’s hierarchy. And this is how the sick individuals exploit the situation to benefit themselves.

And so, every time that questions arise as to whether or not abuse of human rights is taking place in a given situation, the matter is complicated by questions as to whether or not the revulsions expressed by some people are real or they are made-up to exploit the melee, thus advance these people’s hidden agenda.

This is what comes to mind every time that we encounter an article such as the one that came under the title: “Mike Pompeo's fight for unalienable rights,” and the subtitle: “The human rights establishment wants him out of the marketplace of ideas.” It was written by Clifford D. May, and published on July 21, 2020 in The Washington Times.

Clifford May tells the story of a new publication that discusses Human Rights, a publication that sparked a great deal of controversy. That's because, according to Clifford May, Mike Pompeo, who ordered the State Department to prepare and issue the publication, was criticized for its content by all those who pronounced themselves. But just as everyone in America has apparently rejected the Pompeo conclusions, the publication itself seems to denounce every institution in the world that has “Human Rights” attached to its name. It is a situation in which everyone is firing at everyone else.

So, where does that leave us? Well, you could say that if the Pompeo publication were a pig, Clifford May has rubbed a ton of lipstick on it. And the question to ask is this: Has this made the pig look any better? Well, I leave it to you to judge, dear reader. Meanwhile, here is a relevant passage you can look at:

“Anyone who reads the report will find it far from extreme. Nor does it attempt to gloss over America's human rights failures. Two examples: (1) Respect for unalienable rights requires acknowledgment of where the United States has fallen short of its principles with special recognition of the sin of slavery and our nation's deepest violation of unalienable rights. (2) Progress toward the securing of rights for all has been slow and was interrupted by periods of backsliding. In addition, the report emphasizes the nation's unfinished work in overcoming the evil effects of its long history of racial injustice”.

What this says, is that America is acknowledging it was one of the worst violators of Human Rights, if not the absolute worst violator. It also advises that it has repented for past sins, yet admits that it continues to commit them; at times even backslides toward an earlier revolting era. Try to figure that one out.

But trust us, says Mike Pompeo to the world, and goes on to add something that runs like this: We have the moral authority to tell you how to live the principled life … which is nothing like we are living at this time, or will live at any time in the near future, or as far away as we can see. But we know we are good, and you may not be as good as us. And so, we lead and you must follow.

Well, I left it up to you to judge, my friend. Have you judged yet?

Two useful Idiots that failed to deliver big

Too bad the slightly smarter guys in Israel did not fall into the trap that two of their useful idiots were going to drag them into.

The idiots had failed to realize the implications of what they were seeing in their hallucination, and devised a plan for Israel. Unfortunately, the slightly smarter ones saw the negative consequences for Israel that would result if the plan were implemented, and rejected the vision of the idiots. Too bad.

To explain their plan, the two idiots, who are run-of-the-mill Jewish lawyers, spouted the usual nonsense that's associated with their kind. They did so with aplomb, believing they were pronouncing the most important utterance since the universe big-banged itself into existence. So, what else is new!?

Alan Baker, who used to advise Israel's Foreign Ministry and served as its ambassador abroad, now works at a center for public affairs. Michel Calvo now represents Israel at the Court of Arbitration. The two men jointly wrote an article under the title: “The Indigenous Rights of the Jewish People and the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People,” published on July 20, 2020 on the website of the Gatestone Institute.

These useful idiots wish to see Israel join and ratify the UN 2007 Declaration concerning the Rights of Indigenous People. What the Declaration does, is set minimum standards that the foreign powers –– which allow their people to settle lands they conquer by force of arms –– must safeguard the rights of the indigenous populations. Needless to say that the US, Canada and Australia rejected the Declaration at first, but then relented and accepted it, promising to treat their indigenous populations in line with the provisions of the Declaration.

Israel too refused to accept the Declaration, but unlike the others, never relented; it continues to refuse. The obvious reason is that treating the indigenous Palestinian population according to the terms of the Declaration, would void Israel's plans to ethnic cleanse the occupied territories of their Palestinian families, and put a heavy burden on the finances of an entity that lives on donated charity collected around the world.

Apparently, however, Alan Baker and Michel Calvo missed all of that, and continue to believe in the hallucinated propaganda which says that Ivanka Trump of the White House and Wolf Blitzer of CNN are original Semites, therefore indigenous to the Land of Palestine. This makes of Mahmoud Abbas and Hanan Ashrawi, leaders of a foreign army that invaded the Trump/Blitzer homeland and colonized it by force of arms. And so, Baker and Calvo want the world to shed tears for Trump and Blitzer, whom they believe, should be treated in line with the terms of the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

And so, in the tradition of screwed up logic, typical of Jewish legal thinking, Baker and Calvo buttressed the defense of their theory with ludicrous non sequitur arguments of the kind that goes something like this: Because you say you live in New York when in fact, you live in Manhattan, you must be a foreign intruder in the area even if you were born and lived all your life in Manhattan, New York.

Here is how the two idiots, now rendered useless rather than useful, sound like as they mutilate a historical event:

“Palestinian claims that they are the indigenous descendants of the Canaanites is a canard that has no basis in fact or history, especially in light of the fact that the entry of Islam into the area of the Holy Land occurred only in the seventh century of the common era”.

To be sure, Canaan is the entire area that stretches from northern Syria to the northern part of Saudi Arabia, which includes the entire Levant and then some. It is the geographic area where the Semitic people have lived since the beginning of time. It is where the Semitic Palestinians originated and lived as members of different tribes. It is where today's Palestinians have roots whether they are animists, Jews, Christians or Muslims. This separates them from the converts to Judaism, people like Trump and Blitzer, whose origin may be Caucasian, African or Mongoloid … geographic areas around the globe where they would have their roots. And these are not Canaan or Palestine or the West Bank or Judea and Samaria or what have you. Anyone that makes such a claim is an impostor, a thief and a killer.

Here is why Israel will never acknowledge the validity of that Declaration, or adopt it:

“The rights acknowledged in the declaration include the basic right to life, integrity and the preservation of the indigenous people's land, language, religion and cultural heritage that are a part of their existence as a people”.

Asking Israel to accord those rights to the Palestinians, is like asking a vulture to relinquish its catch of the day. It is not going to happen voluntarily. But Alan Baker and Michel Calvo still believe that these rights are due to the invading Jewish settlers and not their Palestinian victims. And so, they go on to make the following heartfelt plea:

“It is hoped that the Government of Israel will acknowledge the importance of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples, and without delay or excuse, announce its endorsement of this important international document”.

We say amen to that, but also lament the fact that the useful idiots were not useful enough.

An example of politico-diplomatic cannibalism

Every time that someone uttered the well-known adage: “dog-eat-dog,” he (she) were referring to an image they have in their subconscious mind; an image that would define the word “cannibalism” as the act of consuming members of one's own species.

Most of the time, such representation of the world we live in, is recalled from memory when competition in business becomes so heated, the wealthier and more powerful individuals and enterprises, resort to practices that aim to crush the weaker competitors and drive them out of business, perhaps even buy what’s left of them at a dirt cheap price.

But that's not the only example where the image of cannibalism can be used metaphorically to describe situations that have become common for a number of decades. In fact, thousands of articles written by Jews and their lackeys –– urging America to go destroy someone –– have been reviewed in this blog. And for every article that was chosen for parsing here, dozens of other articles didn't make it. But they were out there urging the decision makers in the Washington Beltway to use diplomacy like the sharp knife of a cannibal at the dinner table consuming a member of his (her) own species.

Vaguely aware of what's unfolding in foreign policy, ordinary people do not usually relate to every move that's made by the government in the field of foreign diplomacy. And so, the image of America running around the globe, especially in the Middle East, butchering Arab and Muslim countries to appease the insatiable hunger of the Jews, does not hit home on a regular basis. But when diplomacy becomes tangled-up with local politics, the explosive reality of what's going on abroad is finally revealed to the public.

This is what happened lately, and much of what was unseen for decades, has now been revealed to the American public. In fact, that story was put in the form of an editorial by the editors of the New York Daily News. They wrote: “Engel's duty to history,” which is the title of the piece that also came under the subtitle: “Expose how State Department coddled Nazi war criminals.” The piece was published on July 19, 2020.

The editors tell the story of Eliot Engel, the Jewish Congressman whose doings were finally revealed to his constituents after 32 years of politicking locally and manipulating American diplomacy abroad. Finally, the electors in his district were made to realize that in his capacity as chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, he was not working for them; he was working for a foreign entity called Israel.

The constituents also discovered that Eliot Engel worked for local characters, such as the editors of the New York Daily News, whose ghoulish sentiments surpass those of any cannibal you may have heard of. Engel worked to give the grisly characters what would appease their hunger, but did not always deliver. And now that he has been tossed out by the electorate, the editors want him to do a final kamikaze operation before leaving the scene come January next year. They want him to deliver what he did not during his tenure.

Look how the editors of the Daily News serenaded the one-sided and meager accomplishments of Eliot Engel, and how they asked him to perform the final kamikaze stunt:

“We supported Rep. Eliot Engel in many of his primary contests, including this one, which he has lost to a newcomer. What will be missed is Engel's clout on overseas concerns. He was lonely among Democrats opposing Obama's Iran nuclear deal. Engel was also a champion of Israel. That's harder to find in the Democratic Party these days. But Engel's not gone yet, and in his remaining months running the powerful committee, he must set out to show how the State Department thwarted the Justice Department deporting WWII Nazis. Almost from the beginning of when Justice started pursuing these Nazis in 1978, State dragged its feet. Engel should call former and current prosecutors to demand answers from State. Too many times did the State Department stall to let old Nazis die here”.

A hunger for revenge that can only be appeased by denying a man in his nineties the final wish to be buried in the place where he lived most of his life –– is the moral equivalent of the physical hunger that can only be appeased by consuming the flesh of one's own species. That's cannibalism, and there is nothing that can make it look better than what it is. It also happens to be the most prevalent feature in the character of the editors in charge of the New York Daily News.

However, the Daily News is not the only place where the weird attributes of the alien Judeo-Yiddish culture have been contaminating the humanistic culture, which the authentic people of America are trying to build in their country. It is that the ghoulish Judeo-Yiddish has managed to metastasize itself and permeate all aspects of American life.

This is why only a massive mobilization of the American electorate can rid the country of the morbid syndrome that’s now plaguing it. The good news is that the American people seem to have finally woken up to that reality, and they have decided to take the matter in their own hands.

We can only hope that they succeed decisively, and put America back on the right track. This is our wish for the sake of America and the sake of the world.

A stunning Admission of Treason by Editors of the New York Post

There was a time in the old days when life was simple, and people were unsophisticated. When they spoke and when they wrote, you knew they meant what they said, and did not have to sleuth your way through their pronouncements to decipher what subtle meanings were hidden between the lines.

Life has steadily turned sophisticated and more complex since those days, and the people who speak today, have learned to censor their public pronouncements lest they get caught in controversies that would distract them from proceeding with their agendas. As well, the people who do the listening, have learned to comb through what is said, to get the full meaning of what is being communicated.

It is in light of these realities that we parse the piece which came under the title: “As Israelis give up on peace deal, Democrats' 'solution' would destroy Jewish state,” which is an editorial of the New York Post, published on July 18, 2020.

The first thing that hits you when you read the article, comes early in the first paragraph in this form: “The US Democratic Party is in thrall to a solution...” Well, to be in thrall means to be enslaved by someone. Since nowhere in the article is there an explanation as to who is enslaving the American Democratic Party, you don't take those words at face value. Instead, you posit that the truth must lie in the reverse of what is asserted. That is, you determine with a high degree of certainty that the Democratic Party is not now enslaved by someone. On the contrary, you recognize that it was liberated from the bondage that the Jews had imposed on it for half a century, the way they are doing it now to the Republican Party.

The next thing you notice is what the editors of the New York Post did next. What you notice is that they set up two camps: one for the good guys and one for the bad guys. They grouped themselves and Jonathan Tobin into a bundle and placed themselves in the “love Israel” good camp. Next, they found a whole bunch of unsavory characters whom they stuck into the bad “hate Israel” camp. Among these are the ex-Obama officials: Joe Biden, Ben Rhodes and Robert Malley, as well their new turncoat, bete noire, Peter Beinart.

But what is it in these people's behavior that might indicate they hate Israel? It is the company they keep, say the editors of the New York Post. And here is the proof they offer:

“With birth rates that would soon make Arabs the clear majority, Jews would be set back politically. That fits fine with the dreams of a rising Democratic faction of young Israel-haters and anti-Semites, like Reps, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib. In addition, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) is also part of the group”.

Well, aside from the attitude of the people in the “bad camp,” that passage makes it clear whom the Post editors love and whom they hate. But are they not allowed to harbor such sentiments in a country that calls itself a democracy? They sure do, but when their feelings spill over and become an open hatred for the American system of governance, as well as hatred for the Constitution that engendered that system, the editors' sentiments become a clear indication that what is expressed here, is unmitigated hatred for an America that refuses to continue being slave to Israeli interests.

In fact, you can see this clearly expressed in the editors' writing; people who are not shy a tiny bit about trashing the American electorate (not just the politicians but the people of America) while praising everything Israeli. See for yourself what they said in that regard, beginning with their view of AOC:

“She and a dozen fellow Dems called for restrictions on US military aid to Israel if it annexes areas of the West Bank. Restricting aid should be a bipartisan nonstarter. New York Democratic voters ousted staunch Israel-backer Rep. Eliot Engel in favor of AOC-backed Jamaal Bowman, whose pro-Israel bona fides are dubious. At the 2012 Democratic convention, the floor booed the idea of recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital. In 2016, they fought over Palestinian rights. Top presidential contenders boycotted the AIPAC conference and threatened to use aid to pressure Israel. Biden was part of the team that forged an Iran nuclear deal. What's notable is that US Democrats are parting with the people of Israel”.

What this passage amounts to is a stunning admission of treason by the editors of the New York Post. They no longer use subtle language to express their love for Israel and hatred for an America that refuses to continue sacrificing the welfare of its people to satisfy the caprices of Israel's Jews.

The editors of the New York Post have reached the point of expressing their insolence in-your-face to stress the burning desire that when it comes to making choices, the voting public and the convention delegates and the politicians of America must never part with the people of Israel by voting their conscience.

What America must do instead, say the editors of the New York Post, is take their cues from Israel's Jewish electorate. It is the only thing that counts, after all.

And that, my friend, is what cements the notion that the editors of the New York Post are unrepentant ideological traitors to America and to the American people.

They should be treated accordingly, treated for what they are, and held accountable for the moral damage they inflict on America and journalism.

America is the Gun, Human Rights the Bullets

What do you do if––like the Jews of Israel and America––you are the only entity in the world that wants to revive and normalize colonialism so as to work on being the new colonial master, and be accepted as such?

Well, the first thing you do is find a muscular sucker that is willing to listen to you. This done, you educate him on the new theory that will turn him into the most accomplished genius the universe has known, provided he proves to have fully learned the lesson and has put it into practice. You then turn that sucker into a weapon such as a gun, and use Human Rights like bullets, which you fire at those who stand in your way, trying to stop you from implement your grand designs.

What the new theory says in a nutshell, is that there are two kinds of human abuses of human beings. There is the traditional colonial regime in which an entity exploits the subjects of another entity. And there is the authoritarian regime in which the governing authority enforces strict discipline on its own people. Of the two regimes, the new theory prefers the first, because it represents the familiar colonial system that has served humanity well according to the theory's adherents. As to the disciplinarian regime, it is a phenomenon that must be fought and defeated, say the Jews, because it stands in opposition to colonialism.

This is what the Jews had in mind when three decades ago, they saw the opportunity open to them for turning America into the weapon they could use to disrupt the normal development of the Middle Eastern nations. This suited them just right because it allowed them to continue their colonial hold on Palestine and normalize it. It also gave them the opportunity to expand their colonial reach into other neighboring nations, maybe even go beyond the immediate neighborhood.

Having established the principle that one people colonizing another is a good thing, the Jews made the occupation of Palestine so acceptable to the Americans, the latter dropped out of the UN Human Rights Council because it would not join in the madness of congratulating Israel for a job well done. And then, as if manna had dropped on the Jews from the sky, Syria was attacked by terrorists from around the globe. This gave the Jews the opportunity to falsely assert that President Assad was killing his own people; a signal for the Americans to intervene in the affairs of Syria, and work to implement the Jewish grand designs for the region.

But because what is good for the goose is good for the gander, there appeared to be a problem with White cops in America killing their own Black citizens, which they did by firing multiple bullets into their backs, and suffocating them using barbaric choke holds they learned in Israel. How do you treat a situation like this when the theory says that if you mistreat your own people, someone must intervene to stop you? Who will the Jews call upon to intervene and stop America from murdering its own Black citizens?

This being a conundrum, the Jews scratched their heads and came up with what passes for creativity in Jewish culture: They copied an example that was created somewhere else, and made it their own. Here is the example: It happened during the time when South Africa was run by a system of apartheid, that the country was having economic difficulties, and they badly needed a foreign infusion of money. Because South Africa would not accept investment from non-Whites at the time, and because no White people were willing to invest in South Africa, the apartheid regime came up with a solution. It called the Japanese “honorary Whites” and invited them to come to South Africa with bags full of money.

Well, the Jews worked on something like that––actually in reverse––to help America with its racist policy of discriminating against its Black citizens and murdering them in broad daylight and getting away with the crimes over and over. What the Jews did was call on the mob of Jewish pundits to split America into the good people that have privileges and the bad people that have none. The pundits made it so that all those who stand on Israel's side are good, and those who stand on the other side are bad.

But because being bad does not strip someone of their citizenship, the Jews invented the system of canceling the people (mostly Blacks) who spoke their mind, uninhibited by any sort of hangup, the way that Louis Farrakhan expresses himself. This had the effect of turning the canceled Americans into honorary aliens, liable to be treated as colonial subjects in their own country, and deprived of protection under the Constitution.

This is the background that has led the Jews to seek institutionalizing the gains they have achieved up to now. To that end, they ordered the American State Department to come up with a report that will lead to laws meant to bind future generations of Americans to continue serving the Judeo-Israeli causes, which can happen only by diminishing America and inflating Israel.

The name of the State Department's piece of work, came down as, “Report of the Commission on Unalienable Rights.” You can read it and see what the Jews are up to now, or you can read what Jimmy Quinn thinks about that report.

You'll find that Quinn's article came under the title: “What does Pompeo's Commission on Unalienable Rights Mean for U.S. Foreign Policy?” published on July 17, 2020 in National Review Online.

All Principles are praiseworthy; America's too

A nation's constitution or like-document is a description of the self at the highest point of one's performance. Read any such document, and you'll marvel at the vision that its writers have for their nation and its ability to perform. But watch them practice what they preach, and you'll find that only a handful of nations come close to performing at the level of their founders' vision.

The trouble with constitutions and like-documents, is that they cannot possibly cover everything in writing. This is why they only make statements of principle as to what ought to be done, and leave it to the legislators and the executive to make the thousands of rules and regulations that deal with the practical world, making sure it conforms to the principles of the constitution and like-document.

Like everyone else, the United States of America has a most praiseworthy constitution for what it contains and a most unworthy constitution for what it omits. Like everyone else, it says that because all humans are equal, they deserve equal protection and equal treatment. But like everyone one else, the US constitution omits saying that a Black is not valued at three fifth a human, and so the society that the American constitution was serving, considered Blacks to be worth three fifth a human. This has allowed the society to deny Blacks equal protection and equal treatment, a situation that was maintained till it was decided –– constitution or not –– to rescind the insanity.

Times are changing, so is America and so is the world. We are at a point where the speed of travel and ease of communication have made the world a very small place. What has not changed, however, are the rivalries between human beings as individuals and as societies. One area of contention where rivalry among nations has the potential to lead to conflict is the matter of governance and how a government deals with the human rights issue.

The way things are now, there stands on one side a group of European nations (also referred to as Western) that had exploited the Industrial Revolution to advance in military matters, thus conquered the world and subjugated most of it for decades if not centuries. Because they could give their people the good life at the expense of those they conquered, they designed a system known as Liberal Democracy which gave their people maximum freedom while oppressing those whom they colonized and were exploiting.

And there stands on the other side, a group of African and Asian nations that were once exploited, and have now gained their independence but remain underdeveloped, and struggling to catch up with the advanced nations. Until about three decades ago, bothered by the guilt of their colonial past, the Western nations adopted the maxim of live and let live. The United States of America having deep roots in Europe also adopted that maxim even though it was free of the colonial burden.

And then, just about three decades ago, something considered unthinkable happened, but turned out to be as natural as a skunk spraying its fart in the middle of a garden celebration. What happened was that the Prime Minister of Israel visited America and commanded his minions in the Washington Beltway to remember that, “Zey know nossing of za damacracy of za Shamir.” It meant telling the Americans to get busy imposing the American system of governance, warts and all, on those whom the Jews will have in their crosshairs and call enemy of the day.

The Americans took the Jewish command to heart and went on a mission to “democratize” the Middle East by “kicking asses,” out there, but had their own asses kicked instead. That's when they showed the world how to flee with the tail between their legs. Still, like the addict that got hooked on drugs, instead of learning their lesson once and for all, the Americans are now going around the world looking for someone to democratize, and make them look like America … or God forbid, like Israel.

To explain all this to the world, Michael R. Pompeo who is Secretary of the American State, put his ideas on paper under the title: “American diplomacy must again ground itself in the nation's founding principle,” and had the article published in the Washington Post on July 16, 2020. This is a well-crafted piece of work that says all the right things but omits mention of one important factor.

What the article does well, is describe the soul searching that went on in America when it came to choosing between two opposite doctrines. On the one hand, there was the Monroe Doctrine which says: “The nation must protect the Western Hemisphere from unfree forms of government.” On the other hand, there was the John Quincy Adams assertion that says while, “the United States speaks the language of liberty, equal justice and equal rights, she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy”.

Michael Pompeo appears to continue that soul searching by wrestling with the question: “What is the connection between the nation's constitutional system and its international obligation?”

Too bad all of that will come to naught, as have many projects in America. The reason is easy to understand. It is that the Jews are in control of many American institutions, and the Jewish interest is not in the proper functioning of these institutions; it is in their usefulness to Israel and World Jewry.

And serving Israel and the Jews can only happen at the expense of America and the American people.

Free of Hangups, easy Solutions do come by

For once, Alan Dershowitz wrote an article that is remarkable by what it does not contain.

Nowhere does the writer exhibit the hangup that would have him say, Jewish citizens of Arab countries were mistreated by their governments and by their neighbors because of their religion ... the reason why Arab Jews “fled” to Israel. This had been the standard regurgitated lies of every beastly ignoramus who wrote about the conflict in the Middle East previously. It was in fact, the manufactured hangup that rendered such writing useless, void and not conducive to holding rational debates.

But now that Dershowitz has shown willingness to talk seriously about that conflict, we can engage him and address the concerns he is raising with regard to the idea that was proposed by Peter Beinart. In fact, Dershowitz made his concerns known in an article that came under the title: “Beinart's Solution for the Israel-Palestinian Conflict Is an Invitation to Possible Genocide,” published on July 14, 2020 in Algemeiner.

Let's dispose of one nonsensical concern right off the bat lest it get in the way of a meaningful discussion. It is the question of what will happen to Israel's nuclear arsenal in the proposed binational nation. First of all, there is no such a thing as an Israeli nuclear arsenal because nobody builds an arsenal of a weapon it never tested. But if Israel did some research in the field similar to that of apartheid South Africa, it can be disposed of the way it was in South Africa. The rationale for doing this, is simple to understand: There will be no need for nuclear research, much less a nuclear arsenal in a binational state.

As to the rest of the Dershowitz concerns, they all seem to emanate from the fear of an anti-Jewish genocide erupting in the region. He gives the example of Yugoslavia and Lebanon, which he says are failed experiments, without giving details of what happened there so, that’s the end of that. But he also failed to mention the binational and/or bireligious states that live in harmony despite ferocious foreign agitations designed to sow discord in those places. First among these, being the Christians of Egypt, Iraq and Syria who love their Muslim governments more than the fanatic Jews of America can incite them to start a rebellion and ruin their countries the way that they and their collaborators succeeded in Lebanon.

What this says is that citing examples like Yugoslavia and Lebanon to support one point of view or the other is a futile exercise. That's because what moves people to rebel in any country, is a complicated set of circumstances that have to do with history, beliefs, mores, temperament and a long list of other factors. However, what can be considered a reliable indicator as to what might happen in a binational state, is the current attitude of the Arabs towards the Jews in general, and towards the Israelis in particular.

To define the prevailing Israeli mentality, we first notice that despite the fact Israel is made of Jews from Arab descent more than European descent, nearly one hundred percent of the high positions in Israel are held by European Jews, and nearly one hundred percent of the decisions made in Israel are made by these people. Thus, the roots of those decisions go back to the Jewish experience in Europe, and we can say that the important decisions made in Israel, stand on the notion that you get nothing of what you do not take by force.

Opposed to this European mentality is the Arab mentality which says, everything that looks bad to you now, will eventually come to an end. If you cannot fix it peacefully at this moment, wait and let time fix it for you. In fact, the 1967-1973 war illustrates the difference between the two mentalities when push comes to shove.

Here is how that goes: Having learned from the British and the French how to attack Egypt in 1956, the Israelis put that lesson into practice in 1967. In a sneak attack that allowed them to capture the Sinai, they said to the Arabs: now that we have leverage, let's talk. The Arabs said there will be no talks because what was taken by force will only be returned by force. The Arabs counterattacked in 1973 and pushed the Israelis back. When the angry emotions subsided five years later, Egypt's President Sadat showed the world what Arab magnanimity looks like. He visited Israel to tell the Jews: Now that we won, let me tell you what we wish for. We wish that there be no more wars between us.

In fact, what has been at play all along in the entire Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region––not just during the '67 to '73 war––has been the interaction between the Arab magnanimity and the Jewish hunger to develop leverage for use to extract concessions from their victims. If you're not up to date on the history of the region, what you can do to get a sense of the differences between the two cultures, is compare the rhetoric and behavior of Benjamin Netanyahu against those of Saeb Erekat or Hanan Ashrawi. When you do that, you'll see the difference, and be amazed at the contrast between the vulgar Jew and the noble Arab.

Well then, what does that say about the possible rise of a binational state in the Middle East? It says that the Jews of Arab descent that have been marginalized in Israel up to now, will play a bigger role in Israel. Familiar with the Arab culture, they will get along very well with the Palestinians.

There may be a few difficult moments at the start of the coming-together, but the relationship between the two parts of the new nation will be as harmonious as it had been for centuries when Arabs of Muslim and Christian and Jewish persuasions lived together in harmony and brought the Renaissance to Europe.

This Age can be brought back if there are enough Jews like Peter Beinart to advocate for it, and less people like Alan Dershowitz to sabotage it.