Harsanyi paints America as ‘Top Gun’ global Thug

In trying to justify America's continued involvement with a world that no longer wants it in any of its neighborhoods, David Harsanyi has inadvertently made the best case yet for America to hide its tail behind its legs and run home, never again to interfere in the affairs of another nation.

What Harsanyi did, was argue that just because America failed to turn Iraq into a showcase for the work it is capable of doing, does not mean that it cannot make a showcase of someone else thus display what it can do, and go from there to turn every nation on Earth into a Judeo-American liberal democratic nirvana.

To make that point clear, David Harsanyi wrote, “Iran is not Iraq,” an article that was published on January 3, 2020 in National Review Online. Here is what you'll find at the heart of his argument: “The United States is a military hyperpower with the ability to atomize virtually any fighting force it pleases. It feels ridiculous writing that sentence. I had assumed most people understood this basic truth”.

Perhaps David Harsanyi was never told about the wisdom that's conveyed by the story of the “Magnificent Seven,” an American film that was adapted from a Japanese film about Samurais that assisted simple villagers to organize and beat back a gang of thugs. Like America, these thugs had the ability to atomize virtually any fighting force they pleased. But note that word “virtually” because the idea is there that when the victims of a thug do band together to protect themselves and each other, they marshal the strength to defeat him as shown in the Samurai story and that of the Magnificent Seven.

What escapes people like Harsanyi is that their concept of winning in battle is so screwed up, they can go on fighting for thousands of years, believing that they are winning when in fact they are losing. They fight without ever achieving their goal in the belief that someday they will score the ultimate victory that will make their past troubles worth it. This has been the story of the Jews since Moses took them out of ancient Egypt according to their history. It has also been the story of the Americans since Winston Churchill got them to poke their noses into the affairs of everyone else around the globe.

Look at all the failures that America has suffered since the Second World War and marvel at that country's stubbornness at doing the same thing and expecting a different result. It got into Korea and managed only to create a nuclear Juggernaut out of a tiny and impoverished society. It got its behind kicked in Vietnam, another impoverished society that was nondescript then suddenly became extraordinary. It got bogged down in Cuba's Bay of Pigs, a country that had it up to here with colonial masters exploiting its people.

America also managed to get itself hounded out of every Latin American country where it tried to establish a Kissinger-style pro-America puppet government. It got its nose rubbed in the mud when it attacked an Iraq that had no weapons of mass destruction. It made a mess of Libya where it went in not knowing what it was supposed to do. And it continues to have its rear end kicked in Afghanistan, having no idea how to extricate itself from that quagmire.

So, what do you think the world is doing to stand up to the global thug that America has become under Jewish tutelage? Well, like the Magnificent Seven, the world got together to kick America out of its neighborhoods where it still shows up and tries to dominate the region. Despite the fact that no formal anti-American treaty was signed between the countries of the globe, an increasing number of the world powers is lining up to isolate America and make sure it cannot beat up on anyone ever again, economically or militarily, without its effort being frustrated by the rest of the world.

In fact, all that America is able to do now, is bomb a country from the air without ever being able to invade it. That's what Harsanyi calls, “the ability to atomize virtually any fighting force it pleases.” But whereas this is his understanding of scoring a victory, the rest of humanity considers it a war crime of the kind that no one has ever committed. In fact, even the Nazis and the Fascists were careful to keep intact the cultural and scientific heritage of the countries they attacked. But since Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Vietnam and Iraq, America has demonstrated that it will carpet bomb, mass destroy a country's infrastructure, and mass exterminate a civilian population if that's what it will take to win a battle … even if it means losing the war in the process.

This is what is turning America into a global thug that deserves to be shunned and isolated by the rest of the human race. Whereas this reality is not lost on David Harsanyi, his problem is that when the choice comes down to being feared or being respected, he'll take being feared anytime. And this is why he appreciates what America is getting into, seeing it as an ideal outcome.

Look at it this way, there was a time when the Nazis and their sympathizers believed they were doing the right thing. But then, they were defeated, and that's when they changed their minds.

And so, the bet is that Harsanyi will someday realize that atomizing someone weaker than yourself is not a noble act, and he'll change his mind.

What does it mean learning from History?

There is a saying known to many cultures, and expressed in many languages that goes something like this: “If you don't learn from history, you are bound to repeat it”.

That's well and good. But what exactly is history? And what is there to learn from it? Well, there are two ways to look at history, one of which is so popular, it causes people to miss the other. But as it turns out, the popular way will not tell you what it is that you risk repeating, whereas the other one will.

When a historian sets out to write the history of an era, of an incident or a consequential person, he or she will search the record to find everything that happened in that realm down to the minutest detail. The historian will then work on producing a narrative that may or may not add something new to what's already known about that era, about that incident or that person.

Because journalism writes the first draft of history, it follows that same pattern. In fact, a current example is an article that came under the title: “How we planted the seeds of war with Iran,” and the subtitle: “Decisions made in Washington brought us to this fateful moment.” It was written by Richard A. Clarke and published on January 4, 2020 in the New York Daily News.

Clarke explains in detail the tit for tat that went on between the United States and Iran during the last 40 years. But what was there to learn from these details that should have prevented the current administration from assassinating a high-level Iranian personality? Nothing important was learned really, which is why the order went out to kill Kassem Soleimani, an act that prompted Richard Clarke to conclude the following:

“This current path to war traces its origin to the US decision to abandon the nuclear arms control agreement and devastate the Iranian economy. That was a choice made in the US, not in Iran. It was a decision that launched us, almost inevitably, on to the current path”.

Oh, but look at that! There seems to be a lesson here from which to learn something. Well, sort of. Yes, there is a lesson from which to learn, but it's not the one we readily see on the surface. This one is trivial and will add little or nothing to what we need to know. On the other hand, another more important lesson is buried inside the narrative. It is of the kind that's useful to learn from. But to get to it, we need to dig deep into the events that brought the world to where it is today.

A cursory look at Clarke's conclusion will undoubtedly prompt someone to say, we must never again abandon a nuclear arms control agreement we made with a country, or go on to devastate their economy. Yes, something like that is bound to come to mind immediately upon studying what happened. But the chances of this being a useful lesson to guide us in the future, is very slim since there will never be another nuclear arms control negotiated between the United States and Iran or a clone of Iran.

So then, what is the useful lesson that's buried deep in the narrative, and that we must dig out? The answer to the question is that the lesson sits inside a box which can be opened by asking two questions: Who and why? and answering them. They are these: Who pushed for the abandonment of the nuclear deal? And why did they do it? As to the answers, they are the following: The Jews pushed for the abandonment of the nuclear deal. And they did it precisely because they wanted to see a war between the United States and Iran. The reason is that such war will give Israel the chance to implement its long-held agenda for the region.

Having brought these realities to light, we ask what helpful lesson should we draw from them that can be used in future situations? The answer is that whereas the small details of history are useful to know when you want to complete the historical record, they are ephemeral in the sense that tomorrow’s details will not look anything like today’s details. This being the case, you need to concentrate on the constants that are here today and will be here tomorrow. What could these be? They are what define human nature: the good side of it, and the bad side of it.

Because wars are the foundation upon which the Jewish culture was erected as shown in the Old Testament; because the Jews have instigated most of the big wars that took place in history; because they have threatened to start a war with Iran to drag America into it, the lesson you avoid at your peril is that the Jews will want to sacrifice American lives and wealth for ever to get what they want for themselves and for Israel. This is the constant that was here four thousand years ago, was here again a thousand years ago, is here today, and will be here to the end of time. Nothing can be more constant than that.

The Jewish hunger for war is true in the current circumstances where the Jews are taking advantage of Donald Trump's mental instability. It will be true tomorrow whether Trump or another President will be in the White House. And will remain true for as long as the Americans will not have learned the lesson that listening to the Jews is a deadly proposition to contemplate at any time.

Marching toward a feudal economic System and its Mirror Image

Alissa Amico wrote an article under the title: How Ownership Concentration Is Happening, and Why It Matters,” published on January 3, 2020 on the website of Project Syndicate.

Amico explains in revealing details the many ways by which those that have the wealth, add ever more to it, which they do in the main by excluding those that have not the means to compete against them, and cannot even challenge them legally. The methods used by the wealthy are so many and so complex, they cannot be condensed into a single paragraph. For this reason, they must be read entirely as written by Amico.

However, even if the title of the Alissa Amico article also promises to explain “why it matters,” there is more to say in this regard than she let out. And that's what is attempted in this discussion.

The capitalist system as we know it today could not have come about were it not for the French Revolution which crystallized the principle that true liberty brings with it, equality and brotherhood. In fact, these were the legs on which stood the new civilization. It replaced the feudal setup that caused the French people to revolt in the first place. In addition to the Statue of Liberty, the French gave America––believe it or not––the Henry Ford vision that it is a good idea to share your wealth with those who help you produce it. And there could not have been a truer expression of equality and brotherhood than Ford's kind of gesture.

To be sure, this was an example of the civilized system that did away with the old feudal setup, and helped America build a capitalist system that was based, not on the principle of “might makes right,” but on the trust that he who has the power will not crush you if you are defenseless. Unfortunately, however, what Alissa Amico says is happening at this time –– is that there is a gradual return to the old feudal system. But because there are laws governing the conduct of the capitalist system, those who operate within it, use the existing loopholes to achieve most of their goals in a roundabout way while at the same time pressuring the legislators to change the laws and make them friendlier to those that have the wealth.

So the question to ask is this: What has prompted some of the wealthy to go in this direction? The answer is what may be called the push-pull situation. In fact, there was the push of the sovereign funds that convinced the wealthy capitalists they will not be in a position to compete against the sovereigns unless they mimicked them by controlling the printing press of the central bank, which they could do only if they vanquished the weaker competitors. At the same time, there was the pull of the emerging economies that offered the capitalists fabulous incentives if they would relocate in their jurisdictions. As it happened, these were undreamed of incentives, considered impossible to have in the mature economies. And so, contrary to the Henry Ford philosophy, this was enough to make many of today's capitalists sell out their workers and reward themselves as well as their shareholders.

So then, we have here a capitalist economy that's going feudal. At the same time, we have the emerging economies that were based on the feudal system, now adopting some of the capitalist principles. Looked at together, the two systems project a view that's a mirror image of each other. The trouble is that –– like matter and anti-matter –– they cannot be brought close to each other without releasing a destructive kind of energy. In fact, there have been skirmishes between China and the United States that caused trouble for the world. Unless these two can work out a way to coexist, they will cause more trouble, more seriously in the future.

Also, unless and until there will be a worldwide revolution that will revive the slogan, “liberty, equality and fraternity,” perhaps rephrased as “freedom, equal opportunity and brotherhood,” there will be no change flowing from the bottom up. And the direction in which the world is heading now, will continue unabated. Thus, what should happen is that change must come from the top down.

That is easier said than done. But because the alternative is to live with the risk that the capitalist system and its anti-capitalist mirror image have it within them to blow up the existing world trading patterns, someone powerful must make the effort to intervene and bring sanity to what's happening by forcing the governments to act. Who could that someone be?

Well, there are two kinds of capitalists. There are the fly-by-night operators who get rich by selling snake oil. These ones love the existing chaos because it allows them to get rich quickly. And then, there are the capitalists who get rich by adding value to the wealth of the nation. They are the ones who want to get back to the Henry Ford vision, and will do what's necessary to get there … if only they could.

The problem is that when you read the thinking of these people, they do not hide their dismay at the status quo by revealing that, “If the legislative machinery of the country can be owned and operated by a handful of AIPAC workers, the printing press of the central bank will be owned and operated by the devious fly-by-night pseudo-capitalists. This is happening now, and nearly impossible to change the existing habits.” And this is why even the good capitalists have given up on reforming the system.

Well, my friend, there is only one thing left to do. Wait for the explosion to happen and when it does, yell: I told you so.

They take their 'Combat' wherever they go

One of the beastliest and lowest kind of journalism ever to happen for all time, unfolded around the year 2000. I was running my own newspaper when I got a call from a prospective client that wanted to discuss a long-term plan for placing ads in my paper. I went to see him, and had to wait in the reception room because he was meeting with someone else.

I had resolved at that time to boycott a number of big city newspapers given that I could get the news faster on radio when driving my car, or get it on television when I was home. As to the editorials of these publications, I didn't care much about them. But if I found myself in such places as a doctor's office or a reception room waiting to see someone, I would read whatever publication was there.

And so, on that day, in the year 2000 or thereabout, I picked up a section of the Toronto Star that was on the table, and it happened to be the one carrying the editorials and the op-eds. I read one of the editorials, and it was like opening a Jewish sewer that stank from here to hell. What the editors were saying basically was that the Arabs better shut up because it was incorrect for them to bring to Canada the quarrels they had with the Jews in the Middle East. What was that again?

Could these primitive ignoramuses not see that for every Arab that was articulating his point of view, there were ten thousand Jews articulating theirs? Could those editors not see that the Arabs tried only to clean up their tarnished image without even mentioning the Jews? Could they not see that it was the Jews who were tarnishing the image of the Arabs by playing out their one-sided, anti-Arab and anti-Muslim quarrels? Could they not see that it was the Jews who engaged in combat against a people that did not fight back?

That was then, and here we are two decades later, and what do I see? I see an article that came under the title: “Anti-Semitism still infects the US,” and the subtitle: “We need to combat this cancer before it gets worse.” It was written by Donald Lambro and published on January 2, 2020 in the Washington Times.

What's obvious is that these people are still in combat mode, which should not surprise anyone, given that they have been in that mode, not only for the last two decades, but for the last 33 centuries. This is attested to by their history, which they say is compiled in the Old Testament, a book of blood, horror and mayhem. They explain that they had a warrior God, a general that led them into battle, and commanded them to kill and steal so as to end their nomadic life and build an empire that will rival the ones they saw all around them in the ancient world.

The Jews failed then to do just that, and have been failing ever since. They failed, not only in the Levant but in the East, the West and the North from Persia to Egypt to Babylon. They failed again later on when they pushed their luck in Europe as they tried to settle in almost every kingdom spanning the expanse from Russia to England. In fact, Europe was the continent where they failed miserably. It was the place where they burned the Jews alive and subjected them to pogroms and a holocaust on a scale that should have convinced them, they were on the wrong track, one that wasn't working for them and never will.

But they failed to learn the right lesson. In fact, as soon as they came to the new world, they thought they could start from scratch by working to take over the American nation, and turning it into the Jewish empire that has eluded them for thousands of years. But as David Lambro has learned, the new world will not be easier to lick than were the ancient or European worlds.

After describing the incidents that should tell every Jew in America, their old ways will not work in this country any better than they did everywhere else, Donald Lambro went on to quote a rabbi that said, “We need to combat this cancer before it gets worse.” Instead of reminding the rabbi, and reminding his Jewish brethren that it was time to abandon the method that has continually failed them, and learn to live normally like the rest of humanity, Lambro did the opposite.

What he did was describe yet another antisemitic incident, and used it to opine the following: “This is a story that should be leading the nightly news, with screaming headlines across the front pages of our nation's leading newspapers. But it isn't getting the attention and outrage that it deserves.” Alas, having learned that the new world will not be easier to lick than were the ancient and European worlds, Donald Lambro still failed to see that the Jews were on a track that wasn't working for them and never will.

Given that the Jews adhere to a culture that's too backward to allow them seeing that they are dreaming the wrong dream, the onus falls on the rest of humanity to do what's necessary to stop them hurting themselves and hurting us in the process. In fact, what's needed is not that we do something for them, but that we refrain from doing things for them.

Governments should stop encouraging the Jews, which they do now by remaining silent when the latter commit acts that hurt others. Governments should also stop catering to Jewish whims of the kind they come up with and argue that to give them what they want will foster understanding between the religions, or that it will advance the cause of peace.

What governments should do instead, is tell the Jews they are on their own. They must learn to get along with everyone else. And must learn to make it through life without a nanny government to which they can run every time they want something for themselves, or wish to see someone punished for no good reason.

The Roots of mass mental Illness identified

On January 1, 2020, Heather Robinson who is a contributor to the Jewish tabloid, the New York Post (NYP,) which itself pretends to be American –– wrote an article under the title: “After Monsey, It's Time to Say Jewish Lives Also Matter,” and had it published, not in the NYP, but in the two Jewish publications, Jewish News Syndicate and Algemeiner that do not pretend to be anything but Jewish through and through.

Also on the same day, that same New York Post published a story under the title: “Monsey stabbing suspect Grafton Thomas was a 'Shabbos goy' growing up,” written by Lorena Mongelli, Bruce Golding and contributed to by Reuven Fenton, who explained that a Shabbos goy is a non-Jew who performs tasks prohibited for Jews to do on the Sabbath. What's going on? What's the real story behind the story?”

Let's begin with the Heather Robinson article. Even though many people have, at least in part, associated the phenomenon of attacks on Jews, with mental illness, Robinson says: “No one seems to know why this is happening.” She then goes on to blame the phenomenon on Rev. Al Sharpton and the Democratic Party, as well as offer the following point of view:

“While socioeconomic disparities and injustices are real –– and some groups have suffered unique hardships –– none of that gives anyone the right to abuse another person or group because they are different or perceived to be 'privileged,' as some imagine Jews to be. And being part of a historically disadvantaged group shouldn't provide immunity from the law”.

When you add up all that Heather Robinson is saying, and all that she gives the impression she is hiding, you come out with the sense that she is running from something she knows is true, yet prefers that the world would pretend is not there. But the truth is that there is a close relationship between violence in America –– be it directed at the Jews or anyone else –– and mental illness. And there is an even closer relationship between mental illness in America and the contamination of the American culture by the Judeo-Yiddish culture whose premise is to create confusion, thus generate contradictions that turn out to be destructive in many ways. What's behind all this?

What lurks behind this, is the Jewish hunger to control the key institutions of the country. For example, the Jews create confusion when they simultaneously run the discourse of Israel being so powerful, it will defend itself and defend America … and the discourse of Israel being so weak, it will be overrun by Hezbollah if America did not station troops in Syria to defend it when the time will come. After the confusion sets in, the Jews start to implement the next step, which is to work on the country's system of governance.

Here is what happens. Faced with the inability to understand what's unfolding in the Middle East, the Congress and the White House rely on the Jews who would be asserting that they have a clear view of what's unfolding in that part of the world, thus are ready to advise the State Department. Pressured by the Congress and the White House, the doors of the State Department are opened for the Jews to get in, to take over the joint and run it as they please.

And this is the kind of game that the Jews play everywhere else. It allows them to take control of other institutions such as those relating to finance, the military, culture, education and what have you. Inevitably, the public begins to feel the effect of the confusion that's setting in at the top of their system of governance. For example, in the matter of the BDS and education, the general public gets to suffer under the rules imposed on it by the know-nothing elites who do what the Jews tell them to do without thinking. The public points the finger at the Jews, and begins to build resentment toward them.

Until now, all that the Jews had to do to push back, was deny they were privileged. They got away with it because the conspiracies were done in whispers, were done behind closed doors, and nobody spoke out. It was, therefore difficult to draw a line connecting what went on out-of-sight and the public's resentment of the Jews. For example, it was impossible to show that the conspiracies committed by the political elites were responsible for the White supremacists crying out, “Jews will not replace us.” Instead, a theory was advanced to the effect that there are good people and bad people in this world. The bad ones join hate groups such as the White supremacists, says the theory, and that's why we have the kind of trouble we see today. Case closed.

Well, that kind of argument is now difficult to sustain given the reality that the Monsey attacker grew up loving the Jews and serving them. He then became mentally ill, which means that his impulsive activities became disconnected from his rational mind, and so he turned around and attacked the Jews. Why is that? Because resentment was building quietly inside of him while serving them faithfully at a time when they treated him, not as equal, but like a domestic servant that was fortunate enough to serve them.

That man will forever stand as the poster child of the reality that resentment of the Jews is not caused by evil people who were born evil, but because the Judeo-Yiddish culture is creating the confusion that affects the people it touches. It has turned the Congress into an institution of moral prostitution, the White House into an institution of national division, and the State Department as well as other institutions into agents of treason. And together, these institutions are turning America into a country that’s confused and angry.

They are also turning the general public into a huddled mass that woke up to the tyrannical reality of Jewish rule. This is why the people of America are gradually coming around to the idea that they must take matters in their own hands, and work on shedding the Jewish directives imposed on them by the political elites.

Quick to implement a self-Preservation Lesson

Clifford D. May wrote an article to say that Nikki Haley is an “astonishingly quick learner,” that she did well during the two years or so that she served in the Trump administration, that she may run to be president of the United States of America, and that he would welcome such a move.

Before we look at the Clifford May argument, we need to recall the way that Jews of his mold reach the decision by which they live till they feel the need to change it, and adopt another decision.

When these people look at a situation, they don't describe it as it is; they describe it as they wish it were. This is a lie, of course, but they keep repeating it till they believe their own lie. By now they would have created a mythology in their heads that is completely at odds with reality. Because nothing they do agrees with the real world, everything they touch goes wrong. Given the choice between saying that they are wrong or the world is wrong, they choose to say that the whole world is wrong and they are right.

Because Clifford May appreciated Nikki Haley's stance on Israel during her short stint as US ambassador at the UN, he adopted the above mentality when describing her character. It is also how he looked at the book she wrote about her equally short service in the Trump administration, and the critique of her book done by those who bothered to read it.

Whereas he saw her as a quick learner, he did not tell what exactly caused him to reach that conclusion. But that doesn't matter anyway, because it is what he wanted to see, therefore what he saw. And so, the question to ask is this: What should we be aware of that has escaped Clifford May?

Nikki Haley grew up at a time in America when anti-Paki sentiment was rampant, and was expressed openly everywhere. Of those who were targeted for the way they looked, different groups, even different individuals within the same group, developed a set of approaches they used to survive the ordeal and achieve whatever success they managed to attain in life.

The chances are good that by instinctive osmosis rather than intellectual prowess, Nikki Haley learned to protect herself. She did it by exuding a reassuring sort of kindness that disarmed those who would hurt her. That is, instead of confronting those who threw darts at her, she flattered them, thus proved that she was harmless. This stance transmitted to the potential foes, the message that they had nothing to fear from her who is the daughter of an “alien” family.

Many new immigrants and first-generation offspring have adopted a similar sort of approach to survive. In time, the approach became so prevalent in America that the culture became imbued with it. As a result, even the nativists whose roots in America went back several generations, fused the approach with their way of thinking, and used it to guide them in their daily lives.

It was inevitable, therefore, that a good part of America's politics should stand on that approach. Today, it can be seen that flattery works well on America's politicians, less so in Canada, and almost not at all in the rest of the world. This is the first thing that hit Nikki Haley in the face when she met the world at the UN. What seemed natural to her, thinking of herself as the daughter of immigrants, seemed alien to a world that saw her as too prone to American style flattery. They treated her with contempt, and she returned the favor.

Life was made more difficult for Nikki Haley when the Jews started doing what they always do, which is to intrude in all matters of foreign policy. Meanwhile, utterly disillusioned about her inability as the daughter of immigrants to communicate with the rest of the world, she had no way to deal with the world but to accept the Jewish invitation, run to their fountain and drink from it every time she was slated to open her mouth.

Needless to say that this approach rendered her life even more hellish. After a short while, she discovered that she had no alternative but to quit her job and quit the Trump administration altogether before she became so toxic, she would have been badly wounded politically. This would have pushed her out of the administration anyway, labeled her as damaged goods, and rendered her ineffective to serve anywhere else.

Where to go from here for Nikki Haley? There is no doubt she is a survivor, having honed to perfection the skill to maneuver around the pitfalls that have the potential to sink her. The Jews will again swarm her and try to turn her into a mouthpiece advocating for all their causes. If she accepts, which is probably what will happen, they'll keep her in that position for as long as she'll stay credible –– but then spit her out when she'll fail to deliver. She'll most likely diminish to zero and search in vain for something useful to do.

Well, I have an idea. Instead of going in that direction, why not start immediately to write a weekly column. Being a proven friend of the Jews and Israel, she could show them a way out of the eternal damnation in which they have lived for thousands of years.

Get them to change their ways, Nikki Haley, and you'll have saved the lives of many, as well as saved the world another round of cleaning up in the aftermath of being forced to address the Jewish problem yet again.

They want everyone to do something for them

The writing is on the wall. It was meant to be a warning signal about more serious trends to come if there was no change in the way that things were done. So, what was the response to that warning? A doubling down of what's filling people with rage about that which is imposed on them from above.

At first, the people of America were reassured that they had every right to dislike the Jews for what they do, but they should keep it to themselves. Later, this was replaced by: the Jews are doing nothing wrong. It is just that vile people such as Louis Farrakhan are saying bad things about them, which is why you must love the Jews or you'll be accused of loving Farrakhan. Later still, this was changed to: You must not only love the Jews, you must also love Israel, the place that the Jews call their ancestral home.

But how to show one’s love for Israel? You do that by buying products made in the occupied part of Palestine known as the West bank, but falsely labeled as made in Israel. And this is why some state governors are passing laws and signing executive orders to punish you if you spend your money buying what you want instead of what the Jews tell you to buy. A little after that, something else was added to what was beginning to sound like dictatorial lunacy. It is that the people of America were told that Zionism was the symbol that stood for the Jewish right to self-determination. Thus, you must love Zionism because if you don't, you'll be denying the Jews their right to exist, which means you're advocating their extermination.

Coincident with the unfolding of these political machinations at the highest levels of the politico-journalistic elites, was the ordeal that the little people in two communities of America's multi-faceted society, were enduring. These little people were the middle-class Whites who were made to work under the supervision of a Jew no matter their qualifications, whether they labored in a blue-collar or a white-collar type of work. And they were the Blacks who were one “misunderstanding” away from having a magazine of bullets pumped into them by a White cop that will deny he was target practicing on running Blacks despite the glaring evidence that he was. And he will be acquitted in the court of lawless America.

Unable to change a system that was moving headlong toward insanity, the most affected individuals from both the White and Black communities started to take matters in their own hands as predicted by those of us who knew how to read history, and could tell that a critical point had been reached.

What happened was that the White folks felt as if they were crushed between two jaws. They felt mistreated at work by Jewish bosses they considered inferior to them. And they felt pressured by politicians that wanted them to submit to the whims of Jews residing overseas in Israel. And so, these White folks responded by shooting at Jews in their places of worship, most of the time. As to the Black folks, they responded to both the mistreatment by the police, and the pressure of the politicians who repeatedly lied to them, by taking on the “pampered” Jews they encountered on the streets. They tackled them in physical altercations that did not involve a firearm most of the time.

Now that this is happening, you would think that the Jewish leaders would have started to distance themselves from Israel, and that the politicians holding office would have backtracked and nullified what they did that stirred the anger of the population –– but neither the Jews nor the politicians did any such thing. Instead, they blamed all sorts of things but themselves for the attacks on Jews, and called on everyone in society to do something to address the situation.

You can see all of this in the three pieces that were published in the New York Post on the same day, December 30, 2019. One piece is an editorial that came under the title: “Facing the facts about anti-Semitic attacks in New York.” Another piece is an article by a contributor that came under the title: “African-American community must stand with Jews against wave of assaults,” written by Michael Benjamin. The third piece is also an article by a contributor that came under the title: “American Christians should lead the fight against anti-Semitism,” written by Robert Nicholson.

The editors of the New York Post blame the attacks on the following: Mayor De Blasio. The city's (and state's) failure to address serious mental illness. New York's growing softness on crime. Jew-hatred among some blacks. City Councilwoman Laurie Cumbo. Jersey City school-board member Joan Terrell-Paige. The National Democratic Party as well as Bernie Sanders, Linda Sarsour, Ilhan Omar and Nancy Pelosi.

As to Michael Benjamin, instead of doing the right thing and suggesting that the Jewish leaders ought to do what's necessary to alleviate the apprehensions that the population at large feels about their conduct, the writer has invited the African-American leaders to put a good word among their people, and implore them to love the Jews and Israel. Can you believe this?

As to Robert Nicholson, he went a step further and implored all Christians to fill the shoes of the now defunct Jewish Defense League. Starting with the notion that, “portraying the Jews as sinful has spurred outbursts of anti-Semitic violence in Christians, causing Jews to associate the Cross with pogroms and persecution,” Nicholson went on to say the following:

“American Christians can resolve to physically protect Jewish institutions and individuals. A network of Christians, deployed to stand guard at Jewish synagogues and community centers, should do it”.

Well, something like this happened when foreign trained and foreign paid saboteurs attacked churches in Egypt during the Revolution of 2011. The Muslims spontaneously formed human barriers around the churches to protect them. This act of courage and goodwill worked in Egypt but will not work in America. There are many reasons for that, but this is a discussion for another time.