The world of today is nobody’s oyster

 Ever since antiquity, there arose an empire at one time or another that managed to develop into such a great military and economic power, it dominated the known world of the time.

 

Such empires came, made their mark, left behind a magnificent legacy and faded into the proverbial sunset like a storm that makes landfall and turns into a drizzle.

 

The last of these empires was Great Britain on whose territories – it was said – the sun never set. This was the reality given that during the 24-hour cycle of the Planet’s day, Britain had a territorial possession that was lit by the sun. But when evaluated for its military and economic powers, Britain had fallen behind other nations. This happened inevitably after the Second World War, and was given the coup de grace by the ill-advised Suez fiasco. However, despite the reality that Britain is proverbially a faded empire, it continues to retain territories that stretch around the globe. They extend from Gibraltar to the Caribbean Islands to the Falkland Islands and beyond. This makes it so that today, Britain is a second rate power that continues to enjoy sunlit 24-hour days.

 

The Second World War that knocked Britain off its dominant position, opened the door for the United States of America to move in and claim the uppermost position where it reigned supreme militarily and economically for a number of decades. But this does not mean that America had no challengers. In fact, it had a Soviet Union that developed and produced a superpower-level nuclear arsenal to rival that of America. There also formed a European Union whose economic power rivaled that of America. And like the dark horse that was asleep and suddenly woke up, China hit the ground of development, and progressed at the speed of a bullet train equipped with an accelerating pedal and no brakes. It is on its way to eclipse not only the United States but also Europe and the Soviet Union-cum Russia.

 

Ignoring that history, and still living mentally in an era during which America towered over its rivals, there comes Elliott Abrams who is a graduate of the George W. Bush school of cowboy style management of foreign affairs. He laments what he says is the Biden administration’s failure to live by the stick, using the carrot approach instead when dealing with foreign sovereigns. He wrote an article in which he vents his frustration, and tries to persuade the administration to change course.

 

The Elliott Abrams article came under the title: “Biden’s Slow Walk Away from Venezuela,” and the subtitle: “The administration has weakened the democratic opposition and strengthened the Maduro regime in exchange for maybe a few drops of oil and little else.” It was published on November 29, 2022 in National Review Online.

 

Making the first paragraph of his discussion a single sentence that encapsulates his disappointment at the manner in which the current administration is proceeding, here is what Elliott Abrams said: “The Biden administration is tired of Venezuela and is slowly walking away from efforts to promote democracy there”.

 

There was a time when words such as these would cause rumbling and commotion in the corridors of power in far away foreign sovereigns. But no more. The world has changed, and most everyone knows it except those like Elliott Abrams who refuse to part with their old time reveries, living instead in the memory of the world they used to inhabit when America was at the zenith of its power.

 

That was a time when stern words uttered by an American official, were seen as being the American way to waive the warning stick. It used to work on others. However, no longer able to force even the smallest of countries to toe the American line, Washington came up with a more intrusive way to warn and punish those who bifurcate away from its pronounced policies. The new way is for America to impose economic and moral sanctions on the countries it determines are opposing its policies.

 

And then a world that was already beginning to change, experienced a jolt that accelerate the change. This happened almost spontaneously due to the combination of a pandemic, a supply chain that slowed down, and a war in Europe that rendered America’s tools of sanction ineffective while giving clout to the countries that chose to live independently of America’s wishes, and the wishes of those who desire to extend their influence beyond their borders.

 

This is the condition that governs the relationship between America and Venezuela at this time. In a world that is so structured, America had no choice but to offer Venezuela the carrot rather than wave the warning stick. It is the course that the Biden administration chose to follow, a logic that aggravated Elliott Abrams. Here is how he expressed his feeling:

 

“The Biden administration is tired of Venezuela and is slowly walking away from efforts to promote democracy there. No other conclusion can be reached from its decision to soften sanctions on Venezuelan oil and permit Chevron to produce more oil in the country. More such moves will be coming soon. Lifting sanctions in exchange for real democratic gains has always been US policy. What is the United States now getting in exchange as it begins to lift sanctions? The concession from the Maduro regime are laughable”.

 

Instead of asking what the United States is getting in exchange for so-called democratic gains, Elliott Abrams should have asked what has the United States gained or lost from applying sanctions on others in the recent past. Had he done this, he would have met the reality that America earned the contempt of the world in addition to seeing its economic and financial powers erode.

 

Obeying the rules of statistics, America has become just one more empire that came, made its mark, left behind a magnificent legacy, and is on its way to fading into the proverbial sunset like a storm that made landfall and is turning into a drizzle.

This is how Tel Aviv runs America by remote

 The title leaves you with no doubt. It screams: “Kevin McCarthy Must Remove Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib from all Committees,” a stern command issued to America by Farley Weiss who is Chairman of the Israel Heritage Foundation and former president of the National Council of Young Israel. The command was published in the Jewish online publication Algemeiner on November 25, 2022.

 

Conscious of the reality that their behavior is pushing the American public to conclude they have at best a problem of dual allegiance; at worst a problem of single allegiance to Israel, the treasonous Jews of America teamed up with World Jewry and came up with a definition of what constitutes antisemitism. They now say that for you to discover that a Jew has a problem of allegiance, is to commit an act of antisemitism with all the consequences that this entails.

 

Of course, the purpose of that definition is to silence those who discover the problem of Jewish allegiance and talk about it. As to the ultimate aim of this unsettling exercise, it is to give the Jews a freehand at running America by remote control from anywhere in the world, especially Tel Aviv where the Council of Zionist Elders pontificates on how to run the world.

 

Thanks to Farley Weiss, we now know how the commands are transmitted from the mouths of the Elders to the ears of the American moral prostitutes who spend millions of dollars to get elected, then betray those who elect them by working to deplete America of its riches and sending whatever enchilada they amass to enrich the Jews of Israel and depriving the American taxpayers of their hard earned money.

 

One of the ways by which the Jews accomplish such feat according to Farley Weiss’s thinking, is to get Americans to hate Americans so profoundly, they get busy fighting each other, thus let the Jews run the country in their stead. In fact, this is precisely what Weiss is trying to do now, calling on Kevin McCarthy as he did, to remove Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib from the committees of the House. All that hate that is as Jewish as matzo bread.

 

What makes Farley Weiss’s article a valuable trove, is that it shows how the vicious cycle works. See for yourself:

 

First, Farley Weiss accused the Biden administration of mainstreaming the imagined antisemitism of Ilhan Omar, having allowed her to attend the World Cup event in Qatar in the company of Secretary of State Antony Blinken. But is that accusation true? No it is not. The truth is that the stream warning the Jews they went too far, had been raging for a time. It came in response to false accusations made by the likes of Weiss, accusations that forced the administration to protect Omar and others who did nothing worse than follow the Constitution and serve their constituents the best way possible.

 

Second, aggravated by the administration’s sense of fairness and justice toward Omar and others like her, Farley Weiss reminded Kevin McCarthy of his promise to remove Omar from her committee assignment. Then Weiss went further and demanded that: “Removing Omar from the Foreign Relations Committee is not sufficient. She must be removed from all committees, along with her fellow congresswoman Rashida Tlaib”.

 

Third, seeing how easily their country can be brought under the control of World Jewry, ordinary Americans of the mainstream, will again express their anger in the social media and elsewhere. This will prompt the likes of Kevin McCarthy and Farley Weiss to make the kind of threats that will prompt the administration to respond. It will do so by extending its protective umbrella and safeguard the innocent — Omar and Tlaib among them. And this is how the vicious cycle is made to perpetuate itself.

 

In his article, Farley Weiss went on to cite examples of words that were spoken by Omar and/or Tlaib which he says rise to the level of antisemitism. One such example was Omar’s observation that supporters of a strong US-Israel relationship push allegiance to a foreign country.

 

Well, it does not take a genius to figure that when a group representing 2.4 percent of the population, gets attacked 67 percent of the time by that population, what’s wrong is not that Omar or Tlaib are antisemites but that Jewish leaders of the Farley Weiss variety are betraying the people who took them in, protected them and gave them the good life — only to see these same people push their allegiance to a foreign crime syndicate that has plagued humanity for centuries, and paid dearly for its comportment.

 

Another example cited by Farley Weiss is that of Rashida Tlaib attacking Marco Rubio’s anti-BDS efforts, accusing him and others of forgetting what country they represent. Weiss did not respond to this accusation, letting Rubio do it instead. And this was the answer that Rubio gave: “The ‘dual loyalty’ canard is a typical antisemitic line.” What the man did not realize, however, is that he gave away more than he intended. It is that in describing the “canard” as being a typical line, he admitted it was the commonly held view among the American people. These are 300 million of them who could not have erred thinking differently from Rubio or Weiss.

 

Finally, you may want to know if Farley Weiss did the Jewish thing and shot himself in the foot. The answer is yes, he did. Being of a group which says it is God’s favorite that should own the Planet with all its content while accusing the Arabs—whose predominant religion is Islam (Arabic for submission to the will of the Almighty)—of wanting to establish a supremacist state, is like accusing a monk of working in hiding to build a nuclear arsenal and conquer the world. Weiss went so badly off the mark with this accusation, he managed to shoot both feet with one bullet.

Their exclusive veto power to kill free speech

 If you consider the two publications, National Review Online and the New York Post to be two peas in a pod, you can easily view them as the two sides of the same mouth, with each side saying the opposite of what the other says. As it happens, this is the way that the Jewish leaders — whose insistent aim is to have it both ways each and every time — engage in conversations with the rest of humanity.

 

And so, the article you are reading juxtaposes an editorial of the New York Post with an article written by a contributor of National Review Online — two publications run by extreme Jewish fanatics — thus demonstrates how the Jewish leaders manage to convince the politicos of the Anglosphere that what’s given to the Jewish goose must be denied to the goyim (gentile) gander.

 

The editorial of the New York Post came under the title: “‘Living hell’ and the destruction of academic freedom, published on November 26, 2022. As to the National Review article, it came under the title: “Antisemitism Threatens More than just the Jews,” and the subtitle: “A hesitance to combat anti-Jewish hate endangers the liberal foundations on which societies like ours rest.” It was published on November 26, 2022, the same day as the New York Post editorial.

 

In fact, that article was analyzed by yours truly in a discussion that came under the title: “A free Palestine would check terrorist Israel,” published on this page just below the one you are reading.

 

As can be seen from the titles alone, the New York Post editorial advocates the granting of unrestricted free speech to everyone, especially those whom the editors claim are denied it — such as the Jews and their supporters — whereas the National Review article advocates the denial of free speech to those who will not praise Israel or the Jews in every sentence they write. It is that the Jews consider the absence of such praise to mean a hidden tendency to hate the Jews.

 

So then, what are the editors of the New York Post saying? Well, you’ll not be surprised to know that the editors attributed to the gentiles what the Jews have been doing for decades, what they do now, and what they promise they’ll do tomorrow and forever into the future. What’s that, you ask? It is the equivalent of the social graces that the finishing schools used to teach young women about to enter the social milieu and act on their own to charm the crowd. Handled by the Jewish leaders, such preparations came to be known as the “private and behind closed door” Jewish treatment of neophytes just joining the politico-journalistic domain.

 

And here is how the editors of the New York Post reversed that reality:

 

“If universities don’t protect free speech and open debate, they’re no better than finishing schools, if not outright propaganda factories — serving not the nation or the search for truth, but simply the dominant ideology. But that’s increasingly what US colleges have become, routinely closing the door to dissent by shutting down professors, researchers and students who challenge the received wisdom”.

 

What the editors of the New York Post did here, is ignore the reality that in most cases, the universities let the debates run their course, a stance that demonstrates their dedication to free speech. But while this is happening, the Jewish leaders work on fabricating false claims that tie every argument they cannot defeat to antisemitism. This is the veto power they gave themselves, the power by which they force the politico-journalistic crowd to cancel the brave souls who refuse to toe the Jewish line.

 

The editors of the new York Post went on to cite several examples of professors and others that were cancelled because of what they uttered verbally or in writing — yet the editors failed to mention a single one of the numerous examples when someone was cancelled for life, as punishment for saying something as innocuous as Egypt is a civilized country.

 

And here, you have it yet again, the editorial board that railed on previous occasions about the “Equity, Diversity and Inclusion” program being introduced in some Colleges and Universities, now lamenting that such treatment was denied those who sought to have diversity come to their institution. Here is how the editors expressed that thought:

 

“At Portland State, Peter Boghossian became a pariah just for calling attention to the lack of diversity of opinions on campus, a response that proved his point”.

 

Perhaps what the editors of the New York Post wish to see, are campuses flooded with all shades of WASPISH-YIDDISH tints, but not a single color that might remind them the world is diverse.

 

This is how the editors of the New York Post ended their discussion:

 

“It’s alarming: The last place cancel culture should flourish is on campus. Higher education is supposed to foster fresh thinking, not enforce any ideology except the classical liberal ideals of free and open debate. Universities can’t serve society as a whole if fear of backlash keeps brilliant thinkers from sharing their thoughts. Unpopular ideas won’t always prove right — but even when wrong, they can expose faults in the previous consensus. And if they go unheard, true progress becomes impossible”.

 

Weighing all that evidence as would be seen and appraised by an impartial observer, we can only conclude that the Jews wish to have unlimited access to free speech while retaining the veto power by which to cancel anyone who does not toe their line.

 

Call that Jewish style democracy.

A free Palestine would check terrorist Israel

 It is gratifying to know that at least one learner has leaned a valuable lesson. He is Zach Kessel who says he is an undergraduate studying at a school of journalism. He demonstrated the progress he made by writing an article under the title: “Antisemitism Threatens More than Just the Jews,” published on November 26, 2022 in National Review Online.

 

The reason why this realization by a Jew is important, is that it signifies the Jewish abandonment of the claim for monopolistic rights in all matters involving Jews. We must, however, not jump to the conclusion that Kessel has learned the full lesson. He did not. To wit, he went on to say the following in the subtitle of the article: “A hesitance to combat anti-Jewish hate endangers the liberal foundations on which societies like ours rest.” And this says he is still missing something.

 

In fact, he begins his discussion with a sentence that is loaded with misconceptions. Here is how it goes: “In a time of escalating antisemitism, it’s increasingly uncertain whether liberal institutions can faithfully and effectively safeguard Jews from those who wish them harm.” To begin with, no one that is not harmed by Jews, wishes them harm. If antisemitism is increasing nowadays, it’s because the Jews ask for too much of what others are not getting. In addition, even though Zach Kessel later admitted that antisemitism emanates from the Right as much as the Left, he went on to single out the liberal institutions for criticism, casting doubt that they can safeguard Jews from those that harm them.

 

And this was the start of the errors that Zach Kessel kept piling on as he proceeded to denigrate the people of Palestine whose country was stolen from them by the Jewish terrorists of the Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir and modern settlers variety. But instead of admitting to the reality of the Jews being the master terrorists that have been plaguing the planet since biblical time, Kessel went on to accuse others and complain as follows:

 

“Members of the Northwestern chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) — a national organization that supports terrorism and the targeting of Jewish civilians — painted over the get-out-the-vote message, writing on The Rock the slogan, ‘From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will Be Free’”.

 

Thus, taking advantage of the Palestinians exercising their right to free speech, Zach Kessel did what was inculcated into him since the moment he started suckling on his mother’s milk. What he did is reverse the reality of the existing situation by attributing to the Palestinians the terrorism that the pilots of Israeli bombers commit when they locate Palestinian civilians and wipe them out using American-made precision ordnance, thus help ethnic cleanse Palestine of its indigenous people.

 

To justify that kind of bloodthirsty cannibalistic behavior, Kessel went on to explain why the freedom of the Palestinian people would entail “the elimination of Israel and the expulsion of Jews from its borders.” But was his explanation the bombshell revelation that should wake up everyone to his accusation that the Students for Justice in Palestine are playing a nihilistic game? No, it was not. In fact, Kessel’s explanation dropped not like a bomb but a tired bird that fell from the sky. Here is that lame explanation: The fact that Hamas frequently employs the slogan is further evidence of its antisemitic nature. That’s how Zach Kessel forms his monumental decisions?

 

And he would not stop here. To bolster his argument even further, he made use of the work that was done by another student; one that complained about the same kind of non-incident — and got an appropriate response to her trivial thinking. Here is what Kessel has reported:

 

“A Jewish member wrote an op-ed in our campus newspaper, noting the antisemitism inherent in the slogan [From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will Be Free,] and calling on other Jewish students to urge the school’s administration to condemn its use. In response, SJP members assembled print copies of the op-ed, painted ‘From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will Be Free’ on them, and hung up their artwork on a fence facing the campus’s main road”.

 

So, there you have it. Whereas the Students for Justice in Palestine are advocating the freeing of a stolen country, something that can be achieved as it has been discussed for decades, the Jews believe that freedom for the Palestinians means instant death for the Jews. But the reality is that there exist two ways to achieve the desired result to the satisfaction of everyone. There is the One State Solution which would give the Palestinians full citizenship in the liberated binational country. The other, known as the Two State Solution, is to give the Palestinians a piece of what is theirs, and let them form their own country.

 

Ignoring that history but conscious of the reality that a Palestinian state would end the Jewish dream of dominating the Middle East, Zach Kessel blew the anger in his belly by doing what losers do. He blathered froth at the mouth that looked and sounded as follows: “This called for a response from the university, a show of moral courage that Northwestern had so far been unwilling to make. Surely, the university would understand the need for a forceful condemnation of antisemitic harassment of one of its students?”

 

The university did none of this, of course, but did the correct thing by issuing a statement that said, “the Israeli-Palestinian conflict … is vigorously debated on our campus, a sign of the university community’s commitment to freedom of expression”.

 

And this was the reaffirmation of the University’s dedication to free speech, a concept that Zach Kessel was never made aware of but should have when suckling on his mother’s milk. He thus called the University’s statement, a farce, proving definitively that the real farce is for the Jews to pretend they love democracy when in fact they hate it as much as they do a free Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.

Advising burnouts who lose their magic touch

 Although there has never been a formal definition of the work that advisers do, the worth of the job undertaken by these people when completed, is rated for the value it has added to an existing situation.

 

When an adviser repeatedly gives the kind of advice that helps their client do well, he/she is sought after and showered with requests for advice of all kinds. And there lies the problem.

 

It is that nobody can be an expert in everything, a reality that a client who is desperate for answers, fails to appreciate, thus insists on getting some kind of advice for which they pay top dollars. And this proves to be enough of an incentive for the advisers to give guidance they know will turn out to be at best partially useful.

 

While scenarios like the one above contribute to the models which erode the level of confidence people have in expert advice, other scenarios also play roles that diminish the value of such advice. As expected, most of these would be related to greed and the desire to get rich quickly. Add to this the role of charlatans who are bereft of any level of expertise, yet give out advice in every field and charge enormous sums for them.

 

And then there is a category of advisers that should be viewed as having a “double edged sword” kind of quality. One such adviser recently wrote an article that came under the title: “What to do about China in the next Congress,” and the subtitle: “The GOP must work to end US investor funding of Chinese companies.” It was written by Robby Stephany Saunders, and published on November 22, 2022 in The Washington Times.

 

Having served as senior adviser at State, the Senate and the House of Representatives, and now serving as adviser at the Coalition for a Prosperous America, Robby Saunders certainly has the credentials that give weight to her advice. So the question that should preoccupy the people who think about the big issues of he day, is this: What if Robby Saunders were wrong? After all, she is human and fallible like the rest of us. Will there be someone who’ll risk destroying their reputation by contradicting what she says?

 

The most likely answer to the above question is that there will be no one willing to contradict her, even if they see that she is clearly advising inadequate or false solutions. So then, what does that do to the pool of advisers who are supposed to maintain the nation on the path of ironclad security and high prosperity?

 

The answer is that to feel protected and secure in their jobs, they copy from each other, thus develop a kind of groupthink that weakens the system, and leaves the nation vulnerable security-wise as well as uncertain economically. Not only do the stars of such grouping — Robby Saunders being an example — tolerate such behavior, they encourage it because it protects them too from the Young Turks who might decide at some point to challenge their supremacy.

 

Are there signs that something to that effect, are beginning to show in the Robby Saunders article? The answer is yes, there are such signs. In fact, what follows is the condensed version of excerpts that show how it is happening:

 

“Essentially, the GOP must pursue a commonsense approach to China that includes elements of both Reagan’s ‘peace through strength’ policy and the ‘America First’ goals of the recent Trump administration. That starts with recognizing how normalized trade with Beijing failed to produce the prosperity, democratic values and open society in China that many free traders had promised. To counter this, Congress must tackle Beijing’s access to US financial markets, including passive investment products such as exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and mutual funds. This is a key means by which Beijing continually funnels billions of American investment dollars to Chinese companies”.

 

What better way is there to start a group that thinks alike in the belief they’ll all become as good as the combined wisdom of Ronald Reagan and the daring-do of Donald Trump? But the question remains: What did that wisdom and that daring-do accomplish? Well, you don’t have to go far to find the answer to that question. Saunders herself has supplied it. Here it is: “That starts with recognizing how normalized trade with Beijing failed to produce the prosperity, democratic values and open society in China that many free traders had promised”. It was failure, she says.

 

What she is saying here, is that America’s approach to rallying the world around it by democratizing the nations of the globe politically and economically, has been a dismal failure. So then, what to do now? Robby Saunders has the answer to that question. She says America must reverse the conciliatory attitude toward China that the free traders had advocated.

 

She concentrates her attention on what happens on Wall Street. She points out that numerous Chinese companies trade on the American stock exchanges, which allows Beijing to “continually funnel billions of American investment dollars to Chinese companies.” And so, she calls on the Congress to pass legislation instructing the FRTIB to remove Chinese firms from at least the investments of federal workers, military families, veterans and members of Congress.

 

But would that be a wise thing to do? The answer is no, it would not be wise because it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how investment works, and what it accomplishes. The problem with the Saunders view is that she confuses between two situations. First, there are the private companies which may be large or small, and owned by an individual, a family or a limited number of partners. Second, there are the publicly traded companies, which are richly capitalized, and owned by a large number of investors.

 

What happened at the start of globalization, is that the private companies were the ones to close up shop in America and restart in China. There were even instances when wealthy individuals bought a publicly traded company outright and took it private before moving it to China. Why is that? Because were the company still public, the public outcry would have been so loud, the move to China could not be done.

 

What this says, is that a domestic or foreign company that’s traded publicly in America guarantees that millions of eyes are watching it, making sure it is operating in the interest of America. For Robby Saunders to be paranoid about it, is to harm the American interest believing it is serving it.

 

Robby Saunders needs to take a long vacation to recharge her batteries.

He points at the path to mass hallucination

 When Clifford D. May goes on for nearly 900 words harshly attacking the American decision to investigate how it happened that one of its citizens was killed in the Israeli occupied Palestinian territory of the West Bank, you wonder what has motivated this man to be so resentful of what Israel’s benefactor has the moral and legal right to do.

 

When you’ve read the entire article, however, and have come near the end of it, your wonderment disappears almost instantly as you encounter the words that Clifford May has used to express what sounds like a deep seated wishful thinking. Here is what he said:

 

“The least-worse — and perhaps most likely — end to this episode: The FBI takes one more look at the evidence, finds nothing new or surprising, and then quietly closes the case, confirming the conclusions of the USSC and the IDF”.

 

Putting together (1) the reality that Clifford May began his discussion by expressing a horrified resentment at the fact that America decided to investigate the death of its citizen in the Israeli occupied Palestine, and (2) the reality that Clifford May fantasizes about America’s investigation ending up exonerating the Israeli military — says that Clifford May is convinced Israel’s hands are dripping with the blood of the American victim, and he is worried sick.

 

This being the case, Clifford May decided to join many others and do his part at thwarting the American investigation. To this end, he wrote: “Why sic the FBI on the Israeli Defense Force?” an article which also came under the subtitle: “The shut-and-open case of Shireen Abu Akleh.” It was published on November 22, 2022 in The Washington Times.

To do what he set out doing, Clifford May followed the Jewish pattern of saturating the ambiance with noise to deafen the ears, with dust to blind the eyes, and with heat to make the audience drop its guards as he dishes out a tsunami of lies, misinformation, disinformation and deceptive declarations concerning what happened in occupied Palestine. He also attacked the American lawmakers who welcomed their country’s decision to investigate how one of their own was killed abroad.

 

Look how the writer began his discussion: “Abu Akleh went to the West Bank to cover a clash between the Israeli forces and members of a Palestinian terrorist cell responsible for more than a dozen recent assassinations of Israelis”.

 

To begin with, the situation being investigated by the Americans, has nothing to do with the Palestinian belief that the Israeli soldiers are bloodsucking terrorists recruited from around the world to do nothing more useful than ethnic cleanse Palestine of its indigenous people. Also, the situation has nothing to do with the Israeli belief that the Palestinian freedom fighters are so-called terrorists. The only reality is that the situation being investigated by the Americans, has to do with a double-barreled simple question: How and why did Shireen Abu Akleh die? and nothing else.

 

But as if this were not enough noise, dust and heat to disturb the audience, Clifford May proceeded to add the following misinformation, disinformation and deceptive declarations to further saturate the ambiance. Here is what he came up with this time: “A bullet struck and killed her. She was the 13th al-Jazeera journalist killed in a conflict zone around the world since the news-and-propaganda outlet, owned by the state of Qatar, was founded in 1996”.

 

The fact, however, is that the investigation conducted by the Americans, is about Abu Akleh, the only American journalist working for al-Jazeera to die in occupied Palestine—and not about the other 12 journalists. As well, the investigation has nothing to do with the truth or the biblical-size lie of al-Jazeera being a news-and-propaganda outlet, owned by the state of Qatar … something that is as irrelevant to this discussion as can be an Israeli verbal attack on the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA).

 

In any case, when that was done, Clifford May proceeded to adopt yet another Jewish pattern, this time an array that reveals a great deal about what lies hidden in the subconscious mind of a people that grow up under the inculcating influence of a refrain which constantly reminds them they are supreme because they were chosen by God to be his favorite children and own the Planet with all its content. Here is how Clifford May put it:

 

“57 Democratic House members called on the FBI and State Department to launch an investigation into Abu Akleh’s death. Two dozen Democratic senators, led by Chris Van Hollen, called on President Biden to ensure the direct involvement of the United States in the investigation. What did these letters say about Israelis being attacked from the West Bank, about their right to defend themselves, and about the responsibility of the Palestinian Authority to deal with terrorists in the territories it governs? Not a word”.

 

Of course, Clifford May is not as naïve as to believe that Abu Akleh had something to do with Israelis being attacked from the West Bank, or that they may or may not have the right to defend their ill-gotten gains, or that the PA has or has not the responsibility to protect the bloodsuckers from the self-defensive measures taken by the freedom fighters. But if that is the case, what is Clifford May revealing which goes beyond the generation of noise, dust and heat?

 

What Clifford May reveals in that passage, is the reality that Jews believe they are owed even more than the Planet and its content. They believe that humanity was created to love the Jews as described in a book written by a French Jew who thinks of himself a philosopher. The expectation is that when this will happen, human beings everywhere will worship the Jews, serve them as do ordinary domestic workers, and die if they must to protect any Jew who may be threatened.

 

Have the Jewish leaders gone this far with their imagination? To believe it, you must first conclude they have come close to being one inch away from a state of mass hallucination similar to that suffered by “Hitler’s Executioners,” whom he mesmerized with his speeches.

 

But where is the evidence that the Jews are walking that same path?

 

You’ll see the evidence when you recall that during the last war on the defenseless people of Gaza, Israel bombed the building housing the international press because it was telling the truth about the conduct of the war.

 

Instead of admitting this was in line with the Israeli mandate to kill the press that does not lie for them, the Jewish leaders came up with an excuse that stands as the crown jewel of their cultural retardation, if not their mental deterioration.

 

They said that Palestinian scientists, working in the press building, were developing a weapon that could defeat even the military of a superpower, which is why they had to do what they did.

 

This alone tells you that the Israeli military was most likely given the order from higher up to kill Shireen Abu Akleh because she was telling the truth.

Cogitating over the debt of two nations

 Economy is such a vast subject, you need to open a million windows to peak into it. The discussion that follows opens only one such window, doing it to shed light on a subject that blazed furiously not long ago. Here is that story:

 

An accountant, an economist and a military general teamed up to tell America it is in danger. They are David M. Walker, Barry M. Poulson and Bill Owens who cowrote an article under the title, “Debt: The greatest threat to America’s national security,” and the subtitle: “The US must remain a republic and representative democracy, not direct democracy.” The article was published on November 18, 2022 in the Washington Times.

 

Here, in condensed form, is how the three authors have described America’s troubles:

 

“The federal government has increased its spending and has financed it by borrowing. Total federal debt as a share of GDP has more than doubled, from 55% in 2000 to 122%, and is projected to increase to almost 200% by midcentury. The US has emerged as one of the most heavily indebted nations in the world. Interest rates on US debt have increased sharply, and lending nations have curbed their appetite to lend. Some nations are also working to reduce reliance on the dollar as a reserve currency. We are now experiencing stagflation with a debt burden comparable to that incurred during World War II. Congress has abandoned fiscal responsibility, and we can no longer rely on elected officials to restore fiscal sanity and sustainability. The budget process is broken. The debt ceiling has failed, and other statutory fiscal rules have not stood the test of time”.

 

The authors are obviously patriotic Americans worried about the state of the country they care much about. In fact, after describing America’s difficulties, they proceeded to tell how other nations, facing similar problems, went about fixing them. And so, they urged America to adopt similar measures to save the country before it is too late.

 

It also happened that while the Americans worried about their country’s debt, other people — mostly non-Egyptians — worried about Egypt’s debt, or more likely pretended to worry. They latched on to the opportunity which opened to them by the fact that Egypt hosted the COP27 international event, and proceeded to express the dishonest views that were inculcated into them about the country and its economy.

 

Checking the internet, using any word you might think will yield a story about Egypt, will return tons of articles on the country and/or its economy. Check the content of these articles, and you’ll form an image of what must have happened during all the time that COP27 was held in that country. Here is what you’ll most probably see with your mind’s eye:

 

An army of moral prostitutes, awaken by the bloodsucking worldwide criminal syndicate, receives the order to spread out and visit every nook and cranny on the planet that’s putting out skunk-like stinky lies that exceed in size any biblical myth you may have heard about lately or did so as a child.

 

Obeying those commands, the prostitutes go around the world and visit every gutter, septic tank, sewer, drain, trough, cesspool, culvert and what have you. They collect enough filth from each hole to fill buckets of the stinky stuff – something they do in multiple languages, especially Hebrew and Yiddish. They slap the Star of David on the buckets, and throw them at Egypt to distort the reality that the country is fast becoming the shinning city on the hill, a development that frightens the bloodsuckers whose existence depends on keeping the Middle East in a permanent state of backwardness.

 

But what is the undeniable reality concerning Egypt and its economy? To begin with, Egypt’s population is much younger than that of the United States, and expected to grow in size for at least another generation given its current high rate of birth. This alone says that Egypt—unlike America whose population is stable or shrinking—will have the necessary ingredient in terms of manpower to produce the wealth that will pay off the debt the country is incurring.

 

Another undeniable reality is that despite the worldwide troubles of supply chain disruptions, as well as the COVID pandemic, the Eurasian war and inflation, the Egyptian economy has bucked the trend of stagnation and shrinkage, and has instead grown — at times even substantially. So, what happens to an economy that borrows from external sources while growing internally at the rate of 5 or 6 percent? It happens that every 100 dollars that Egypt borrows, become 105 or 106 dollars at the end of the year. This gives the country the ability to pay back the 100-dollar loan, and retain the 5 or 6 dollars it earned by the labor of its workforce.

 

But most of the time, Egypt did not even borrow the money. Because the country was doing extremely well before the supply chain disruptions, COVID, the Eurasian war and inflation – quick buck artists, loaded with hot money, were attracted to it. They fattened their wallets in good times, and when the troubles hit the world economies, they pulled their money out of Egypt and ran away.

 

While this may have shaken the confidence of genuine investors, it did little or nothing to affect the ability of the economy to maintain the level of wealth it was producing. Thus, contrary to popular belief, Egypt did not need to borrow and replenish what was withdrawn by those artists. It only asked its friends to deposit their idle money in Egypt’s Central Bank to reassure the genuine investors that if worse comes to worse, Egypt will be allowed to use the deposits to dampen what may roil it if this were to happen unexpectedly. It is as if Egypt were handed a premium-free insurance policy with no obligation attached, and no expectation that it will be needed.

 

Contrast that state of affairs with the American Federal Reserve (Fed) which—to check inflation—raised the interest rates on all sectors of the economy. In so doing, the Fed also gave the foreign lenders an unexpected chance to fatten their wallets at the expense of an economy that’s reeling with the knowledge that the future will not be a cakewalk.

 

Maybe what America needs to do now, is look for and cultivate better friends.

The debt that’s redeemed by its incurrence

 Despite their usual harsh rightwing ideology, the editors of the Washington Times came up with a curious editorial they wrote under the title: “Shivering implications of the UN’s climate confab COP27,” and the subtitle: “Only the coldhearted choose 'green' ideology over human survivability.” It was published on November 10, 2022.

 

The editors discuss facts, and offer opinions with regard to Britain’s difficulties in providing the comfort of a warm winter for its citizens during the coming season. This bucking of the ideology which says survival to the fittest, forces us to ask the question: Does Britain – or any country for that matter – owe its citizens a comfortable living?

 

In trying to answer that question, we find ourselves taking a long detour through the uncharted territory of unsettled science. Here is how that goes:

 

A concept that baffles scientists enormously is time. Many dare to say that time is the product of our imagination because it has no tangible existence — i.e. it has no physical existence. And yet, it so happens that in nearly 100 percent of the mathematical operations we perform in physics or the humanities, the X axis on the Cartesian Graph is made to represent time. Thus, Time may be intangible, but it certainly is ubiquitous.

 

While that sort of discussion comes up from time to time in science tutorials, what should be of equal interest and should come up in the tutorials of the humanities, is the concept of debt. That’s because, like time, debt has no physical existence. Yes, debt is not represented on the X axis of the Cartesian Graph as often as time, but that’s because time often substitutes for it, especially in operations where the debt increases with the passage of time.

 

So, let’s ask the loaded question: Of all the things that the natural world has created, did it contribute anything that’s meant to represent the concept of debt? The short answer is that nature has made no such contribution. As to the nuanced answer, it must be said that nature made it impossible for organic life to exist without there being a concept of debt to regulate the relationships that bind the various constituents making up an organism.

 

For example, if parents did not feel they owe their offspring a minimum level of protection and nurture, life would end after one generation. If there is no expectation that when I scratch your back today, you’ll scratch mine tomorrow, we’d all be running around with backs inflamed with rash, and no one to scratch them. If human societies, prides of lions, flocks of birds or schools of fish did not live in groups that serve the needs of the collective by virtue of their gathering, the individuals would perish separately trying to make it on their own. If Britain does not collectively solve the problem of gas shortages, individual Britons are expected to die of cold — at least according to the editors of the Washington Times. 

 

What we deduce from all this, is that nature demands we universalize the concept of debt by making the survival of organisms conditional on them cooperating to pay a debt that may or may not have incurred or may even never incur. Thus, in the same way that nothing would exist without there being the intangible time to accompany it, nothing would exist either without there being the debt that creates and maintains the bond of survival between the organism’s constituents.

 

But at a time when this question seemed to have been settled at the abstract level, the Times editorial opened a new area for discussion. It was to answer this question: When presented with a choice between letting nature solve a problem via the long term redemption of debt — if this will ever happen — or by taking immediate practical steps to eliminate the problem’s causes, how is a sovereign government supposed to choose?

 

The Times editors report on one such instance where the government of Germany’s Westphalia Province, was forced to decide. Here is how the editors put it:

 

“In Germany’s Westphalia, a wind turbine farm is being dismantled to make room for a lignite coal mine expansion. With no Russian gas to keep Germans warm this winter, the decision was quickly made to swap clean but intermittent wind for carbon-based but reliable coal. If officials had ‘given in to the demands of the fossil fuel industry,’ as one critic characterized the move, they did it to keep citizens alive. Who can blame them?”

 

Given that nature regularly solves the problem of shortages by letting the weak perish so that enough will be left for the strong to survive and produce a strong offspring, the Westphalia government has defied the natural order. Was it the right thing to do?

 

Obviously motivated by human compassion, the editors of the Washington Times say it was. This prompts the question: What happened that convinced the editors to abandon their traditional ideology of survival to the fittest?

 

Was this an example of nature’s long term approach by which the reluctant are educated on the need to pay their debt to society; a debt they incur by virtue of being a constituent of that society?

Win big battles armed with truth and patience

 If you ever wondered why America’s messaging to the world (known as propaganda) has constantly been a dismal failure, you now have the explanation as to why this has been the case. The explanation came in the form of an article written under the title: “In the global meme wars, it’s time to side with the elves against the trolls,” authored by Thomas Kent, and published in the Washington Post on November 16, 2022.

 

It is important to know that beside teaching at the college level, Thomas Kent introduces himself as consultant on combating disinformation. In fact, he is a senior fellow of the Jamestown Foundation and former president of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

 

Unlike Thomas Kent, I do not have credentials that were attested to or bestowed on me by others. But I have a lifetime of hands-on experience on how to survive a ferocious meme war such as the one that was unleashed on me. I was made to endure its crushing pressure in silence and total secrecy because the perpetrators feared that if their war on me was made public, they and their collaborators will be the ones to perish instead of me whom they had cancelled and made invisible as they tried to erase every trace of my existence on the face of the Earth.

 

The chief perpetrator was none other than the worldwide crime syndicate known as World Jewry. It recruited the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and commanded them to punish and silence me for daring to write a letter to the editor of a large Toronto newspaper in 1968. It was a harmless letter in which I proclaimed that Egypt was a civilized country, but this proved too much for the Jews to stomach at the time. It turned out that in the view of the crime syndicate, my proclamation was conveying such a threat to Jews, to Canada and to the world, it was necessary to mobilize and put to work against me the mightiest of the Anglosphere security apparatuses.

 

Heads of these institutions were made to swear they’ll abide by the Jewish-enforced omerta. They were instructed to squeeze the screws so tight on me, I would lose my mind and commit a horrible act they can point to and say they always knew I was capable of committing such act, which is why they persistently persecuted me for the duration of my entire adult life. But I confounded them by staying sane, law abiding and very much interested to study the ways of the evil that animates them. My overriding motivation had been to stay alive so that I may tell future generations about their morbid wickedness and how to defeat it.

 

But how did I pull it off?

 

I did it by following the dictates of my instinct. It happened that in some instances, those dictates ran contrary to what Thomas Kent is now advising in his article. In fact, he began by suggesting there was a need for smart policies to counter disinformation, but then talked about policies that failed without describing them or telling why they failed. Here is how he did that:

 

“In recent years, the US government’s efforts to confront disinformation have often fallen short. The recent exposure of a covert social media campaign promoting US interests abroad has demonstrated the shortcomings of government operations done with little skill”.

 

So then, how did he propose doing things that can yield the desired result?

 

He is proposing several approaches, some of which are correct in my view; others not so much. Here is a good approach that relies on learning about the best practices of others and duplicating them. Here is how Thomas Kent expressed that thought:

 

“The conflict brought some valuable lessons for those who wish to fight back. Perhaps the most notable successes have come from nongovernment activists — campaigners in threatened countries — who have been mounting their own response to [foreign] propaganda … Perhaps it’s time we learned something from Eastern Europe’s online nongovernment activists — many of them volunteers. They possess authenticity and expertise that outside governments cannot match”.

 

Whereas it is a good thing to learn from others, I would not advise developing the tendency to form online mobs because they will sooner or later coalesce into a groupthink that will generate much heat, thunderous noise, faint light, a bewildering confusion and not much else. Those in the business of doing or countering propaganda must never forget that in the long run, a mob always defeats itself.

 

But how might unwanted mobs develop to begin with under the Thomas Kent approach? Good question. To answer it, here are the words he uttered which betray his inner thoughts on the subject:

 

“Some Eastern Europeans have told me their work has fallen off because they cannot afford even one full-time person to monitor disinformation and recruit and organize volunteers. A grant as small as $50,000 that continues year after year can make a difference. Activists also need professionals to design information campaigns and target them to critical audiences”.

 

I had none of that going for me during my lonely journey through hell and yet, I did more than survive the combined might of the World Jewry and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In addition, while defending myself the best I could, I took on the warmongers of this world and ripped them at every turn without suffering as much as a scratch at their hands.

 

I achieved everything I aimed to establish because I let truth speak for itself. Yes, there were instances when truth took time before it revealed itself, but these were the moments when patience proved to be my friend and ally.

 

Embrace it like I did, and never let go of it.

From commanding viceroy to sad lone bugler

 There was a time not long ago that when announcements were made to the effect that someone was running for office, the neighborhood’s nest of buzzing hornets woke up and brimmed with life.

 

If the candidate had the White House in his or her sight, the hornets would be of a special kind. They were Jews, handpicked by their collective organizers, a syndicate that still goes by the name Jewish Central. The hornets would be coached on how to swarm the candidate, never to drift away too far, and instructed on how to turn every situation into a moment that serves the interests of Israel.

 

Taking up positions that ranged from presidential adviser of any kind, to speechwriter of the highest kind, the Jewish hornets dominated the political and cultural life of what they considered was their American colonial plantation. Their elected deputy — made to occupy the White House — pretended to speak in the name of the American people, but in reality did or said nothing that wasn’t conceived by the elders of Israel and sent to the American Central on a daily if not hourly basis.

 

Confident that their time for glory had come to stay till the promise of global ownership is handed to them, the Jews failed to see the reality of the restlessness that was starting to bubble among the White nativists of America. Two decades after the start of their movement, the nativists had mastered the social media, turning them into a tool by which they strengthened their power enough to equal that of Jews. They pitted their might against the syndicate controlling the White House, and scored big time.

 

The change they brought about was substantial, as can be seen in the article which came under the title: “The speech Biden should give (but don’t hold your breath,)” written by Clifford D. May, and published on November 15, 2022 in The Washington Times. From the viceroy who used to command the mobilization of America’s military resources and go after the rivals of Israel, Clifford May was reduced to a lone bugler playing the literary equivalent of the Last Post’s sad melody.

 

Unable to issue commands that will be taken seriously and implemented the way things used to happen, Clifford May has taken up the role of speculator in the business of guessing what’s being organized inside the While House for the benefit – not of Israel – but of Americans who live and toil in America.

 

After a bromide preamble that said little about the important issues of the day, but paved the way for what was coming, Clifford May tackled the matter of Joe Biden’s association with the Iran nuclear deal. Here, in condensed form, is what he said about the subject:

 

“I want to talk about Iran. President Barack Obama stretched out his hand to that country’s rulers and asked them to unclench their fists. Instead, they’ve attacked and menaced their neighbors. Their militias in Iraq have killed two Americans. Regime thugs have murdered hundreds of Iranians. It’s become clear to me that it would make no sense to help enrich and empower Tehran. And that’s what the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action would do — without stopping them from acquiring nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them. Our next step: Work with our European allies to snap back tough UN sanctions. Then we’ll talk with our Middle Eastern allies about Plan B”.

 

What Clifford May neglected to mention was that the situation he is describing is but a chain of reactions that continues to play out events started long ago when America interfered with the politics of Iran, having engineered a coup in that country in the year 1953. Similar events also started when Israel interfered with the development of its neighbors, most notably Iraq whose civilian power station it bombed in the year 1981. Ever since that time, and especially after America’s ally Saddam Hussein attacked Iran, the tit for tat war has been raging between Iran and its two main foes.

 

It is that when the Iranians get hit by the terrorism of either foe, they take it like soldiers, lick their wounds, stand on their feet and get ready to fight the next round of actions and reactions. By contrast, when the Jews get hit, they wail the victimhood cry about being targeted because of who they are, which they cannot change … not what they do, which they will not change in any case, come hell or high water. As to the Americans, they used to respond the way that the Iranians did, but when the Judeo-Yiddish culture invaded America, the soldiers of that country — who used to enjoy displaying their manhood — began to display the same sissy attitude of the “victimized” Jews.

 

While bugling his sorrow, Clifford May gets seized at times by the memory of the glory that abandoned him, and acts as if he were reliving those moments. He did so in his latest article when he mentioned the two personalities he used to dislike throughout his tenure as viceroy. Here is what he says he wants to do with them now:

 

“I want to say a word about Robert Malley. We’re grateful for his service. In the new year, we’ll find him a new mission worthy of his talents. Right now I want to thank John Kerry for his service, too. We’ll also have a new mission for him in 2023”.

 

Having gone from viceroy to bugler, Clifford May should consider giving himself yet another new mission. How about volunteering to go to Mars on the no-return mission to that planet?

A lesson that will amaze future historians

 Whereas the moderate and fanatic Jews are squabbling about the significance of the Jewish vote in American elections, the pollsters are making a mint at their expense telling them what they want to hear.

 

Given that the performance of pollsters in the latest midterm elections proved to be a disaster, we can only surmise that the pollsters feed their clients what they want to hear rather than tell the truth about what they find. And when you rank the pollsters by their performance, you cannot help but consider the rightwing types — such as those guided by Fox News — as being powered by the intellectual integrity of a Stone Age male prostitute.

 

Of course, all these people — pollsters and clients alike — are coached by highly trained spin doctors who teach them to project the image of well adjusted human beings; people who are supposedly busy performing normal duties normally despite their having to work under the constant pressure of a demanding public that wants it all, wants it expertly packaged, and wants it now.

 

But if you suspect that the image — projected by these people as they broadcast live to the public — is different from what must be going on in their imagination, you’ll want to guess how a scenario may be unfolding inside the skull of a pollster that’s preparing to meet his clients. Here is a scene—though grotesque in appearance—cannot be thought of as exaggerated when you consider what was revealed about pollsters during the last midterm elections:

 

POLLSTER: You know what these people have asked for, don’t you my boy?

 

HIS MINION: Yes I do. And I’m going to give them what they want, except ten times more of it.

 

POLLSTER: You do that, and they’ll pay us ten times more.

 

HIS MINION: That’s not to say they’ll come for business ten times more often.

 

POLLSTER: Tell me, what specifically have you prepared for these people?

 

HIS MINION: I’m going to tell them that college-age white women are flocking to their side of the ideological spectrum by the thousands.

 

POLLSTER: Why not by the millions? You know these women are frightened by the abortion issue.

 

HIS MINION: Yes indeed, why not by the millions? And I have the right message for them.

 

POLLSTER: What is it? Tell me quick. What is it?

 

HIS MINION: I’ll say that despite the abortion scare, millions of sexually active college women are flocking to their rightwing ideology to prove they are liberated … and RIGHTLY so.

 

POLLSTER: Smart! You’re very smart! You’re telling the carefree that to be liberated, they must slavishly imitate the millions of women you have imagined for them.

 

HIS MINION: Yes indeed. And what liberated woman is afraid to confront an Epstein or a Weinstein that’s lurking under every lectern waiting for the right moment to score a win … but gets his nose bloodied.

 

In fact, the question of who’s stiffing whom, is the one that’s preoccupying most Jews post the just ended midterm elections. You can see an example of that in the article that was published on November 11, 2022 in the Jewish News Syndicate under the title: “Republican share of the Jewish vote rises to 33% in midterms, exit poll shows,” and the accompanying blurt which elaborates on that message to have it read as follows:

 

“While a different poll conducted by the liberal Jewish lobby J Street found that Republicans received 25% of the Jewish vote in the 2022 midterm elections, the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) tweeted that the poll released by Fox News is the ‘gold standard’ because it is a network exit poll and ‘more reflective of the national Jewish vote’”.

 

Sam Markstein, who is the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) National Political Director, went further than that in his praise of Fox News – doing it by beating up on the J Street folks. Here are his words:

 

“J Street doesn’t like the Fox News poll, so they shopped around and paid for a poll they do like. The trends are absolutely clear: Jewish voters are moving towards the GOP—24 percent in 2016, 30 percent in 2020, 33 percent in 2022—and no J Street paid-for poll will change those facts”.

 

If someone out there thought for a moment that it was unfair to accuse the Epsteins or the Weinsteins of being so dishonest as to pay for the commission of fake polls, they should go over what Sam Markstein has said, and they’ll be convinced that even if they do not see Jewish pants on fire or Jewish noses stretching out a foot or more, these people remain by far the most accomplished liars since they wrote the Old Testament eons ago.

 

Now that it has been established beyond the shadow of a doubt that Jews will lie, cheat and broadcast false messages about the situations they distort to better exploit — it should not be too difficult to go one step further and accept the notion, indeed the reality, that the majority of the polls so far commissioned by the Jews, were fabricated polls.

 

The goal of these people has always been to make the non-Jewish political leaders believe that a big percentage of the American population wants them to fleece America, and use the stolen wealth to finance as well as arm Israel whose main activities consist of ethnic cleansing Palestine unrelentingly, having stolen that country from its indigenous owners.

 

Sooner or later, the truth reflecting the attitude of the North American people on campus, in the arts and the workplaces, will be discussed openly, and done so with the ease by which ordinary people speak of the weather on a good day. There will be no more unseen elephants in the room, no doubletalk to say one thing but mean another, and no ambiguity by which the greedy seek to have it coming and going.

 

And when all will have been said and done, it will be shown that Israel has the support of no more than 2.5 percent of the American population. That’s all … it is only 2.5 percent and not a speck more.

They seek to pull a con job pretending reunion

 When something is bound to happen, something does happen. It may not be what was intended to happen originally; it may even be the opposite of what was intended. In the latter case, we regard what happened as the backfired product of a planning that went wrong. In fact, this kind of reversals happen so frequently, they force asking the question: What is it that so distracts us, human beings?

 

The reality is that whereas the physical world is governed by laws that cannot be broken, thus are relied upon to predict what action will cause what reaction, the animate offshoot of that physical world—known as organism—seems to defy the causal relationships that should connect every reaction to the action that’s causing it, but fails to do so. However, while acknowledging the illogic reality of organic behavior, it must be noted, that the best psychologists and neuroscientists on the Planet — equipped with the best instruments yet invented for mapping the human brain — are making discoveries that promise to reveal the logic behind the illogic of organisms. But like the saying goes, the jury is still out on this one.

 

Until more progress is made, and we understand with precision the rules if not the laws that govern our erratic behavior, we are condemned to continue living in a sea of random acts generated by the quirky behavior of each of us. Despite all of these uncertainties, however, experience has taught human beings that they can rely on the rule which says: The bigger the stakes of the endeavor you start with, the bigger the success or failure you’ll end up with.

 

One of the biggest endeavors in human history, was started by a once desert-roaming tribal people who now call themselves Jews. They were so inspired—thousands of years ago, by the magnificence of the empires that surrounded their patch of desert—they developed a vision that included ownership not just of one such empire, but the vision of owning the entire Planet Earth and all its content.

 

These being the big stakes that the Jews bet on at the start of their endeavor, they spent thousands of years trying in vain to score at least one big success, but ended up scoring an unbroken series of failures that cost them immeasurable misery and incalculable lives. Their failures came in waves, with a new one just starting now, taking on the form of a worldwide display of what’s known as antisemitic behavior.

 

When you listen to the Jewish leaders as they seek to reassure the rank-and-file they are working on fixing the problem before it reaches the boiling point, you wonder if the solutions they are proposing are not the catalysts that cause the problem in the first place. In fact, having seen and studied such scenarios playout in the past, you have become convinced that the Jewish leaders are only trying to pull a con job on the Jewish rank-and-file as well as the non-Jewish public.

 

Here is what the Jewish leaders have done on numerous occasions, promising positive results, but delivering antisemitic acts that steadily increased in frequency and steadily intensified with the passage of time … all that according to the statistics collected by the Jews themselves and by the law enforcement agencies of the countries where such statistics are kept. In fact, what we have here, is a case of the result being the backfired product of a planning that went wrong … whether you consider the planning to have been done wrong deliberately, or done wrong by the insane who believe that to repeat a mistake is to make it yield a better result.

 

It will be a long time before the psychologists and neuroscientists of Earth, equipped as they are with instruments for mapping the human brain, will have made enough progress to resolve the riddle of these people, and tell us what percolates inside their skulls. But based on past observations, and the added experiences that were accumulated through time, here is what we should expect the Jewish leaders will do as they deal with the upcoming attempts at resolving the problem of rising antisemitism:

 

Whereas logic dictates that because the problem manifests itself throughout the non-Jewish public, the solution must involve that entire public, the Jewish leaders will nevertheless refuse to go along with that idea. They will argue they do not see merit in commentators—that can make a contribution toward the clarification and/or solution of the problem—making their views known in a public setting such as the electronic or print media, when these same people can just as well make their views known in private and behind closed doors to the rabbis and the leaders of other groups.

 

In fact, “private and behind closed doors,” is the most accurate definition you can use to describe the state of Jewish democracy. “Private and behind closed doors,” is where the Jewish leaders take the newly elected members of the American Congress to educate them on how to betray America and serve the interests of Israel. “Private and behind closed doors,” is where they wish to take the children of America where they plan to teach them how to grow up worshipping Jews as if they were as godly as Jesus himself. You get the idea.

 

As in the past, when antisemitism became acute, the Jewish leaders are once again using the catchy words: “We need to get together and resolve this problem.” What happened then – and is bound to happen again – was that Christian and Muslim leaders responded to the call. The Jews took them behind closed doors where they whispered precious nonsense into their ears, causing one or two to become emotional and shed crocodile tears. This is when the meetings were ended, at which point the Jews told the world that the get-together was a splendid success. And there will be no need to organize a public discussion on the subject.

 

If the world allows itself to be conned again with one more performance of this kind, it will have earned what’s coming to it. With talk of using nuclear weapons getting louder everyday, I shudder to think what might ensue.

Behold them Jews who pose and act like Nazis

 I need to make two quick observations before I proceed with the discussion that follows.

 

First, it has been informally agreed between the bloggers who adhere to my worldview and those who adhere to the opposite worldview – that when a Jew will accuse a Palestinian of being a terrorist, the Jew will have exposed himself to harboring a Nazi mentality, thus begs to be considered a virulent Nazi.

 

Second, the Jewish online publication Algemeiner is the storehouse in which the Jewish Nazis store their revealing works. Most of the time, the writers sign their works with their real names, but the publication also has a column in which Jews that wish to remain anonymous share their thoughts under the penname: “Elder of Ziyon”.

 

What happened recently was that Algemeiner published two articles – one under the real name of Nan Jacques Zilberdik; the other under the assumed name of Elder of Ziyon. In both cases, the writers have shown themselves to harbor the Nazi mentality, thus deserving to be considered virulent Nazis.

 

The Elder of Ziyon seized on the story of the UN Mideast envoy who reported that the year 2022 was on course to being the deadliest year for Palestinians in the West Bank, thus called for action to renew the negotiations between the parties and bring calm to the region. As shown in the title of the article that was composed by the anonymous writer, he (she) accused dead Palestinians of being terrorists. Here is that infamous title: “UN Concerned About Number of Palestinians Killed This Year — Doesn’t Say That 95% Were Terrorists,” published on November 3, 2022 in Algemeiner.

 

Even though the anonymous writer was aware, and has reported in their article that: “mounting hopelessness, anger and tension have once again erupted into a deadly cycle of violence that’s increasingly difficult to contain, and that too many people, overwhelmingly Palestinians, have been killed and injured,” the elder of Ziyon dismissed the root causes of the deadly encounters, and concentrated the attention on the effect of what happened instead.

 

This done, the writer has attempted — near the end of the article — to commit a massive deception by spewing a massive lie. It is that he (she) reported the following: “Israel has no need to apologize for killing the terrorists before most of them manage to reach Israeli civilians.” But the mention of Israeli civilians in this context is proven to be false, as shown in the article that was authored by Nan Jacques Zilberdik. Here is what Zilberdick has reported:

 

Uday Al-Tamimi killed an Israeli soldier and wounded an Israeli security guard, in a shooting attack. Ten days later, he attacked again, wounding another Israeli security guard before being shot and killed by guards in the ensuing exchange of fire. Because of his attacks, Al-Tamimi has already been featured in a question on a physics test in a Palestinian school. Students were asked to calculate the path of the Martyr from his home to his last attack”.

 

Zilberdick went on to give a few more examples which ran in that same vein, but not before telling the readers that: “It is in this matter-of-fact way that the terrorist (Martyr) attacks are glorified — and children are taught that killing innocent Jews was something to be praised and lauded for”.

 

Note that even though Zilberdik began verbalizing her dissertation by explicitly admitting that the Palestinians went after Israeli soldiers, she could not maintain the honesty a few more minutes, thus succumbed to the Jewish temptation of putting out a massive lie, and build on it. She lied about the activities of the Palestinians, accusing them of terrorism when the real terrorists are the Israeli soldiers and security guards who enforce the occupation of a stolen Palestine.

 

What’s wrong with these people? Why can they not formulate a coherent narrative, and stick by it whatever it reveals, then defend it “warts and all” because of the merits they believe are entrenched in it despite its shortcomings?

 

It seems the Jews cannot do that because of the way they started their journey through life. The lesson here is that when someone sets you on the wrong path by making an assertion that inflates your ego, the chances are that you’ll never want to let go of the assertion. When you finally realize that the assertion has been a disaster to your wellbeing, you’ll most certainly hang on to it tighter than before because trying to part with it will afflict you with unbearable withdrawal symptoms.

 

Afflicted with that predicament, you’ll want to alleviate your pain by engineering a close substitute to what the assertion failed to deliver. In the case of the Jews, the assertion was that God chose them to be his favorite children, and will eventually hand them the Earth with all its riches. When the Jews realized this wasn’t going to happen, they worked on making something close to it happen. To this end, they went around the planet cornering any big power (representing God) who would help them destroy lesser powers and steal their assets (the riches of the Earth).

 

This being the path that the Jews chose to pursue, they neglected trying to formulate a coherent narrative they can defend and live by. Will they ever get around doing that? Maybe they will. But until they do, they will suffer a great deal more, and cause many people to suffer with them.