The ISIS Game

http://www.theboldpursuit.com/tbp-journal/2014/8/25/the-isis-game.html

For those of you who play checkers, chess, or other games of strategy, you have probably noticed that the losing player does not usually lose only on the last move. In most cases, even if he is allowed to take back a move or two, that does not prevent his inevitable loss. The fatal mistake, the losing move, usually has already happened much earlier than that. Once the fatal mistake is made, the rest is inevitable. The losing move loses because it weakens the player’s position so much that no matter how well he moves thereafter, the result is already a foregone conclusion.

 

In the ISIS game, Barack Obama made the losing move at least as far back as his “red line” bluff in Syria, when he made empty threats that he had not the fortitude to carry through, and had to back down.  That mistake drove Syria ever more firmly into the arms of Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, while at the same time, opening the door for ISIS to consolidate northern Syria as a base from which to conquer northern Iraq, and eventually,to effectively target Europe and the United States. The game was all but over as soon as  Obama’s bluff was called. What happened later was not only predictable, it was predicted.

 

Thus came into being the reality we now face, the nightmare scenario which was prevented in Afghanistan by President Bush’s decisive invasion. It could have been prevented again, had Barack Obama acted decisively in Syria, and even later, in northern Iraq when ISIS first invaded. That nightmare is a powerful terrorist state that will stop at nothing, literally at nothing, to carry out its ambition of total conquest of the old Babylonian empire. This will be followed by a caliphate over the entire Middle East, andthen, using that power-base as a launching point, major attacks on Western Europe and the United States.

 

Russia already knows what the next few moves are. They have already been there. The massacre of one hundred eighty-six Russian school children at Beslan by Chechen Islamists in 2004 was an atrocity that defines the savage intentions of Jihadi fanatics—or at least it did define it until ISIS forces burned through city after city in Iraq, leaving thousands murdered, decapitated and enslaved.

Over the years, Russia has sustained many more terrorist attacks, one of the most recent being a gunfight between police and some militants involved in last year’s car bombings at the Volgograd train station in which some fifty people were killed. Three policemen and 4 terrorists were killed in the gunfight this year.

 

Russia is no stranger to this game. It remains to be seen whether ISIS will target Russia with the same massive destruction that it has threatened in the US and Europe. Russia’s stance, however, makes it clear to the terrorists that Russia’s response will not be an empty Obamaesque threat. The terrorists will surely remember that in 2000, the Russians flattened the entire Chechen capital city with artillery and air strikes, prompting the UN to call it the most destroyed city on earth. ISIS can expect nothing better if they attack Russia.

 

Sadly, ISIS assuredly has no fear of the United States. Worse yet, the allies who can most help us in the war against the terrorists no longer trust us. Obama has in one form or another betrayed them all, including the Kurds, the Anbar Sunnis, and even our European friends.

 

In doing so, Obama has already made the fatal move that condemns the United States to the full fury of an ISIS terrorist attack on our soil. While he is playing for a draw, ISIS is in this to win it all.  You do not need to be a chess master, or a golf player, to understand why a rank amateur has no chance of winning this game.

.

The Barbarians are at the Gates -- Again

http://www.theboldpursuit.com/tbp-journal/2014/8/18/by-robert-arvay-contributing-writer-a-story-which-i.html

A story which I often recount involves taking my wife to a movie. She had recently immigrated from South Korea. The movie was A Bridge Too Far. A scene in that movie shows a German soldier approaching British lines under a white flag. A British officer stands up and responds to the German demand for surrender by refusing. The German soldier then returns to the shelter of his lines, as does the British officer, and the bloody fighting soon resumes.
​
When my wife saw the German soldier standing in full view of the British riflemen, she whispered to me, “Why don’t they shoot him?”

​I was both horrified and amused, and answered, “They can’t shoot him. He’s under a white flag!”

​My wife was amazed. “Oh,” she said. “Gentleman war.” Warfare in Asia had never become ritualized as it had in Europe. We take for granted that we do not shoot an enemy under a flag of truce, but most of the world knows nothing of this practice.​

​It was during the so-called Dark Ages that certain civilized behaviors first began to be widely introduced into the conduct of warfare. This came about because, in Europe, most of the combatants were Christian, and most were governed more or less by the Roman Catholic Pope, who gave orders that warfare was to be restrained by certain rules. At first, little improvement was made, but by the time of the Renaissance, war in Europe (and later in the Americas) was no longer what it had been in ancient times. Granted, war remained ugly, but even in the meat grinder of World War I, medics of both sides could usually operate on the battlefield with immunity from enemy fire. White flags were honored, and the flag of the Red Cross was respected by all.

​In pre-medieval times, before the Popes had moderated the practice of war, losing armies were slaughtered, any survivors were enslaved, and conquered nations were looted and crushed under the heel of unrelenting tyranny. We in America can scarcely imagine what it was like to have lived under the constant threat that hordes of merciless barbarians would suddenly appear, killing and burning their way through villages and cities, carrying off one’s family, who were never to be heard from again. Yet this was what life was like in ancient times throughout the entire world.

​While today humanitarians complain about water-boarding, in ancient times, captured enemies were often tortured hideously, merely for the amusement of the captors. A long list of barbaric practices could be made, shocking and horrifying the average American.

​We feel comforted knowing that those days are over—but are they really?

The American and European failures in Syria and Iraq are demonstrating that the age of barbarism is upon us still. It never did go away. We just closed our eyes to it. The modern-day terrorists who often are referred to as ISIS or ISIL, are nothing new to history. They are the Huns of yore, the Mongol Hordes in modern Islamic form. They are unimaginably ruthless, cruel and fanatical.

​Not to worry. According to the White House, we are “monitoring the situation.” Indeed? One reporter all but openly mocked that claim during a press briefing. Monitoring the situation, he rebuked, monitoring? Tens of thousands of people are in imminent danger of being brutally massacred, and we are monitoring? The White House press secretary was reassuring. We are not merely monitoring the situation, he said. We are monitoring it “closely.” Oh. That makes it all better (yes, sarcasm).

​One thing which utopian visionaries consistently fail to acknowledge is something called reality. Reality always trumps idealism. Community organizing is no match for suicidal armies. The Nazis and Japanese Imperialists of the 1940s were not negotiated into surrender, not until first we had killed every last enemy soldier who continued to resist. Even after the formal surrenders, more killing was needed to eliminate the mortal dangers posed by die-hards in both Germany and Japan.

One cannot reason with genocidal murderers. One can only kill them. ​But no! the proponents of peace at any price will counter. Why, killing them would make us just as evil. My reply is that is a disgusting argument, one which equates murder with self-defense, and equates atrocity with protection of the helpless. Anyone who contemplates the reality of the situation and still holds to that bankrupt position is despicable.

​Another argument says that, for every terrorist we kill, we create many more. Oh, really? Then ask this question. When terrorists killed three thousand of us on nine-eleven, how many more of us did they create? As they killed more thousands of us in the military campaigns, they should have created enough of us to eliminate them forever.​

Only the mathematics of the intentionally ignorant can fail to recognize that killing terrorists decreases their number. Any new terrorists coming into the battle are not there because their predecessors were killed, they are coming because their minds are poisoned by the same radical theology that motivated their dead forebears.

​Yes, it all sounds horrible. It is horrible. However, the horror is not one of our making, rather, it is the making of those who issue edicts requiring everyone to think as they think or die, to obey their commands or be murdered.

​Every American should be required to witness the videos made and distributed by the terrorists, videos joyfully displaying the beheaded corpses of those who made the fatal mistake of surrendering to a psychopathic enemy. Horrible, yes, but better to see these beheadings on video than to see them in person on the streets of our neighborhoods.

'​Oh, that’s fear-mongering,' some will say. 'ISIS is not coming here.' But the Japanese did come to Pearl Harbor, Osama’s minions came to the World Trade Towers, and the Russians did invade Crimea just a few weeks ago, and then shot down a civilian airliner. The mainland Chinese are building a blue water navy, one for which they have no defensive need. Barack Obama warned the Syrian dictator to disarm or face the consequences, and the consequence turned out to be the exposing of Obama as a toothless tiger. He installed a Muslim Brotherhood terrorist to lead Egypt, a danger so extreme that the Egyptians expelled the Muslim Brotherhood from Egypt (and expelled many of them from the planet). Obama then offered Israel a so-called truce with Hamas – a truce which would in reality have been a complete capitulation to terrorism. All the while, Obama is dismantling our armed forces. There is no space here for a complete list of the treacheries being perpetrated by our apologist-in-chief.

​In short, the US has become a shadow of its former presence as a force for good in the world, a presence which Obama clearly believes was a force for evil.

​Into the vacuum are stepping the real forces of evil, forces not only capable of barbarism, but eager to practice it in its most malevolent form.

​They are at the gates.
.

Why Communism Works and Socialism Does Not

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/10/why_communism_works_and_socialism_does_not.html

One of the most amazing phenomena of current political thought is the fact that only a very small percentage of people on the political left have a clue as to what socialism and communism are.

If one were to ask 100 college students -- students who identify themselves as sympathetic to communism and hostile to capitalism -- ask them if they would favor a system in which "government withers on the vine," a system in which there is no government, no taxes -- probably very few of them would say they favor such a system.

Yet, that is Marxist communism, the communism that they say is superior to capitalism.

Communism works. I know this first hand. When I was head of a household, I ran my family under the communist system. From each of us came goods and services according to our abilities. To each of us, those goods and services were provided according to need. Thus, I went to work and provided most of the money. The kids did no outside work and ate well every day. The wife held an outside job, and both she and I shared the domestic chores (me mostly outside, she mostly inside).

I never complained when I had to do the heavy lifting. She never asked me to sew on my own buttons. It never even occurred to us to complain.

There was no equality in this. We didn't care about equality. We cared about taking care of each other, and the system worked.

So why don't we apply these rules to society at large?

Alas, large societies do not have the same personal dynamics as do families. Perhaps they should, but reality does not obey "should."

Recognizing this, the early communists in Russia instituted what they called a "transitional" system. Socialism was established as a temporary bridge, to get the society from its prior feudal system to a future communist ideal.

But socialism actually has the opposite effect. Instead of reducing government, it establishes an all-powerful (and ever increasingly powerful) central government, a totalitarian system in which anyone suspected of dissent is imprisoned in a labor camp, usually never to be heard from again.

Such a government will never -- never -- hand over "power to the people." Once you've tasted raw, total power, you can't let go. It consumes you.

In Western Europe, a more docile brand of socialism was adopted, for the express purpose of avoiding the brutalities of Stalinist and Hitlerian socialism.

For almost 70 years now, this benign form of socialism has entrenched itself in Europe, so much so that for most Europeans, the thought of self-reliance has become something to ridicule and fear.

In Greece, for example, which has spent every drachma it has ever collected in taxes -- and spent every drachma it has ever borrowed but can never repay -- the people demand even more government-paid benefits. The question of "where will we get the money" has no meaning to them. Let the government borrow more, let it print more, let it do something, but never cut my benefits -- indeed, riot to force it to increase my benefits.

Other European countries are gradually following suit. Its citizens continually demand more from government, but continually demand that less be required of themselves in terms of personal responsibility.

Is there a problem in my family? Call in the government. Do I need surgery? Call in the government (which is why more people die of survivable medical conditions in Europe than do in the USA).

Socialism is not a bridge to communism. It will never get us there. On the contrary, it is a dead end, or worse, a road that leads off the edge of a cliff.

If the people of the USA do not wake up before election day, there will be no one to bail Europe out of the mess it has created -- because the USA will meet the same fate. 
------------------------------
Addendum two years later:
America has not awakened, and the mess is worse than ever.
.
.

Council of Cowards

http://www.theboldpursuit.com/the-patriots-notepad/2014/8/11/council-of-cowards.html

The 1962 book and 1964 movie, Seven Days in May, brought to public attention the remote possibility of a coup d’etat occurring in the United States. High level overthrows of third world governments are indeed potential occurrences, but in strong, well established Western republics, they are all but impossible. The closest we have ever come, so far as I know, was the forced resignation of President Richard Nixon, which was really not at all close to being a real coup, as the aftermath was a smooth transition of power that made little difference to the ordinary citizen.

​Soon after Barack Obama took office, soon after his disastrous policies became clearly disastrous, I thought to myself that highly placed officials would meet with him in the oval office and counsel him accordingly. After all, these officials are well aware how a weakening of the United States can bring about national calamity, world chaos, and certainly a threat to their own power and perquisites. I was all but certain that those with such knowledge and power would rein in this loose cannon.

​They didn’t.

​Those in power, those in charge of intelligence, the military, banking and commerce—in short, those who have access to the oval office, could have, and should have, arranged an emergency meeting in the White House, and informed Barack Obama that if he did not moderate his radical policies, they would go public with their grievance, and if necessary, might go so far as to initiate impeachment proceedings.

​They did not.

​Six years later, we find ourselves mired in numerous growing and predictable disasters that threaten the republic. The staccato series of scandals alone should be enough to sound the alarm, but there is so much more than that.

The failures of Obama’s economic policies are legion. The inept implementation of a defective health care law is an alarm. As the world ignores presidential “red lines,” we find ourselves sneered at by both friend and foe alike. Our enemies are progressing day by day in their nuclear weapons programs, weapons which they will surely use. Even the lowliest terrorist now possesses shoulder-fired anti-aircraft weapons which can easily find their way across our porous borders and onto the highways over which airlines descend for landings.

​This only scratches the surface of the disasters awaiting us as an increasingly lawless president runs roughshod over the Constitution.

​At this point, the possibility of a top-down coup has become not only unlikely, but indeed, would probably make matters worse, although in the long run, matters are headed for an ending that will be about as bad as things can get.

The council of cowards who surround the president will never act in a positive way to restore the nation to the rule of law. At the point in history when their courage could have equaled those of the Founding Fathers, and have been recorded as such, they have instead become Benedict Arnolds, fawning at the feet of their master, and groveling for his favor.

​Instead, the duty of protecting freedom has now fallen where, perhaps it should be. The duty has fallen on those who stood off the armed forces of oppression at the Bundy Ranch, and those who turned back the busses in Murrieta. In other words, the burden must now be borne by none other than you.

​There comes a time, there must come a time, when the ordinary American, having endured sufferings while sufferings were endurable, must recognize that not only are his own freedoms at stake, but that his children and grandchildren are being condemned to a life of debt, a life of obeisance to unjust authority, and the dangers posed by hostile foreign powers.

​I don’t know when the tipping point will be reached. I don’t even know if a popular uprising would have any chance against the power of technology that is surely in the hands of the government.

​I do know that, what dark thing now creeps toward Washington DC is a clear and present danger to the Republic, and that its strongest ally is the cowardice of its enemies.
.

How Does One Person Take Power Over a Nation?

As a young boy, I watched in wonderment on a military base, a single officer giving the command to stand at attention, and dozens of soldiers stood at attention. He gave the order to “left face,” and those dozens of soldiers faced left. He told them, “forward march,” and forward they marched.

I wondered why the soldiers did as they were told. I wondered how it was that this one officer could command them. Why was he the one in charge, and not one of the other men? Of course, my thoughts were not so precisely worded, but the questions have never left me. Indeed, over the years, the questions have only grown larger.

Years later, as I studied history, I wondered how it was possible that millions of Germans were commanded by one man named Hitler. He ordered countless numbers of his followers to their deaths, and they obeyed.

Likewise, a man named Stalin sent millions of Russians to their deaths, and they obeyed.

On smaller scales, the question is raised again and again and again, as dictators rise in various places around the world, snapping orders that are instantly obeyed. Saddam Hussein of Iraq, Kim Jong Un of North Korea, and Vladimir Putin of Russia are only a few examples.

How do they do it?

At first, I thought that the case of Adolph Hitler would be instructive, so I looked more deeply into it. Here was a person who, early in life, was as close to being the personification of a nobody as one can get. He tried and failed to get into an art school. In World War I, he was an undistinguished army corporal. In later years, he would snap orders to generals, even ordering their deaths if they disobeyed. 

It turns out that Hitler did not really propel himself to power. The infrastructure of future tyranny was already in place for him, as it were, awaiting him. Devious men surrounded Hitler, accomplices in treachery. Chance seems to have played a major role. In short, a complex weave of events occurred. At any moment, those events might have taken a different turn, and had they, history would not even have recorded Hitler’s name.

My theory is that human society, and human psychology, is predisposed toward accepting tyranny. We see this as far back as the days of the Old Testament, when the Jews decided to do away with their divinely ordained system of governance, and chose instead to be more like the ungodly nations that surrounded them. They clamored for a king, and they got one. Their first king, Saul, the bad king, was replaced by David the good king, and then by Solomon, another good king, but after Solomon’s death, rule by evil took over, and Israel was brought to ruin.

Had the Jews foreseen the inevitable result of their choice, they would likely have put up with their divinely appointed judges, as corrupt as those judges were.

It is because we are predisposed toward tyranny that tyrants rule.

The great exception in history has been the United States. Having suffered under a tyranny that was by no means as horrible as rule by men such as Ivan the Terrible, the Founders cobbled together an independent government that not only threw off the tyrant, but also, they hoped, would prevent any future tyrants from seizing power.

The Founders understood power. They understood how it is gained, and they understood how it is abused. They understood that the would-be tyrant must first be surrounded by lackeys, by men in the shadows, by opportunists hoping for favors. They understood the complex weave of events that must occur, and they devised a method whereby those events could never conspire to bring to absolute power any one individual.

For many decades, that system prevailed. Then it eroded. Gradually, year by year, the strengths which had under-girded our imperfect society began to weaken. Slowly, the safeguards against tyranny unraveled.

Today, we have in power that single individual that the Founders abhorred in principle. We have a man who came from seemingly nowhere, a man with no previous accomplishments, a man who refuses to divulge his college records – a man who has never so much as run a lemonade stand. He has never signed a paycheck, and indeed, never earned one from private enterprise.

Yet this man orders generals about, firing them at his whim. He presides over failure after failure, and he survives scandal after scandal. He flouts the law, violating the separation of powers, arbitrarily dismissing laws he does not like, and using illegal means to punish his political opponents. Yet, despite all this, or maybe because of all this, Barack Obama snaps orders, and millions of people comply.

How could such a thing happen?

Some Actor Guy Died Today.

Some actor guy died today.
It's ALL OVER THE NEWS nonstop.

With all due respect ---
a hundred people died today who were vastly more important than
what's his name.

Americans who put their lives on the line for this country,
who lost limbs and eyes and brain function.

Some were old, some were young,
but each and every one of them was of enormous importance and significance
in terms of what they did.

I'm not disrespecting the actor.
Why are the news media disrespecting these other people?

They say he will be sorely missed.
I say a week from now, not more than a few people will remember him.

I still miss Ronald Reagan.
Now THERE was an actor, and a great man to boot.

Let's get our priorities straight.
.

Global Warming and AIDS

http://www.theboldpursuit.com/tbp-journal/2014/8/11/global-warming-aids-and-unicorns.html

They call it climate change. Think about that. They used to call it global cooling, until there was no cooling. Then they called it global warming, but then there was no warming. So now they call it, climate change. The climate has been changing since the first day on earth, so that’s the name they settled on.

​It does no good to ask about this. When those who complain about climate change are asked, why don’t you call it global warming anymore, they simply call you a “denier.” You may ask them, which way is the climate changing? Is it getting warmer or cooler? Their response is to plug their ears, and recite the mantra which says that we must stop burning fossil fuels.​

We may think that those who preach about climate change are irrational. Well okay, most of them are, but not all—not the rich ones. You see, there is a lot of money to be made from all this. Billions of dollars are spent every year on so-called “green” technologies that are saving the planet from unicorns—no wait, from global warming. It’s so easy to mix up one’s mythology. People kill for that kind of money. Literally. There is also enormous power involved, which is why you never hear about climate remedies that require less government and lower taxes. It’s always more of both, never less of either.
​
AIDS, however, is a very serious matter. As we all know, AIDS is caused by the HIV virus—or maybe not. Many scientists, as it turns out, are asserting that AIDS is not caused by HIV, but rather, that AIDS is a set of symptoms that is caused by many different causes, not a single disease.
​
The website, “Rethinking AIDS” is at
http://www.rethinkingaids.com/.
It is run by a small group of redneck yahoos—oh wait, wrong site. It is governed by a board of directors consisting of Ph D experts in the study of viruses and assorted other scientific disciplines, and has hundreds of members with relevant expertise.
​
Peter H. Duesberg, PhD is one prominent member of the board. Here is his biographical sketch from the site.

Professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of California, Berkeley. In 1968-1970 he demonstrated that influenza virus has a segmented genome. . . . He isolated the first cancer gene through his work on retroviruses in 1970, and mapped the genetic structure of these viruses. This, and his subsequent work in the same field, resulted in his election to the National Academy of Sciences in 1986. He was also the recipient of a seven-year Outstanding Investigator Grant from the National Institutes of Health from 1985-1992. He is also a member of South Africa's Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel.

This is the resume of a world class expert, yet his expertise is being ignored by the AIDS industry. Why?

​The answer is included in the question. AIDS is much more than a disease. It is an industry. It is a political movement. It is a civil rights movement. Billions of dollars are spent every year on so-called AIDS research which is saving the planet from unicorns—no wait, from AIDS. People kill for that kind of money. Literally. Money, power and politics, not science, drive the AIDS industry, an industry which literally kills its patients.

​Joan Shenton is a British film producer who avers that AIDS treatments, not AIDS, killed off an entire generation of AIDS patients. It seems that the only people who survived were those who stopped taking the medications, medicines which in fact are chemicals that profit the pharmaceutical industries in the millions of dollars. So they make them.

​The earliest recorded victims of the AIDS epidemic were homosexual men and intravenous drug abusers. Initially, the lack of research into this disease was blamed on the fact that the victims were considered outcasts of society. That changed, however, when the gay rights movement became a powerful force in politics.

This produced a number of Orwellian definitions of the disease. For, while the disease was connected to homosexuality, it was politically incorrect to say that the disease was spread by homosexual practices. That would be blaming the victim. We can’t have that. Why should anyone take responsibility for their own behavior?

​But, you might ask, didn’t AIDS break out into the general population? The definition of AIDS was continually updated to include wider demographics, and when it did, funding followed. When feminist activists complained that they were not getting enough money, the definition of AIDS was widened until it included women. The feminists got their money and stopped complaining. AIDS stopped breaking out into the general population.

​The early definition of AIDS also depended on national boundaries. Blood tests for AIDS had to be interpreted according to a World Health Organization chart, and the chart had wildly differing criteria depending on what nation conducted the test. According to the British criteria, everyone in Africa has AIDS, but according to criteria used in Africa, nobody in Britain has AIDS. Someone pointed out sarcastically that a Briton with AIDS could be immediately cured by traveling to Africa, and being tested there, because antibodies that are rare in Britain are almost universal in Africa. These antibodies are used in diagnosis of AIDS, but used differently in different countries.

​Not coincidentally, as AIDS funding was sent to Africa, AIDS skyrocketed there, not because of the disease, but because of the funding. If a patient had cancer, there was no increase in AIDS funding. If instead the same patient were diagnosed with AIDS, his nation got increased funding. Therefore, AIDS diagnoses increased, and were rewarded.

​While AIDS and Global Climate change may seem unrelated to each other, they have both been hijacked by human greed. Here is an excerpt from

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/01/14/mit-professor-urging-climate-change-activists-to-slow-down/

[Begin excerpt] MIT Professor Richard Lindzen is a leading international expert on climate change.
“The changes that have occurred due to global warning are too small to account for,” he told WBZ-TV. “It has nothing to do with global warming, it has to do with where we live.”

Lindzen endorses sensible preparedness and environmental protection, but sees what he terms “catastrophism” in the climate change horror stories.

“Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. The opportunities for taxation, for policies, for control, for crony capitalism are just immense, you can see their eyes bulge,” he says. [End excerpt]

Indeed.​ Billions of dollars in funding can have that effect.

​Many people have noticed that the Global Climate Change movement has become similar to a religious cult, in which even the mildest and most fact-based dissension is considered heresy. The same holds true for AIDS. Other social movements have noticed this, and taken advantage. Radical feminism, gay rights, civil rights, immigrant rights, and a host of other political movements based in falsehood have trumped both science and common sense.

​Think about that.
.
​

​

The Hate that Dares Not Speak Its Name

http://www.theboldpursuit.com/tbp-journal/2014/8/7/the-hate-that-dares-not-speak-its-name.html

 

Some mysteries seem to perplex historians across the ages.  Here is one of them. Why are Jews so universally hated?

Anti-Jewish hatred goes back at least to the bronze age. It has repeatedly surfaced in grotesque form through the centuries since. Why? What other ethnic group has endured such constant and unrelenting persecution? What other ethnic group is so consistently blamed for every difficulty faced by society? What other group is the object of so many conspiracy theories?

No sooner does one bring up the topic than a horde of Jew haters loudly accuses Jews of every imaginable form of bad conduct. The mildest of these accusations is that they are money hungry, and it goes all the way up to, and the accusers are serious about this, cannibalism. Jews are accused of drinking the blood of Arab children.

Today we see Jew hatred in all its absurdity. Consider this surreal set of facts. Hamas terrorists have launched hundreds and hundreds of missiles against Israel in an attempt to kill as many Jews as possible. Israel patiently endured this barrage, fending off the attacks as best it could, with something called an Iron Dome defense system that shoots down ninety percent of incoming missiles, but not all of them. If not for Iron Dome, hundreds if not thousands of Israelis would be dead today. When finally the Israelis ran short on defenses, and when it became clear that Hamas will not run short of missiles—when it became patently clear that death will soon rain down on Israeli cities, Israelfinally fought back, targeting as best it can the missiles and tunnels that Hamas is using to wage war, and avoiding as best it can the unavoidable civilian casualties which Hamas welcomes as a propaganda tool. Yet it is Israel that is blamed. Speak of absurdity!

While Israeli spokesmen are interrogated by reporters about the many Palestinian children tragically killed and injured in this war, I have heard not one reporter, not even one, ask any Hamas spokesman this question: what would happen if Hamas stopped launching the missiles?

The answer of course is obvious. Israel would not shoot back. The Palestinian children would not be used by Hamas as human shields. News organizations would not indirectly cause even more of these deaths by publishing them as propaganda. People now dead would still be alive.

Jew haters do not like to label themselves as such. Instead, they sift through the dictionary to find more acceptable names. They call themselves anti-Zionists, freedom fighters, and peace activists. They say that it is not Jews that they hate, but only the nation of Israel. They claim that if the Israelis would only surrender the land which they occupy, then the violence would cease.

History says otherwise. The Israeli government knows that. They refuse to go docilely to their deaths, as so many Jews did during the 1940s under the heel of the Nazis.

One would think that after so many years of Middle East warfare, the world would have stopped supporting the terrorists. Billions of dollars have been sent to the Palestinians, enough money to have enriched every Palestinian family with schools, hospitals, factories and wealth of every sort. Yet instead of using the money for peace, the Palestinian leaders have used it for murder. Despite all that, the west continues to send even more money to the terrorists.

One bizarre spectacle is that, in the United States, some of the opponents of Israel are American Jews, some of them wearing the traditional Hasidic garb. They carry signs condemning Israel, and supporting Hamas. They seek to stand side-by-side with Palestinian demonstrators, oblivious to the fact that the Palestinians hate every Jew, even the anti-Israeli Jews. The Koran makes no distinction.

There is a twisted form of reason beneath all this absurdity. Jew haters hate Jews, not because they care about Palestinians, but because they hate God. While that may sound outrageous, it is true.

No Bible-believing Christian can doubt that the Jews are the chosen people of God. The Bible makes this abundantly clear. The mission of the Jew is to bring God’s blessings into the world. Genesis 12:3 tells us this about the Jewish people: “And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.”

We as Christians are no less hated, and as the Jews are persecuted, so also shall be the followers of the rabbi known as Jesus. “Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.” Matthew 24:9

Already in many parts of the world, we see horrific acts of genocide against Christians. It will only get worse. Don’t take it personally. It’s not you they hate, but God. Okay, do take it personally, if you love God.

If you think that my statements are irrational, consider these facts which you surely know. American liberals side with Hamas against Israel, even though Hamas opposes every tenet of American liberalism, such as the following. American liberals proclaim their support for same-sex marriage. In Islam, this carries the death penalty. Progressives vaunt women’s rights, yet under Islamic rule, millions of women and girls are treated as the personal property of men. Liberals demand sexual freedoms, whereas under Sharia law, even the mildest sexual expression outside of marriage is punishable by stoning unto death.

Rarely if ever do western liberals condemn these barbaric practices except at most in whispers, if even that. Somehow they have been deceived into thinking that if they side with those who hate God, then those who persecute Jews and Christians will not also persecute them when the time comes.

The American left, fellow travelers of terrorists, should read The Book of the Revelation, Chapter 17. It speaks of the harlot riding the beast, drinking the blood of saints, and who says, I sit a queen and shall know no sorrow. Yet, when the time comes, the beast destroys her also.

If they refuse to look into the Bible, then they should consult with the Moslem rulers of Egypt, who threw off the rule of terror by the Muslim Brotherhood, which was supported by Barack Obama. Egypt has amazingly sided with Israel against Hamas.

Jew hatred is not rational. It never has been. Evil has no logic, but only deception.

If you are having difficulty making sense of this, so am I. There is no sense to be made of it. As we said at the outset, some mysteries seem to perplex historians across the ages. Jew hatred is one of them.

* * * * *