What to do and what to avoid doing

 Good or bad relations among individuals, organizations or countries – develop not by chance but by design that can be the deliberate building of bridges with the “other” or can be the result of neglecting to do so. Of the two real situations discussed here, one shows how America did well handling its foreign policy, an example that must be repeated. The other shows how America did badly, an example that must be avoided.

 

Look and take note of the difference between the titles of two opinion pieces published recently. One title goes like this: “Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman means to transform the Kingdom,” and the other goes like this: “What the US must do to help the next wave of Iran protesters”.

 

The first piece was written by Clifford D. May, and published on September 27, 2022 in The Washington Times. It tells of a happy story that’s unfolding in Saudi Arabia, and can be used to build on, thus achieve more glowing successes. By contrast, the second story—unfolding in Iran and written by Jason Rezaian of Iranian descent—tells of a sad story that calls for American intervention to rectify the situation. The piece was published two days later, on September 29, 2022 in The Washington Post.

 

Why did the relationship that America has with Iran not develop the way it did with Saudi Arabia? Had this been the case, the World, the Middle East and America would be in a different place today. In fact, this is where the world was during the reign of the Shah. That situation lasted a short period of time even after the onset of the Islamic Revolution that toppled him. But then, something happened that reversed the trend. What was it?

 

What happened was something that had roots in the distant past. It was the playing out of the Jewish dream to establish a base in Palestine and expand it to dominate the region by joining with outside forces and working to maintain the Mideastern neighbors in a permanent state of underdevelopment. This put the Jews on a head-on collision with Islam. However, confident that their relationship with the “outside forces” will not change because of the antics of Jews, the Muslim Arab countries that had the oil America could not do without, did not react to the Jewish tricks. As to the reaction of Iran, it was a different story.

 

Managing an Islamic Revolution that was still fragile and vulnerable to interference by outside forces, Muslims guarding the Iranian Revolution responded tit for tat to the Jewish tricks that were clearly meant to destabilize what the Iranians were building. The Jews who could not work on Iran alone, dragged America into the fray, and created the situation we see unfold in the region today.

 

For the reader to begin formulating an idea as to how revolting the Jewish tricks can be, look at the following passage, which is a condensed compilation of excerpts from the Jason Rezaian article:

 

“With the possibility that this wave of resistance will be put down, the US needs to help the next ones. First, reimagine the role of special presidential envoy for Iranian affairs, a high-level position that has never been well utilized. The envoy should be the nerve center for all issues related to Iran — engaging with the Iranian diaspora community, a powerful constituency and source of the kind of granular human intelligence that is lacking after 43 years without US-Iran diplomatic ties. Allowing for a flow of dissidents to resettle in the US and streamlining the process for them to continue their work would be an easy way to increase our understanding of the issues facing in-country Iranians. Leading Iran voices in the US government and analyst world haven’t been to the country in years — or ever. There is a fountain of knowledge from people with on-the-ground experience that will go untapped if new arrivals are too busy battling the bureaucracy. That pool of knowledgeable dissidents will only grow: In 2009, many exiled residents sought refuge in the US, and that is likely to happen again. And once dissidents settle here, the government and policy institutions should convene them to help establish a course for the future of our Iran policy”.

 

Do you see why this can be revolting to the Iranian Revolutionaries? If you’re not sure, think of the American defectors who go abroad and betray their country by divulging secret information to a foreign power — such as happened when a cybersecurity expert defected to Russia taking gigabytes of secrets with him, and being granted Russian citizenship for his troubles. These people are hated more than the devil – and recruiting them by a foreign power, is reviled more than the plague itself.

 

You know what, my friend? This is the tool that the Jews planted in the American foreign policy tool box. It is the one America has been using for a while – what many countries, including Iran, deeply resent, thus view America with contempt for stooping this low to achieve its own ambitions and those dictated to it by the local Jews who work on behalf of Israel.

 

Recalling that America’s policy in the Middle East was fashioned by the outfit that Clifford D. May had founded under the puzzling name “Foundation for the Defense of Democracies,” you’ll find it ironic that he should be the one to write the glowing article about Saudi Arabia. Here are the relevant excerpts:

 

“The last time I visited Saudi Arabia was in February 2017. Changes were occurring. Four months later, Saudi King appointed his favorite son crown prince. Since then, the baby steps have become leaps and bounds. Most visible: In 2018, the prohibition on Saudi women driving cars was lifted. Today, it’s common to see women behind the wheel — stuck in Riyadh traffic alongside men but, also like men, on their way to work. On The Boulevard — an outdoor mall in Riyadh featuring elegant restaurants, high-end stores, fitness centers, hotels, fountains and sculptures — veiled and unveiled women peacefully coexist and both mingle freely with members of the opposite sex. There are no ‘morality police’ as there are in Iran. ‘To cover or not is now a matter of free choice,’ one Saudi woman told me. Many of the briefers at the government ministries I visit are women — smart, educated and confident”.

 

The exposed reality in all of this, is that America’s foreign policy in the Middle East, has been monopolized by the Jews of America and those of Israel. The misguided policy is hemorrhaging both America’s standing in the world and its finances too. It makes it so that the ultimate losers in this deal, are the American people whose leaders sell them cheaply to line their pockets with what can only be considered blood money.

A bizarre editorial even by NY Post standard

 The editors of the New York Post began their September 26, 2022 editorial by telling their readers that a new report, “from a watchdog group dedicated to calling out anti-Semitism,” reveals the ugly depth of anti-Semitism at elite colleges and universities in New York.

 

Speaking of antisemitism’s rise, and without naming the report or telling who wrote it, the Post editors passionately endorsed its content by offering this unequivocal remark: “Sadly, this surprises no one”.

 

In fact, the title that the editors chose for their piece of work says the following: “Damning report on Jew-hatred at NYC colleges reveals left’s ugly anti-Semitic core,” which alerts the reader to the reality that the mention of antisemitism in this context, points to a Right-versus-Left struggle in which the rightwing editors use the events they describe as cudgel to beat up on their leftwing opponents. In reality, the effort concerns not human rights – it’s all about crass politics.

 

But what is it that the editors pretend does not surprise them anyway? Here it is in their words:

 

“Jewish students on campuses, per the report, feel the need to hide both their Jewish identity and their support for Israel — as though they were living not in 21st century New York but Nazi Germany or the USSR”. 

 

No, ye, editors of the New York Post. It is not “as though they were living in Nazi Germany or the USSR”; it is as though they were Arabs living in Judeo-Fascist North America during the 1960s and 1970s.

 

At a time when we, citizens of Arab descent, lived under a torrential rain of visceral-stirring hatred fabricated by the master-producers and disseminators of visceral hate, we did not have a single media outlet through which to regularly or even occasionally express our point of view, or respond to the Jews.

 

The handful of writers among us who managed to have a letter to the editor published, were visited in their homes by Gestapo-like Jewish organizations that warned they will be “cancelled” if they continue to exercise their democratic right of speaking truth to power. And the Jews fulfilled their Satanic warning decade after decade after decade. My blacklisting is an example of that.

 

In addition, the difference in comportment between us then and the Jews now, are numerous. For one thing, we did not hide our ethnicity or our support for what we knew were the right causes. We maintained our dignity despite the fact that every rat sucking up to the boss in every media outlet owned by Jews, and every outlet that was still independent – came down on our heads with a sledge hammer.

 

Those rodents did so, not because they thought we were evil; they did it to please the Jew nearby as well as the distant ones they hoped were hearing them from afar. Contrast this situation with that of today where the airwaves are saturated with praises for the accomplishments that the “Godly” Jews never even realized, and you’ll know that what we suffered at the hands of Jews was infinitely more painful than what the Jews say they suffer at the hands of today’s benevolent society. To mimic the rabbis of the time: You just can’t compaaaare!

 

What makes the editorial of the NY Post a bizarre creation, is the fact that its creators are falsely blaming the non-existent suffering of the Jews on the pillars that make their editorial as well as all other editorials and opinion pieces, possible. This would be “freedom of speech” as defined in the First Amendment of the American Bill of Rights.

 

These editors claim that being journalists, they are proud of the fact they hear all sides of every story, go from there to filter out what’s irrelevant from what is, thus give their readers a succinct yet complete version of every situation they cover. But then, what do they do? Here is what the editors of the Post did:

 

“The hostility to Jews found in New York’s educational institutions stretches from Columbia President Lee Bollinger’s 2007 invitation to Iran’s then-President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the 2022 CUNY School of Law commencement address by Nerdeen Kiswani, who is a top figure at an organization devoted to the eradication of Israel. And the American left’s political superstars — Reps. Rashida Tlaib, AOC, Ilhan Omar, and others — have helped legitimate the hate. Omar famously invoked an anti-Semitic trope in attacking US pro-Israel groups; Tlaib’s even more nakedly anti-Semitic, asserting recently, ‘You cannot claim to hold progressives values yet back Israel’s apartheid government’ and working with a Holocaust-denying fund-raiser. Morally hideous, without question. But the real horror is just how unsurprising it’s all become”.

 

These editors have it so backward, they don’t even realize they are a major contributor to the situation they complain about. In fact, to depend on them in solving the question of antisemitism, is like depending on a hungry fox to guard the henhouse.

 

What they will manage to do in the short and long terms, is aggravate a situation that will continue to deepen till something breaks. No one can predict what that will consist of, all that can be said is that the unsustainable will yield to the inevitable, and anything can happen.

The sort of wise failure that will save America

 Bobby Miller of National Review Online wrote an article that was published on November 23, 2022 under the title: “University of Vermont Fails to Confront Antisemitism on Campus”.

 

Miller sought to establish his neutrality in this matter at the start of his discussion, and so he began it as follows: “Far too often, charges of antisemitism have been used as a cudgel to silence those who are critical of the Jewish State’s policies. Those concerned about informal censorship regimes, should be wary of this trend. However, there are times when the difference between legitimate criticism and actual prejudice is revealed. One such example has emerged in Vermont”.

 

Miller called the example he is about to describe “outright xenophobia,” and proceeded to tell of students who were throwing stones at the Jewish student-life center on campus. Without telling how the Jews were responding to such acts or what happened that caused the skirmish to start between the two groups of students, Bobby Miller went on to tell the rest of the story as follows: When asked to cease their behavior, one of the perpetrators asked the person beseeching their goodwill, “Are you Jewish?”

 

And this was enough for Bobby Miller of National Review Online to reach a conclusion as to what the incident has revealed. This done, he accused the University of Vermont of ignoring what he deemed to be a serious occurrence. Here is what he wrote: “There’s no way that this can be construed as anything other than explicit antisemitism. Yet the school refuses to acknowledge what’s happening.

 

At this point, I feel compelled to do something I don’t like doing: talk about my experience living in a society whose English language I learned as an adult. I piled the language on top of something like half a dozen other languages and dialects I had to learn while growing up in many parts of the world in the midst of cultures that communicated in disparate languages and accents.

 

During the 58 years or so that I have been in Canada, I lived something like 200,000 waking hours during which time I was asked “Where I was from” or I was the one to quietly wonder – perhaps once every hour – from where someone I had encountered by chance or seen on television could be.

 

Some people even ventured to guess – based on my looks or my (barely detectable) accent – that I must be from Southern Europe or Central Asia or even a Jew. To satisfy their curiosity, others asked if I spoke Urdu, or Greek or Portuguese or whatever. As to my own curiosity, I satisfied it by asking others: “What kind of a name is this?” Or I ran to my computer and entered the name of a television contributor to determine if what they say had something to do with who they were, or what motivates them.

 

Such habits come to us naturally because in this part of the world, we live in the multilingual Tower of Babble where confusion often happens because the intent behind what is said can vary from one culture to another even when the translation is done by experts. So, imagine what goes on in your subconscious mind when, for example, you’re trying to determine on the spot what a used car salesman is saying to you, or if you should trust him. This does not make you a racist; it is just the way we are made.

 

Still, whereas no one has ever complained for being asked where he or she may be from, the Jews found a way to make that question a cause célèbre by taking their case to the regular media where they bashed a university to their hearts’ content. They did so pretending they suffered immensely, and complaining that the university did nothing to alleviate their pain or take measures that would rectify a situation no one but the fanatic Jews, believes even exists.

 

Here, in condensed form, is how Bobby Miller scolded the University of Vermont, calling the statement issued by its administrator an affront to the Jewish community at UVM and a shunting of the administration’s basic institutional responsibility:

 

“Rather than denouncing and combating antisemitism on campus, the university’s president, has rejected criticism of his leadership as an uninformed narrative, saying that there is no doubt antisemitism exists in the world and, despite our best efforts in our community. He called out those guilty of exploitation of fear and divisiveness who are advancing false claims that UVM failed to respond to complaints of antisemitic behavior for creating confusion and a sense of insecurity for the entire community”.

 

To witch Bobby Miller responded as follows:

 

“Imagine if any other group had experienced this sort of violence. The university‘s response would be swift and decisive. But in 2022, Jew-hatred, along with contempt for anyone who is conservative-leaning, is the only socially acceptable form of intolerance in liberal circles. Until that changes, UVM and the rest of academia will continue to be a hostile environment for the People of the Book”.

 

In addition to what Bobby Miller wrote and opined, you need to know that he provided a link to another opinion piece written by Jackson Richman and published two days earlier under the title: “The University of Vermont should lose federal funding over antisemitism scandal”.

 

So that’s what it’s all about. It is one more attempt mounted by the Jewish cabal to work on achieving full control over America’s finances, thus turn the Republic into a Jewish fiefdom that will exist for the sole purpose of serving Israel and only Israel.

A simple question to unfurl a complex problem

 What’s the difference between segregation and apartheid? The answer is zero difference. In fact, the two words are synonyms, and they mean the same thing.

 

They mean the practice of singling-out one or more groups of people, and keeping them apart from the rest of society. This used to happen in South Africa, the United States of America and Australia as recently as the twentieth century where only a token handful of the separated groups were “integrated” in government jobs to hide the reality of segregation or apartheid. However, despite the fact that the practice has since been outlawed in these places, individuals and groups in the societies continue to this day keeping themselves distant from the ones they once considered unworthy of their company.

 

In a manner that’s even more defiant and glaring, the practice of segregated apartheid continues to take place in Jewish occupied Palestine where the indigenous Palestinian people are discriminated against both practically and legally. All of that happens at a time when everyone else, such as the Jews from every race and ethnicity – who settle in the properties they steal from the Palestinians – are allowed to pursue normal lives in the land they renamed Israel. The settlers are even protected by an American financed and equipped army of occupation that’s trained to shoot first and ask questions later.

 

Why is it important to know all of this?

 

You’ll understand why it’s important to know when you’ll have read the piece that came under the title: “Tlaib’s anti-Israel slander shows just how far Democrats have strayed,” an editorial in the New York Post that was published on September 22, 2022.

 

What to make of this? What to make of an editorial board that screams its head off discussing the worldwide rise in antisemitism – which the board attributes, at least in part, to the situation in occupied Palestine – but then turns around and falsely accuses Rep. Rashida Tlaib, an American legislator of Palestinian descent of slandering Israel for doing nothing more than draw attention to what the entire world has observed and continues to disprove of by displaying an antisemitic contempt that leaves no room for the Jews to misinterpret or think of as being something else.

 

Well then, unable to make sense of the editors’ stance, we must stop searching for a logical explanation as to what may be going on inside the heads of those editors. This leaves us with the only alternative of having to think in terms of politics, that magical place where alternative realities are spawned at will to replace the factual realities when the latter contradict the preconceived ideas that Jewish propagandists continually plant in the heads of the political elites they brainwash, mesmerize and hypnotize.

 

The first thing we need to do is make sure to refrain from swallowing in whole or in part the talking points crafted by those seasoned propagandists. After all, these people work to project an image of Israel as being a normal country when that concoction is anything but a country, much less a normal one. Here is an example of a talking point: “Arab Israelis serve in the Knesset and government.” So did the token African Americans in the United States, and the indigenous people in Australia and South Africa … and yet, apartheid and segregation did more than coexist with such deception; they thrived.

 

In addition to rejecting their disinformation, we must look at the Jewish propagandists in the face and call them liars when they say things like this: “Israel welcomes people of all faiths and backgrounds.” Yes, it is true that Israel welcomes tourist money and those who bring it, spend it and leave. But Israel does not take in non-Jews to become landed immigrants or settlers in the stolen territories.

 

Turning to the magical world of politics, here is what we encounter in the editorial of the New York Post:

 

“The latest anti-Israel slur highlights how far Democrats have strayed. Today, Tlaib is one of several Dems who push for its demise. Then again, Tlaib might be right that you can’t count yourself among ‘progressives’ today unless you oppose Israel. Progressive Dems who hate the Jewish state (and Jews?) backed a Tlaib resolution to describe Israel’s founding as a catastrophe. Yes, some Democrats did criticize Tlaib’s slander. But their leaders — President Joe Biden and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, most notably — have been far too quiet. In the past, Pelosi and even Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer have stood up for Tlaib who lives in fantasy-land. Time was when Democrats wouldn’t stand for lunacy — on Israel or anything else. Alas, now it’s becoming the party’s norm”.

 

And that is enough evidence to have us conclude that the apartheid which is practiced in occupied Palestine, was set up to pave the way for the eventual annihilation of the Palestinian identity.

 

It is what many American voices in the Evangelical movement have called for, as did a former Republican speaker of the House who negated the existence of Palestine to please the Jews he thought will get him reelected. Think about it, my friend. Think about the image of America that’s painted by those monsters. It is one that will go down in history as the genocidal America that used Israel as sword to vanquish Palestine and its people from the face of the Earth.

 

That’s how the political sausage is made in America. And this is why the country is in desperate need of individuals with spines made of steel, such as Rashida Tlaib and her friends who vowed to do what they can to move America back to the correct path, and restore to it the good name it had earned before the advent of the rabbis who messed it all up.

What’s the difference if any, and what do they make it to be?

 Suppose you are called upon to moderate between two debaters who are at such loggerheads, they fail to see eye to eye while articulating what seems to be two arguments which, on the surface, seem closer to each other than can be said are distant from each other.

 

In fact, if there exists a difference between the two positions, it is not in what the debaters insist they see, but in the interpretation of what they perceive as the information is filtered to them through the lens of the conditioning to which they were subjected decade after decade.

 

On one side of the argument you have House Representative Rashida Tlaib who is of the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party. On the other side you have Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Rep. Jerold Nadler and a number of other Jews, most of whom are also members of the Progressive wing in the Democratic Party.

 

You’ll find that most of the background story on what happened that triggered the clash between the two sides – is told in the article that came under the title: “House Democrat slams Talib for ‘antisemitic’ remarks on Israel,” written by Michael Schnell, and published on September 21, 2022 in The Hill.

 

The House Democrat mentioned in the title of the Schnell article, is Debbie Schultz who accused Rashida Tlaib of antisemitism for suggesting that it is inconsistent to claim adhering to Progressive values while at the same time supporting the policies of Israel, which she asserts are are fundamentally those of an apartheid regime.

 

Here is what Rashida Tlaib had said:

 

“I want you all to know that among progressives it has become clear that you cannot claim to hold progressive values yet back Israel’s apartheid government, and we will continue to push back and not accept this idea that you are progressive except for Philistine [Palestine] any longer”.

 

And here is how Debbie Schultz responded:

 

“The outrageous progressive litmus test on Israel by Rashida Tlaib is nothing short of antisemitic. Proud progressives do support Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state. Divisive rhetoric does not lead to peace”.

 

Comment: Thus, while Rashida Tlaib restricted her viewpoint to expressing the commonsense value that may or may not exist in simultaneously holding two apparently contradictory views, Debbie Schultz called that approach antisemitic without explaining how or why. She also called Israel a democratic state without addressing the issue of apartheid. Worst of all, she deployed the well-known blackmail of the Judeo-Israeli crime syndicate which tells America and the Palestinians that the Jews must have it their way or they’ll open the gates of hell to wreak havoc on everyone.

 

Here is how Debbie Schultz did that: “Divisive rhetoric does not lead to peace.” Bear in mind that it has long been established that when the Jews say “divisive language,” they mean language that disagrees with their demands. So then, what happens when you disagree with their demands? You do not lead to peace, they say. Unless, of course, you mean their version of peace which is the peace of the grave.

 

As to Rep. Jerold Nadler, he added the following to the debate:

 

“​​I reject the notion that one cannot support Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state and be a progressive. I embrace both of these political positions and identities, even as I have criticized some of the policies and actions of the Israeli governments over time. I would put my progressive record and credentials up against anyone’s. It is wrong for progressive leaders to abide such a litmus tests”.

 

Comment: Unlike Debbie Schultz who seems to have learned by rote how to rattle off the official positions formulated by Jewish Central, Jerold Nadler has demonstrated a superior understanding of the issues involved in this matter.

 

Thus, by saying at the start of the discussion that he can simultaneously hold what seems to be two contradictory positions, he signaled that he can explain. And so he did. It turned out that he developed a hedge which allows him to reject Israel’s apartheid policies while supporting its more reasonable ones.

 

Nadler explained all of that with the use of the following words: “I embrace both of these political positions and identities, even as I have criticized some of the policies and actions of the Israeli governments over time”.

 

It is clear that to avoid being seen as speaking logic, Jerold Nadler mentioned that the positions he is taking are “political” in nature.

 

Jonathan Greenblatt too had something to say. As CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, here is what he wrote:

 

“In one sentence, Rep. Rashida simultaneously tells American Jews that they need to pass an anti-Zionist litmus test to participate in progressive spaces even as she doubles down on her antisemitism by slandering Israel as an apartheid state. It’s absolutely reprehensible and does nothing to advance the cause of peace”.

 

Comment: Jonathan Greenblatt is not much better than Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Would a moratorium on discussing the Holocaust end antisemitism?

 The PBS network recently aired a series of documentaries bundled under the title: “The US and the Holocaust.” Like all such works, it was said that this one too will contribute to the understanding of the past, which is a necessary condition for the horrible past never to be repeated again.

 

But is that true? Or is it a deliberate deception? Or is it wishful thinking? Well, let’s examine the situation that impelled those questions more closely to see where the truth may be hovering.

 

When an event as momentous as the defeat of the axis powers takes place, which it did at the end of World War II, and when literally the whole world is seen to sit at the start of an era during which the bitter moments of the pre-war are unlikely to happen again – but they do – we are obligated to demand the introduction of drastic changes to the way we’ve been thinking about our ability to reason realistically.

 

The Holocaust was the genocidal practice of an era whose aim was to exterminate the Jews and a few other undesirables from the face of the Earth. It failed to accomplish its goal given that Jews are still around; are still alive and kicking, as do members of the other undesirable groups. But while this is an undeniable fact, it is also undeniable that the use of the Holocaust as poster child for a campaign that seeks to eradicate its repetition under the slogan: “Never again,” has been a failure.

 

Given that genocide has happened again and again in Asia, Africa, Europe and Latin America, we are obligated to question our ability to reason realistically. Doing so should force us to reject the old approach and adopt a new one, even if the new seems on the surface to call for counterintuitive measures that contradict what we’ve been doing up to now.

 

To be sure, what we’ve been doing, is that in recognition of the fact that the Jews have suffered the most during the Holocaust, we deferred to them all matters relating to the subject. This was a mistake because a plaintiff can never be appointed to judge the defendant he is accusing, and expect him or her to pronounce a verdict that will render justice to all sides. In this case, the verdict will have had to address what caused the Holocaust to happen in the first place, and make sure it will never happen again.

 

Since strong signs of antisemitism are now coming from around the world (including America that was thought to be the safest place for Jews to live in and thrive) thus indicating that a return to the conditions which brought about the first Holocaust, is upon us again – we would be derelict in our duty to ourselves as a human race if we did not reverse our mode of thinking, and did not work to find a permanent solution to that repetitive occurrence.

 

But where do we go from here?

 

The first thing we do is tell the Jews they did the best they could, we thank them for their effort, and we add as politely as we can that their best wasn’t good enough. We let them know that we understand, even feel the pain that must have been felt by the hundreds of people who were thrown into wagons and sent to concentration camps where they worked hard and left to starve before being poisoned and incinerated.

 

But in all fairness, it must be said that we also feel as strongly if not more so for every little girl that’s kidnapped by a monstrous pedophile who would drag her into the woods as she screams her lungs off: “mamma, mamma, help me mamma,” knowing that she is alone, that no one hears her and that mamma will not help. The holocausted little girl knows she’ll die alone and in hiding at the hands of a merciless monster, having done nothing to merit this fate.

 

The holocaust that’s suffered by these girls, and the one suffered by all those who realize they will not be saved, and that no one will know what happened to them, touches us more than does the Holocaust of Jews that had each other for company, and knew that their story will be told, as amply demonstrated in the series: The US and the Holocaust.

 

For that reason, we need to make it a rule that to draw a comparison between the Holocaust of Jews and the others, does not lead to the blacklisting of a writer, the cancellation of an actor, the demand for a judge to resign, the firing of a teacher or any such act as have been documented to happen time after time when the Jews had a monopolistic control over the history of the Holocaust.

 

We also need to make it so that there shall be a strong suggestion for the Jews to refrain from discussing their Holocaust for at least one year, a moratorium that will give the rest of humanity a much needed breather.

 

Will that dampen the spirit of antisemitism? If yes, how and why will this happen? Honestly, we won’t know the answer to these questions until we try the approach.

 

But given that on its surface, the approach seems closest to the system of democracy, we are justified to assume it may well be the worst system to use, but will stand as an exception to all the others – as pointed out by Winston Churchill.

He tweaks a defunct argument to revive it

 The world has gotten used to the idea that the Jews and their followers – those steeped in the Judeo-Yiddish culture – suffer from a form of bipolar syndrome, a disease that’s so debilitating, it brings misery to the sufferers as well as the societies among which the Jews and their crowds mingle.

 

Caught on one side by the jaw of a promise that the messiah will come on time and save them – a promise that was never fulfilled – and caught on the other side by the jaw of a human race that exhibits displeasure at the conduct of Jews by punishing them severely, the latter carry within them the seeds of extreme optimism and extreme pessimism at the same time. This makes up the innate combination of a bipolar syndrome, a mixture that’s liable to burst at any moment without warning.

 

You can see this phenomenon develop in the article that came under the title: “It’s Too Late to Prevent an Iranian Nuke,” and the subtitle: “But it might not be too late to do something about it.” The article was written by A. J. Caschetta, and published on September 16, 2022 in National Review Online.

 

Used to the idea of being rejected everywhere they go by a human race that can stomach neither their philosophy of life nor their antics, the Jews that had been planning to steal Palestine and make it their own for decades, got what they wanted when the Balfour Declaration was spewed without apology. But those same Jews also knew that no Palestinian they plan to rob will celebrate the most extreme act of larceny they were about to pull, and neither will the Palestinians’ neighbors.

 

Caught on one side by the euphoria that the Declaration of Infamy had generated, and caught on the other side by the fear that the advent of a savior may have been a hoax, the Jews adopted the strategy of implementing their plan for the neighborhood in concordance with those of the colonial power they were replacing. This meant that the Jews resolved to keep the neighbors impoverished while trying to develop and modernize what was theirs. For this scheme to work, the Jews embarked on a policy of demonizing and abusing the neighbors while presenting themselves as being the most saintly of angels.

 

Even though Iran is not an immediate neighbor of Palestine, the Jews of what’s now referred to as Israel, had a falling out with the Iranians. This happened because the Jews had managed to con the Americans by telling them of the wacky idea that the more America will arm Israel, the more the latter will protect the Superpower from an Arab population that had no quarrel with America to begin with. What happened instead, was that an arms race was triggered in the neighborhood; a race that spread in all directions to encompass the entire region, including Iran.

 

But in trying to extend the strategy of destroying the accomplishments of the near and distant neighbors, the Jews discovered they cannot do so without using America’s power. This reality forced them to reverse the argument they once had to the effect that Israel would protect America. The modified version of the claim now flipped to tell of an Israel that was in such peril, America must protect it from an assured holocaust that will be delivered by Iran, a nation in the midst of developing nuclear weapons.

 

In fact, the Jews have been relying on the new argument for several decades already. But it is one that has grown so stale, it falls on deaf ears whenever the Jews recite it. This is how and why Caschetta became frustrated, and why he’s trying to revive a defunct argument by tweaking it. He hopes he can make it breathe new life into a discourse that died long ago.

 

Standing in the way of Caschetta and those like him, preventing them from creating a coherent argument that would describe the new circumstances and convince America to destroy Iran, is the crushing reality of the bipolar condition from which the Jews suffer. The following are condensed excerpts that were lifted from the dialectic now taking place among the crowds of Jews, as well as wrestling inside the head of individual Jews:

 

“As a pessimist, I’m afraid that the window of opportunity to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb has closed. Iran is already a nuclear power, and decades of dithering, cajoling, and appeasing by past US administrations have given it the time to build the bomb. The debate over Iran’s nuclear program has pitted optimists against pessimists. Optimists emphasize the obstacles Iran has faced conducting research and assembling the equipment to produce weapons-grade uranium. They also point out the difficulty of developing an ICBM capable of delivering nuclear payloads. Pessimists emphasize uncertainty, insisting that there are more ways to deploy a nuclear bomb than by ICBM. Optimists assure pessimists that Mossad won’t let Iran build a nuclear bomb. They point to the successful sabotage of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and to assassinations of its scientists. In turn, the pessimists point out that Iran’s program is dug in and spread out across the nation. If we pessimists are correct, it’s too late to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power, but it might not be to do something about it. Efforts to destabilize Iran’s nuclear capabilities are not futile, but a successful Israeli attack on Iran’s facilities is probably the world’s only hope as long as Joe Biden is president”.

 

And that’s the point A. J. Caschetta has been trying to make. It is that only Israel can save the world from perishing under the nuclear mushroom of an Iranian bomb. It is that Caschetta wants humanity to rise up and demand that America give Israel the means to deliver a deadly blow to Iran.

 

But no one sane is hearing the call.

Tackling fascism, he admits what he once denied

 Frustrated by the fact that people mention icons of fascism and other unsavory movements without knowing the history behind them, Clifford D. May set out to educate the audiences on the history of fascism, now featured prominently in the public square.

 

In so doing, however, May was forced to admit to realities he adamantly rejected in the past. Thus, it can be said that something good came out of that writer’s latest column after all.

 

Clifford May’s choice of title for the column is the following: “Fascism for dummies,” which also came under the prodding subtitle: “Those using the word should at least know what it means.” The piece was published on September 13, 2022 in The Washington Times.

 

In addition to the reality that in the political campaigns of Israel, the candidates who run for office out there, do not shy away from calling each other by such iconic labels as “fascist” and “Nazis,” look at the names that Clifford May is associating with what he says are modern manifestations of antisemitism: Ben Rhodes, Rob Reiner, Nora Ephron and Alfred Rosenberg. Were these not Jews who refused to believe in Clifford May’s line that they – as Jews – are too perfect to be compared against lesser humans?

 

Another admission that Clifford May has made in his piece, pertains to the question as to whether or not millions of people can be captured in a hypnotic trance by the speeches of a single orator. Despite the fact that a book written by the Jewish writer Daniel Goldhagen, was published in 1966 under the title: Hitler’s Willing Executioners attesting to that reality, Clifford May and those like him, scoffed at the suggestion that an entire nation can be captured by the hypnotic power of the trained Jewish psychiatrists who regularly brainwash the newly elected power elites of America, transforming them into poodles eager to serve the Jews and Israel at the expense of the American people and their nation.

 

And look at what viewpoint Clifford May has now admitted: “My guess is that Mr. Biden knows little about the revolutionary ideology to which millions of people in Germany, Italy, Japan, and other countries adhered during the first half of the 20th century.” Well then, if millions of people in those countries could be persuaded to embrace an idea no matter how nefarious it may have been, then surely, a handful of hungry-for-power politicians could be persuaded to join a movement that promises to fulfill their dreams.

 

That’s what’s happening full blast in America at this time, and happening to a lesser degree in the other so-called Western Democracies. And that’s what the impeccable and courageous men and women who live in that milieu, are revealing to the public – doing so at great political risk to themselves.

 

Another occurrence in the Clifford May column that makes no more sense today than it did before, pertains to the claim that repetition of the same thing, cannot happen randomly even in a world that is restricted by finite quantities. For example, the Jews see deliberate provocations in words, gestures and designs they call “antisemitic tropes,” because what’s produced today closely resembles what was produced in a bygone era. Here is how Clifford May has once again unveiled that mentality:

 

“If you were to pull aside a black-shirted Antifa member and asked for a definition of the ‘fa’ he thinks he’s combatting, do you think you’d get a coherent answer? Would he know that members of the paramilitary wing of Benito Mussolini’s National Fascist Party also wore and were called Blackshirts, and that a similarly violent wing of the Nazi Party wore and were called Brownshirts? Expressions of fascist fashion were even more elaborately on display when Mr. Biden recently let loose a diatribe in front of Philadelphia’s Independence Hall, its walls bathed in bloodred lights, US Marines menacingly backing him up”.

 

So, here it is, Clifford May is showing he cannot shake the thought that every time someone wears a black or brown shirt, they do so deliberately, knowing that it will torment today’s Jews who suffer from the memory of previous Jews that agonized at the hands of evildoers that wore black and brown shirts. How much more incredible could May have gotten?

 

To reinforce that view and make it stick to President Joe Biden this time, Clifford May went on to elaborate on the theme as follows:

 

“Did the White House communications team realize they were drawing on fascist imagery when they cast the president as a strongman, an idolized and militaristic authority figure differentiating between pure and impure, and determined to crush those who, as Mr. Biden put it, ‘do not recognize the will of the people’? Perhaps the president’s advisors thought: ‘Hey, our job is to make the midterm elections a referendum not on Biden and his record, but on Trump and any Republicans who have not publicly rejected him. So, whatever it takes – even if fascist-inspired”.

 

Finally, Clifford May went on to give a lesson on the history of fascism, but ended his presentation in the most ironic of ways … which should not surprise anyone. Here is what he did:

 

“Another attribute of fascism is hyper-nationalism. The Axis powers all invaded neighbors and folded them into their expanding empires. Mr. Trump has not displayed any interest in foreign conquests, as far as I’m aware”.

 

Thus, having started the discussion by pretending he was a professor of history, Clifford May ended by negating the history of Donald Trump who conquered Syria’s Golan Heights and Palestine’s Jerusalem, and gave them as gifts to Ivanka Trump and the other thieves of nations.

 

That’s not to mention he tried to steal the American election, motivated by the transparent aim of making the superpower his private property.

Numbed by mental fixation, he missed the point

 Gerard Leval is a Jewish lawyer whose view of reality as well as his ability to process what he sees, need to be further developed before he exposes himself again to the embarrassing reality that what he says his mind’s eye perceives and what he actually sees are two different things.

 

His latest attempt at twinning what he explores and what he perceives, came in the form of an article he wrote under the title: “CNN falsely blames ‘White supremacist ideology’ for a rise in antisemitism.” It was published on September 12, 2022 in The Washington Times.

 

Being an experienced writer, Gerard Leval made use of the “analogous situation method” to build the store of literary energy from which he drew liberally, thus added force to his argument. The analogy he picked to buttress his arguments, was that of the French “Maginot Line,” a construct that was meant to protect France during the Second World War. The following is how Leval described that Line, how it failed to perform as expected, and why the Jews of today must not repeat the French mistake:

 

“Twice within 50 years, France had seen German armies enter French territory and inflict damage. France built fortifications along its border with Germany. Thus, the ‘Maginot Line’ was constructed and it became the strongest defense installation in history. But in the Spring of 1940, in a third attack on France, the Germans bypassed the Maginot Line and entered France through Belgium. In spite of the formidable fortifications, France had capitulated to the German forces. Fighting the last war is frequently a fatal mistake. It seems that the Jewish community in the United States appears to be falling into the ‘last war’ trap. The focus of Jewish leaders in the ongoing battle against rising antisemitism seems to be on right-wing skinhead ‘white supremacists.’ This is understandable since for centuries those who chose to attack Jews in the West usually did so from the Right”.

 

But things have changed, says Gerard Leval. They did in the sense that the antisemitic attacks on Jews now come, in most part, from the Left of the ideological spectrum. Not only that, says Leval, but it is also the Left which falsely accuses the Right of attacking Jews. He gave the example of the “leftist” CNN network which broadcast an exposé on antisemitism, an exposé whose aim was meant to lead the audiences into concluding that right-wing militias and their allies foment antisemitism in America.

 

This being the case, says Gerard Leval, the Jews who adhere to a leftist ideology, and believe in what their comrades are telling them, do nothing more and nothing less than repeat the Maginot Line mistake which the French committed some time ago, and lived to regret.

 

But what is it that motivates the Left to do what they do? And what can the Right do to tell their side of the story, thus unveil the truth and protect themselves from being falsely labeled antisemitic, a situation that Leval sadly believes is unwarranted but remains the case at this time?

 

You know what, my dear reader? It was in trying to answer those questions that Gerard Leval exposed himself as being confused. He did so when he adopted the offensive mode of fighting “fire with fire.” That’s when all of a sudden, his status changed from being the impartial observer searching for the truth, to the combatant warrior who is fighting to win the war for his right-wing clan.

 

Leval fell into that trap when he accused the CNN network of “seemingly” suggesting that former President Donald Trump and his followers are the ones fomenting antisemitism in America despite the fact that Donald Trump has observant Jewish children and grandchildren, and that he has been supportive of Israel like no one ever was before.

 

And because to be hated, the Left needs to be given an identifiable face so as to make it look real and menacing, Gerard Leval gave it the look of the Muslim. This is how he put it for the occasion: “The CNN broadcast failed to note that the attacker was an Islamist, whose hatred of Jews was not born of right-wing ideology, but of Islamic theology”.

 

But sensing that this will not be enough to stir the sentiment of audiences against Muslims – sentiments that would be as severe as the antisemitic tropes used to stir anti Jewish sentiments – Leval decided to throw at the Muslims what humanity had been throwing at Jews for centuries. This is how he did it:

 

“Not once did CNN cite Ilhan Omar or Rashida Tlaib, members of Congress, who spout flagrant antisemitism (couched in the guise of anti-Zionism,) and who use their positions of authority in our national legislature to foment anti-Jewish sentiment. Yet, the marginalizing of Jews caused by those people is potentially far more nefarious than the words and actions of a few delusional extremists who wander around trying to revive Nazism and fascism”.

 

Dual loyalties, abuse of privilege granted to elected officials by the American system of Liberal Democracy – it is all there, says Gerard Leval who missed an important point. It is that the Americans and the Muslims were once enemies who acted as enemies. Big deal!

 

By contrast, the Americans and the Jews are said to have been friends since the beginning of time and yet, the Jews have been treating America like magots treat a dead body.

 

In the first case, enemies can, and do become friends. This is happening now.

 

In the second case, the false pretense of friendship turns into an eternal visceral hatred. And this too is developing at this time.

What’s the Story about America and Fascism?

 Is America a fascist country, or is it getting there? In real life, the accepted way to label an accused as being a killer, a thief or what have you, is to weigh what he has done in a court of law where a judge and a jury of his peers so pronounce him or acquits him of the charge.

 

When it comes to nations or heads of states, the Security Council of the United Nations and the International Criminal Court were set up to adjudicate the accusations brought before them by the aggrieved parties who seek relief and the proper labeling of the accused. There has also been instances in which ad hoc committees set themselves up to accuse and try nations that were deemed to be so protected, they could not have been scrutinized otherwise.

 

Whereas it is a relatively simple matter when it comes to establishing that an individual is a killer or a thief in a court of law, it is enormously more difficult to establish that a country has become fascist, or that it is on its way to becoming one. That’s because the term “fascism” remains ill defined, and because most nations and heads of State who get out of line, cover their illegitimate tracks to confuse their accusers and those who may someday sit in judgment of them.

 

This is where the worldwide court of public opinion plays an important role. It will tell if a country or a head of state has committed a crime, or warn that said country or head of state is coming close to committing the crimes that will necessitate trying and labeling them for what they committed and have become.

 

Where does America stand amid all of this?

 

Actually, there has been instances in the past when ad hoc committees were formed, mostly by Europeans, to review and adjudicate America’s role in the numerous wars that country had launched against those who could not defend themselves … all of this happening during the decades that followed the Second World War. In most of these cases, America was pronounced guilty of one thing or another – and as it happened, Israel too was called guilty of committing the same sort of crimes in Palestine.

 

Aside from that, and subsequent to it, a transformation that started happening in America drew the attention of people around the globe, including America itself, to the reality that the country is turning fascist, however ill-defined that term may be. Unsurprisingly, it turns out that Israel and its mostly Jewish collaborators in America, are seen to play the most important role in America’s descent into the political abyss of perhaps no-return.

 

The transformation of America began with the election of Donald Trump to the presidency of the country, sent to the White House by the millions of Republicans who voted for him when he first ran, and voted for him again when he lost to a rival Democrat. Those voters form the base of the Republican Party, and they remain stuck to Trump’s causes (seen as their own) through thick and thin.

 

So then, the question to ask is this: what is so fascistic about these causes?

 

As pointed out earlier, there can be no easy answer to this question in the way that things might unfold in a court of law. And so, this reality defers the task of labeling America and Israel “fascist countries,” or at least warn that they are headed in that direction. And this is a development that cannot be ignored given the serious consequences that threaten the world if not dealt with immediately.

 

Where to begin gathering the evidence that America – with or without the manipulation of Israel and America’s Jews – is turning fascist? There are two trends worrying the world: One is internal; the other external. They are as follows:

 

Internally, we cannot ignore the fact that out of the 70 million voters who remain stuck to Donald Trump, 50 million are Evangelical Christians, according to the leaders of that religious movement. This leaves 20 million out of a total voting population of 160 million, who might have been independent but liked other aspects of Trump’s platform, thus voted for him in the past.

 

Externally, the voices of Israeli leaders are becoming more feverish in the call to turn the American decision makers, both in the Congress and the White House, into a bipartisan rubber stamp, that will take orders from Israel and implement them as promptly as the Nazis took Hitler’s orders, and the fascists took Mussolini’s orders and implemented them.

 

The world is warning America that he Jewish interest to score conquests using America’s economic, military and coercive powers, has gone well beyond annihilating Palestine and its indigenous people.

 

In fact, the Judeo-Israeli mindset is now looking to plunge humanity into a series of catastrophic wars that will give the Jews the opportunity to gather and monopolize the spoils that will be generated, as well as rule over the combatants who will have been weakened by the conflicts.

 

This may not be a complete perspective of what can be drawn in response to the question: “What’s the story about America and fascism,” but it goes a long way to clarify aspects of what’s happening at this juncture of history, and what can be done to avoid the anticipated catastrophe.

Time to silence the propagators of antisemitism

 Antisemitism is spreading again around the world, and making life uncomfortable for a large segment of the human family. The time has come to give this recurring phenomenon a fresh look, and do so with an eye so critical, it will not turn away from unmasking the instances it encounters however politically incorrect that may be.

 

Because antisemitism is the expression of hatred that develops uniquely toward an identifiable group, it cannot be a natural phenomenon. This says that antisemitism is an artificial occurrence caused by people who know what they are doing. And because this is the case, the perpetrators of antisemitism must have a purpose for doing what they do.

 

This forces us to ask two critical questions: Who are the spreaders of antisemitism? Why do they engage in such a practice?

 

When trying to answer that sort of questions, there is no better way to proceed than adhere to the American advice which goes like this: follow the money. And so, we probe as to who may stand to benefit from the demands which are made to deal with situations when antisemitism flares up, and we try to trace the trajectory of the money from who dols it out to who receives it.

 

At this point, it must be made clear that “follow the money” does not always mean follow cash. In fact, because money is fungible, it can translate into non-monetary benefits of all kinds. Thus, the beneficiaries of antisemitism can be the people who suffer discrimination, sue and get compensated. Or they can be such people as journalists and politicians who pretend to sympathize with the victims of antisemitism, thus acquire admiration and a high standing.

 

It must also be acknowledged that editors of the mainstream publications have at long last noticed and recognized that trend for what it was. They wised up and responded by taking the measures that curbed the use of their publication by the contributors, and by the politicians who used the publication like a bullhorn to sneakily propagate what turned out to be a form of self-serving antisemitism that benefited them indirectly. More about that later.

 

The outcome of that reorganization has been the migration of many contributors to the internet where they took advantage of the low cost of publication online, thus launched their own electronic rags. In turn, this development attracted all sorts of individuals and groups – mostly of Jewish persuasion – who formed “associations” and gave them screaming names like Campus Watch, Honest Reporting; also gave them eye-catching acronyms such as CAMERA.

 

So then, what methods do these people use to achieve their goals, whatever these may be?

 

What is noticeable when trying to answer this question, is that there exist two main categories of people and their methods. One category seeks to benefit the player directly from the existing situation. The other method seeks to protect the player from being on the wrong side of history should the situation deteriorate and end up in tragedy … as it always does when Jews are involved.

 

Those who seek to benefit directly from the situation, have in mind the number of Jews who vote, the wealth of their moguls and the influence they exercise in the halls of power as well as the marketplace of ideas. As to those who seek to benefit indirectly from the situation, what they do is act now in such a way as to be seen later on that they promoted the interests of Jews, even if they were sneakily practicing the self-serving antisemitism that portrayed the Jews as being a coddled lot.

 

To that end, this group artificially fashions an unblemished record for themselves so that when the expected tragedy hits – and everyone is called to account for what they did or failed to do to stand up for the Jews and protect them from extermination – they who benefitted from the antisemitism they helped promote, will show a fake record that exonerates them.

 

And so, my friend, when all is said and done, what this study shows, is that the direct propagators of antisemitism are more likely to be Jews that have much to gain and little to lose immediately from what they do.

 

As to the indirect propagators of antisemitism, they are more likely to be the non-Jews who may or may not gain very little now, but will be protected in the future when the gates of hell will open as they often do when Jewish matters are involved.

 

Thus, it is that kind of people (Jews and non-Jews) who must be addressed and/or dealt with when we try to stamp out the current rise of antisemitism. We must unmask these people, tell them we know what they are doing, frustrate their efforts whenever possible, and protect the innocent who may fall under their charm offensives, thus end up helping evil achieve its depraved goals.

 

This is no time to remain silent because the potential beneficiaries of antisemitism are wringing their hands with glee at the prospect of another tragedy they expect will reward them handsomely.

How they Normalize their Satanic Proclamations

 If you believe that what’s “normal” happens all by itself each and every time, consider the following:

 

Given that we, human beings, instinctively believe that the laws we make are meant to apply to all of us equally – whether we are a downtrodden individual or a mogul, whether we represent a small and backward nation, or represent a big and advanced nation – we expect more than being treated equally; we expect being seen as treated equally.

 

That would be the normal that will satisfy any of us. But seeing that life does not always unfold in that manner, says that the abnormal is at times made to look “normal.” Because the resulting product can never be a natural one, we must think of it as a synthetic normal. It is therefore a concoction that has as much affinity to the natural normal as a synthetic flower has to a naturally grown flower.

 

And so, the question to ask is this: How does that transformation come about?

 

Two recent publications reveal much of what goes on behind the backs of people – be they downtrodden individuals thirsting for justice, or weak nations hungering for equal treatment. One of the publications came under the title: “The International Criminal Court at 20,” written by Irwin Cotler, Allan Rock and Brandon Silver,” and printed in Project Syndicate on September 2, 2022. The other publication is an editorial of the Washington Examiner, printed under the title: “Will Biden wake up on Iran?” It was published on September 4, 2022.

 

What the two publications have in common, is that they began the process of agitating for the transformation of “equal justice” – which we instinctively believe is the natural way to proceed – into a system of “tiered justices” dispensed in accordance with the status and power of who seeks it, or in some cases, in accordance with the level of protection that a weak seeker receives from someone powerful.

 

Whereas the Washington Examiner’s editorial argues for speculating about the potential that someone may commit crimes before any are committed, Cotler, Rock and Silver argue for evaluating the severity of crimes already committed when the time comes for justice to be imposed. This being the case, impartial observers are made to assume that the theme of crime and justice has been entirely covered by the two arguments. But the reality is otherwise because, while the Cotler group and the Examiner’s editors gave a thorough analysis of what needs to be done when the weak nations make errors, they deliberately omitted mention of the crimes committed by Superpower America and by Israel, its weak protégé.

 

In fact, it is the repetition of that sort of omission which sets the foundation for the abnormal to acquire the look of the normal, thus become more entrenched with the passage of time. Despite this reality, look how the three writers have treated the relationship that now exists between “might” and “right”:

 

“The idea of individual criminal responsibility for mass atrocities challenged the old notion of unfettered state sovereignty and its animating ethos that ‘might makes right.’ As a permanent venue for securing justice for victims and accountability for violators, the ICC is the crown jewel of the current system. It continues to represent the greatest hope for international justice. Complementary to the ICC is the international sanctions regime, which includes global legal norms (so-called Magnitsky laws) that allow for punitive measures – travel bans, asset seizures, financial prohibitions, and asset repurposing – against individuals responsible for human-rights abuses. The ICC and targeted sanctions are each significant in themselves; but to achieve their full potential, they should be mutually reinforcing. For example, the sanctions regime should be deployed against anyone who is evading an ICC arrest warrant, or against foreign officials from Rome Statute states who fail to cooperate with the ICC in the fulfillment of its mission”.

 

The writers not only failed to mention America and Israel throughout the article, they kept them out of the melee by not speculating about what they might do before they do it, and by neglecting to assess the severity of the crimes they are known to have committed. Instead of scolding America and Israel for the crimes they committed in Palestine and elsewhere, urging them to submit to the same treatment as everyone else, the writers justified keeping them out of the melee on account of them being non-members of the Rome Statute, which they chose to be to avoid being judged like the others. This is not a sin of careless omission on the part of the three writers; it is a deliberate sin of commission. It shall remain unforgivable till they apologize and halt the wrong they are trying to propagate.

 

As to the editors of the Washington Examiner, look what they say that boggles the logical mind – reproduced here in condensed form:

 

“The Islamic Republic of Iran is increasingly unconstrained. Of most immediate concern are Iran's continued attempts to kill American citizens on US soil. In recent months, the FBI has disrupted advanced Iranian assassination plots against John Bolton and Mike Pompeo. They continue to receive full-time security details in the face of this threat. Others have been less fortunate. President Joe Biden should be confronting Iran over these provocations, which are all acts of terror inspired or ordered by Iran's theocratic regime. Even if Biden won't get serious about Iranian assassins, it should be a no-brainer for him to take nuclear weapons seriously. Alas, no”.

 

So here we have an Iran that responds in kind to the threats and activities that America and Israel never stop throwing at it. And when Iran responds, the Examiner’s editors describe its doings as terrorism while exonerating the same sort of doings by omitting mention of them when they are committed by America or Israel.

 

This is how the Examiner’s editors, and all those like them, normalize their own Satanic Proclamations of inequality among humans, thus perpetuate all sorts of conflicts on Planet Earth.

They brag they can teach the Old Dog new tricks

 An ancient English saying goes like this: “You cannot teach an old dog new tricks,” which may or may not be true in every case as you will soon realize.

 

It is that Jewish Central seems desirous to inform its worldwide rank-and-file it can treat America both like the naturally obedient dog that it is, and the stubborn old dog that is set in its ways and remains resistant to change even when change is called for.

 

Let it be known that to teach a stubborn old dog new tricks, and have him play them out when the Jewish master commands it, is a feat that demonstrates the Jewish ability to fuse the opposites of a dichotomy, and produce as well as deploy socio-political powers comparable to the fusion of atoms in physics.

 

And so, from the looks of it, Jewish Central has commissioned Shai Feldman to use his talent and spread the word that Israel’s Old Dog – at times referred to as the US – has been so well tamed and so highly “educated” with regard to the needs of Jews, it remains more faithful to Israel than resistant to change.

 

You’ll know why Jewish Central wants to spread the word when you read the article that Shai Feldman wrote under the title: “Why Israel’s Opposition to the Iran Deal Is Different This Time,” and the subtitle: “The current Israeli-US discourse regarding the pending nuclear agreement with Iran is anything but a repeat of the 2014-15 quarrel.” The column was published on August 30, 2022 in the National Interest.

 

Here, in condensed form, is the way that Feldman has described the current situation:

 

“It is easy to misread the current dance between Israel and the United States regarding the nuclear negotiations with Iran as merely a replay of their quarrel during the months that led to the July 2015 signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA.) As was the case then, this time around, the EU is again leading the charge, now focusing on restoring Iranian and US compliance with the agreement. But Russia is even more eager now than it was then; it is in search for any opportunity to escape its isolation and sanctions. As was the case in 2014-15, with the signing of a nuclear agreement with Iran nearing, Israeli leaders and public officials are expressing sharper and more public criticism of the agreement. Israel’s prime minister complained that Biden was violating his own promise to reach an agreement that would be “stronger and longer” than the JCPOA. The director of Israel’s Mossad argued that given Iran’s unwillingness to resolve the IAEA’s questions about its nuclear activities, the current draft agreement rests on Iranian deception and lies. Israel’s National Security Advisor, and Defense Minister have rushed to Washington for meetings in the White House and Pentagon in an attempt to dissuade the Americans from giving in to Iran’s refusal to meet Israeli demands”.

 

This done, Feldman’s task now was to reassure the worldwide Jewish rank-and-file and foot soldiers that despite the appearances, Israel’s leaders are in control of the situation. To do so, Feldman began by telling those soldiers what differentiates today’s situation from that of the 2014-2015 episode. But in so doing, Feldman inadvertently revealed two troubling realities.

 

The first reality is that today, the Jews use “Liberal Democracy” like a frantic little trinket to put on shows that blind the public while the Jews trick America’s leaders into doing the dirty work for them. This game parallels what the Jews did a century or so earlier when they used “Social Marxism” as a trinket to pull similar tricks on a world that was more enchanted by the Jewish song of redemption and eternal blessedness than it is now. All of that was done behind the backs of the American people; activities that would disgust the entire nation if things were done openly and democratically today as required by the American Constitution.

 

Here, in condensed form, is how Feldman explained it:

 

“Israel’s conduct during 2014-15 was based on two assessments. The first, held by Netanyahu, was that Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons would pose Israel with an existential threat. By contrast, most leaders in Israel’s current government believe that Israel is a regional power possessing a wide range of options for dealing with such challenges. The second difference is that in 2014-15 Netanyahu assessed that mobilizing Israel’s friends in America could prevent the US from signing the JCPOA. By contrast, most current Israeli leaders are convinced that Biden will obtain the internal consent for such restoration. The implication of these assessments was that any repeat of the 2014-15 efforts to sabotage the nuclear agreement was bound to prove costly and futile. In fact, the two assessments led Netanyahu to pull all the stops in the effort to prevent the signing of the JCPOA. This included a willingness to go behind Obama’s back and arrange for Republican leaders to invite him to present his objections to the deal at a joint session of Congress”.

 

And so, like the saying goes: It you fail, get up, learn from your mistake and try again till you get it right … which is what the Jews did, according to Feldman. Here are his words to this effect:

 

“In contrast, Israel’s current government assesses that no pillar of their country’s security is more important than America’s continuous support of Israel. They assess that such support would be seriously damaged by Israel becoming a partisan issue in the US. Thus, Lapid stated his determination to restore the bipartisan basis of America’s support by regaining the Democrats’ positive predispositions toward the Jewish state”.

 

And that’s the way by which Israel’s Jewish leaders extend their hypnotic powers to America’s leaders, making them turn away from working to improve the lives of the American family, and working instead to strengthen the Israeli gangs of settlers who use American money and weapons to kill Palestinian families and rob them of their patrimony.

 

Here, in Feldman’s own words, is how the Jews never stop doing it:

 

“The changes in the Israeli assessments are shaping the difference between current Israel-US interactions about the JCPOA and their communications regarding this issue in 2014-15. Importantly, current Israeli-US discussions are conducted quietly. It is inconceivable that Israel’s current government would go behind Biden’s back to launch efforts to sabotage the JCPOA’s restoration. Even more important, the difference between Netanyahu’s assessments and those of Israel’s current leaders have led to a change in the purpose of Israel’s efforts regarding this matter in the US: from attempts to prevent the Obama administration from signing the nuclear agreement and to one aimed at reaching a set of understandings with the Biden administration regarding the required responses to possible nuclear and non-nuclear scenarios in the aftermath of the signed agreement”.

 

What Shai Feldman is saying here, is that when the Jews of Israel and their American collaborators fail to advance their agenda, they tweak the Liberal-Democratic trinket, making it put on a different theatrical presentation to continue distracting the public. This allows the Jews to impress the political class of America without encountering the opposition or persuasion or consent that were envisaged by the framers of the Constitutions.

 

But hell, who cares? The politicos of America have been hypnotized into the belief that when they have the Jews on their side, they become invincible.

 

It remains that only a public outrage – about the representatives they elect being hypnotized by Jewish experts and made to switch their allegiance from America to Israel – can end the current abomination. As to when this will happen, time will tell.