The cowardly tyrants and their look-alike

 Throughout history, rulers who were not popular with their subjects, and feared being assassinated, got themselves a look-alike who attended the risky ceremonies and pretended to perform the business of the state. The latest to make use of this method for self-preservation was Iraq's Saddam Hussein who survived several attempts on his life, but ended with a rope around his neck anyway.

 

But you don't have to be an individual to be a hated dictator. In fact, history has also experienced the hated dictatorship of the proletariat, though the suffering populations did little to push back against this form of government because it was of the most benign type. At worst, that kind of rule caused nothing more than a small rise in the price of goods and services.

 

By contrast, the populations that responded most violently, did so in rebellion against the tyranny of Jewish dictatorship because it has always been of the most hurtful kind. It caused as much as the discomfort, the debasement, if not the destruction of innocent livelihoods for no reason but to make life more comfortable for the Jews who did nothing to earn the life of luxury, gifted to them at the expense of everyone else.

 

For this reason, you'll find that the Jews have often wanted to hide their religion, especially when they found themselves in the midst of a population that was becoming restless. In some places, such as Nazi Germany, the ruling authority forced them to wear a yellow star so as to be identified. This happened because one of the tricks the Jews used to hide their identity, was to crossbreed with the local population so as to produce a new generation of Jews that appeared to blend with the local population.

 

But in a place like the United States of America, at a time when the Jews found it necessary to both hide their identity and work openly to promote the false glory of Israel, they felt compelled to come up with a new trick. Well, they did not have to, because they simply reverted back to using the old look alike trick. This time, it was not individuals that did it; the Jews did it collectively using organizations and institutions.

 

You'll understand how that works when you familiarize yourself with two articles that were published recently on the subject.

 

One article came under the title: “Can a college student back Israel?” and the subtitle: “Jewish students face widespread hostility.” It was written by Isaac De Castro, and printed on March 29, 2021 in the New York Daily News. The other article came under the title: “Young America's Foundation's 'The Long Game' to help students fight against liberal bias,” and the subtitle: “Ensuring that conservative voices are heard.” It was written by Scott Walker, and printed 4 days earlier on March 25, 2021 in The Washington Times.

 

You may consider the De Castro article as representing the real Jew, standing as he always does, to complain about being despised and mistreated by the population for being what he is and doing what he does. And you may consider the Scott Walker article as being the look-alike that pretends to stand for conservatism, but in fact stands to enforce the tyrannical dictatorship of the Jews.

 

Here is what Jews, representing themselves, are complaining about:

 

“At Columbia University, Jewish students were spat on and called murderers. Professors told their students anti-Semitism is no longer an issue. At Cornell, a student assembly member was threatened to be outed to his family if he did not vote for BDS (Boycotting, divesting from, and sanctioning Israel). At USC, the student body vice president resigned from her position after being the victim of bullying and harassment for her identity as a Zionist. At Tufts, a student judiciary member was silenced when discussing an anti-Semitic referendum because his Jewish identity made him biased”.

 

And here, in condensed form, is what the Jews are bragging about, having assumed a false identity:

 

“We have an action plan to win today's battles and future wars. Peter Schweizer credits the National Conservative Student Conference for his exposure to conservative books and thinkers. Fox News contributor, Katie Pavlich notes that, 'Young America's Foundation changed my life.' We need more students because our movement needs more writers like Katie Pavlich and Peter Schweizer. Currently, YAF supports students at about 2,000 campuses –– half of the schools in America. Our plan is to be active on every campus to reach every student. It means reaching students in associate degree programs and at technical schools in addition to undergraduates”.

 

This is how much the Jews have accomplished by convincing people like Scott Walker to betray their country and work to help indoctrinate the entire population of America in the future, and put it at the disposal of characters like Netanyahu or his successors, to rule over from a faraway place.

 

What the Jewish leaders are forgetting, however, is that their predecessors have been trying to play this game for centuries, and never scored the goal that closed the deal. But despite their spectacular failures, they were able to start again and play the game with someone else, somewhere else.

 

The Jews did it by denying they wrote documents such as the Protocol of the Elders of Zion, and people believed them. This time, however, the Jews are leaving a paper trail behind that’s so massive, they will not be able to deny it.

 

The trail is so overwhelming it will be easier for the Jewish leaders to deny the Holocaust than deny all what they did to snare the children of America in a futile attempt to turn them into obedient servants for their Jewish masters.

Adopting the correct Tactics and Strategies

 The two words “tactic” and “strategy” conjure up visions of military planners deciding on how to conduct a short battle or a full-length war.

 

In fact, it may be useful to think in these terms; it may even be helpful to maintain that vision when we feel compelled to use the language of combat to describe a purely civilian situation that nevertheless contains elements of a fight. This may be social or political combat but it often resembles a war-like situation.

 

A tactic is defined as an action we take with the objective of securing a limited gain within a limited time frame. By contrast, a strategy is a long-term plan that aims to achieve an ultimate objective regardless of the temporary gains or losses we may incur in the interim.

 

This brings us to ask if there is utility in real life situations, for individuals to continually adopt a tactical posture when dealing with friends, acquaintances and strangers, or utility in adopting a strategic posture? Or is it better to treat each situation according to its merit? We can even go beyond that, and ask if there is utility for nations to permanently adopt one posture or the other when dealing with other nations.

 

A recently published article shows that human beings have a natural tendency toward the adoption of the tactical mode of relationships when standing to represent their nation, and interact with other nations. The title of the article is: “How Did EU-Russian Relations Collapse and What Comes Next?” and the subtitle: “Moscow does not want to end the few remaining ties with Brussels, but Russia does intend to follow its longstanding strategy of circumventing the EU through bilateral ties.” It was written by Mark Episkopos, and published on March 27, 2021 in The National Interest”.

 

As can be seen, the title alone speaks of Russia's desire to maintain a nuanced kind of tactical relationship with the bloc of nations known as the European Union, while developing a strategic kind of long-term relationships with the various nations that make up the EU bloc. And there is more that's happening on both the European and Asian continents. The following is a montage of the pertinent passages in the Mark Episkopos article, that tell the story:

 

“Earlier this week, a German official urged the European Commission to launch a joint Sputnik V procurement that would allow member states to purchase the Russian vaccine through an overarching EU contract. But even as Russia looks to partially salvage its ties with Europe, it is also doubling down on its burgeoning partnership with China. Beijing, too, is interested in brandishing its 'strategic partnership' with Russia. Lavrov said in a recent interview with Chinese media that Moscow is interested in forming a coalition of countries united against unilateral sanctions”.

 

This brings us to ask the following question: With all that’s happening in a region to which the center of economic and military center of gravity has shifted, where does the United States of America stands?

 

Before answering the question, it is worth recalling that right after World War II, America was the darling of everyone on Earth, including the foes it was fighting during the war. This condition lasted for about two decades, and then America's reputation began to slide down a slippery slope as if the country had suddenly become the “despised Jew” in the eyes of the world. How did this happen?

 

It all began when America stopped listening to its own voice, and listened instead to Winston Churchill who inspired it to start the Cold War. America did so by getting into an ill-advised adventure on the Korean Peninsula, and the rest is history. This was followed by the fateful French advice that sent America to the humiliating defeat the Vietnam war proved to be. And then came the antics that puzzled the world at first, but then proved to be the American version of Judeo-Yiddish trickery, characterized as being both cowardly and sly.

 

So, here was the America that defended the underdogs when overwhelmed by aggressors, now over-arming Israel while scheming to deprive the Palestinians of the means to defend themselves. It also deprived them of maintaining ownership of the land that has been theirs since the beginning of time, of a dignified life and of seeking justice at the UN Security Council where the American veto has paralyzed the place, the way that the Jews have paralyzed the American Congress.

 

Right now, what makes the world see America as operating out of the Jewish sewer, are two approaches it has adopted for its interactions with the world. On the tactical side, there is the economic and financial sanctions it is imposing on anyone that dares to stand up to it.

 

On the strategic side, there is the drive to reject cooperating with other powers with the view of maintaining parity of military strengths, thus keep the peace. Instead, America has taken the Jewish advice of unleashing a never-ending arms race that can only end in the dreaded Armageddon.

 

There is no way the United States can get back to the standing it used to enjoy right after the Second World War. But it can return to the habit of listening to its own voice by tuning out the Judeo-Yiddish whispers of cowardly advice.

 

And this will be a promising start that can go far and restore to America some of its old sheen.

From writing on the wall to social media

 No one has yet found a way to make oppression a permanent feature of dominion over others, whatever their dominion may have been. Our natural inclination as human beings, written in our genetic code, is to be free to roam throughout our environment, exploring it and continually deciding what to do next.

 

From ancient times to modern times, some of the people who rose to power, believed they could increase their power by suppressing the desires of others, and gifting themselves with the rewards earned by those whom they oppressed. That's when the oppressed began to warn the tyrannical oppressors of consequences they may not like if they continue on the path they chose to be on. The oppressed made the warning clear by writing messages that the oppressors could read on the wall.

 

Ever since that time, and despite the warnings, there still came evil men who ignored the lessons established by their predecessors, and oppressed their people in the belief that they found the formula by which to exercise a tyrannical control over their subjects, and make it a permanent feature of their dominion.

 

Those tyrants failed in their attempts because, however strong their desire to grab what belongs to others may have been, it never became stronger than the desire of the masses to be free throughout the ages. In fact, the writing on the wall was modernized, becoming the paper trail that tells the story of humanity's continuous struggle to live in freedom. In turn, the paper trail became the thread of social media whose contribution has been to demonstrate how silly it is for some people to claim they are defending the freedom of others when they are themselves kept like test animals in the cage of fear and self-censorship.

 

A clear example of one such condition, out of the many you’ll encounter in North America, is shown in the article that came under the title: “The consequences of campus cancel culture,” written by Jennifer Shubert-Akin, and published on March 27, 2021 in The Washington Examiner.

 

In that article, the writer, Shubert-Akin laments that a law professor was fired from her job because she said that black students scored at the bottom of her class. But that same writer never voiced as much as a hiss of discontent when a black principal, William Latson was fired because he admitted he didn't know enough about the Holocaust to vouch that it happened, let alone talk about it with authority.

 

This is a demonstration of the self-censorship that makes its practitioners look like test animals of the jackass variety, as they bray inside the cage of self-censorship where they lock themselves. They are at the same time laughable and poignantly disgusting because when someone of their kind touches the subject of freedom, even with a ten-foot pole, they pull freedom down to the level of a Jewish sewer. It's an insult to freedom for this kind of creatures to claim they have the ability to defend it.

 

It is therefore not surprising that the masses have turned to the modern wall of social media on which they express the warning that the current condition needs to change or there will be dire consequences. And this prompts us to ask the question: Why is it that when it comes to Jews, dire consequences mean much more than a simple tossing of rascals out of office and replacing them with others?

 

In response to that question, there is a way to see and study how the differences develop between a case where Jews are involved, and another where Jews are not involved. Consider the story of Romania's Nicolae Ceausescu whose execution by one of his own, ended the Romanian revolt and kept it a strictly Romanian affair. Contrast this with the German situation which started with the anti-Jewish riots of Crystal Night, and ended with the execution of millions of Jews both in Germany and outside of it by millions of enthusiastically self-appointed executioners.

 

The difference between those two situations, is that Ceausescu was the object of his people's wrath. When they decided they had enough of his tyrannical rule, they got rid of him, and that was the end of the story. In Germany, by contrast, the people sensed that the tyranny imposed on them was coming from the outside via the Jews who pretended to be loyal to Germany but were loyal to World Jewry and the foreign powers that backed them, such as France and Britain. They became willing executioners of Hitler, and vented their wrath on the Jews, both in Germany and outside of it.

 

What does that portend for Jewry in America? No one can tell how the situation will unfold in the future but events such as Charlottesville on August 12, 2017 and the Capitol on January 6, 2021, give an indication of what's in the hearts and minds of those who believe the Jews have conspired with America’s leaders to rob them of what belongs to them, and give it to the Jews.

 

This is visceral motivation caused by bottled up frustrations. It is powerful, mindless and when set off, will not respond to reasonable appeals.

 

Horror will be the aftermath of those in revolt as they respond to the tyrannical rule of the Jews and the ignorance of those like Jennifer Shubert-Akin who believe they can liberate those whom the Jews oppress, by stepping harder on the necks of Blacks and the other colored minorities.

They lose perspective telling good stories from negative angles

 The great debate these days concerns the rivalries which are gripping the world in terms of influence, deterrence, military might and economic prowess. The debate sharpens when the discussion involves the two main players: The United States of America and China.

 

Good and knowledgeable writers are spending a great deal of effort explaining to their readers––including the ruling classes which are looking to be enlightened––what is unfolding in the world on a daily basis. Unfortunately, the public square in the English-speaking world has so deteriorated, you can no longer discuss even a serious topic without being derailed by the prevailing state of intellectual mediocrity, thus produce a shallow product where gravitas is called for.

 

To see that point with greater clarity, we consider how three people familiar with elements of the same story might tell it differently without any of them lying about the facts. If so, what will make the narrations different from each other? The differences will result in that each story teller will approach the story from a different angle: The neutral, the negative or the positive.

 

The neutral example of story-telling might go like this: The man looked up and saw an infant dangling from a third-floor balcony. He ran to position himself so as to catch the infant. The baby fell, the man caught it in his arms thus broke its fall, but could not hold on to the child that eventually hit the ground and broke a leg.

 

The negative example might go like this: The man looked up and saw an infant dangling from a third-floor balcony. He ran to position himself so as to catch the infant. The baby fell, the man caught it in his arms but was so inept, he failed to hold on tightly to the child that fell to the ground and broke a leg.

 

And the positive example might go like this: The man looked up and saw an infant dangling from a third-floor balcony. He ran to position himself so as to catch the infant. The baby fell, the man caught it in his arms thus broke its fall and saved its life. He could not hold on to the child tightly enough to prevent it from hitting the ground and breaking a leg, but that's a small price to pay for a life that was saved.

 

Two articles engaged in the great debate concerning the rivalry between the major powers, show how the writers, expressing themselves in the English language, preferred to conform to the prevailing biases while presenting their arguments, rather than make a neutral presentation and let the audience decide what to make of the story.

 

One article came under the title: “How should the United States Compete With China's Belt and Road Initiative?” It was written by Jennifer Hillman and David Sacks, and published on March 23, 2021 on the website of the Council on Foreign Relations. The other article was written by George Magnus under the title: “China's Go-It-Alone Five-Year Plan,” and was published on March 25, 2021 in Project Syndicate.

 

The Hillman and Sachs article begins by faithfully (meaning glowingly in this case) describing what China is doing internally and externally to shape the world of today and tomorrow. Then came use of the adverb “however,” and the tone of the discussion changed to sound as follows:

 

“However, the Belt and Road Initiative's (BRI) risks outweigh its benefits. It undermines global macroeconomic stability by lending funds to unsustainable projects, thereby adding to countries' debt burdens. It tilts the playing field in major markets toward Chinese companies, promotes exclusive reliance on Chinese technology, and draws countries into tighter economic and political relationships with Beijing”.

 

The truth is that none of what's reported in that passage, is of great consequence. And nothing of what China is doing today is different from what America and other Western nations have been doing for two centuries. In fact, telling it like it is without over-editorializing would have created a better incentive among the English-speaking entrepreneurs, motivating them to compete against the Chinese and score some gains. Unfortunately, the negative approach adopted by Hillman and Sachs is not doing that.

 

As to the George Magnus article, it is much less tilted toward the negative description of what China is doing. Instead, it describes China's vision of future developments in a neutral tone as seen in this paragraph:

 

“The phrase 'Five-Year Plan' might conjure thoughts of production targets, but China hasn't issued that kind of document in more than 20 years. The 14th Five-Year-Plan comprises a broad set of economic, social, technological, and environmental objectives and targets, intended to shape the behavior of local governments, enterprises, institutions, and citizens. It is a far more comprehensive strategy that reflects a growing emphasis on the link between the economy and national security”.

 

And yet, despite that commendable approach, George Magnus could not forgo the obligatory liberal-democratic editorializing that prompted him to end the article in a condescending manner, starting with the adverb 'but'. Here it is, “But, a country at China's level of development has only one way forward: transparency, openness, and institutional flexibility”.

 

Oh well. It's like they say: You cannot teach an old dog new tricks. Make that: even a well-meaning dog.

He believes America is his Banana Plantation

 He is a so-called American Jew, but he is at heart as Israeli as any Jew that has worked, that is now working or hopes to someday work for the American government, and get paid by the Treasury for serving Israel while pretending to serve America.

 

He is Elliott Abrams who is out of the government at this time but has access to every nook and cranny at the State Department, a condition he exploits to try running that branch of the American ship of state while blogging from home via the website of Council on Foreign Relations.

 

His latest command to the Biden administration came in the form of an article written under the title: “The Next Bad Idea: A PLO Office in Washington,” and the subtitle: “Talking about a PLO office is the wrong message at the wrong time.” It was published on March 25, 2021 in the blog section of the website mentioned above.

 

What tells you Elliott Abrams truly believes that America has become Israel's banana plantation is the in-your-face manner he adopted to tell the Biden administration what to do. There was a time when Jews who felt they own America because Israel owned the place, used to be more subtle than Abrams. They were careful not to push hard so as not to offend when it came to telling the Americans what to do and how to do it. Apparently, this is no longer the case.

 

Here is an example how the Jews used to do things. You may remember that part of the peace treaty brokered by America between Egypt and Israel, was that Egypt would receive 2.5 billion dollars a year, and Israel would receive 3 billion dollars from the American Treasury. As soon as this was approved, the Tel-Aviv/New-York syndicate for sucking America's blood, got to work on eliminating the Egyptian portion of the deal and doubling that of Israel.

 

The lobbying division of the syndicate started the effort by first trying the usual method of buttonholing the moral prostitutes in the Executive and the Congress. When this failed to yield results, the syndicate asked the Israeli part of Jewish Central to put on a show. All of a sudden, one magical morning, every honcho in Israel, independently discovered that it would be cheaper for Israel to produce its own weapons than getting them free from America. And all of a sudden, the Washington Beltway was buzzing with rumors that America will no longer send 5.5 billion dollars every year to the Middle East.

 

This was the psychological numbing of the American mental process that Jewish Central wanted to achieve as phase one of the operation. When completed, phase two was initiated. It was to use the Jewish forked tongue to speak of eliminating all aid to the Middle East from one side of the mouth, and speak of increasing the aid to Israel from the other side of the mouth. The effort took time to work, but in the end yielded partial results. The payment to Egypt was not eliminated but was reduced. And the aid to Israel was not doubled but was increased.

 

When you contrast the subtlety with which the Jews proceeded in the past, against the blunt approach used by Elliott Abrams today, you realize how much Jewish Central is now taking for granted the obedience of its banana plantation. And so, we must ask this question: What does the Viceroy of the Zionist Empire, Elliott Abrams want the newly installed ruler of his banana plantation, Joe Biden to do now?

 

Well, the following paragraph is a condensed version of the pertinent passage by which Elliott Abrams tells Joe Biden how to conduct America’s foreign policy with regard to the Palestinian issue:

 

“Food and medicine are being provided directly to the Palestinian populace by Catholic Relief Services without any Palestinian Authority (PA) involvement. That's how help for Palestinians should be provided: through reputable NGOs and international organizations and without handing any funds to the PA. The administration should in fact be worrying more about how to help Palestinians and less about rebuilding 'connective tissue' to the PA and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) leadership”.

 

What we see here is Elliott Abrams thinking along the principle that says if you control the finances of a joint, you own the joint. Just like the Jews tried to control America's finances by telling it what kind of a relationship it can have with Egypt; they now try to both maintain the control of America and secure their ownership of it by telling the Biden administration what kind of a financial relationship it can have with the Palestinians.

 

In view of all these realities, the first thing that the Biden administration needs to do to liberate America from this horrific level of Jewish tyranny, is to block every access that Elliott Abrams may have to the State Department, and the other branches of the United States government.

 

Next, using executive orders where applicable, the President should nullify every Jewish-specific resolution in the books. Finally, he should notify Congress it must rescind the laws it passed when the saying in that Jewish sewer used to go like this: moral prostitution for the glory of Israel today, tomorrow and forever.

 

Don't just whisper this to the Congress. Tell it in a public forum and advise that the administration would gladly fight this battle in public should the Jewish members decide it is what they want.

 

My bet is that the Jews will not want to fight in the open because it will be suicidal for them. In the same way that sunshine is an effective disinfectant, so is the idea of an open debate to the Elders of Zion.

It's okay to speculate but don't build on it

 You have a brain that's meant to produce thinking, ideas, speculations, designs, schemes and what have you. Congratulations, you're a human being that's really an animal; but one that's separate and distinct from the other animals by the fact that you have a magnificent brain that can do all those things and more.

 

If we define the termination of life as being the ultimate sin anyone can commit, then most animals, including our species, are bad actors because most of us kill other species to consume, thus insure our own survival. The good thing is that by some mechanism we call instinct, all species have been genetically programmed to avoid killing members of the same species, among other things.

 

Whereas the other animals have dwelt on Planet Earth for about half a billion years before the humans came along, there was not a moment during those years that can be said life on Earth was in danger of extinction because of the instinct to kill came close to suppressing the instinct to survive. Such condition became a reality, however, when we came along and started using our magnificent brain in ways that often take us close to that perilous condition.

 

Aside from all that, the big question is this: How has the addition of a magnificent brain to our physical construct, contributed to turning us into the most dangerous species to ever exist––dangerous even to ourselves? When we think about this question seriously, we find that the brain's contribution to making us what we are today, was never a direct one. It was an indirect contribution in the sense that the brain both amplifies our instincts, and provides us with the ability to turn them off.

 

This brings us to ask the following question: What are the main instincts governing our behavior? The answer is that all the species in existence today, including humans, are here because we are driven by the instinct for self-preservation, reproduction and the nurture of our offspring. What separates the humans from the other species, is that the enhancement brought about by the brain has allowed us to unfurl the instincts, and create several variations of each.

 

To take an example, the instinct of survival for the self has engendered the instinct for the survival of the species. It has also engendered variations we call compassion, empathy, generosity and many others we call attributes. Each culture has a list of what's considered good behavior known as virtues, and what's considered bad behavior known as sins.

 

But the greatest enhancement our brain brought to us, is the ability to imagine the endgame before we embark on a project. We thus have the ability to study the ramifications of a project we wish to realize before we even start it. Upon this, we decide whether or not it will be a good idea to proceed with it. That ability to imagine the future and analyze it, is called “speculation”.

 

And speculation is where both our glory and our decline as human beings, have their roots. We speculate and get excited about encountering other civilizations in the galaxy. But we also speculate and get excited about annihilating a human competitor here on Earth; a competitor that might stand in the way of our chance to monopolize the means guaranteeing our survival.

 

We can see how this is playing out in real life when we study the article that came under the title: “Iranians are looking beyond ayatollahs and the Islamic Republic,” and the subtitle: “Evidence mounts that the captive population that the ayatollahs control is seeking change.” It was written by Ilan Berman and published on March 23, 2021 in The Washington Times.

 

Based on a survey that could not reflect a fraction of what a familiar population may be thinking, Ilan Berman nevertheless came up with an assertive speculation about the desires of a foreign population, and used it to start his article. He wrote this: “What happens when your population wants you out of business? For Iran's ayatollahs, the answer may come soon, as evidence mounts that the population, they control is seeking change.” Imagine the cheekiness!

 

Berman went on to write 600 words of idle speculation aimed at reassuring readers of his ilk that their fantasies about a popular revolt in Iran, and the overthrow of the government there, are about to be realized.

 

Unfortunately, this is the kind of work that has proliferated throughout America. Its authors reflect the eternal wish of those who seek to grab and monopolize the entire pie instead of adding to it so that everyone may have a bigger share.

 

This kind of attitude develops among people like Ilan Berman when the instinct for self-preservation is stimulated by a declining culture, and goes into overdrive.

 

The instinct to kill lest they be killed, takes over from there, and draws on the enhancement energies made available by the brain. Filled with adrenalin, the individual sees nothing but a prey that must be hunted and brought down, and he goes after it till the mission is complete or he dies trying.

 

Iran is not about to disintegrate. The contest between the survival of regimes came and went. Donald Trump pitted his regime against that of the ayatollahs. His regime was brought down and they survived.

 

It is that the natural order of things, has a way to deliver justice, and it did on this occasion.

Indoctrinated in the Mythology of urban Legends

 Did you ever go to an exotic place or do something unusual, and talked about it to a friend that neither went to the place where you went, nor done the unusual thing that you did?

 

If you went through such an experience and thought it was a big moment in your life, imagine what a bigger moment it will be if the friend that never went to the exotic place nor done the unusual thing, looked you in the eyes and said: You may have gone to that place or done this thing, but I truly believe that what you've just described is neither what you saw nor what you did. I am certain of this because I know better even if I did not go to that place nor done the thing you say you did.

 

So, think about it. What do you believe your reaction will be? Would you not be inclined to pick up the phone, call the nearest madhouse and tell them you have one that just flew over the cuckoo's nest?

 

Okay, that's where the fun ends. So now you want to know what this is about. I'll tell you what it's about. It's about Clifford D. May demonstrating the power that urban legends have for creating myths that take on a life of their own and become embedded in the culture. You'll get detail of all this when you read the article that Clifford May wrote under the title: “Why Assad crossed Obama's red line,” and the subtitle: “He calculated, correctly, that he could commit war crimes with impunity.” The article was published on May 23, 2021 in The Washington Times.

 

The paragraph that follows is a condensed version of the article that Clifford May wrote. It is where you'll find the details that lead to the conclusion the urban legends with which Clifford May was indoctrinated while growing up, made him what he is today. It is evident that the legends left such a powerful impression on him, he relies on them to interpret the world, rather than accept the eyewitness account told by others, no matter who they are, and how close they are to him. Here is the condensed text:

 

“This tale is told in Jody Warrick's book. A fine reporter and a talented storyteller, Mr. Warrick details the history of the Syrian civil war. What is in dispute? Whether America's race to destroy Mr. Assad's arsenal of chemical weapons was a success or failure. Before I tell you what Mr. Warrick thinks and what I think, let me sketch out the background. Starting in 2010, the Arab Spring sparked upheavals across much of the Middle East. In 2011, President Obama declared that the time has come for President Assad to step aside. In 2012, Mr. Obama drew a red line. Mr. Assad crossed it. Vladimir Putin brokered an agreement under which the Syrian president promised to surrender his chemical weapons. Despite assurances, Syria failed to give up all its nerve agents. In 2017, Assad again used sarin. He remains in power. Mr. Warrick writes: The disarming of Syria had been a great triumph of multilateralism. Call me a cynic, but the facts and evidence he reveals in his deeply researched and highly readable book do not lead me to that conclusion”.

 

So, there it is. Despite the fact that Clifford May admires Jody Warrick and respects his work, he rejects the Warrick conclusion that disarming Syria of its chemical weapons has been a great triumph. Clifford May rejects that view because to accept it, he'll have to dismiss the urban legends with which he was indoctrinated while growing up. And he will not do that under any circumstance.

 

It seems that unless he personally observes an event, the universe which rose in Clifford May's imagination, and on which he relies to interpret the events he is told about, will not allow him to visualize what others say they saw if what they say does not match what he has in mind. Thus, instead of dismissing the universe of mythology that's in his imagination, Clifford May will dismiss any interpretation that's based on the observation of someone else if it contradicts the urban legends he grew up with. And that’s never healthy.

 

What can be the cause for injecting this kind of attitude in a society?

 

We don't have to go far looking for the reasons why this phenomenon has developed in America, and why it is spreading throughout the society. Just look at the Clifford May article; it’s all there. Ask yourself: What are the topics being discussed? Well, there is the use of chemical weapons in war. There is interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign country. The possibility of confrontation between two superpowers. The destruction of a country. And a refugee problem on a scale that boggles the mind.

 

Yet, with all of this on his plate, what topic did Clifford May choose to elaborate on? None of the above. Instead, he saw a dispute as to whether America's race to destroy Assad's chemical weapons was a success or a failure. In trying to resolve this conundrum, he adopted the Judeo-Yiddish haggling approach whose specialty is to generate a ton a verbiage without moving the discussion one iota towards resolving the conundrum.

 

The truth is that at this stage, America is being pushed down the Judeo-Yiddish tube, and no one is doing anything to rescue it from a very unpleasant fate.

 

It is obvious that the solution to this problem lies in the rejection of the Judeo-Yiddish haggling as a mode of communication. To be effective, such rejection must begin with the media and the politicians.

 

What these folks can do to start the healing process, is swallow their pride and ask the still unspoiled people of academia to help them relearn how to communicate with each other effectively.

Here is a good idea that can be made better

 Shlomo Ben-Ami has put into words ideas that sensible people have been advocating for some time now. That is, to diffuse the tense situation in the Middle East, the powers involved in that game should do first thing first, and then consider the other issues.

 

So, he tells what the first thing ought to be. He says it is for America to drop all sanctions against Iran in return for the latter getting back into compliance with the provisions of the nuclear deal. It's as simple as that.

 

Well, it may be simple to say it, but Ben-Ami recognizes that the events of the last four years have needlessly unfolded in a way that bruised both sides. He accepts that for this reason and maybe others too, each side has developed a group of local hardliners who oppose talking to the other side, let alone hammer a deal with them. And he can imagine that as a result, it will be difficult to achieve the first step.

 

Still, both sides wish to have a deal, says Ben-Ami, because there is no alternative except to maintain the current chaotic situation or contemplate the unthinkable worse –– neither of which is acceptable. Therefore, he predicts that the two sides will reach an understanding, and will find a way to realize that first step.

 

This done, says Shlomo Ben-Ami, the antagonists should then embark on the second step. It is to turn their attention to such matters as Iran's missile program––which scares the immediate neighbors and those further away––and the country's support for militant proxies throughout the region. He foresees a meeting of all the stakeholders in that conflict who will come to discuss these matters, most likely without Israel.

 

The attendees will debate and try to resolve the day-to-day issues preoccupying them at this time, he says. And given that even the oil producing nations, have plans to engage in the construction of nuclear power stations, they might also wish to discuss ways to prevent the proliferation of non-peaceful nuclear uses. In fact, this is an urgent issue that has been on the table for several years but was going nowhere for reasons that will be discussed in a moment.

 

As to Israel, Ben-Ami suggests that it will be left to America to rein-in that most belligerent of entities. To take away any excuse Israel might have to torpedo the efforts made toward peace, Shlomo Ben-Ami urges the Biden administration to look into Israel's real and imagined security concerns, and find ways to alleviate them if need be. This should take into account, most especially, the threats that Israel sees coming from Syria and Lebanon, says Ben-Ami.

 

Will this work? It should because Ben-Ami has made a distinction between the Arab nations and Iran being the side that seeks a peaceful resolution of the issues without placing conditions, and Israel being the side which seeks peace only if it comes attached to out-of-this-world conditions that no one can deliver. It must be that Ben-Ami is aware that as long as Israel can count on America supporting it unconditionally, it will seek to impose impossible conditions on everything so as to maintain the status quo at perpetuity.

 

And so, when you consider the behavior of the Iranians and the Arabs, you'll find these people to be reasonable and pleasant to work with. In fact, Iran did reach an agreement with the P5+1 nations, going about the negotiations the civilized way. As to the Arab countries, they have friendly relations in and out the UN with just about everyone because everybody loves to work with them.

 

This punctures the lie concerning the rumors about the Arabs rejecting the idea of America pivoting out of the Middle East, and warning that this will cause the region to sink into chaos and mayhem. The truth is that as long as America is providing them with a defensive umbrella, they'll consider the superpower a sugar daddy that keeps on giving. They'll welcome him near them till he decides to move on to other tasks.

 

What all this boils down to is that a reasonable America has a good chance to sit with the reasonable Arabs and Iranians, and hammer a solution for the problems of the region. All this can happen provided that America keeps Israel under control and out of the loop.

 

America should then disclose what it knows about the nuclear work that Israel has done since the French gave it a nuclear reactor in the Fifties. This disclosure will open the door for Israel to join the talks, and agree at long last, to make the MENA region free of nuclear weapons.

 

In fact, achieving this milestone, will make it eminently possible for America to negotiate a worldwide non-proliferation treaty, with the approval and cooperation of such countries as North Korea and whomever might be thinking they need the protection of the bomb to guarantee their survival.

 

So then, how can the Biden administration take this idea, make it better, and run with it till it resolves what were thought to be intractable problems of the Middle East that could never be resolved peacefully?

 

The answer to that question is hidden in what Shlomo Ben-Ami has alluded to: The secret lies in restraining wild Israel. Keep that thing under control, and the world will climb in a rising spiral to a more civilized state of existence.

Caught in the quicksand he created for others

 Norman Finkelstein was probably the last human being that the giant monster known as Alan M. Dershowitz has devoured. It looks now like the wicked witch of the deep has lifted the spell she once cast on the monster, and he went back to being the midget he was meant to be and so remain for the rest of his time.

 

Unable to make a name for himself in legal circles, Dershowitz declared himself a friend of Israel and a Human Rights lawyer. He went on to demonstrate what his specialty was by uttering something that sounded like this: Israel has the right to do to the Palestinians anything and everything that someone has done to anyone throughout history and throughout the expanse of the planet. In other words, he meant to say that anything Hitler did, Israel can do in spades; not to mention other names like Stalin, Mussolini and so on.

 

Alan Dershowitz soon discovered that it was no longer a good idea to bash the already battered Palestinians, which he did in the mistaken belief that the approach would help promote Israel, the very entity that was battering the Palestinians. He reasoned that the enemies of Israel were the people who could think for themselves and were not afraid to speak their mind. Having determined they were the learned people of academe he went after them. He scored a few successes, but had many failures as well. Unfortunately, one of his successes was to have Norman Finkelstein denied tenure at his university.

 

In time, the machinations of Alan Dershowitz resulted in two opposite legacies which are now playing an important role in the cultural war that's sweeping the United Sates. His work gave rise to a student right-wing movement on the campuses of the nation even if he pretended to be a liberal. In turn, that movement caused the rise to a student left-wing movement that countered it. And the battle between the two camps spilled over to the rest of society.

 

Guess what happened next that should not surprise you but did surprise him bitterly. It happened that the one-sided crusade he once led against the Palestinians, has reversed itself and gone against Israel. This is what prompted Dershowitz to complain in an article he wrote under the title: “Should Anything Be Off-Limits to Debate and Discuss?” It was published on March 20, 2021 on the website of the Gatestone Institute.

 

Here is how Alan Dershowitz reported the effects of the reversal:

 

“There are several exceptions to the cancel culture rule. You can say almost anything negative about Jews, as evidenced by the recent Grammy awards, during which three overt anti-Semites were honored. These bigots did not even try to disguise their anti-Semitism behind the facade of anti-Zionism. They accused 'the Jews' of promoting white supremacy. They denied the right of the Jewish people to national liberation. They showed support for Farrakhan who calls Judaism a 'gutter religion,' and blames them for the slave trade”.

 

That's a reversal alright, but what was the reversal about to begin with? Well, it's a bit tricky to answer this question, but let's give it a try.

 

There was an original set of circumstances representing what the Jews were doing and was annoying society at large. Then came the reversal, which the society embraced and used to give the Jews a taste of their own medicine. And so, when you read about the reversal, which is lamented by Dershowitz, you'll know what the original set of circumstances must have been. So, here is the Dershowitz lament:

 

“The fact that we even have to ask these questions demonstrates the precarious state of freedom of speech and the marketplace of ideas in the cancel culture which is quickly becoming the American culture. Professors are being fired for private discussions of grades and race. Students are terrified of expressing politically incorrect views, especially about race, sex, sexual orientation and even politics. Even silence is not always an option. An adjunct professor at Georgetown law school was suspended and pressured to resign for not criticizing a fellow professor who bemoaned grade disparity based on race. His sin: Bystander complicity”.

 

You must have guessed that the originators of what Dershowitz calls the “cancel culture,” were the Jews themselves, chief among them Alan Dershowitz. In fact, he has done more than anyone to cancel good people (including Jews such as Finkelstein) who did not see eye to eye with him concerning the Jewish theft of Palestine or the treatment of the Palestinian people by armed losers that pour into the West Bank from around the world, claiming to be indigenous to a land where no ancestor of theirs ever set foot.

 

Not only did Alan Dershowitz do all the things he accuses others of doing, he continues to do those things as a matter of habit without thinking about it. You say you want proof? Look at the article he wrote and we’re discussing. And judge for yourself:

 

“These bigots did not disguise their anti-Semitism. They accused the Jews of promoting white supremacy. They denied the right of the Jewish people to national liberation. They showed support for Farrakhan who blames the Jews for the slave trade”.

 

There was a time when words like these would have canceled the meek and the powerful. It is no longer the case, but that doesn’t mean the battle is over. There is still work to do in a society where a school principal can be fired for saying he cannot attest to an event he knows little or nothing about, as it happened in Florida not long ago.

 

Oh yes, that event happens to be the Holocaust. So, let Alan Dershowitz write an article demanding that the Florida principal be reinstated and fully compensated for what he was put through. Only then, will Alan Dershowitz have redeemed himself enough to write about the subject with authority.

The four-Year Vacation that exposed a Myth

 You go on a vacation and return to your house after four years only to see that it has been wrecked. You find evidence that your neighbor must have been visiting it in your absence and so, you go see him to inquire as to what he knows about what happened.

 

You question him but realize he is evading answering you directly, and you conclude that he had something to do with the wrecking of your house. After all, he never liked the idea of you modernizing it, replacing old fixtures with new ones and always being first to bring to the house what new innovations come to market.

 

You tell him of your suspicion about his role in wrecking your house, and he confesses. To defend himself, he repeats the old arguments he used to make about your front door looking too futuristic, your windows reflecting too much light instead of absorbing it, your kitchen containing unnecessary appliances, and your bathroom looking like you spent a Pentagon budget on it.

 

You tell him that's none of his business. You had good reasons to want a modern home, you gave yourself one, and he had no right wrecking it. You are determined to rebuild it and make it look the way it did before you went on vacation, if not look even more modern than before. He criticizes your thinking on the grounds that things have changed so much in the last four years, you cannot go back to the status quo ante because things will no longer fit together the way they did years ago.

 

To buttress his arguments, he points to the front door and says what was futuristic years ago is now obsolete. He points to the windows and says that today's Plexiglas absorbs light instead of reflecting it. He points to the kitchen and says that instead of one appliance for every task, new appliances perform many tasks. He points to the bathroom and says that new gadgets allow for the saving of water and energy like never before. You tell him to get lost and never go near your house again.

 

As crazy as that metaphor may sound, it closely reflects what two inmates of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA) came up with lately. To elaborate on what they have in mind, they wrote an article under the title: “The US must not rejoin the Iran nuclear deal,” written by Eric Edelman and Jonathan Ruhe. It was published on March 21, 2021 in The Washington Examiner.

 

To add substance to your perspective, it is worth recalling that the JINSA is the madhouse where, not long ago, the inmates were calling on America to give Israel more than 20 billion dollars in cash, give the little fart enough military hardware to sink it into the Mediterranean Sea, and give it the most advanced technological innovations it could give to China in return for the latter letting the Jewish little nothing, participate in the mega projects that China is implementing in the developing world.

 

What Edelman and Ruhe want now is that the Joe Biden administration abandon the idea of returning to the Iran nuclear deal. They say that if there were good reasons to enter into such a deal in the past, those reasons have now vanished because of the wrecking that people like the JINSA did to the deal, giving destructive advice as they did to the Trump administration during the four years that it was in power.

 

Knowing that their desires will never be fulfilled, Eric Edelman and Jonathan Ruhe end their article by advising the Joe Biden administration to toughen its stance, thus force Iran into a new deal that's more favorable to Israel. But if this will never happen, and instead of cracking, Iran will get even stronger as it has done during the reign of Donald Trump, what do the JINSA inmates expect to accomplish?

 

To answer that question, it must be said that the Jews do not expect to accomplish a goal with every scheme they cook up. They have a vision of a preordained ultimate goal that was chosen for them by God thousands of years ago. It is to own the entire planet and all its content. What the Jews are required to do is examine every act that might carry weight, and ask themselves: Is it good for the Jews in the sense that it will serve the ultimate goal toward which they all work? If the answer is yes, they go ahead and do the act no matter what the consequences will be in the short term … be that a pogrom, a holocaust or whatever.

 

Note that the question: Is it good for the Jews? is what they used to ask before the creation of Israel. Whereas they may, once in a while still ask that question now, they are more likely to ask: Is it good for Israel? If the answer is yes, they'll do it even in the face of mounting resentment to their behavior in America, and most everywhere else in the world.

 

In fact, the existence of Israel encourages the Jews to do the things they were inhibited from doing previously because they believe they now have a place to which they can run and be protected if their behavior causes another pogrom or holocaust.

 

What the self-appointed Jewish leaders do not realize in all of this, is that thanks to the nonsense of the Trump era, a good part of the Jewish rank-and-file no longer believes in the promise of an ultimate reward.

 

In fact, more and more ordinary Jews are choosing to live the ordinary life than bask in the false promise of a mythical tomorrow that will turn them into kings, queens, princes and princesses meant to reign over an obedient humanity of domestic servants who will work solely to please the Jewish masters.

The Tenacity of Iran Defeats Jewish Tyranny

 A long, long time ago, when I was a teenager living in the old country, I used to watch American movies because they were entertaining. They included the Western movies which might be objectionable in the woke era during which we now live, but were not at the time.

 

Because they all looked the same, I have a difficult time telling which scene –– that pops to mind once in a while –– belonged to which plot. The effect is that the impression with which I now live, is that of seeing one long Western movie that streamed for several years. And this lends credibility to the saying that goes: You've seen one, you've seen them all.

 

Amid all of this tumult, however, there is one scene that left such a profound impression on me, it often pops to mind as I follow the news events of the day. I cannot remember to which plot it belonged or who the actors were. The scene said something about man's inhumanity to man, and this is why I cannot forget it. The scene is that of a man, carrying a gun, catching another man in the middle of an arid desert, and tying him to the trunk of a shriveled tree. They are both extremely hot and thirsty.

 

The one with the gun pulls out a bottle of water from the bag, giving the other guy the impression that he'll be getting a sip to quench his thirst. But that's not what happens. What happens is that the gunman takes a drink, pours some water over his head and face, and throws the bottle with some water still in it. He thus adds to the suffering of the other guy. What can be more cruel than this?

 

That scene popped to my mind when I read the article that came under the title: “Iran probably Already Has the Bomb. Here's What to Do about it,” and the subtitle: “We can start by figuring out how to defend ourselves.” It was written by James Woolsey, William Graham, Henry Cooper, Fritz Ermarth and Peter Vincent Pry –– five of the group of men who are supposed to know the most about America's defenses and those of its allies.

 

It becomes clear early on, as you start reading the article, what the five authors are trying to do. Having always been among the most hawkish opponents of Iran, but getting nowhere advocating armed confrontation with that country, they still want to express their true feeling, but without tuning out their readers. To that end, they came up with the idea of asserting as much as possible, the notion that Iran is already a nuclear power, without advocating that it be bombed to the Stone Age.

 

They know that bombing Iran is what several American presidents sort of promised they would do, having said that all options were on the table for when Iran proves to have the bomb. And so, what the five authors did, was take the readers up to the edge of credulity, and let them decide the inevitable, which is that Iran must have the bomb and lying about it.

 

It is a clever debating technique, but not without danger. Look what the five authors were forced to do in order to reinforce the assertion that Iran has the bomb, and that it must be bombed before it bombs its neighbors and perhaps bomb America too. Here is the pertinent passage: “Contrary to mainstream thinking, Iran can build sophisticated nuclear weapons by relying on component testing, without nuclear testing. The US, Israel, Pakistan and India have all used the component-testing approach”.

 

They, who know so much about the armament of America’s allies, have just confirmed that Israel has the bomb. True or false, on the humanitarian side of things –– to the people that value the liberal-democratic principle of equality for all –– the stance of the authors that Israel can have the bomb and not Iran, is offensive. It indicates the willingness to use American power and prestige to shower one man and serve him with a cool drink, while letting another man die of heat and thirst.

 

It gets worse when you look at that situation from the logical point of view. The quandary in which America finds itself today with regard to nuclear proliferation and disarmament, began with the Jewish insatiable hunger to have their cake and eat it too. That is, they say one thing from one side of the mouth, and the opposite thing from the other side. They pull one prong of their forked tongue out one side and lick the cake. And they pull the other prong out the other side of the mouth and eat the cake.

 

Whereas this was yummy as far as the Jews are concerned, they left it to the Americans to enforce the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, bombing even innocent Iraq to prove the point. And while this was happening, the Americans were also torpedoing efforts by Middle Eastern countries to keep their region free of nuclear weapons. But why would the Americans do this, you ask? They did it and continue to do it, to allow Israel to have it both ways under a regime of ambiguity that has become synonymous with Jewish intellectual fraud and American moral debasement.

 

The good news is that the world is beginning to come out of that morass, and we all have the Iranians to thank for it. They endured unimaginable pain, and in the end, triumphed over the forces of evil, thus reaffirmed that no matter the size of the dark force which are pitted against the human spirit, humanity never succumbs to evil.

How the Congress was turned into a Butcher's Cleaver

 Say you work for a company, and you have a dispute with one of the managers. You discuss the matter with him, but cannot resolve the issues separating you. What do you do?

 

The correct thing to do is to see a lawyer who will write a letter to the company, or directly to the manager and make demands. He'll end the letter by asking the addressee to act accordingly, failing which he'll have no alternative but to seek legal remedies on your behalf. This is to say the lawyer will warn he'll sue if the other party does not respond favorably.

 

Whereas the warning may sound like a threat, it does not rise to that level. However, what can be construed as an illegal threat, would be you threatening to sue the manager while going through a fit of anger, instead of going to a lawyer. If there is evidence that you threatened the manager –– such as a CCTV footage –– you can be held liable for threatening someone. You must therefore never go too far warning of legal action because you could give an easy case to your opponent.

 

Do the Jews know that? Of course, they do. But do they refrain from breaking the law? Are you kidding? These people thrive on breaking the law. They think they are above it, and consider breaking it to be the prerogative they alone have. Their proof is that they do it all the time and get away with it, which to them means that society has accepted their claim for the privilege.

 

Because the Jews breaking the law has become such a routine occurrence, nobody tries to document the instances when this happens. At the international level, however, the United Nations should have a record of all the times that the General Assembly and the Security Council have reprimanded Israel for breaking the law. But there too, the problem is that Israel literally gets away with murder thanks to the veto that's exercised by the United States time after time no matter the gravity of Israel’s crimes.

 

Closer to home, you have agents of the Jewish organizations going on national television here in Canada, and threatening to sue any Arab who continues to believe that Zionism is a form of racism. Another incident that was brought to my attention is that of the Polish publisher of a small ethnic newspaper, who wrote something the Jews did not like. The police dragged the man out of his office, took him to the station where he was met by a thing calling itself a prosecutor, and threatened with criminal charges if he exercised his right to freely speak his mind ever again. This is the quality of our so-called democracy.

 

There is no doubt this kind of stuff is happening in America as well. But America being America, you must expect that privileging the Jews has gone much farther than anywhere else. It involves much more than the security apparatus entrapping innocent Muslims, which is a frequent occurrence in that country. But the bone chilling part is that things have gone as far as using the US Congress to chop the human rights of citizens like a butcher uses a cleaver to mince a lump of meat.

 

A notorious example is that of the Palestinian televangelist who committed the crime of being so charismatic, Americans took to him by the millions. The Jewish organizations became so alarmed, they found a human looking skunk that was biologically programmed to be a total prostitute, so he ran for Congress and was elected to be American legislator. The Jews had him go on the air and threaten to investigate the Palestinian man of the cloth; and this was enough to cancel his ministry. The pastor was never seen again.

 

So, you ask how else the US Congress is used beyond the usual politics of moral prostitution, to commit the crime of threatening the citizens of America in such a way as to serve the Jews and/or Israel, their cherished pet project? This is a good question, and you'll find the answer in an article that came under the title: “Investigate Frontier Airlines for anti-Semitism,” written by Melissa Braunstein and published on March 17, 2021 in The Washington Examiner.

 

The story she is telling is that of Hasidic Jews getting on a plane and disregarding the rules and laws pertaining to the pandemic, the way they disregarded them in New York and caused numerous deaths that were avoidable in their own community and outside of it. The Jews were asked to wear a mask or leave the plane. When they refused to do either, the police were called, and they escorted the Jews off the plane.

 

Case closed? It would have been if these were not Jews. But they were; and so, guess what happened next. It literally became a federal case when the Jewish would-be passengers complained to a Jewish State Senator who wrote to a Jewish Federal Senator asking him to have the Congress investigate the case.

 

Whatever the Congress decides to do is secondary to being seized by a frivolous case that has gained notoriety by virtue of being about Jews.

 

More important that all of this, is to think what will happen in such cases if America were to adopt the Jewish definition of anti-Semitism. Think about that while reading the Melissa Braunstein article.

 

Ask yourself, how many charges of anti-Semitism would a Jewish lawyer want to throw at the airline and its employees for doing their job? How much compensation the Jews will get for being spoiled brats. And who will ultimately pay for all that?

Back to the reconquest of a reformed America

 For a time, those of us that had come to North America from a different culture, were amazed at the absolute certainty with which the local politico-journalistic dudes talked about cultures they knew nothing about.

 

They were describing those cultures in terms that came nowhere near reflecting a true image of them. We knew this much because in describing those cultures, they were describing us, and we were nothing like they said we were.

 

While this process was amazing to us, it was not shocking because we eventually realized that we too were suffering from an ailment known as stereotyping those whom we knew little or nothing about. In fact, it took time for us to adapt to the culture into which we had come, before we were fully assimilated.

 

None of that was shocking till something else happened that shocked us. It was a serious dispute that had erupted in the Middle East. For a while, the politico-journalistic dudes behaved normally towards us, asking questions to be informed while treating us as they did friends and neighbors. But then things changed gradually for the worse. Those who used to see us as human beings of a different but equally valid culture, began to treat us as aliens from another world; one that was incompatible with life on Earth.

 

It did not take us long to find out what was happening. It is that the Jews over here who said they were kinfolks with the Jews over there, had gone behind our backs telling false and slanderous stories about us to the politico-journalistic dudes and to anyone that cared to listened to them. The Jews were so experienced playing this dirty game––having practiced it for centuries––we discovered that they were describing us by what they saw was reprehensible in themselves.

 

That is, the Jews had convinced the locals that instead of adapting to life here, we brought with us the disputes we were having with Jews over there, when in reality they were the ones that brought with them the baggage they had been accumulating for thousands of years. In fact, that's what they did everywhere they went around the globe, and were savagely punished for it.

 

Here they were who lived in their own districts, having their own markets and community centers, whereas we lived scattered throughout the city, striving as best we could to become a part of the larger community –– and they accused us of being them, while attributing to themselves the qualities they saw in us. This was such a stunning stance, we didn't know how to combat it at first. What made the matter even worse, was that due to that cowardly accusation, in addition to a few more false accusations they leveled against us, we were canceled five decades before that word came in vogue.

 

Kneecapped and prevented from getting into the marketplace of ideas to share our views, we saw a five-decade-long horror movie played out by the Jews without pushback by us or anyone else. However, because most of us had come from ancient cultures, and having lived with sayings that spoke of the bad never engendering the good, we knew that what the Jews were playing, will not do anyone any good, but will ultimately result in doing to the local dudes what the Jews were doing to us. In other words, we foresaw that the Jews were going to bite the hands that fed them.

 

We saw the sordid story unfold in North America over a five-decade-period as the existing sociopolitical life that was bonding the society together, began to melt like a cube of ice on a warm day. Fortunately, however, whereas the political dudes continue to live with a mentality that allows them to take Benjamins from the lobbyists with one hand and take instructions on how to run the country with the other hand –– the general public has swung enough to the side of commonsense as to demand that reform be instituted.

 

This is why the Jews, who are not giving up, have adopted a new strategy. Well, to be accurate, the strategy is not really new because it is a revived version of what was there before the Jews started the conquest of America. You can see for yourself what's happening in this realm when you go over the article that came under the title: “US makes another attempt at an Afghanistan agreement,” and the subtitle: “Secretary of State Antony Blinken is on the right track,” written by Abraham Wagner and published on March 15, 2021 in the Washington Times.

 

Those of us who are old enough to remember how things were more than half a century ago, do recall a time when the Jews wrote articles that took no sides. They were pieces that described situations as the writers saw them, a style of writing that gave the readers the chance to formulate their own opinions. And you know what, my friend? Breaking his own style, Abraham Wagner has adopted that revived style for this occasion. But what does that say?

 

It says that the Jews are now gearing themselves to start a new offensive aimed at reconquering the America they feel they are in the process of losing. You'll be convinced of that when you compare the way that Wagner used to write against the way he wrote his latest article. This is especially true in the way that he ended the article.

 

See for yourself for, here is that ending: “Afghanistan is a failed state, and the US cannot remain there for another 20 years. The current effort is certainly a heroic one, but those undertaking it understand what the risks and results might be”.

 

Whereas Wagner realizes that America has changed, he fails to see that the more his kind will push for the reconquest of America, the more people like us will oppose them and stop them in their tracks because we now have the means to do it.