Getting the Zombies out of the drivers’ seats

How do you know that a zombie is a zombie? You know he is when you see him chop off his arm. You ask why he is doing it, and he gives a long lecture about preemption, saying basically the following:

 

Preemption is a good thing because when you get wind that your neighbor is about to do something, you do it before him. This puts you first, and you win the contest.

 

So now, you want to know who is the zombie of American politics. Well, his name is Robert Joseph, a name that’s prominent in the pantheon of infamy for being the one to insert the accusation about Saddam’s Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in the George W. Bush State of the Union address.

 

Well, my friend, Robert Joseph is at it again, this time preempting the Iranians with the accusation of negotiating in bad faith, when it is the Americans who reneged on the Iran nuclear deal, which they negotiated together with the P5+1 group.

 

To immortalize the validity of his zombie credentials, Robert Joseph wrote, “Iran’s New Leaders Will Not Negotiate in Good Faith,” an article that was published on October 3, 2021 in National Review Online.

 

It is in the first sentence of the article that Robert Joseph has demonstrated how a zombie, who is certain of his neighbor’s intention, chops off his own arm to be ahead of the neighbor. Here is that sentence: “A great fallacy of the Biden approach is the belief that, in any agreement with the US, Tehran would live up to its commitments”.

 

Because Robert Joseph knew that the Iranians have every right to level that accusation against America, which reneged on an earlier deal, he falsely accused them before they had the chance to legitimately accuse America, which the Iranians may not have bothered doing. Still, with that performance, Robert Joseph proved to be an irredeemable joker, and a zombie that has been in the driver’s seat of American politics for too long.

 

And now, there remains the question: why is this zombie doing what he is doing? Well, when you comb through his article, you’ll find that Robert Joseph speaks of American interests. The problem is that he does not define what that is in any specific way. Instead, he speaks in general terms about the interests of some Arab neighbors of Iran without showing how these interests relate to America’s interests. Here are the kind of samples that you’ll find peppered throughout the article:

 

“Tehran’s goals are diametrically opposed to American interests … The underlying assumptions of the Biden strategy will produce only further failure and further loss of vital US interests … A policy of retreat and appeasement would only facilitate the regime’s anti-US agenda”.

 

It is only with the last sentence of the article that Robert Joseph has managed to let it be known what he sees America’s policy toward Iran ought to look like. Here is that sentence: A policy of disciplined and determined containment is required to back down the leaders in Tehran and help the people of Iran to gain their freedom.

 

So, there you have it: an admission that a big part of America’s policy toward Iran, as seen by a long-time architect of American foreign policy, is to help the people of Iran gain their freedom. It is not spelled out what that is, but no one will miss seeing it as the call for a revolution that will topple the regime, and install one that will be friendly toward America, and more importantly friendly toward Israel.

 

Whereas Robert Joseph and zombies like him believe that it is sufficient to counsel the Joe Biden administration on what needs to be done to set things straight in the world, another group of zombies have a different set of ideas. To begin with, they believe that no matter what counsel you give to the Biden administration, it will be a waste of time and energy because this is a White House, which in their view, is incapable of doing anything right.

 

This group of zombies makes up the editorial board of the publication that goes by the name New York Post. In fact, these editors just came up with a piece they wrote under the title: “Joe Biden is proving he’s pretty inept at politics,” and published it on October 4, 2021 in the New York Post, of course.

 

Disregarding the reality that the American public has been demanding their politicians stop acting like politicians and start acting like real human beings, the editors of the New York Post who pretend to be the voice of the American public, spent an entire editorial condemning Joe Biden for not being enough of a politician. But why is that?

 

Because in the view of these zombies, Joe Biden is asking the Republicans to help him advance his domestic agenda, instead of him volunteering to help the Republicans advance their foreign policy agenda. It would be one that’s based on committing more American resources toward the destruction of Iran and the destruction of other foes of America … more importantly nations known to be foes of Israel.

 

None of the discussion pertaining to that subject is apparent in the Post’s current editorial because the duelists are busy dueling about money, a fight that never takes place when the recipient of the money is Israel. What happens then, is that Israel commands and America gives the money without question. And to the World, America looks like the self-mutilating zombie who disgusts everyone for being such a sissy.

 

If the aim is to restore to America the glory it earned throughout the first half of the twentieth century, the time is now to get those zombies out of the drivers’ seat in America’s domestic and foreign policies.

Many Lowlights and one Lowlife coming together

Nobody is perfect. No one sane will argue against this proposition. What it means, is that each of us has a weakness of character that is apparent to everyone, or that is hidden so well, its candidate can commit evil acts and pretend to do good deeds.

 

Because the Jews adhere to an ideology (they call it religion) that asserts they are the only perfect people in existence, and that they are surrounded by imperfect creatures, they cannot look at someone without seeing deficiencies and weaknesses in them. As a result, you’ll find that Jews function in the constant state of being urged to criticize everyone they meet.

 

Clifford D. May, who is Jewish, found the ideal setting to demonstrate that tendency. The setting is the coming together of the whole world for the annual ritual of attending the General Assembly’s session of the United Nations. Clifford May did what a self-respecting Jew does: he criticized everyone without mentioning Israel, the entity he views as the only perfect thing that no one is allowed to mention in the same breath as the other nations.

 

You’ll discover all of that when you read the Clifford May article that came under the title: “All of the lowlights from the United Nations General Assembly [UNGA] session,” and the subtitle: “Everything you didn’t want to know.” The article was published on October 5, 2021 in The Washington Times.

 

Clifford May began by saying that because he could not find anything worth calling highlight in the lies, evasions, boilerplate and insults to the intelligence of people—which he heard during the presentation of the UNGA speeches—he’ll provide the readers with the lowlights that were meant to be speeches. The first that he tackled was the speech of Xi Jinping, president of the People’s Republic of China.

 

Our esteemed writer complained that the attendees who nodded and/or applauded Mr. Xi for pledging to fight the ongoing pandemic, must have known that Mr. Xi has blocked an investigation into the origin and spread of the pandemic. Upon reading this, the first thing that hits the mind of a well-adjusted human being is a loud: WHAT?

 

This guy, Clifford May is proposing that the highest priority must not be to fight the pandemic and save lives, but to investigate who was responsible for the origin and spread of the virus—and let people die in the interim. This, in fact, is what’s happening in America where three-quarter of a million people have died already from the virus while politicians are fighting each other in the halls of power, and ordinary citizens are fighting each other in the streets and shopping malls … all of them trying to settle what the order of priorities ought to be in America. What a bunch of primitive dudes!

 

And whereas this is the reality of American life under Jewish tutelage, China is flooding the world with vaccines from its own inventory, and by licensing countries like Egypt to produce as many as a billion vaccines a year for shipment to the nations of Africa—all that to save lives as promised by Xi Jinping.

 

After China, Clifford May proceeded to criticize Russia for slicing territory from its neighbors and for helping to maintain the integrity of Syria. But whereas you expect to see him attack Israel in the next breath, for gobbling not just a slice of a country as it did a slice of Syria’s Golan, but also gobbling the whole country of Palestine. Not a word there from Clifford May about the most horrific crime committed on Planet Earth since the beginning of time.

 

As to Russia helping to maintain the integrity of the rest of Syria, a sovereign country that was attacked by dozens of terrorist organizations, all armed and financed by the Judeo-American syndicate, this can only be to the eternal credit of Russia. It frustrated the Judeo-American demonic plan to slice all of Syria and all of Iraq into small rumps that would have been consumed by Israel and by the conspiratorial colonial forces that were knocking at the gates.

 

Clifford May then picked on Iran for electing as president of the country a man whom, Clifford May says, is rumored to have allowed the execution of dissidents some four decades ago. And again, whereas May saw fit to mention unsubstantiated rumors about Iran, he neglected to mention the ongoing and visible Israeli genocide, both cultural and physical, of the Palestinian people.

 

Clifford May then moved on to criticize North Korea but discovered that he must agree with its UN ambassador who reminded the Americans that contrary to public belief, their longest war has not ended. Whereas the Americans spoke of the Afghanistan War that lasted 20 years and came to an end, the ambassador reminded them that the Korean War is still officially ongoing after 70 years.

 

And then, instead of criticizing the American behavior that caused North Korea to develop the means to defend itself, thus become a colossal nuclear power, Clifford May went on a tangent and suggested that, had President Biden maintained troops in Afghanistan, that country would have developed as well as did South Korea. There goes the Jew, playing prophet again.

 

Having done away with the nations considered to be America’s foes, you might think that Clifford May would stop here, or maybe go on to praise America for being different from those other nations. Alas, that wasn’t the case. What Clifford May did instead was attack the American President Joe Biden who told UNGA that his country closed a period of relentless war. Not so, says May, relying on what Biden’s military advisors testified to Congress. He thus intimated that America’s military involvement with the rest of the world has not ended.

 

This sounds more like Jewish wishful thinking than prophecy.

Vinegar labeled old Wine in a new Bottle

 When wine sours, it turns into vinegar. When you pour old wine into a new bottle to cheat your customers, and the wine gets contaminated in the process, you end up with vinegar labeled old wine in a new bottle.

 

This is what Seth D. Kaplan and Patrick W. Quirk are offering to the world. They did so in an article they co-authored under the title: “The Next Push for Democracy Has to Be Different,” and the subtitle: “The United States does a disservice to the places it seeks to help when it does not customize its approach to context.” The article was published on October 4, 2021 in The National Interest.

 

The first sentence in this 1800-word article hits you in the face with the metaphoric suggestion that the writers are trying to sell you something you can use on your salad, not something you can sip to wash down a sumptuous meal. Here is that sentence: “After investing trillions of dollars and two decades in Afghanistan, America’s withdrawal from the country has prompted reflection on whether the United States should continue to support democratic transitions around the world”.

What’s wrong with that? Why is it vinegar and not wine? Well, look closely and you’ll find out.

 

Seth Kaplan and Patrick Quirk are admitting that they began reflecting on whether the United States should continue to do what it has been doing—only after the withdrawal from Afghanistan where America wasted trillions of dollars having achieved negative results, which is worse than useless nothing.

 

The fact that the two writers did not understand or see what was happening early on, and never were in a position to counsel immediate withdrawal, means that they were part of the problem. And having been the problem, they surely cannot come now and suggest they can be part of the solution. They have been selling the public and the political elites, cheap wine at a high price, and now they want to sell them the leftover that turned into vinegar, at an even higher price.

 

But how is it that the two writers, Kaplan and Quirk, are going about selling something useless, having a ton of visible failures under their belts?

 

Well, the first thing they did was blame their failures on everything else. Note that word “everything” because what Kaplan, Quirk and all those like them did, is place the blame not just on people, but on things that invalidated their counsel—being what they are by their very nature. This is like saying: We built the structure with wood instead of steel because wood is lighter, but when the storm blew, it brought the structure down because wood could not withstand the strong wind. So, blame the failure on that damned wood, not us.

 

And here is a sample you’ll find in the Kaplan and Quirk article, of that nonsensical piece of logic:

 

“Today’s transitions are different than in the past. The countries trying to democratize today (e.g., Afghanistan) have more challenges to overcome: weaker institutions, greater social divisions, poorer economic fundamentals, less supportive neighbors, and domineering militaries. These difficulties are made more complicated by the fact that authoritarians now use more effective techniques to squash dissent. Despite these differences, Western governments supporting democratic change are largely using the same playbook, disregarding each country’s underlying democratic fundamentals”.

 

So, how do Kaplan and Quirk propose America should go about remedying those weaknesses? Good question. Here is a short but representative passage showing how they explain what needs to be done—if you can understand it or formulate a workable policy that will be useful where it is needed:

 

“Each country requires different strategic responses customized to the context. This depends on structural social, political, and economic factors. Depending on the degree of trust among key social groups, the strength of state institutions, the size of the middle class, the influence of neighboring countries, the extent and nature of the international context, and the dynamism of the economy, each country has different possibilities that need to be assessed and understood before the US formulates plans to realize them. We recommend using a framework that groups countries into one of three zones along a continuum”.

 

And here is how Seth Kaplan and Patrick Quirk describe each zone:

 

Zone 1: Countries that have more cohesion, more robust institutions, better security, stronger economic fundamentals, and a better neighborhood.

 

Zone 2: Countries with middling, frail foundations where reformers should be more incremental and opportunistic.

 

Zone 3: Countries with highly fragmented political cultures, weakly institutionalized state structures, fragile neighbors, poor economic fundamentals, and potentially high levels of negative foreign intervention.

 

If you still cannot formulate a policy according to these guidelines, Kaplan and Quirk give you further hints as to how you can do it. Here is what they propose:

 

“Diplomats and practitioners working on priority countries should conduct an in-depth analysis of the democratic foundation and tactical landscape before devising their priorities. Plans should be designed to be adaptable to local conditions by ensuring that aid is designed so that there is ample scope to monitor, evaluate, learn, adapt, and reformulate. Funding mechanisms should be designed to respond to opportunities, with programming (not goals) altered as needs evolve”.

 

In other words, Seth Kaplan and Patrick Quirk are telling America it should assemble a team that will resume doing what the previous teams have been doing, but pretend to do things differently this time.

 

And when doing the same thing—even if under a different name—will give the same results, you can always send the military to do the job, thus resume the forever war, to last to eternity this time.

This is how they relentlessly dig their graves

To paraphrase House Representative Ilhan Omar, “Someone did something,” and Vice President Kamala Harris was held responsible for it.

 

That something happened to be the free verbal expression of a young woman who grew up in a family that taught her the value of thinking critically, and expressing her views without the fear of someone from the government suppressing it, but letting a peer with an opposing view, if any, rebut what you said.

 

On the day that an event of this kind took place, there was no one to rebut the young woman who spoke freely. As to Kamala Harris who is of the government, she did not impose her personal view or that of the government, one way or the other, on any attendee on that day.

 

What happened in the days that followed, was that the Jews whose trickery has allowed them, through the ages, to blackmail governments into suppressing their own people and privilege the Jews, hollered their sickly cry of antisemitism. Their excuse was that Kamala Harris of the US government did not use the full weight of her office to clobber the young woman who dared to freely express her opposition to Israel’s conduct regarding the treatment of Palestinians under its occupation.

 

The Jews that had unimaginable success exercising dictatorial power over the elites and the commoners of America, abused their powers so much, they caused the public to revolt, and that’s how the reverberation was felt by the political elites. An example of this was the decision of Kamala Harris not to interfere with the speech of the young woman who spoke freely.

 

This prompted many of the self-appointed Jewish leaders to explode their entrails out of their bellies as they hollered their pain. Two of those leaders are David Harsanyi and Zachary Faria. Harsanyi wrote: “Kamala Harris Wants to Hear Your Truth — Even If It’s a Lie,” an article that was published in National Review Online on October 1, 2021. As to Faria, he wrote: “Kamala Harris still can’t handle unscripted events,” an article that was published in The Washington Examiner also on October 1, 2021.

 

Let’s reconstruct as closely as we can, the mini debate that has unfolded between the young woman, Kamala Harris and David Harsanyi, while relying solely on what Harsanyi has reported. Here it is:

 

YOUNG WOMAN: Funds allocated to continue backing Israel hurts my heart because it’s an ethnic genocide and a displacement of people, the same that happened in America … [redirection of funds causing] lack of public health care and lack of affordable housing here in the United States.

 

KAMALA HARRIS: Glad [to hear this.] It’s about the fact that your voice, your perspective, your experience, your truth, should not be suppressed, and it must be heard … one of the things we’re fighting for in a democracy.

 

DAVID HARSANYI: This is worse than gibberish. My heart hurts because humans internalize ugly fantasies about the world and become Marxists. My head hurts because rather than dissuading stupid people from spreading their ideas, the vice president tells them that she is glad they’re voicing concerns.

 

So then, what it all boils down to is that the young woman spoke her mind, the vice president congratulated her for living the American ideal, and David Harsanyi objected because he believes that when it comes to Israel and the Jews, you screw the American ideal. And if you’re a big kahuna of the government, your job is to clobber anyone that does not toe the Jewish line. This is what the Jews mean when they say Israel is America’s friend.

 

As to Zachary Faria, he began his discussion by chiding Vice President Kamala Harris for being what the American people dream their politicians would become: Stop acting like politicians, and start acting like real human beings. Here is how Faria did the chiding: “Vice President Kamala Harris has somehow managed to distinguish herself as the least skilled prominent politician in the country, and there appears to be no venue too small for her to showcase her blunders”.

 

This done, Zachary Faria proceeded to act like the real Jew which he is. He dragged out old stories and opinions that disparaged the vice president, and listed them not realizing that the readers will not see a diminished Kamala Harris, but smell a stinky Jew being himself.

 

And then, instead of pontificating about the future of the Jewish community in America, thinking of ways to avoid the development of acrimony that is seen between Jews and the communities in Europe, Zachary Faria pontificated about the future of Kamala Harris; of President Joe Biden and the Democratic Party.

 

And when you dig deep into what he is saying, you realize that what he sees is not what will happen but what he wishes will happen to the two leaders and their party.

How they turn Government-for-all into Government for the ‘Chosen’

 Governments in the advanced societies, be they liberal democracies or otherwise, observe the strict rule of being unbiased, one way or the other, toward the various ethnicities that make up their society.

 

This does not go well with the Jews wherever they happen to be because they think of themselves as a chosen people. And so, they do what they can to stand out as being different and superior to all those around them. In addition, the Jews try something else if and when they can get away with it. What they do is nudge the government to privilege them by imposing their will and their demands on the rest of society.

 

In most places where the Jews get away with this kind of behavior, they do things with subtlety as much as they can, and so do the governments that privilege them. But there is one place in this world where the Jews do not need to be subtle, and neither does the government, which they use like a beast of burden. That would be the United States of America where Jews openly behave like monarchs, are treated as such by the government, and expect to be worshipped by the rest of society.

 

To the surprise of some Jewish leaders, however, things are beginning to change in America, and their surprise is turning into anger. One Jew that is angry and cannot keep it a secret is Jonathan S. Tobin who always saw himself as being above the other Jewish leaders to begin with. He is so horrified by the changes that are taking place in America, he wrote an article to express his sentiments. Whereas this is a way for him to vent his anger, it is a way for us to learn how the Jews used to do things with subtlety in the past, and get away with what is now considered to be unthinkable behavior.

 

Jonathan Tobin’s article came under the title: “Is it ever OK to praise the ‘truth’ of an anti-Semitic blood libel?” and the subtitle: “The vice president not only failed to challenge a student who smeared Israel, but praised her instead. What does this say about campus culture and politicians who see the hard-left as their party’s base?” The article was published on October 1, 2021 in the Jewish News Syndicate.

 

What follows is the story behind the controversy as narrated by Jonathan Tobin. Considered a preamble to his discussion, it is presented here in condensed form:

 

“After giving a brief talk at a university, Kamala Harris took questions from students. One of them launched into a diatribe where she contrasted the protests and demonstrations on behalf of Palestine with the fact that Congress had passed funding for Israel. The student said, Israel’s existence is an expression of ethnic genocide. She went on to say that the money should have gone to health care. Rather than push back, Harris responded with a lecture about pluralism and the need for activism. Said Harris: Your voice, your perspective, your experience, your truth cannot be suppressed, and it must be heard”.

 

As can be seen, it was as early as the preamble that Jonathan Tobin began to editorialize as to what Vice President Kamala Harris should have done in response to a student who stated she would have preferred to see the billion dollars spent on the health care of Americans rather than the Israeli genocide of Palestinians. In response, Jonathan Tobin has vehemently argued that the Vice President should have pushed back against what he termed, that libelous and anti-Semitic statement.

 

To validate his argument, Jonathan Tobin resorted to the use of a tricky method that is as Jewish as matzoh bread. He attacked Kamala Harris by dragging out and reciting old stories and opinions that were levelled against her during past electoral campaigns. They would be stories and opinions whose veracity no one, that is interested in the current discussion, was going to verify or spend time establishing how they might relate to the current discussion. In fact, what Tobin did is what Jews often do, which is the moral equivalent of dredging buckets of stuff from the sewer and throwing it all over the public square to distract the attendees and shut them up while the Jew yells his case using a megaphone.

 

And so, having the public square all to himself, Jonathan Tobin went about reciting what happened during the few days that followed. He did so not as a dispassionate historian interested in leaving a record for the future, but in the way that the extreme partisan which he is, wished history had developed. In so doing, Jonathan Tobin gave himself an old weapon that proved its effectiveness in the past. It proved to be extremely useful at the start of the Jewish conquest of America. Here is the weapon as used by Tobin this time around: “Such sentiments, in the United States and elsewhere, led to anti-Semitic violence on campus and off”.

 

In fact, accusing others of leading to anti-Semitic violence by refusing to do what the Jews commanded them doing, had been the most powerful weapon in the arsenal of the Jewish leaders. Using it, they managed to silence every criticism of themselves and the causes they advocated, thus made it sound like they were perfect and deserving of all the credit, whereas everyone else was defective and in need of Jewish guidance to learn and to improve.

 

Until this happens, Jonathan Tobin wants America and the world to know that Kamala Harris is not up to the job of Vice President. With him saying this, and other Jews saying that Joe Biden is not up to the job of President, Americans are to conclude that the Jews are advocating a regime change in America.

 

Does this mean we should expect to see a Jewish version of January 6?

The Truth has blinded the Princes of Darkness

Those in America who call themselves Jews have created an organization for every occasion. They would terminate the organization that outlived its purpose and create a new one when the need arises.

 

One organization that’s in operation today is called the National Jewish Advocacy Center. It is run by one Mark Goldfeder who published an article calling on the Vice President of the United States to apologize. Why you ask? Here is the title of the article that tells you why: “Kamala Harris should apologize for leaving lies about Israel unrefuted,” published on October 1, 2021 in the New York Daily News.

 

This looks like a big thing because it is a big thing. In fact, it is a slice of what constitutes the battle that’s continually fought between good and evil. And in that battle, there is always the obligatory scene that represents in a nutshell what the entire drama is about. If you capture and internalize that microcosmic scene, you’ll have a clear understanding of what the macrocosmic game is all about in the way that a simple equation helps a student of science capture the full dimension of a complex law of nature.

 

Thinking rationally, you’ll find that in the battle which is unfolding between the people of Palestine who are trying to hold on to their patrimony, and the imposters that have plagued mankind since the beginning of time, and are now trying to rob the Palestinians of what has always been theirs—there is embedded in that performance, a microcosmic scene representing what the larger story is about.

 

The essence of that story runs as follows: Conscientious American legislators realized that for half a century, their country had been deceived by a worldwide crime syndicate pretending to descend from the ancient Hebrews. The syndicate first killed freedom of speech in America, then silenced any criticism of it while engaging in the cancellation of everyone that refused to toe their line. Having thus gained dictatorial authority, the syndicate mobilized the full spectrum of American power to work on stealing Palestine from its Palestinian owners, and give the stolen properties to anyone who would join the syndicate’s movement by converting to a fake religion they call Judaism. And so, the American legislators vowed to put an end to the horrific madness that is both destroying Palestine and dismantling American values piece by piece.

 

As to the obligatory iconic scene representing the current battle between good and evil, it has unfolded as follows: The aging leaders of the American Congress added to an important finance bill, a rider that would have given a billion dollars to the crime-syndicate’s favorite pet project known as Israel. The conscientious group of legislators defeated the bill, demanding that the rider be removed from it. This was done, and the bill was passed.

 

But then, the aging leaders turned the rider into a separate bill, and blackmailed their own Democratic caucus into voting for it or suffer dire consequences given that the opposing Republican caucus was in favor of it, and would have taken credit for its passage. Having no choice, most of the Democratic caucus voted for the disgraceful bill. That’s when the moral of the story exploded for the world of today and for posterity to see. It was that the crime syndicate came to own and operate America by dividing it into factions that fought each other even inside the same caucuses. But the factions of both caucuses came together in a “bipartisan” way to serve Israel and only Israel at the expense of the American people.

 

Thus, in the battle between good and evil, evil has triumphed this time. However, the good news is that the conscientious group of legislators in America, is of the young generation that will inherit the country, whereas the leadership that was programmed for half a century to inflate Israel by deflating America, is on its way to the grave where it has one foot already.

 

It so happened that a day or two after that shameful performance in the US Congress, the Vice President of the country Kamala Harris, visited a school where she went into a classroom and talked to the students. One of the youngsters who is as intelligent as anyone can be at her age, and as conscientious as the American legislators who wouldn’t toe the Jewish line, expressed her dismay at what happened in Congress. Remembering that the Jews turned America into the proverbial banana plantation by silencing everyone, Kamala Harris praised the young student for being courageous enough to speak her mind.

 

That’s what blew members of Jewish Central out of their seats, and had every Jew and his cousin in the country, blow their entrails out of their bellies hollering: blood libel! blood libel! And Mark Goldfeder of the National Jewish Advocacy Center happened to be one of those. Here, in condensed form, is how he responded by formulating the demand that Kamala Harris must apologize immediately:

 

“Vice President Kamala Harris gave a talk about voting rights to students at a university. During the question-and-answer session that followed, a student complained that ‘there were funds allocated to continue backing Israel, which hurts my heart because it’s an ethnic genocide and a displacement of people’. Instead of educating the people about the relationship between the United States and Israel, the vice president thanked the woman for her contribution to the discussion and told her that ‘your truth should not be suppressed and it must be heard.’ Harris’ response was irresponsible and dangerous. She should immediately apologize”.

 

There was a time at the start of the Jewish conquest of America, that the rabbis would constantly demand that people who did not toe their line, should apologize, apologize, apologize.

 

Sickened by the monotony of their chants, some people began to respond as follows: The only ones that need to apologize are the Jews for the mistake that God made in creating them.

 

That kind of response has died years ago, but it seems that Mark Goldfeder is adamant about reviving it.

The short-lived life of the shotgun wedding

 A shotgun wedding is an artificial construct that is designed to cover for a fleeting moment of passion that would turn into a scandal should it prove that the passion was loveless and temporary.

 

Shotgun marriages may no longer take place in the secular liberal democracies, but they do in other places, including those that think of themselves as spiritual liberal democracies.

 

If we think of a love story that develops normally between a boy and a girl, and lasts long enough till they grow up and get married, have children and age together—as being the natural course of a relationship—we must think of the shotgun wedding as being the artificial development of a relationship, and expect it to end in rancor and divorce shortly thereafter.  

 

“Natural” implies a holistic, organic development that takes the time it needs to flourish while nourishing every part of the growing construct. By contrast, “artificial” implies the hurried assembly of parts that may fit together at first, but will remain together for only a fleeting moment as would a loveless affair.

 

Well, if we consider that the idea of coming together in matrimony—known as marriage—is used in most languages as an allegory to describe other forms of coming together, such as a business partnership for example, we can also think of the coming together in politics or diplomacy as an act that can be natural and organic, or can be artificial, incomplete and temporary.

 

This brings us to an article that came under the title: “Bipartisan Support for Israel Is Broken—Here’s how to Fix It,” and the subtitle: “The United States and Israel need a reality check on the alliance and a better understanding of the politics and culture in both Jerusalem and Washington.” It was written by Asaf Romirowsky, and published on September 30, 2021 in The National Interest.

 

The following is a montage of the pertinent passages representing Romirowsky’s view concerning the relationship between America and Israel:

 

“The US-Israeli bond is a wide bridge. Lanes permit a variety of exchanges in both directions. At the most general are shared cultural and moral concerns; more narrowly there are security and economic issues. Israel’s Diaspora Affairs Minister has called for a long-term fix in Israel’s ties with the Democratic Party, stating, ‘Long-term developments in the US are changing the Democratic Party and strengthening the progressive and anti-Israel axis.’ What many have not understood is the shift in American politics that has seen the rise of the far Left, which is represented in the Congress by the Squad and dozens of other ideologically aligned representatives. The Democratic generation gap is palpable; old-timers are pro-Israel, while the young guard is not. Indeed, they may exemplify the new Democratic Party more than anything, where far-left identity politics meets obsessive hatred of Israel. The fact is that the Israeli political arena leans much more to the Right whereas the loudest voices in US politics currently lean Left, means extra efforts are necessary to explain positions to one another”.

 

What you see here is the rant of someone that has no idea how a natural relationship—sometimes referred to as bonding—develops between people. Neither Asaf Romirowsky the writer of the article, nor Israel’s Diaspora Minister recoiled at the use of the expression, “long-term fix in Israel’s ties with the Democratic Party.” They don’t realize that you can only fix something that is artificial because what is natural heals itself when broken. In addition, when something is artificial, you don’t talk about it long-term because no matter the longevity of the artificial, it is but a fleeting moment compared to the lifespan of the natural.

 

In short, what these two people are saying, and what they are trying to do, is fix a wedding that was of the shotgun variety to begin with. The relation between the Democrats and the Jewish Establishment, has since gone sour to the extreme, and has initiated the process of divorce. Oblivious of all this, those two gentlemen dream of repairing the lost relationship. But whereas they say this is their aim, they are not giving as little as a faint hint, how they propose to go about doing the repair.

 

And so, we must ask, what are the chances that Asaf Romirowsky and Israel’s Diaspora Minister will succeed in reviving the relationship that used to exist between the Democratic Party of the United States on one side, and Israel as well as the Jewish Establishment in America on the other side? Put differently, this is the question: Can a shotgun wedding that lasted a short period of time and got broken, be repaired to look like a love affair that developed naturally, and has led to a solid wedding?

 

To answer this question, we can study a piece that may shed some light on the subject. The piece is an article that came under the title: “A cautionary tale about Arab-Israeli normalization,” written by Jonathan S. Tobin, and published on September 30, 2021 in the online Jewish publication, Jewish News Syndicate. The following is what constitutes the preamble of Tobin’s article. It is here presented in condensed form:

 

“An influential tribal leader from Iraq spoke of his attendance at a conference in which he and 300 other notables publicly supported normalization between their country and the state of Israel. The blowback about this development has provided a sobering counterpoint to optimism about peace between Jews and Arabs in the Middle East. By intimidating those who attended the conference into recanting their positions, Iran and its powerful allies inside Iraq have shown that while it is possible to fight Jew-hatred in the Muslim world, no one should underestimate the difficulties of that struggle. That’s true so long as the Biden administration isn’t fully supportive of such efforts, as proved to be the case in Iraq”.

 

This is an example of what has been the classic approach to a shotgun wedding between the Jews and others. Examples abound in Canada, the US and other places where the Jewish Establishment begged the government to impose the Jews on their populations. It seemed to work at first, but then the blowback happened to let these people know they went too far already, and they ain’t goin’ any further.