The Animals are talking, the Animals are talking

There is an old saying that goes like this: When dog bites man, that's not news. When man bites dog; that's news. By the same token when humans stage a show in which they imitate animals; that's not news. When animals stage an editorial sitting in which they imitate humans; that's news.

So how do you know that an animal is an animal imitating a human being? The answer is that you design an experiment. You get a dog and train it to bark at a certain human individual. You let that individual do a few things, such as try to trespass your property, and the dog will bark at him. You take the dog on a walk, having arranged to cross the human, and the dog will bark at him on sight. In a final test, you tell a child to pretend drowning in the swimming pool. The human appears on the scene and tries to rescue the child. Even then, the dog will bark to chase the human away. That's when you know that the dog is an animal.

And that, my friend, is how the Jews have trained the editors of the New York Times to write editorials. Their latest came under the title: “Egypt's Guidelines for Repression,” a piece that was published on May 6, 2016. They were trained to bark at the country's President, and they do so every time they get a glimpse of him.

This time they admit at the end of the editorial that “it is not clear whether Mr. Sisi has full control over the political repression, abduction, torture and other human-rights violations ascribed to the security services.” So you would think they must have started the piece the way that a human being would. But no, that's not how they started the editorial. Here is how they barked at the first sight of the man they were programmed to hate: “President el-Sisi of Egypt appears to be running an incompetent regime”.

Whoa! How bad is that? What happened that would prompt a large newspaper half a world away to thunder such a powerful bark? You really want to know what it was? Okay, I'll tell you what it was. It was this: “On Tuesday, the Interior Ministry accidentally released confidential guidelines...” Wow! Can you believe there has been a leak – an accidental one at that – out of a department? Where else in the world but “incompetent” Egypt would something as serious and grave and dangerous as that happen? Never heard of it till now. Well, like they say, there is a first for everything, and Egypt had to be the first.

But wait. That's not even the full story. Look how the sentence continues “...to stop critical reporting by the news media, including instructions not to admit mistakes and a proposed rule to stop all coverage related to the murder of a student.” That's it, man. That tells you this government is more than incompetent. I mean, if you're going to be a repressive regime, you don't instruct your people not to admit mistakes; you tell them to lie and lie as would a pathological liar running to be President of the United States. That's how to be a respected liar.

But seriously, how can the editorial dogs at the New York Times make such a big fuss out of so little, and then end their piece with a plea that's as consequential as this: “It's time for President Obama to make clear to Egypt's rulers that the United States will not continue pumping military aid into a regime at war with its own people”? Surely, even a dog would realize that the gap between telling someone not to admit mistakes, and a regime being at war with one's own people, is so wide – the reaction that the dogs propose is not warranted by the action that was committed by a human being, however imperfect he may have been.

And that's where the rest of the piece tells you what goes on inside the editorial doghouse of the New York Times. You don't even need to see a leaked memo to realize what “hidden” forces are active in that sorry place. Look at this: “The leak offered evidence of the government's brutal and destructive approach to the wave of discontent sweeping Egypt.” So you want to know what wave of discontent, that is. And they tell you this:

“The trigger for the current protests was the transfer of two uninhabited islands to Saudi Arabia … the transfer provoked a furious reaction from Egyptians who believed the government was peddling Egyptian land for Saudi dollars. The demonstrations led to arrests and confrontation with journalists who rallied in Cairo demanding the dismissal of the interior minister”.

That's it? That's all there is to it? People demonstrate against an action of the government. The police try to contain the demonstrators, a scuffle ensues, and people are arrested, among them a journalist or two. The journalists demand the resignation of the minister in charge. And what happens? The New York dogs turn on their megaphones and bark. The problem is not in Egypt; it is in New York.

Societal Interpretations tougher than Science

The understanding of a natural phenomenon begins with a philosophical pronouncement codifying what is thought to be a law that nature has forged. The philosophy becomes hard science when it is put into a mathematical formulation that boils down to a set of equations. Alternatively, a mechanical model is imagined and used to help us visualize what we cannot see with the naked eye or with instruments.

Those who are familiar with man's quest since ancient times to understand what nature was made of and how it worked, to the current attempts to “photograph or film” the atom – have an idea of the effort that went into the many interpretations advanced to explain the experimental results. Such interpretations failed most of the time, and were incomplete at other times but succeeded enough of the time to spawn today's science and technology. Indeed, the products we make today based on that science would have been considered sorcery just a few generations ago.

But if you think that understanding science is a difficult endeavor, wait till you see what it takes to understand a societal phenomenon such as the role that religion or economics or technology, for example, play in shaping society. Let me tell you of two contributions made in this regard, and you won't believe who made them.

It is Clifford D. May who wrote: “Observations along the road to ruin,” an article that also came under the subtitle: “Forgetting what made the nation strong has crushed America's great expectations.” It was published on May 3, 2016 in The Washington Times. And it is Dennis Prager who wrote: “A Dark Time in America,” an article that was published also on May 3, 2016 in National Review Online.

Whereas Dennis Prager asserts that America is going to hell because it is deviating from its past, Clifford May asserts that America never understood its past, which is why he sets out to reinterpret and re-explain that past. I must inject a word of caution at this point. Neither of the two is attempting to produce a scholarly or dispassionate work. They are Jews, after all, and their undying intent is to establish the supremacy of Judaism by mutilating history and by associating themselves with the “Judeo-Christian” West.

Prager sees that hell is ahead for America because “more and more young Americans do not believe in freedom of speech” or capitalism. Instead, they believe that “food, shelter, and health care 'are a right that government should provide to those unable to afford them.'” He also says that young Americans do not believe in religious institutions or the difference between male and female or the traditional family in which “a child does best starting life with a married father and mother”.

But the trouble is not only with the youth of America, he says, because the institutions are not doing any better. In fact, he asserts that “the universities, outside the natural sciences and math, are an intellectual fraud … by and large, idiotic.” In addition, “national, state and city governments have become Ponzi schemes.” And he complains about a growing federal government that meddles in and controls the lives of Americans. The net result is that “standards have been destroyed … The scatological has replaced the noble,” he says. And this is why in his view, the quest to be president of the United States has come down to a race between Trump and Clinton. Not to end on a pessimistic note, he promises to continue fighting for what he says is right.

As to Clifford May, he says that contrary to popular belief, the early immigrants to America were not seeking religious freedom. The Founders were not idealists. They did not envision “a utopia in which conflicts would be abolished.” And they did not want the American Constitution to be altered under the guise of interpretation. What all this means, is that you should throw away the old history books because Clifford May is having a revelation. He is about to rewrite history, making current events fit the narrative of a Judaism that is supreme and that is closely associated with the West.

Clifford May goes on to assert that slavery was not peculiar to America, and says that the country is not unusually racist. As to economic development, he subscribes to the idea that it is not a “natural process made by piling brick on brick, bank balance on bank balance, but by piling idea on idea.” The problem is that he does not tell what a sandwich made of ideas tastes like, or how it feels like to sleep under a roof that's made not of tiles but of abstract ideas.

He further explains that no nation in the world shares our desire for peace. In fact, he goes on to say that the world is not made of “societies that appear as exotic versions of our own, albeit with differing fashions and cuisines.” Far from it, he says, and the proof is the Arab Spring. The problem is that in his eagerness to establish that the others – especially the Muslims – are different from us, he neglects to explain how the “collective” Arab Spring differs from the American Civil War or the War of Independence.

He is pessimistic about the future because Western values and views are changing in America, he says. The evidence he cites is that 62 percent of young Americans do not identify as patriots. What bothers him is that they will not fight to defend America.

The problem is that he does not define the word “defend.” Is it the American defend which means you protect yourself when someone attacks you? Or is it the Jewish defend which means you raid someone to rob them, and when they defend themselves, you ask the world to weep for you and send you a donation.

Like Dennis Prager, he avoids ending the presentation on a pessimistic note. And so, he quotes Adam Smith who observed, “There is a lot of ruin in a nation,” which he interprets to mean: “the road from decline to fall can take many years to travel”.

He then discards his optimism by adding that Americans do not know which way leads to a better destination, or who's qualified to drive them there.

It is obvious what the Jews are trying to do now. It is that they had a narrative that worked for them in the past. That narrative has now disintegrated, and the Jews were exposed as being the wellspring of assertions that turned out to be fraudulent and ignorant. The worst part is that the assertions were taken up and implemented by successive American administrations. And they led to the ruin of the nation in every way you can imagine.

This is why the Jews are now groping to put together a new narrative. They are eager to get back in the driver's seat, and go on as if nothing had happened. It is something they called chutzpah; something that cannot be written into an equation.

The Trouble is not the Mirror, it's the Lens

If you want to know why the CIA has been as useless as it has when it comes to understanding what it is given billions of dollars to understand and decipher before briefing the decision makers at the Executive, you should read what two former CIA employees have written. You will want to create a new category, perhaps call it “criminal ignorance,” and charge them with it.

The two are Henry A. Crumpton and Allison Melia who wrote “'Mirror Imaging' and America's Dangerous Middle East Illusions,” an article that also came under the subtitle: “Tehran and Riyadh don't operate under Western assumptions: Religion is their political ideology,” published on May 4, 2016 in the Wall Street Journal. Note that in saying Tehran and Riyadh, they refer to the seats of all Islam: the Shia faction and the Sunni faction.

The point of the article is that America never understood the Middle East because it has always insisted on viewing the people of the region as if looking in the mirror and seeing itself. No, say the two authors, the people of the Middle East – especially the Muslims – are nothing like America. They are very different.

Okay, you say to yourself, how does America see the people of the Middle East, and by implication, itself? Also if the situation needs to be corrected, how should that be done? Well, for one thing, America sees Middle Eastern Muslims as a people who hate freedom. This is a refrain that has been repeated over and over throughout the decades, and no one can refute it. By implication, according to our writers, this is how America sees itself as well.

Now that it has been established America hates freedom, the correction should come in the form of the American people being taught to love freedom. Well then, maybe the two former CIA geniuses could be given the task of going on a teaching tour, and showing the American people how to love freedom. If that works, the geniuses can then try their approach in the Middle East. Wish them luck but if they fail, they must be charged with criminal ignorance and dealt with accordingly.

Meanwhile, you go through the article to see how they could have been so wrong and yet held the positions that they did at the CIA. The first thing you read is this: “Intelligence officers are taught to avoid 'mirror imaging.' That is, assuming your adversary shares your analytic reference points and thinks the way you do.” Further down, you read this: “we attempt to reconcile their views with our own”.

What this means is that the two characters were taught not to see foreigners the way they see themselves but they failed to understand the lesson. Thus, while believing they were doing the wrong thing, their colleagues at the CIA saw the difference between the American and the Muslim cultures, and worked to “reconcile” them. It was necessary to do that because the two sides had to find an accommodation that would allow the allies to work together, and the foes to avoid friction, and possibly deadly clashes.

What comes out of all this is that Crunpton and Melia were not even looking at a mirror. They were looking through the kind of lens that turns an image upside down, and thought they were seeing themselves. They were, in fact, looking through the propaganda lens of the anti-Arab and anti-Muslim machine, and were seeing the Middle East not as it was but as the propaganda was describing them.

It was inevitable therefore; that the two writers come to the conclusion the way to deal with Saudi Arabia and Iran, was not to seek an accommodation that takes into account the differences between the cultures, but through a deliberate confrontation.

To that end, Crunpton and Melia posited a number of false assumptions, all having to do with the economics of the petroleum industry, the trade in weapons systems and the social mores of Saudi Arabia and Iran. When done with the assumptions, they recommended this: “The U.S. should redouble its effort to counter Iranian terrorism – with deadly force if necessary”. This is so very Jewish!

And that's what tells you the lens through which the two writers are looking, is the lens of the Jewish propaganda machine. You see, my friend, the only terrorist entity on the planet today is Israel. It exists because it is sustained by America. Every act of terror committed by Israel is called a defense, and every act of defense committed by others is called terror. This is a narrative that worked for the Jews like a charm in America.

To make the American legislators believe in that drivel and give Israel what it wants, the Jewish propaganda machine created the upside-down lens and used it every time that the Middle East came up for discussion. That's when the lens is installed into place, forcing the discussion to be carried out upside down.

And this is what you see happening in the Crunpton and Melia article. How many like them populate the CIA?

The Text is rambling, the Headline delusional

Rejoice my friend for, we now have the truth. It came in the form of an exact metaphor on the relationship that exists between the self-appointed leaders of the Jews and the rank and file.

The metaphor shows how the leaders paint a reassuring picture whose purpose is to keep the foot soldiers in line and maintain their contributions. The leaders do all that even as they quake in their boots while facing developments that are slowly getting out of hand.

Look at this headline: “Britain's left is melting down over rampant anti-Semitism,” and marvel at the optimism it exudes among those who wish to see anti-Semitism vanish with the melting down of those who are inclined to practice it. Well, that headline is actually the title of Benny Avni's column, published on May 2, 2016 in the New York Post.

When you see a veneer as glossy as that headline, you expect to find underneath it a glowing text that shows how the evil of anti-Semitism became rampant in Britain, and how the forces of good were mobilized to go on the offensive. You also expect to be shown how those forces succeeded at melting down British anti-Semitism once and for all. Alas, that's not what you find when you read the article.

Avni cites a few names to tell who are the most prominent anti-Semites in Britain, and then says this: “They may just be the tip of an iceberg.” Further down, he explains that the problem extends beyond Britain: “And like so many others on the European left, his Labor faction is now being exposed as harboring [anti-Semitic] hatred.” And you get a sense as to how big the iceberg truly is.

So you want to know where this is going. In fact, Avni himself has wondered, and has asked the relevant question. Here is how he put it: “Perhaps this is only a problem that inflicts a small (but growing) segment of Britain's left and its far right. Also, Britain is finally dealing with it, right?” And he answers: “Not so fast”.

This being an expression of disappointment, Avni tells why he is disappointed. He says that in dealing with the apparent problem of anti-Semitism within its ranks, the British Labour Party has decided to set-up an inquiry to investigate itself by appointing as vice-chair of the inquiry, a man that has already deemed as baseless and disingenuous the accusations of anti-Semitism leveled against the Party.

And so you cry out: What's the use? The thing is rigged, you think to yourself. And this is why you come to believe that everybody should be disappointed, not just the Benny Avnis of this world. Well, everybody that is, but don't tell it to the foot soldiers lest they stop contributing to the causes for which leaders like Avni work hard to scare the hell out of them – and in the process, secure for themselves a comfortable living.

But what about the talk concerning the British Labour Party imploding and melting down? Was that talk for real or was it the stuff which makes the veneer glow, giving the impression that something substantial is forming inside the package when in reality, no such thing is taking place?

To tell the truth, Avni used the word “imploding” only once at the start of the article and did not define it or explain it. He later spoke of the Party melting down, but only in conjunction with a minor figure in the British Labour Party sending out what he says were anti-Semitic tweets. And so you conclude that all the talk must have been the stuff by which the veneer is made to glow. Nothing more serious than that.

Exhausted and out of breath by now, you feel there is a question on your chest that is trying to come out, but you're not sure what it is. While agonizing over it, you bump into a passage in the Avni column that happens to formulate the question for you. It is this: “How did we get here?” Yes, that was the question on your chest. And now that you know it, you want to know what the answer is.

Here is the answer according to Avni: “If you're a progressive, you start by expressing solidarity with the Palestinians, and criticizing Israel and America.” But having noticed the word “progressive” at the start of the sentence, you know that Avni is communicating a subtle message. Here it is: “This is political talk; don't take it seriously.” And so, you don't take it seriously.

This done, you lapse into a pessimistic mode about the whole thing and say to yourself that when it comes to Jewish matters, nothing has changed since the Stone Age of biblical times, and nothing will.

They dismantle America to develop Israel

Nowadays we call recycling the process of dismantling a product that has outlived its purpose, and use the parts to build another product. The practice is an old one, however, in that it goes back at least to the time of the pharaohs in ancient Egypt; rulers who were also avid builders of temples.

But given that temples are made with granite, a substance that is not easy to shape into the form you wish to give it even with the use of modern tools, let alone the tools of the times – the ancient engineers came up with a bright idea. It was an idea that even the pharaohs for whom the new temples were built, gave their blessings. The engineers recycled someone else's existing temples.

Oh no, they did not dismantle the old temples and use the parts to build something new; they simply scratched out the markings of the person in whose name the original temple was built, and chiseled into the walls the markings of the new owner. What a neat idea it must have been at the time. Don't you think so? Mind you, we must allow for the fact that whereas an ancient temple is a priceless thing to us today, it was no more valuable to those who lived at the time than an old building in need of renovation, is to us today. It's all relative, you see.

To tell the rest of the story, the starving Jews who had gone to Egypt looking for something to eat more than a thousand years after those monuments were built – learned of the ancient practice. They took the knowledge with them when they did the very Jewish thing of fleeing the country, having murdered the children of Egypt and looted the homes and temples of all their valuables.

When the Jews reached Europe in their Westward journey, they tried to recycle the countries that took pity on them and fed them the way that the Egyptians did previously. But having learned what the Jews had done to Egypt before fleeing the country, the European societies dealt with the Jews preemptively before the latter had the time to inflict much damage on their families, their homes and their temples.

Centuries later, the Jews resumed their westward journey, crossing the Atlantic Ocean. They landed in America where they found a society that was so tolerant, it let them practice the art of dismantling the country and use the pieces to develop Israel. That would be the place they consider their eternal home away from the ephemeral home they now occupy. This one being the place from which they fear they may be kicked out someday the way they were from everywhere else.

But despite that bitter history, once settled in America, the Jews set out to dismantle everything in it that did not jive with their “Jewish sensitivities.” This included the Christmas celebrations which used to give them the creeps as they used to say. They succeeded in recycling much of America's culture, but failed with the Christmas project. They tried to scratch out the nativity scenes and replace them with a combination of the Jewish menorah and the Pagan festival of light but fell flat on their faces. When they realized they could never defeat the cross, they learned to love it. Like someone remarked: Give them enough time and they'll say they designed the thing.

With another exception beside Christmas, nothing else of what the Jews dismantled in America was so lucky as to survive their onslaught. From municipal laws to state laws to federal laws to international laws … you name it, they scratched them out, and had them replaced with concoctions that serve World Jewry and Israel at the expense of everyone, including the American people.

As of now, there is one international law to which America is a signatory, and the Jews proved time and again, to be incapable of scratching out. It is the agreement referred to as the nuclear deal with Iran. The Jews mounted a sustained and savage attack on it while being negotiated, and now that it has become law, they continue to attack it. They also continue to work on having it totally scratched out – if not under the current administration – under a future administration they hope will be pliant enough to disregard America's interests and respond positively to their Jewish sensitivities and to Israel's needs.

Guess what. They found someone to echo these sentiments. His name is Armstrong Williams, a character that lent his signature to an article that came under the title: “Why is America emboldening Iran?” It is a compilation of the echo-repeated Jewish talking points, requiring no more than the IQ of a bird to put together. The finished piece was published on May 1, 2016 in The Washington Times.

The purpose of that article is to advocate the development of Israel, a little thing that has the ambition of becoming the hegemon of the Middle East. Never mind that in the process of inflating it, America will continue the process of being diminished financially, militarily and in terms of its standing in the world. What counts to these people is Israel, always Israel and no one but Israel.

How long the American people will tolerate this asinine situation remains to be seen.

They cry anti-Semitism and scheme to conquer

The Judeo-Israeli self-appointed and self-promoting protection racket serving the half-baked intellectuals of the Jewish Diaspora is imploding. And so, its members are trying to hang on to life by reviving the tricks that brought the racket into existence in the first place. The tricks being: (1) Accusing those who refuse to toe their line of being anti-Semitic. (2) Connecting fictitious dots linking them with something terrible – such as terrorism, for example.

After reaching the zenith of its glory a decade ago, the racket began to lose its luster right after the grand wizard of the fraudulent enterprise, Alan Dershowitz, had managed to score a major victory. It was in fact a coup that even his loyal disciples judged it to be repugnant both in conception and in execution. It is that Dershowitz had convinced a major American university to deny tenure to a Jewish professor, a child of Holocaust survivors that refused to toe the racket's line.

By that time, the Dershowitz crusade was making impressive headway and coming dangerously close to changing the image of the American university from being the symbol of free inquiry to that of an assembly of pimps and prostitutes, madams and gigolos modeled after the image of the Federal and State legislatures.

That was then but things are beginning to change. The situation now looks a bit different in the sense that the universities are no longer the bastions that used to accept as legitimate every Jewish and Israeli demand however capricious it may have been. To their credit, the universities changed to a neutral position the moment they realized it was a mistake to buy the Jewish line that used to say the coin of the Middle East has two sides: The Jewish side as told by the Jews, and the Arab side as told by the Jews.

Now the Arabs – mostly Palestinians – are telling their side of the story, and this was enough to cause the volcanic eruption of hate, fear and envy in the belly of the Jewish leaders. You see this phenomenon in the behavior of the racketeers and their buddies who attack the Arab students that dare to speak for themselves. Not only that, but the racketeers also attack the Jewish students who consider the Arab message to be legitimate, honest and commanding respect.

There is plenty to look at when studying that situation, the latest being “Hidden anti-Semitism in Students for Justice in Palestine's deceit,” an editorial that was published on May 1, 2016 in the New York Daily News. It contains a great deal of similarities with the column that was published by Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal on April 26, 2016 under the title: “The Anti-Israel Money Trail,” and was responded to on this website in an article that came under the title: “Bret Stephens' great Service to Humanity”.

The Daily News shows how the racketeers pull other parties into the fray and begin the process of decaying the fabric of the American system. Here is an example: “the Zionist Organization accused the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) of creating anti-Semitism on some campuses, and sparking calls in the state Legislature to boot SJP from campuses.” In America, the Jews speak of booting some people in the same way that in North Korea the dictators speak of purging people. It is also what Alan Dershowitz started doing; the reason why he was himself purged from the company of respected people.

You may want to read his article of sobs. It came under the title: “Safe spaces for hypocrisy,” a piece that was published on November 22, 2015 in the New York Daily News, and responded to in an article that came under the title: “Jack the Ripper of the academic Free Speech,” published on this website.

A notable similarity between the Daily News editorial and the Stephens column is that both advocate a measure that's as deadly as arsenic. Here is how the Daily News formulated it: “An analysis by the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies has traced SJP's support to Palestinian leaders who have had ties to Hamas.” And here is the Stephens version: “FDD had seen no evidence of illicit activity … Still, it's worth thinking about who these people are and the politics they support”.

In other words, the Jewish racketeers are telling us they are working to make it so that when an American citizen opposes the politics of Israel, he or she will be called a terrorist and treated accordingly. It means that the Jews are paving the way to turn the American people into Palestinians in their own country.

Too clever by half, the Joke backfires on them

Ted R. Bromund and Robin Simcox wrote an article that came under the title: “Who Could Possibly Have Expected This Anti-Semitism in Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party?” which means the writers were surprised to learn about that development. But given what has been happening in Britain and all over Europe; it is we, who should be surprised that they were surprised. So we ask: Where have these two been during all that time? Were they in a comatose state?

In any case, they were awake long enough to write that article, and have it published on April 29, 2016 in the Weekly Standard. What the article does is demonstrate that when it comes to fanaticism, you can take the brain-washed horse to the fountain of enlightenment and moderation, but you can't make him drink from the elixir of his return to sanity.

These two authors are supposed to be highly educated people holding prestigious positions in what is supposed to be a highly respected think tank … but look how they start their dissertation: “Utterly, totally unexpected developments are occurring in Britain's Labour Party, which is led by Jeremy Corbyn...” Okay you say, it must be that the one they call Corbyn was a good man who then flipped and turned bad in an “utterly and totally unexpected” fashion. And so, you expect that Bromund and Simcox will describe him as such.

But no; that's not what they do. Instead, here is what they say about him: “...a man who once described Osama bin Laden's death as 'an assassination attempt, and … yet another tragedy upon a tragedy, upon a tragedy.'” Whoa! Are they saying that Corbyn was a good man when he mourned the death of bin Laden, but then flipped and became a bad man? What a mind-boggling thought?

Look what else they say in an effort to cement the idea that they were surprised: “It turns out – and certainly, no one could possibly have seen this coming – that some of Corbyn's supporters don't like Jews very much.” No, we must now say that our two authors were not only in a comatose state; they were frozen into a cryogenic state and sent into space where they roamed for at least a generation. In saying: “certainly, no one could possibly have seen this coming” they further establish that they remain cut off from the rest of society.

But wait a minute. Could it be that Bromund and Simcox were being sarcastic in saying they were surprised? No, they couldn't have been sarcastic because they tried to find an excuse to justify their theory about Corbyn. Excuse? What kind of excuse? What Jewish excuse did they imagine? Well, there was only one way to doing this the Jewish way. It was to lie. And so they lied.

Here is what they say: “In 2014, Labour MP Naz Shah, [elected to Parliament in 2015] made a series of until-now unnoticed Facebook postings.” So the inevitable question: Do Bromund and Simcox really expect that people will believe that something posted on facebook went unnoticed for two years even though its owner went through an election campaign, got elected, became Parliamentary Private Secretary to Labour's Shadow Chancellor and also sat on the Home Affairs Committee? Who do they take us for? Frozen specimen sent on a tour of the solar system?

And they continue to tell their story as if no one was scrutinizing it for veracity. But, this being a story involving Jews, you expect it to be of the tragic genre; the kind in which the authors – unable to tie-up the loose ends – end up shooting themselves in the head. And guess what, my friend. That's exactly what our two authors did.

Having made it a religious dogma that “certainly, no one could possibly have seen this coming,” they now say: “It's impossible for Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, or anyone else, to be genuinely surprised at this turn of events.” Bang! They just blew their heads off.

These two geniuses (just being sarcastic) have managed – in one and the same article – to go from “no one could possibly have...” to “it's impossible for anyone to be...” With this, they made the possible and the impossible sleep in one and the same bed. It is time to pause and take a deep breath.

The moral of this story is that Jewish writers and their echo-repeaters refuse to accept the reality that when the time has come for an idea to spread, it will spread. The more they try to smother it, the stronger it becomes and the faster it spreads. And so it is with the idea they call anti-Semitism.

However, there is a practical way to stop a bad idea from spreading. It is to deny it a reason to exist in the first place. In the case of humanity's renewed resentment toward the behavior of the Jews, the way to proceed is not to accuse people of being anti-Semitic; it is for the Jewish leaders to change behavior.

Right now, the occupation of Palestine represents all the evil that humanity has seen in the Jews and has attributed to them throughout the centuries everywhere on this planet.

And no amount of bludgeoning the critics, or making sarcastic remarks about them will change the monstrous image that humanity has of the Jews. Their leaders worked hard to earn that image on behalf of the rank and file, and they wear it like a badge of honor.

At this time, only the end of the occupation of Palestine will begin to change that image, and help make the Jews look human again.