Posts Tagged 'Zionist politicians'


Zionism is Jewish nationalism.

When you “stand with Israel,” you support Jewish nationalism.

Do you remember how you felt when watching news footage of the tragedy that occurred in Charlottesville, Virginia last year?

That tragedy was not caused by White nationalists, that tragedy was caused by Mike Signer, the White Democratic mayor of Charlottesville, and Wes Bellamy, the Black Democratic vice mayor of Charlottesville—and ultimately by the Dishonorable Nikki R. Haley.

And President Trump was not lying when he said there were some very fine people there defending their historical monument against two local despots—there were.

But there were allegedly some White nationalists there too—and do you remember how you felt about those alleged White nationalists?

My mother once said the Nazi Germans were selfish—and that was true, to some extent.

The Nazi (National Socialist) Party of Germany combined socialism with German nationalism.

The Nazi Germans were selfish, in the sense that all that mattered to them was Germany.

But the Nazi Germans’ ideology and agenda were borrowed from Zionist Jews in Germany.

And it was Zionism—Jewish nationalism—that contributed, at least in part, to the rise of German nationalism, in the first place.

Zionist Jews are selfish too.

Zionist Jews only care about Jewry—the Jewish population of the world.

Understand—Zionism has nothing to do with the Jewish religion of Judaism.

Zionism has everything to do with Jews, as an ancestral group—most Zionist Jews are irreligious, and many of them are antireligious.  

Most Zionist Jews are not practitioners of the Jewish faith—they are secular humanists, many of whom proudly consider themselves atheists.

Nationalism is not necessarily a negative ideal—in fact, it is always understandable, and it is sometimes arguably necessary.

There are White nationalists in the United States today, and there are Black nationalists in the United States today—and both groups have valid concerns.

The German nationalists had valid concerns too—and so did the Jewish nationalists.

As a citizen of the United States, you would probably not mind if White nationalists had their own nation somewhere else.

As a citizen of the United States, you would probably not mind if Black nationalists had their own nation somewhere else.

But what if your government established and supported a White-nationalist nation somewhere else—with your money?

What if your government established and supported a Black-nationalist nation somewhere else—with your money?

You wouldn’t like that a bit, would you?

Well, your government established a Jewish-nationalist state somewhere else, in 1948—with your money.

And your government supports this Jewish-nationalist state somewhere else today—with your money.

When you “stand with Israel,” you support your government’s support of a Jewish-nationalist state—with your money, but without your understanding of what you are supporting.

When you “stand with Israel,” you support your government’s support of a Zionist state—with your money, but without your understanding of what you are supporting.

Every year, your United States government donates billions of your tax dollars to support a foreign government that was illegally established, in the first place.

Every year, your United States government spends billions more of your tax dollars on weapons to maintain this foreign government’s brutal occupation of a land that never belonged to it—a brutal subjugation, and even genocide, of the indigenous people of Palestine, by Jews of Eastern European and Turkish descent—not Palestinian descent.

That’s right, just as the Israel of today is not the Israel of Biblical times, the Israelis are not the Israelites.

Almost two thousand years ago, most Jews in the Holy Land left the Holy Land.  And they left it because of persecution by Romans—not Arabs.

These Jews migrated to Turkey and Eastern Europe—where they interbred with Turkish and Eastern European Gentiles for so many centuries that they were barely Jewish, in the end.

But almost two thousand years later, in the late Nineteenth century, an Ashkenazi (Eastern European) Jew in Germany, by the name of Theodor Herzl, started a Jewish-nationalist movement—the Zionist movement.

The Jewish nationalists—Zionists—decided to establish a purely Jewish state in Palestine.

It didn’t matter to these Jewish nationalists that the land of Palestine—the Holy Land—had been populated primarily by Christian and Muslim Arabs for over 1300 years—since most of the original Jews had left that land almost two thousand years before.

And these Jewish nationalists—wealthy, powerful Jews, not poor Jews in ghettos—forced the hands of a majority of United Nations member states to forcibly establish their Zionist State, their Modern State of Israel, in Palestine in 1948.

And your country, the United States of America, was this Zionist State’s primary supporter then—and is still this Zionist State’s primary supporter now.

Every year, billions of your tax dollars—that could be used to help the American people—are diverted to the Jewish State of Israel, to hurt the Palestinian people instead.

And only you can stop your government from placing the demands of the Israeli government above the needs of the American people.

Only you can stop “standing with Israel,” and start standing for America instead.


My paternal grandmother (Grandma Mayo) was born in Nashville, Tennessee—but her father died when she was an infant.

Her mother, Nonnie (Grandma Nonnie), was sixteen (if I’m not mistaken) when her husband died.

Nonnie took her infant daughter, Athalene, back home to Akron, Ohio.

Nonnie’s mother, whose married name was Whiteaker (Grandma Whiteaker) (I think that’s the correct spelling) ran a boarding house, and her husband ran a general store.

My Grandma Mayo was raised as much by her grandmother as her mother, at the boarding house.

The boarding house is completely gone now—it was demolished, and the land it sat on is now part of the University of Akron.

Grandma Whiteaker was one-quarter to one-half Cherokee.

I have photographs of Grandma Whiteaker, and of the boarding house (my scanner stopped working a long time ago, though).

If Grandma Whiteaker was one-quarter Cherokee, I am one-sixty-fourth Cherokee—and I don’t qualify for any kind of Cherokee citizenship, in any way.

If Grandma Whiteaker was one-half Cherokee, I am one-thirty-second Cherokee—and I still don’t qualify for any kind of Cherokee citizenship, in any way.

If I don’t qualify for any kind of Cherokee citizenship, in any way, Senator Elizabeth Warren damned sure doesn’t.

Not all public officials are politicians—but most of them are.

And all politicians are evil liars and thieves—who make their living exploiting everything and everyone they can.

Elizabeth Warren is just another politician—who makes her living exploiting everything and everyone she can.

Though every politician always pretends to be one of us, no politician is ever one of us.

(Nimrata (“Nikki”) Randhawa Haley is just another politician too.  Her parents are Indian Americans—but she is not.  Before she was elected Governor of South Carolina, Nimrata Randhawa Haley identified herself as “white.”  Ever since, she has identified herself as “Indian American,” and a “woman of color.”  This is why I hate politicians—this is why we should all hate politicians.)


You have to engage in amazingly aggressive behavior to provoke AOL into terminating your AOL ad-free email account.

But AOL has to engage in amazingly passive-aggressive behavior—over and over again—to provoke you into engaging in such amazingly aggressive behavior, in the first place.

My email address was

Those of you who have been trying to reach me at this email address can now know why I have not been replying to your emails—AOL has terminated my ad-free email account.  AOL gave me no warning—nor any time to transfer any of my saved emails, or email addresses in my address book, to a different account with a different provider. was the only email address I ever had—and I had it for ten years, ever since I first got dial-up Internet service through AOL, in 2008.

I changed Internet providers, of course, but kept my email account with AOL.

You see, I’m a conservative, in the truest sense—I don’t change anything unless change is necessary.

This is why I hate liberals—they change everything, just for the sake of changing everything, and end up creating nothing but problems.

This is why I hate neocons—they change everything, just for the sake of changing everything, and end up creating nothing but problems.

When I was a kid, there was a TV commercial for furniture polish, or dishwasher detergent, or paper towels, in which the character/spokeswoman—Madge, I think—said, “If something works, you stick with it.”

That’s how I work—that’s how I live my life.  If something works, I stick with it.

I live by this true conservatism almost as much as I live by the late Zig Ziglar’s teaching that fair play seeks what is right—not who is right.

Now, I recently learned—from NPR—that at the turn of this century, AOL was sued for facilitating pedophilia, by allowing pedophiles to share child pornography with other pedophiles, and to set up meetings with their child victims, through AOL’s forums.

Yet I did not know about this evil negligence, on AOL’s part, when I got my AOL email account in 2008.

AOL’s CEO, Tim Armstrong, is arguably the most irresponsible and negligent CEO in the United States today.

And AOL worked well for me, most of the time, until Tim Armstrong created a monster called Oath—then put all of AOL’s service under the management of Oath.

Ever since he did that, I had nothing but problems with AOL—until AOL terminated my account, without giving me any notice or warning, without addressing my issues, without listening to me, without allowing me to transfer my saved emails and email addresses, and without even letting those emailing me know that my account has been terminated (my AOL email account has become a black hole—mail is not returned to senders, and senders are not even notified that I cannot read their emails).

The last issue I had was this campaign ad for this sleazy Democrat being posted, not in my AOL ad-free mailbox, but on my AOL ad-free mailbox sign-in screen.  This sleazy Democrat, Jeff Greene, is competing against other sleazy Democrats to oust the sleazy Republican incumbent, Rick Scott.  But this sleazy Democrat doesn’t mention himself, his sleazy Democratic rivals, or even the sleazy Republican incumbent, Rick Scott.  He only mentions President Donald Trump—against whom he is not running.

This Jeff Greene is every bit as sleazy and trashy as Rick Scott is—and only goddamned fools would fall for this bullshit ad, and vote for this piece of shit.

In 2016, AOL had given me a way to opt out of political advertising on my AOL ad-free mailbox sign-in screen—so I contacted AOL, and requested that opt-out option again.

But this time, AOL refused to provide that option for me—and this sleazy ad for this sleazy Democrat just kept popping up in my face, every time I wanted to access my AOL ad-free email account, day after day.

And AOL completely dismissed my pleas to resolve this issue, but started demanding my monthly fee of $4.99—as it had been doing ever since Tim Armstrong had created Oath, and put AOL’s service under Oath’s management.

In other words, since Tim Armstrong created Oath, and put AOL’s service under Oath’s management, the only time AOL ever contacted me was when it demanded payment from me—it never contacted me about any of the countless issues I was having with it, under Oath.

And of course I refused to pay AOL any money, any month, until it got issues like this resolved.

This time I fought back against AOL’s abuse.

There were several email addresses to different AOL entities I had collected over the years—including Tim Armstrong, himself.

None of these entities ever addressed any of my concerns—least of all Tim Armstrong.

So I copied and pasted this ad from my AOL mailbox sign-in screen, then emailed it to every one of those AOL email addresses—just to give those bastards at AOL an idea of what it was like to have this sleazy ad for this sleazy Democrat in one’s face.  And I did this every time I signed in, and encountered this ad—which was all the time.

Still no response from any of the bastards at AOL.

Then I copied and pasted the ad, and sent it to Jeff Greene’s campaign office (, as I recall)—every time I encountered the ad.

Then I forwarded all of the emails I sent to Jeff Greene’s campaign office to all of the AOL email addresses I had saved, over the years (,,,,, and, as I recall).

I had contacted AOL, and asked it to give me the opt-out option to opt out of this sleazy ad, or simply to remove this sleazy ad from my AOL ad-free mailbox sign-in screen—and AOL had never replied.

And I had contacted Jeff Greene’s campaign office, and asked it to pressure AOL to remove this sleazy ad from my AOL ad-free mailbox sign-in screen—and Jeff Greene’s campaign office had never replied.

So I decided to get AOL in so much trouble with this sleazy sponsor that it would be sure to do as I had been asking it to do for days—maybe even weeks.

But AOL canceled my ad-free email account instead.

And I got a phone call from some sleazebag named “Sam” ((703) 265-0045), who simply stated that my account had been terminated, but gave me no further information—and refused to return any of my countless calls in which I pleaded with this piece of shit to at least let me access my AOL mailbox one last time, so that I could transfer my saved emails and email addresses to a different account.

So this is why your emails to me, at, have not been answered—my account has been terminated, without warning or notice, and I cannot read your emails.

And this is AOL now:


“It is my conviction today that a man should not take any active public part in politics before the age of thirty, except in cases of outstanding ability.  He should not do so because up to that time the formation of a general platform takes place from which he examines the various political problems and defines his own final attitude towards them.  The man who has now matured at least mentally may or should take part in the political guidance of the community only after reaching a fundamental view of life and, with it, a stability of his own way of looking at the individual current problems.

“If this is not the case, he runs the risk that some day he will have to change his attitude towards vital questions, or, despite his better knowledge and belief, to uphold points of view which reason and conviction have long since rejected.  The first case is very embarrassing for him, for now personally uncertain, he has no longer the right to expect that his followers have the same unshakable belief in him as before; such a reversal on the part of the leader brings uncertainty to his followers and frequently a certain feeling of embarrassment as regards those they have been fighting.  But in the second case there may happen what we so frequently see today: in the same measure in which the leader no longer believes in what he said, his defense will be hollow and shallow, and he will be base in his choice of means.  While he himself no longer thinks seriously of defending his political revelations (one does not die for something one does not believe in), the demands he makes of his followers become greater and more impudent, till finally he sacrifices what is left of the leader in order to end up as a ‘politician’; that means that kind of man whose only real conviction is to have no conviction, combined with impudent obtrusiveness and the brazen-faced artfulness of lying.

“If such a fellow, to the misfortune of decent people, becomes a member of a parliament, it should be known from the beginning that the meaning of politics for him is only the heroic struggle for the feeding bottle for himself and his family.  The closer his wife and children cling to it, the more tenaciously will he stick to his mandate.  This alone makes all other men with political instincts his enemies; in every new movement he suspects the possible beginning of the end, and in every man greater than himself he scents the probability of a renewed danger which threatens him.

“I will speak of these parliamentary bedbugs in detail later on.

“A man of thirty will also have to learn a lot more in the course of his life, but this will only be the supplement to, and the filling-out of, the frame which his view of life places before him.  His learning will no longer be a relearning in principle, but an adding to what he has learned, and his followers will not have to swallow the oppressing feeling that so far he has taught them the wrong ideas; on the contrary: the visible organic growth of the leader will give them satisfaction, as his learning means only the deepening of their own doctrine.  This is, in their eyes, the proof for the truth of the opinions they have held so far.

“The leader who has to give up the platform of his general view of life because he found that it was wrong only acts with decency if he is ready to face the ultimate consequences from the realization that his previous views have been wrong.  In such a case he must for all future times renounce at least all public political activity.  As he has been already once the victim of a basic error, the possibility exists that this may happen a second time.  On no account is he entitled to continue to utilize, or even demand, the confidence of his fellow citizens.

“The general profligacy of the cads who today consider themselves authorized to ‘make’ politics hardly lives up to his standard of decency.

“Hardly one of them is predestined for this task.”



In response to Ken Paxton’s editorial of May 24, 2018, our First Amendment right to freedom of speech protects his rabid Zionism—and our First Amendment right to freedom of speech protects my condemnation of his rabid Zionism.

Since Mr. Paxton is so fond of the Zionist State of Israel, he can take his hatred there—and leave us real Americans alone.

Scott Wesley Mayo

Pensacola, Florida, resident

Mobile, Alabama, native

Proud descendant of Confederate veterans and U.S. veterans alike

Proud opponent of the Zionist State of Israel, and our government’s support of it—with our tax dollars, but without our consent


My fiction-writing instructor at the University of South Alabama, James P. White, taught us that the best fiction was nonfiction in disguise.

And there is never any moral or ethical problem with disguising nonfiction as fiction.

But what if a writer disguises fiction as nonfiction?

There is definitely a problem with that.

Many people may consider Michael Wolff’s Fire and Fury to be a work of fiction disguised as nonfiction.

It is not, in my opinion—though it may have some inaccuracies, as every book ever written arguably has.

And Michael Wolff makes it very clear, from the very beginning of his book, that much of his information is secondhand information.

Yet even if you believe that Michael Wolff’s book is entirely a work of fiction—you should be aware that there are many other such books.

And some works that are considered among the greatest ever written are simply works of fiction disguised as nonfiction—in fact, propaganda pieces full of lies.

Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address is one of these—and even moreso is Mitch Landrieu’s now famous speech he claimed to give for the people of New Orleans, though the people of New Orleans were not even allowed into the building to hear that speech.

Yet one book that has been reasonably proven to be a work of fiction disguised as nonfiction is The Diary of a Young Girl—attributed to Anne Frank.

If you want a less controversial, more proven example of a work of fiction disguised as nonfiction, there’s Night, by Elie Wiesel.

Even Elie Wiesel himself went back and forth on the fiction or nonfiction of this masterful work of Zionist propaganda—and was condemned for it, face-to-face, by a Hasidic Rabbi.

It is no coincidence that Zionist Traitor Nimrata Randhawa Haley quotes Wiesel often, in saying that we should always choose a side.  That’s all she has ever done—and that’s all Elie Wiesel ever did.

Fair play seeks what is right—not who is right.

Fair play is synonymous with justice—justice seeks what is right, not who is right.

And truth seeks what is right—not who is right.

Works of fiction disguised as nonfiction have fueled some terrible atrocities.

Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address—a work of fiction disguised as nonfiction—fueled an atrocity.

Otto Frank’s The Diary of a Young Girl—a work of fiction disguised as nonfiction—fueled an atrocity that is ongoing.

Elie Wiesel’s Night—a work of fiction disguised as nonfiction—fueled an atrocity that is ongoing.

Nimrata Randhawa Haley’s June 22, 2015, speech—a work of fiction disguised as nonfiction—fueled an atrocity that is ongoing.

And Mitch Landrieu’s celebrated speech—a work of fiction disguised as nonfiction—fueled an atrocity that is ongoing.

It is never a problem to disguise nonfiction as fiction.

But it is always a problem to disguise fiction as nonfiction.

As a writer, you have as much of a moral and ethical responsibility as any other kind of artist.

Always remember this.



Mr. Fagan,

You seem to be surprised that Republican John Bel Edwards is as callous as Democrat Mitch Landrieu.

The Democratic Party has been completely overtaken by liberals since November 22, 1963—and you seem to be aware of this.

But Mr. Fagan, are you aware that the Republican Party has been completely overtaken by neocons (neoconservatives) since June 22, 2015?

And Mr. Fagan, are you aware that the neocons are returning the Republican Party to its historical platform of imperialism and totalitarianism?

And Mr. Fagan, are you aware that there is essentially no difference between liberals (who misrepresent themselves as progressives) and neocons (who misrepresent themselves as conservatives)—and that the liberals and neocons, having completely subverted both the Democratic and Republican parties, are now completely subverting the United States of America, through the now-subversive Democratic and Republican parties?

Mr. Fagan, this is really far out stuff—maybe I’m just delusional, mindlessly spinning conspiracy theories about both the Democratic and Republican parties.

But maybe not—maybe I’m absolutely right on.  And maybe it’s time for Democratic and Republican voters to abandon both the Democratic and Republican parties—and join us independent and third-party voters who are only interested in bringing our government, and our country, back to the people.

Yours sincerely,

Scott Mayo

Pensacola, Florida


Ms. Hollander,

Who the hell do you think you are?

You are just another White kid from a privileged background, who has never truly suffered a day in her life.

Yet you just know that Bill Cosby is guilty, don’t you?

And you just know that all men take advantage of all women, every day, don’t you?

And you just know that no women take advantage of any men, any day, don’t you?

You Generation-Y and Generation-Z brats are ruining our world.

You don’t know how to do math on paper, you don’t know how to spell, and you don’t know how to use correct grammar.

You also never question anything the press tells you—or anything that liberal politicians tell you.

In fact, you never question anything at all.

You have no manners—and you have no respect for anyone or anything.

You are totally self-absorbed—and all you ever do is keep your heads up your apps, oblivious to everyone and everything around you.

Ms. Hollander, there is simply nothing good about you Generation-Y and Generation-Z bastards at all.

You are the most worthless human beings in human history, and I just wish to God we could expel you all from our planet—or at least disable all of the goddamned cell towers in the world, so we could at least wake you bastards up.

God damn you all to hell.

Scott Wesley Mayo

Pensacola, Florida


Proud member of Generation X—the last good generation at all