Take Note, Michael Bloomberg and act on it

Four days ago, on September 17, 2019, I published on this site (see below) an article under the title: “How do you fix a pitiably hopeless Situation?” It was a response to an article that Michael Bloomberg had published two days before, in which he lectured about civility to both sides of the campus divide, as if the two quarreling groups were equally culpable for the situation deteriorating as badly as it did.

What I said basically was that Bloomberg was accomplishing nothing with his kind of lecture because he completely ignored the fear factor that is generated by the group which pretends to be motivated by rightwing ideology when in reality, it is motivated by the desire to advance the Judeo-Israeli agenda of annexation, apartheid and colonization.

As if eager to buttress my argument, the editors of the Jewish publication, Algemeiner, printed two articles that will answer any and every question Michael Bloomberg or anyone might have about this subject as well as every subject that's closely or remotely related to it. The two articles also bring into focus the notion that the most hurtful kind of violence that can be inflicted on a people, is the one legislated by ignorant or blackmailed or hypnotized lawmakers.

To show how fear was generated on campus, I said that the Jewish side had the habit of running to the authorities and ask for their intervention by making laws, rules or regulations that favor the Jews, and impose the hurtful measures on those who only wish to pursue their studies and engage in normal and civilized debates. As if on cue, on September 19, 2019, the editors of Algemeiner printed an article written by Sasha Chernyak under the title: “New Jersey Makes Strides to help Pro-Israel Students on College Campuses,” in which the author reported the following:

“New Jersey lawmakers proposed an amendment extending protection to Jews in schools, colleges and universities. It would prohibit making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or allegations about Jews or their power as a collective, especially about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government, or other institutions; and accusing Jews or Israel of exaggerating the Holocaust. The amendment also includes anti-Zionist manifestations, such as demonizing Israel, drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis, or blaming Israel for all inter-religious or political tensions.

Deny Israel the right to exist by denying Jews their right to self-determination. Requiring behavior of Israel not expected of other nations, or focusing peace or human-rights investigations on Israel”.

Now, my friend, imagine this amendment going into effect, and think of the blanket of fear that will descend on the schools, colleges and universities. The amendment is so exhaustive, it will muzzle the students who are there to learn by expressing themselves; and muzzle the professors, counselors and others who are there to teach the students how to express themselves.

The mandate of the schools, colleges and universities, is to prepare a new generation of citizens to take over the nation and run it as a free people who are not afraid to say what's on their mind, and not afraid to be exposed to what others have on their mind. This is what Michael Bloomberg says he wants for America; but did he think through the ramifications of what he was lecturing when he wrote his piece?

In case some people believe that what Sasha Chernyak has described cannot happen, the editors of Algemeiner are saying, they have news for these people. To make their point, they ran another piece on the same day, which came under the title: “We Must Fight BDS Lies and Manipulations on Campus,” written by Melissa Landa.

The purpose of the new piece is to educate those who believe that for something like the one described by Chernyak to happen you'd have to hypnotize a large segment of society. As it happens, a good part of that segment would be the legislators who are (1) too dumb to know what they are doing; (2) too much under the influence of blackmail to break free of their blackmailers’ clutch or (3) too hedonistic to reject the pleasures of the bribe, and do their duty instead. Look here, says Melissa Landa, she has a real-life story to tell, she goes on to assert. However, being Jewish, Landa will tell the story in reverse. That is, she will attribute to the Palestinians what is proper to the Jews, and vice-versa. Here is how that came out:

“Jewish students have been seduced and manipulated by a dangerous cult that has stripped them of the opportunity to think and reason independently, and interact with whomever they choose. Proponents of the BDS movement use the practices of cult leaders, illustrated by the Steven Hassan's 'BITE' model of mind control. Hassan, an American Jew, created the model, used to describe Behavioral, Information, Thought and Emotional controls. Groups like Students for Justice in Palestine try to control the minds of their followers. A student expressing a different opinion is ridiculed under the ‘if you're not with us you're against us’ umbrella of thinking. Pro-BDS speakers deliver the same message, using the same mantras as if they were reciting a psalm or an edict.” What can be more Jewish than that, yet attributed to Palestinians?

In response to that load of disinformation, let me say this: Michael Bloomberg is familiar with the quote that says you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

He is smart enough to figure what’s what. But is he smart enough to reverse that which has been the source of Jewish misery for thousands of years?

Why today's Cavalry failed to drain the Swamp

In the old days of the American wild West, people used to settle their differences much the same way they do today; with the use of the gun. The difference between then and now is that the aggrieved people could then count on the cavalry making the effort to rescue them from the siege of the highway robbers. Today, however, no one can be certain whether the authorities are with them or against them.

In time, the West was tamed, and some kind of rule of law reigned in the American colonies, which then federated into a republic called the United States of America. But after a few decades of civilized living, and during the time that it took America to grow and become a superpower, something happened that revived the backward spirit of the old West.

And so, while the Americans are back shooting each other to death like they used to do it during the uncivilized old days, the foreigners-at-heart who precipitated America's return to the past, are preparing an even more ominous transfiguration of the superpower. Of the dozens of articles that were written by the Jewish mob of pundits to bring about that transformation, two were selected for review in this discussion.

One article came under the title: “Trump's sanctions on Iran won't work without threat of force,” written by Michael Makovsky and published on September 16, 2019 in The New York Post. The other article came under the title: “Stand up to Iran's oil market terrorism,” written by Mark Dubowitz & Brenda Shaffer, and published on September 17, 2019 in The Washington Examiner.

Near the end of his article, Michael Makovsky spelled out what he wants America to do for Israel. He said this: “The United States could reinforce its position by more materially and conspicuously supporting Israel's campaign against Iran. This should include a mutual defense pact, enshrined in a congressionally endorsed treaty.” To get this far, Makovsky tiptoed over a whole bunch of fantasies, false interpretations and psychological pressure. What follows are a few examples of that:

“The president's posture for four months has only encouraged Tehran to escalate its strikes against energy infrastructure around the Gulf. This policy of self-deterrence against Iran needs to end. Iran has mostly acted with impunity against US targets. Trump has limited himself to economic tools. Tehran requires willingness to confront it militarily, as Israel is doing. Economic sanctions have not induced Iran to meet Trump's demands”.

So here, you have it. Makovsky is saying that economic sanctions have not induced Iran to meet Trump's demands. For this reason, he wants America to follow Israel's example and use military force. This implies that Israel has succeeded in deterring Iran. But this claim is contradicted by the fact that Makovsky and those like him are blowing their entrails out of their bellies hollering that Iran is making steady progress supplying its friends in Syria and Lebanon with more weapons that are increasingly becoming more sophisticated. What kind of Israeli deterrence is this?

In fact, that is the reason why the Jews have been asking America to remain in the Middle East, thus be in a position to rescue Israel when it gets into trouble. And so, despite these glaring realities, Makovsky continues to spew two contradictory discourses. One is that Israel is so strong, America should emulate it. The other is that Israel is so weak, America should remain in the Middle East to protect it. In fact, Makovsky has now raised the stakes by asking for the drafting of a mutual defense treaty between America and Israel; one that will be guaranteed by the Congress. Imagine the gall.

As to the Mark Dubowitz and Brenda Shaffer article, we must recall that Dubowitz is the CEO of the outfit calling itself Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and the architect of America's decision to both pull out of the Iran nuclear deal, and the decision to implement maximum economic pressure on Iran. The argument that Dubowitz used to advance was that nothing nefarious will happen. He even predicted that Iran will capitulate and give America what it asks for. Well, here is what that same Dubowitz is saying now:

“The global market lost more supply than any time in history. Prices spiked more than any day since 1991. All of this from a single attack on a Saudi Arabian oil facility. The US cannot afford to ignore the security of the Gulf. Oil prices are likely to remain elevated for several weeks if not more, benefiting Russia. Looking ahead, the lessons to learn are that critical infrastructure of oil installations is vulnerable. The US is not immune to the effects of higher oil prices, including global recession. A global recession will hit the US economy hard”.

Regardless as to who is responsible for the attack on Saudi Arabia's oil facilities, it is clear that Jews such as Michael Makovsky and Mark Dubowitz pushed America to create a global climate that resembles the old American West where differences were settled by the gun.

And given that America devoted its wealth and moral authority to serve Israel at the expense of its own people, the domestic situation has so deteriorated, people are increasingly settling their differences by the gun the way they used to do it in the bad old days of the wild West.

With friends like those Jews, who needs enemies like those Iranians!

Warmongering by nostalgic Reverie

A popular Egyptian proverb goes like this: The hungry dreams of bread. The saying is used to describe someone that covets something tangible and cannot have it. It is also used to describe someone that longs for something to happen but is not happening.

Of course, it is not unusual for human beings to want something so badly, they dream of it in their sleep. It can also happen that they'll dream of it when they are not asleep. This is called daydreaming. But what might happen if in real life, someone that used to covet something badly, almost saw it realized but then lost it at the last moment, never to see it again? Well, we figure that the poor fellow must now be inclined to fall into moments of nostalgic reverie.

This, in fact, is what's happening to Clifford D. May who wrote about his condition in a column that came under the title: “If John Bolton still had the president's ear, he'd counsel against appeasing Iran,” and the subtitle: “Iran's rulers continue to attack and threaten.” The column was published on September 17, 2019 in The Washington Times.

When you read the Clifford May piece, you get the sense that he is doing more than daydream. He feels that even if John Bolton's presence in the White House has died, the man lives on as a ghost in the afterlife, and that his spirit has taken possession of his own (Clifford May's) body. Enchanted by the symbiotic relationship, May is allowing Bolton to live through him, and continue to give advice to President Donald Trump.

So now that Clifford May has written a piece for us to use as portal through which to enter his dream and share it with him, we take a tour throughout his mental landscape and see what makes this man tick.

We find that he thinks the world is made of two kinds of people. They are the progressives who believe that America has no enemies, and the conservatives who believe that if we leave those enemies alone, they'll return the favor and leave us alone. But he, like John Bolton, is wise enough to know this is nonsense, which is why he counsels that America must be strong militarily as to daunt its enemies.

Unlike the recent past when people, like himself, used to counsel that America adopt a Pax Americana policy, and spend its energy and wealth planting Democracy everywhere on the planet where Democracy did not exist, May has altered his thinking. Like John Bolton and H.R. McMaster, he has converted to believe in the Americanist model. It means America must not do nation-building abroad, but have a military presence everywhere, to project power and daunt the enemies, thus ascertain the security of America and its allies.

With regard to recent events, Clifford May believes that Iran was behind the attack on the Saudi oil facilities, and John Bolton isn't there to tell the President how to respond. But with or without Bolton in the White House, he believes that the Iranians sense America will respond in some fashion. For this reason, they warned that, “American bases and their aircraft carriers in a distance of up to 2,000 kilometers are within the range of our missiles … Iran has always been ready for a full-fledged war”.

And this is the moment when Clifford May let the spirit of John Bolton take full possession of his faculties and give advice to Donald Trump as if Bolton were still in the White House. He is counseling that America must inflict pain on the theocratic regime. The wisdom behind this advice being that “If we reward aggression, we'll get more of it,” one consequence being that the Iranians might go ahead and “acquire nuclear warheads and missiles that can deliver them anywhere on the planet,” according to the May-Bolton symbiont.

May comes out his daydream for a brief moment to explain that he'd “sleep better if Ambassador Bolton were still on the job,” but realizes he is not. Still, Clifford May takes comfort in that Mike Pompeo, Mark Esper and Gina Haspel are there in the White House substituting for him.

He slips back into his state of reverie and visualizes John Bolton being “the loudest and most vehement voice opposing both appeasement and isolationism.” He can even hear Bolton's voice warn the President that “America cannot become great again by submitting to Islamist bullies”.

Finally, we are able to trace Clifford May’s problems back to the time when in real life, John Bolton and H.R. McMaster were in the White House. May almost saw the Jewish plan of using America to deliver the Middle East to Israel, materialize then evaporate at the last moment, never to be seen again.

This is why Clifford May says he is not cheering their departure from the White House. And he wants us to understand that. We do, poor fellow. We do.

They defined Sin, then named the big Sinners

A trick that has served the Jewish slander-and-hate machine at some point in the past, was that of defining new sins and pinning them on the sinners that the Jews wished to defame or intimidate or destroy.

At first, the Jews created a category of sins that only they could use to attack their chosen enemy of the day. The sins sounded something like this: “Anti-Semite”, “Holocaust denier”, “Jew hater” and what have you. When these designations ceased to make an impression on the public after endless repetitions, the Jews started to accuse their enemies of being opposed to American values such as love of freedom, or opposed to American institutions such as the police, the military and everything else this side of motherhood.

The Jews pinpointed men and women they turned into bogeymen, and called them so extremely evil, no one should want to associate with them. But these people were and are in reality, outstanding American citizens that never hurt anyone or ordered the bombing of someone or occupied someone’s territory. The good people range from the likes of Louis Farrakhan to a group of women that happen to be Muslim and/or of Palestinian origin, and beginning to acquire fame due to their dedicated service to their fellow Americans.

On the other hand, seeing their effectiveness at persuading people diminish by the day, the Jews now scan the sociopolitical landscape to see who is new on the scene, and who is moving on from one position to another. They contrive a reason to attack these people by attributing to them one of the sins they have defined, or by associating them with one of the outstanding personalities they marked as evil sinners.

You can see examples of that in two recently published articles. One came under the title: “Bernie Sanders's Anti-Semitic Surrogate,” written by Jonathan S. Tobin and published on September 16, 2019 in National Review Online. The other article came under the title: “Newly Appointed Women's March Board Member Accused FBI of Recruiting for ISIS,” written by Zachary Evans and published also on September 16, 2019 in National Review Online.

Jonathan Tobin wasted no time hitting his readers with a volley of insults and unfounded accusations directed at the people he does not like. Here is his first sentence: “The Vermont senator's [Bernie Sanders] embrace of Linda Sarsour shows that the Left's problem with Jew-haters isn't going away.” Tobin went on to drag into the pool of anti-Semitic sinners, the Women's March, the Democratic Party and what he calls the movement that is, “dominated by radicals who profess hard-core opposition to Israel's existence and openness to being allied with anti-Semites such as the nation of Islam's Louis Farrakhan.” A mouthful this is. Don’t you think so?

Now focusing on Linda Sarsour, here is what Jonathan Tobin has said:

“She is an open advocate for the BDS movement, which is drenched in anti-Semitic invective, and unlike some of those who flirt with BDS, she isn't coy about her objectives. She opposes the existence of a Jewish state no matter where its borders might be drawn and refers to all of Israeli territory as occupied. She has made a habit of personally attacking Jews who support Israel”.

Note that Tobin is accusing Sarsour of opposing the existence of a Jewish state, to divert attention from the reality that Jews like him are the ones opposing the rise of a Palestinian state. He also accused Sarsour of personally attacking Jews who support Israel, to divert attention from the reality that he is the one that personally attacks Palestinians and all those who support the rise of an independent Palestinian state. And the reader does not have to go far to verify these truths, Tobin's current article testifies to that.

As to the Zachary Evans's article, which is a ‘news item’ rather than an opinion piece, here is the news that Evans and the editors of NRO thought was fit to print in a magazine that wants to be treated like a serious publication for scholars, and not a supermarket tabloid:

“The Women's March announced the introduction of 16 new members to its board, one of whom accused the FBI of recruiting for ISIS. Zahra Billoo made the accusation in a 2015 tweet. The news comes as the Women's March announced the departure of Linda Sarsour, Tamika Mallory and Bob Bland following allegations of anti-Semitism. Mallory appeared with Louis Farrakhan, the anti-Semitic leader of the Nation of Islam. She also claimed that Jews were leaders in the African slave trade. Carmen Perez, is staying on despite the fact that she too blamed Jews for the slave trade. Sarsour, a supporter of Farrakhan, is active in the BDS movement. She was hired by Bernie Sanders to work on his presidential campaign”.

It is amazing to see these people fool themselves to the point of believing they are doing the right thing, therefore winning whatever game they think they are playing.

It is even more amazing to see these people complain of discrimination when the people they drowned in the pool of hate they have been spewing into for decades, come out the pool and give them a taste of their own medicine.

Will these Jews ever learn?

How do you fix a pitiably hopeless Situation?

When you have someone you call A who is afraid of a neighbor you call B, and the situation gets so bad between them that the entire neighborhood becomes affected by the quarrel of the two, there is a right way and a wrong way to approach the problem if you're called upon to help solve it.

You listen to A who tells you what B is doing that frightens him. You listen to B who tells you he is only doing what he has the legal right to do, and nothing illegal. So now, you need to decide what approach to take to solve the problem. Well, the worst thing you can do is dismiss the fear that A is experiencing simply because he has no legal standing, given that he isn't even accusing B of illegal activities. What do you do now?

What you need to do cannot be explained in the abstract because there is not one model solution that will work in all the circumstances. So, let's take an actual case and analyze it. A good one to discuss is that of the prevailing situation on America's campuses. Here, in a nutshell, is what's going on: When it comes to engaging in campus activities, one group favors the aggressive exercise of every activity that's permitted under the law. Another group is invoking its legal right to being shielded from someone's activities even if they are inherently legal.

Over the years, the situation has escalated to the point where the aggressive group started to accuse the passive one of infringing on its legal right to express itself. On the other hand, the passive group accused the aggressive one of violating its legal right to be free of harassment. So, there you are, faced with two equally compelling rights that will not even land in court under the current circumstances.

If you are a journalist or a prominent person with easy access to the media, you may leverage your position and try to do something that could solve the problem, or at least alleviate it. In fact, this is what happened when Michael Bloomberg, owner of a publishing empire, got involved. He wrote, “Rage has free speech under siege on the American campus,” an article that appeared in Bloomberg Opinion, and was reprinted on September 15, 2019 in the New York Post. What follows is a condensed version of the article's content:

“Without engagement, liberal democracy can't survive. The question is whether Americans can live and work without being intolerant of diverse viewpoints. Democracy is about living with disagreement. A disturbing aspect can be found on college campuses. Students stated the following: 'Free Speech as a term, has been co-opted by all sides as a discursive cover for racism, xenophobia, sexism, anti-Semitism and homophobia.'

The University of Chicago affirmed that debate may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought to be offensive, unwise, immoral or wrong-headed. Not long ago, this would have been seen as uncontroversial. Today, the lack of support for the Chicago Statement has helped allow intolerance to seep deeper into the culture. It makes little difference whether intolerance of disagreement is based on a desire for safety or grounded in a theory of speech-as-violence. An approach that demands silence will fracture the country. Restoring the ability to disagree without becoming mortal enemies is an urgent civic imperative”.

Will this do it? It is doubtful it will. The proof is that this kind of lecture is given out all the time, but very few people if any are moved by it. In fact, some people may even consider the lecture a deliberate insult. That's because when someone is hurting from a pain called “fear,” which can be as intense as a physical wound, and you lecture them about a morality they may have violated, you add insult to injury.

Literally speaking, speech will not cause the kind of physical pain that a violent act will. But speech can work on the human mind in such a way as to cause anguish that will engender pain as real as a physical wound. As a rule, an “academic” debate on any subject must never be of a kind that has the potential to hurt. But some debaters violate this rule as if by habit, and the question is how did this situation come about?

The habit was injected into the American culture decades ago when the Judeo-Yiddish invasion overpowered the immune system of the early Euro-American culture. The Jews made early gains, and had things go their way. In time, the nativist population found an antidote to the Jewish onslaught, and began to push back. The Jews escalated by resorting to another habit: running to higher authorities, and asking that they be treated with special care. By then, the Jews had also secured monopoly over the media.

Playing the authorities and the media like a fiddle, the Jews were able to slander, disgrace and vanquish anyone that stood in their way. This being the ultimate form of violence that can be inflicted on someone, the Jews have been using it to deter anyone who would stand in their way. The adults of America took note and were intimidated. The campus folks decided to resist.

So, while the aggressive Jews keep running to the media and the politicians to acquire more leverage on society, especially the campus, the passive others seek safety where they can find it.

That’s where things stand now, and Michael Bloomberg isn't helping to solve the problem.

A Word about Human Peaceful Coexistence (HPC)

Things that suffer from a small superficial defect can usually be repaired with some ease. By contrast, things that suffer from a structural defect are harder to repair, if they can be repaired at all.

For example, a building that's hit by a tornado, and suffers a few broken windows, can easily be fixed, and will most likely withstand the next earthquake. By contrast, a building that was built deficient of steel rods, will most likely get demolished when the earthquake hits.

That principle applies to abstract institutions as well because they too can be built with solid ideas but small defects that can easily be fixed over time, or they can be built with a structural defect, thus get demolished every time that an earthquake hits, and they are rebuilt the same way as before.

If we consider Human Peaceful Coexistence (HPC) to be the ultimate institution we aspire to build, we'll find that of the three pillars upon which that institution is erected, there still remains a long way for humanity to go before we can say we have constructed a Human Civilization that will withstand any earthquake. The three pillars of HPC being (1) Scientific and technological progress; (2) Civic governance at the micro and macro levels; and (3) Religion.

When it comes to scientific and technological progress, we can be proud of our accomplishments. Despite the fact that we are deficient in other areas, our ingenuity has transcended the difficulties, and forged ahead with discoveries and inventions that are truly astounding. As to governance, most of us seem incapable of discarding enough of our evolutionary baggage to steadily give out instructions that carry no prejudice, or steadily receive instructions without being suspicious of their source. As to religion, we are in a mess that needs to be sorted out and redone from scratch, especially the one calling itself Jewish. This one practices what it says is Judaism, but may be compelled to redefine itself as something else.

In fact, two recent articles go a long way in clarifying what's wrong with Judaism. The latest of the two came under the title: “Bari Weiss Explains How To Fight The Rise Of Anti-Semitism,” and the subtitle: “New York Times columnist Bari Weiss's new book, 'How to Fight Anti-Semitism,' offers a trenchant look at an old evil that's on the rise once more.” The article was written by Melissa Langsam Braunstein and published on September 14, 2019 in The Federalist. Five days earlier, on September 9, 2019, Simon Butler had published an article under the title: “The US Must Institute Laws Against Antisemitism,” and had it printed in the Jewish online publication, Algemeiner.

Despite Melissa Braunstein's article that has a title which says: “How to fight anti-Semitism,” reviewing Bari Weiss's book whose title is: “How to Fight Anti-Semitism,” you'll find not a single word or a hint in Braunstein's article that tells how Bari Weiss proposes to fight anti-Semitism. Do you know why this is so, my friend? It’s because the Jews do not want to end anti-Semitism. They want to fight it but not end it.

The fact is that the Jewish leaders thrive on anti-Semitism. Any suggestion they offer on how to fight it, is designed to maintain anti-Semitism at a level that does not get out of hand. They have two reasons for wishing to maintain the prevailing state. First, they can play the victimhood card and milk the society that feels sorry for them till there is no more to be milked. Second, and more importantly, they can ask for laws that bestows on them a special status. This is what they have been craving for thousands of years. They began with the idea that they were God's favorite children. But as time moved on, they became convinced that God will not show up to embrace them for the whole world to see. And so, they began to look to various governments replacing God and giving them that special status. Right now, what they want are laws that will punish the public for not loving the Jews wholeheartedly.

But how do they do that? They do it the way that Simon Butler explains it in his article. It is the one that came under the title: “The US Must Institute Laws Against Antisemitism.” But do you know what that will do? It will increase anti-Semitism, which is what the Jewish leaders are hoping for.

So then, what's Melissa Braunstein talking about in an article that's more than a thousand words long? Believe it or not, she's talking –– not how to raise Judaism to the level of respectability but –– politics. It all comes down to this passage in her article: “As for politics, Weiss and I will have to agree to disagree that the political left is either the natural or better home for American Jews.” There is a name for this kind of give-and-take. It is called Jewish style haggling that floods the space with useless verbiage, yet leads nowhere.

So, we go over the Simon Butler article to see if he is shedding more light on the subject. We find that he begins his presentation with this suggestion: “I believe that we must ask whether the American principle of freedom of speech should be re-fitted to address today's social media climate”.

So you ask, what's wrong with that? And you discover what's wrong from what he says his suggestion entails. Parse his words and judge for yourself:

“As long as there is no direct incitement to violence, people are free to say what they want. Unless an individual threatens another person, expresses a desire to harm people, or urges others to do the same, his or her rights to freedom of speech are fully protected. I think we should revisit this mandate”.

That's it, my friend. Simon Butler wants to lift the current protection on freedom of speech because he wants it so that if you dare to exercise your freedom, you should be left at the mercy of every little Jewish fart who will charge you with a crime, and have you punished.

These horrible creatures have already destroyed many lives and careers over the decades, now they want to send you to jail because a word you might have uttered made one of them uncomfortable. You know what! Screw these disgusting little pukes.

Yes indeed, Israel does nothing but dirty Work

There used to be a lag time between the moment that the Jews used to try something unethical in the Middle East and their adaptation of it in America.

For example, it took several years between the time that the Jews used to complain about the system of education in the Arab and Muslim worlds for not being pro-Jewish enough, and the time that it took the Jews to bring that same sort of complaint to America regarding a system of education that's not pro-Jewish enough. For this reason, the saying among the Arabs and the Muslims who knew about the Jewish habit, went like this: Today they do it to us, tomorrow they'll do it to you.

And then, America allowed itself to be so imbued with the Judeo-Yiddish culture, and two developments took roots in that country. First, the lag time between the Jewish idiosyncrasies manifesting themselves in the Middle Eastern arena, and the same thing happening in the American arena, shrank so much, the two events now unfold almost simultaneously. Second, whereas in America, the implementation of a Jewish habit used to be carried out strictly by Jewish journalists, contributors and pundits, the implementation is now carried out by their gentile admirers, disciples and lackeys as well.

You can see an example of that when you study an article that was written by Steven A. Cook or watch Fox News or read the rightwing print publications as they “Rambonize” the foreign exploits of Donald Trump. You’ll find that they constantly try to make the public believe that Trump brought Iran and China, not only to their knees but to their bellies, begging face down, the mighty Rambo-Trump for pity and relief.

As to the Steven Cook article, which is of a kind that inspires the likes of Fox and the rightwing publications, it came under the title: “Israel Is Doing All the Dirty Work Against Iran,” and the subtitle: “The United States came up with 'maximum pressure'––but the Israeli government is the only one carrying it out.” It was published on September 12, 2019 on the website of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Readers who are familiar with Jewish idiosyncrasies, know that when they see the adjective “ONLY ONE,” inserted into a sentence, they are in for a ride that will take them, not into a simple rabbit hole here on Earth, but a cosmic wormhole that leads to a parallel universe where Jewish termites are the size of houses, and Iranian warriors look like demons. Here is how the Steven Cook article reads in condensed form:

“There was a T-shirt depicting weapons systems that the United States had provided to Israel against bold letters declaring, 'Don't Worry America … Israel Is Behind You.' The Israelis are the only ones applying 'maximum pressure' on Iran. When American officials next meet the Iranians, it is because the Israelis made it possible. In August, the Israelis were pounding the Iranians and their allies. They hit a base in Syria, destroyed a weapons depot in Iraq, and undertook drone strikes in Lebanon. They had detected an effort to supply advanced weaponry to its allies. Their sense of threat is heightened by Trump's penchant for speaking loudly but carrying a small stick. The Israelis are taking serious risks that could result in another war in Lebanon. Israel's strikes in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq made an impression on Iran's leaders. Now they are inching toward talks with the United States. It was the Israeli military prowess that cowed the Iranians into talks. The trajectory for US-Iran relations is renewed negotiations. For that, supporters of engagement have Israel to thank”.

As can be seen, after spending half a century devouring everything in sight with the fires of defamation, succeeding at making the American political establishment believe that Israel is the ONLY ONE in the Middle East that's perfect in everything and imperfect in none, the Jews ran out of things to devour. So, they did what the offspring of scorpions do: they turned around and devoured their diplomatic, financial and military Alma Mater. They devoured America which gave Israel existence, and has been sustaining the thing till now.

There is nothing surprising about any of this. As predicted, because the Americans protected the Jews, allowing them to say anything they wanted about the Arabs and the Muslims without being rebuffed, the Jews turned around and started to talk about America the way they do about the Arabs and the Muslims.

And that's not all. Another and more telling analogy is that of the Americans rescuing the European Jews from the Nazi gas chamber and the incinerator. But instead of being thanked by the Jews, the Americans were accused of willfully abstaining from bombing the concentration camps.

The Jews continue to play up that false accusation decades later because it paints them as victims, therefore eligible for compensation that’s paid in currency named: Keep quiet about Jewish indiscretions, and pamper them with all that they desire. And that’s the dirtiest kind of work they know how to do so very well.