Man On Diet Enjoys 27th Consecutive Cheat Day

May 9th, 2025

MONSEY, NY — Local dieter Yossi Goldblum congratulated himself this week on sticking to his rigorous health routine by enjoying his 27th consecutive “Mitzvah Cheat Day.”

After nearly two months on the popular “Be A Gibbor Diet,” Goldblum says the only way to remain a sincere Eved Hashem and stick to a diet for the long haul is by allowing himself to prioritize Simchas Yom Tov and Hachana over mere caloric restrictions.

“I’d go crazy if I didn’t reward my Neshama with the occasional holy indulgence,” said Goldblum while inhaling a third slice of Yerushalmi Kugel. “How can anyone handle eating kale salads when there is so much kedusha in the air? It’s practically a chiyuv.”

According to Goldblum, the diet was going perfectly until about a week before Pesach, when his wife began preparing her legendary brisket and potato kugel. “I couldn’t let my wife’s hard work go to waste—that would create Shalom Bayis issues,” he explained.

The momentum continued through the eight days of their Pesach program in Arizona, where Goldblum noted that since the food was already paid for, it would be Ba’al Tashchis not to visit the 24-hour tea room at least six times a day. “I did it all for Hashem and His Yomim Toivim,” Goldblum said. “You can’t celebrate the Geula on a pear.”

While most dieters would have returned to the gym after Isru Chag, Goldblum realized he had entered the 49 days of Sefiras HaOmer. He argued that preparing for the receiving of the Torah requires a "strong physical foundation," necessitating a 49-day "loading phase" of schnitzel and pasta.

“You have to prepare for the Yom Tov of Shavuos,” Goldblum insisted. “You can’t just walk into a day of cheesecakes, blintzes, and creamed spinach after eating salads. Your system would be in shock. I am slowly building up my dairy tolerance for the sake of the Minhag.”

Goldblum plans to restart his diet immediately following Isru Chag Shavuos, though he noted that the three weeks of mourning before Tisha B'Av are right around the corner, and "one really shouldn't be focused on physical vanity during such a somber time."

Studies show that Goldblum’s "Mitzvah Cheat Day" method is 100% effective at helping dieters successfully navigate the Jewish calendar while maintaining a steady weight gain of 15 pounds per Yom Tov [including pre-YT prep].

Sound Familiar???

1. The Claims of Isolationists and Anti-Semites (1939–1941)

Before the attack on Pearl Harbor, there was a loud isolationist movement in the United States (most notably the America First Committee). Many of these isolationists claimed that Roosevelt was being manipulated by "Jewish interests" to drag the country into a European war that did not concern Americans.

Charles Lindbergh: In a famous and controversial speech in Des Moines in September 1941, the aviation specialist Charles Lindbergh explicitly named "the British, the Jews, and the Roosevelt administration" as the three groups pushing the U.S. toward war.

Nazi Propaganda: German propaganda frequently characterized the conflict as "Roosevelt’s Jewish War," claiming that FDR was a tool of a "Jewish conspiracy."

Anti-Semitic Tropes: Domestic critics often used the derogatory term "Jewsevelt" to suggest that his policies—including a potential entry into the war—were dictated by Jewish advisors.

In this context, the claim that FDR was entering the war to save the Jews was used as an accusation intended to stir up anti-Semitic sentiment and keep the U.S. out of the conflict.

2. The Historical Reality: "Rescue Through Victory"

Historians generally agree that saving the Jews of Europe was not a primary motivation for FDR’s entry into the war, nor was it a top priority for the U.S. government once they were in it.

Pearl Harbor: The U.S. entered the war because of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and the subsequent declaration of war by Nazi Germany against the United States.

Immigration Policy: During the 1930s, the Roosevelt administration maintained strict immigration quotas. Events like the turning away of the MS St. Louis (a ship carrying Jewish refugees) in 1939 showed that the administration was hesitant to prioritize Jewish rescue due to domestic political pressure and widespread nativism.

Military Priority: Once at war, FDR’s official policy was "rescue through victory." The administration argued that the fastest way to save the victims of Nazism was to defeat the German army as quickly as possible. This led to the controversial decision not to bomb the rail lines to Auschwitz or the gas chambers, as the military argued it would divert resources from the main war effort.

3. The Post-War Narrative

After 1945, when the full horrors of the Holocaust were revealed to the American public through newsreels of the liberated camps, a "moral crusade" narrative began to form.

Many Americans began to view the war retroactively as a struggle specifically fought to stop the Holocaust. While the war did ultimately end the Holocaust, historians like David Wyman (The Abandonment of the Jews) have argued that the Roosevelt administration actually did "too little, too late" to specifically assist Jewish refugees.

It wasn't until early 1944, under pressure from Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau Jr., that FDR created the War Refugee Board, which is credited with saving tens of thousands of lives in the final stages of the war.

Summary

Did people claim that Roosevelt joined the war to save the Jews? Yes. Isolationists and anti-Semites claimed it before 1941 to attack Roosevelt and oppose the war.

Was it Roosevelt's goal? No. His primary goals were national security, the defense of democracy, and the total defeat of the Axis powers following the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Is it a common misconception? Yes. Many people today mistakenly believe the U.S. entered the war specifically to stop the Holocaust, though the genocide was not a major factor in the political or military decision to go to war in 1941.

---

The parallels to what is happening today are uncanny. 

Right and Left

“The right maintains everything, even injustice, and the left destroys everything, even good things.”

Know Who The Real Enemy Is

An on-line pundit grouped the Zionists with the REALLY bad guys - Russia, China and Islam. So he wrote: Right-wingers influenced by Dugin and the Chicago faction view current geopolitical disputes through a precarious dualism: the globalist and Zionist elite versus the "Axis of Resistance" - what remains of communism, Russian traditionalism, and the Islamic world.

Such a view is myopic and ideological because it sees - from a third-worldist Leninist perspective - globalism as cosmopolitan imperialism confronting oppressed ethnic and national resistances. What these people ignore is that China, Russia, and the Islamic world are themselves globalist and imperialist projects, and not some oppressed cultural and civilizational resistance!

There is no "Axis of Resistance," but rather three competing globalist projects: Western globalism (in its multiculturalist left-wing version and its Zionist neoconservative right-wing version), the Russo-Chinese communist-Eurasian or left-wing Traditionalist project, and revolutionary Islamism. These three blocs are the Enemies of the West.

The existential position of Western man is tragic: we are surrounded by enemies, both internally and externally. But in the end, it has always been the West against the rest.

---

1. Zionism is the Antithesis of Globalism

The original argument mislabels Zionism as a "neoconservative globalist" project. In reality, Zionism is the ultimate expression of national particularism. While globalism seeks to dissolve borders, standardize cultures, and erode national identities in favor of a technocratic elite, Zionism sought to restore a specific, ancient people to their specific, ancestral homeland.

Zionism is the successful conclusion of an anti-colonial struggle for indigenous rights. By labeling it "globalism," one ignores that Israel is one of the few nations in the West that still possesses a high birth rate, a strong national identity, and a profound sense of religious and historical continuity—the very things "Western man" supposedly laments losing. Israel is not a project of borderless "cosmopolitanism"; it is a project of rootedness.

2. The "Front Line" vs. The "Enemy Within"

The argument claims that "Western man" is surrounded by three competing globalisms. However, placing Israel in the same category as the Russo-Chinese axis or revolutionary Islamism is a tactical mistake. Israel is the Iron Wall protecting the West from the most expansionist of these forces: revolutionary Islamism.

If the West is truly in a "tragic" existential position, then Israel is its vanguard. The same forces that seek the destruction of Jerusalem—the Iranian regime and its proxies—openly chant "Death to America" and seek the subversion of Europe. By treating Zionism as an enemy, the Western traditionalist severs his own front line, leaving the Mediterranean and the soft underbelly of Europe exposed to the very forces the original text claims to fear.

3. The Moral and Civilizational Root

The "West" is not merely a geographic location or a racial category; it is a civilizational project built on the synthesis of Athens and Jerusalem. To excise the "Zionist" or Jewish element from the West is to hollow out the West’s own moral foundations.

While the text warns of "multiculturalist left-wing globalism," it fails to recognize that the modern state of Israel is one of the most potent bulwarks against that very ideology. In Israel, the "woke" deconstruction of the West is rejected in favor of a gritty, realistic commitment to survival, tradition, and national sovereignty. To the "Eurasianist" or the "Third-Worldist," Israel is hated precisely because it is a Western-style democracy that refuses to apologize for its existence.

4. The Fallacy of "The West Against the Rest"

The original text concludes with a nihilistic "West against the rest" isolationism. This "tragic" view is a self-fulfilling prophecy of defeat. The West’s strength has always come from its ability to form alliances based on shared values and strategic interests.

The "Axis of Resistance" (Iran, Russia, China) is indeed a real threat, but they are unified by a hatred of the Jewish [and Christian!!] world. They do not distinguish between the "Western man" in Paris and the "Zionist" in Tel Aviv; they see them as one and the same. To distance the West from Israel is not "cleansing" the West of an enemy; it is surrendering a crucial fortress to the very "external enemies" the author mentions.

Conclusion

The "Enemies of the West" are indeed real: they are the totalitarians in Beijing, the revanchists in Moscow, and the theocrats in Tehran. However, the Jewish state is the West’s most reliable ally in this struggle. Zionism is not a "globalist elite" project; it is the survival story of a people that serves as a blueprint for how any Western nation might reclaim its own identity, sovereignty, and will to live.

To turn against Israel is to succumb to the "Third-Worldist" and "Duginist" propaganda that the author claims to despise. If Western man is to survive his "tragic" position, he must recognize that the road to his restoration does not go through the abandonment of Jerusalem, but through a shared defense of the values that both the West and Israel represent.

The Theater of the Absurd: Why the West Must Reject the UN’s Moral Extortion

There is a concerted, calculated effort by non-Western nations and their domestic enablers to undermine the foundations of the West. They do so by wielding moral platitudes as weapons—ideals they have neither the intention nor the capacity to uphold.

The new antisemitism, like the old, is about the displacement of guilt. The world feels guilty about its own failures, and it projects that guilt onto the one people, or the one civilization, that refuses to bow to its dictates.

This dynamic was on full display when the U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution declaring the transatlantic slave trade the "gravest crime against humanity," demanding "reparatory justice" as a mandatory remedy for historical wrongs. Let us be clear: slavery in modern times was terrible. It was a profound moral atrocity that violated the divine spark inherent in every human soul. But the UN's interest here isn't morality; it is geopolitics.

Calling this the "gravest crime" while many of the resolution’s sponsors oversee active slave markets, political gulags, and the systematic oppression of women is a farce. Ghana’s president led this charge, draping his rhetoric in "dignity" and "healing." Yet, Ghana struggles with rampant child trafficking, forced labor, and the state-sanctioned persecution of minorities. We are expected to ignore these "archaic traditions" through the lens of cultural relativism—a luxury afforded only to tenured sociology professors and Western liberals. As Ze’ev Jabotinsky wrote:

"Justice is not a matter of 'politeness'… it is the realization that a lie is a lie, no matter how much 'cultural' makeup you apply to its face."

For a government that cannot secure the basic rights of its citizens in 2026 to posture as a moral arbiter of the 18th century is not just rich—it is pathological.

Ghana is not alone in this masquerade. The "Yes" votes included a rogue’s gallery of the world’s worst actors: North Korea, Eritrea, China, Qatar, and Cuba. Most tellingly, the "State of Palestine" co-sponsored the resolution, speaking in sweeping terms about "historical evil." This is the height of irony. While they condemn the West’s past, they remain silent—or complicit—in the ongoing trafficking and enslavement of Africans in Libya, Sudan, and across the Arab world. This is not "whataboutism." It is a reality check on the selective morality animating the UN. If your "universal" concern for humanity stops where your political interests begin, you aren't seeking justice; you are seeking a shakedown.

When the United States rejects such a resolution, the reflex of the American Left is to scream "racism." This is a juvenile reaction. Rejecting a resolution is not a rejection of the victims of slavery; it is a rejection of a corrupt political framework. As Abba Eban famously quipped about the UN:

"If Algeria introduced a resolution that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13."

Western diplomats are right to be skeptical of "reparations" built on shaky legal ground and a distorted "hierarchy of atrocities" designed to place the West at the bottom.

Supporters argue the transatlantic trade was unique because it was "racialized." Fine. The racial ideology of that era was indeed grotesque. But the fundamental crime was the theft of human agency—the ownership of one man by another. If we accept that slavery is a standalone moral abomination, then why is the UN silent on the Arab-Islamic slave trade that lasted over a millennium? Where is the reparations movement for the Europeans enslaved by Barbary corsairs? Where is the accountability for the African elites who sold their own neighbors?

The answer is simple: there is no profit in blaming the non-West. The reparations movement isn't about "memory"; it is a redistributive project designed to impose an open-ended collective obligation on people who committed no offense.

This contradicts the very core of Jewish and Western jurisprudence. As it is written in Ezekiel 18:20:

"The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."

The UN seeks to replace individual agency with civilizational guilt. It demands that modern Westerners—who live in the most tolerant societies in human history—atone materially for the sins of the dead. This isn't justice; it is moralized coercion.

The ultimate paradox is that it was the West—rooted in the Biblical recognition of the individual—that developed the legal and moral tools to abolish slavery. The same civilization now under indictment is the one that gave the world the concept of universal rights. Meanwhile, many of the nations pointing the finger have yet to discover the concept of a fair trial or a free press.

This resolution is not an act of "moral seriousness." It is a coalition of the compromised, attempting to bankrupt the West both financially and spiritually. Rejecting it is not "denying history." It is an act of civilizational self-respect. We must refuse to be lectured on human rights by a committee of tyrants and their "progressive" enablers.

The Fear Is Real

You can moralize about “Islamophobia” all you want, but for the Jewish people—and for anyone paying attention to the trajectory of the 21st century—the fear people feel did not emerge out of a vacuum of ignorance. It followed repeated, visceral exposure to mass-casualty terrorism, systemic religious extremism, and an ideological commitment to the erasure of the "Other" that many recognize as more than incidental. As the late Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the father of Revisionist Zionism, observed in his 1923 essay The Iron Wall: "Every native population in the world resists colonists as long as it has the slightest hope of being able to rid itself of them. This is what the Arabs in Palestine are doing, and what they will persist in doing." Jabotinsky understood that we are not dealing with a misunderstanding, but a fundamental clash of wills.

The issue is not that every Muslim is dangerous; to suggest so is a generalization. The issue is that Islam has historically retained potent strains of thought in which religion, law, and political authority are inextricably fused. In its more politicized forms—what we must call Islamism—that fusion is not peripheral; it is the core. When these forms become militant, the desire for domination or the "cleansing" of perceived infidels is not a distortion added from the outside. It is justified from within the framework itself, often citing the same texts that are used for prayer.

For the Jew, this is not a theoretical debate. It is the lived reality of the Dhimmi—the historical "protected" yet second-class status of Jews under Islamic rule. To ignore the resurgence of this supremacist impulse is to ignore history. As Maimonides wrote in his Epistle to the Jews of Yemen nearly a millennium ago, regarding the pressures of his time: "No nation has ever done more to harm Israel. None has gone to such lengths to debase and humiliate us." While the world has changed, the theological roots of that hostility have, in many corners, remained unaddressed and unreformed.

None of this justifies retaliation against innocent Muslims, collective blame, or the harassment of individuals. Those responses are immoral, counter-productive, and a violation of the very values we seek to defend. But neither does that mean the fear itself is wholly irrational or "bigoted." People are reacting to something real upstream: a pattern of violence, coercion, and a theological-political absolutism that has repeatedly made itself known—from the streets of Sderot to the concert halls of Paris.

What is exhausting is being told by the secular elite that naming this reality is a greater offense than the reality itself. We are subjected to what Natan Sharansky calls the "3D Test" of modern antisemitism—demonization, double standards, and delegitimization—often applied to Israel because it refuses to be a passive victim of this ideology. The Jewish state is the front line of a civilizational struggle, yet we are lectured on "tolerance" by those who would not survive a day under the regimes they inadvertently apologize for.

For years, the approach of the global "chattering classes" has been to suppress the conflict, minimize the deep-seated theological differences, shame the response of the threatened, and leave the underlying issues intact. They treat fear as a moral failure of the person experiencing it, rather than a rational response to a threat. But for a people who have survived by keeping their eyes open to the shifts in the wind, pretending the fear has no intelligible object is a luxury we can no longer afford. We must insist on a reality-based discourse: one that protects the individual but remains unyielding in its opposition to any ideology that seeks our submission or our disappearance.

The problem is not that people don’t understand Islam. The problem is that they do.

Frum Dad Wakes Up From Terrifying Nightmare Where He Gets To The Airport Only 2 Hours Before Flight

Far Rockaway, NY — Sources close to Yanky Lefkowitz report that the father of nine just woke up in a cold sweat from a horrifying nightmare where he only got his family to JFK two hours before their flight to Orlando was scheduled to depart.

In his spine-chilling dream, Lefkowitz allegedly first failed by not completely tetris-ing all fourteen suitcases and the double-stroller into the Toyota Sienna the night before the trip. He then saw himself floundering, trying to get the kids loaded while searching for a missing passport, only to arrive at the JetBlue terminal a measly two hours before the flight's departure.

"It's my greatest fear," Lefkowitz admitted, shuddering as he adjusted his yarmulke. "I normally arrive at the airport at least six hours in advance of every Pesach flight, just to be safe. You have to account for the traffic on the Van Wyck, the line for the oversized luggage—because we’re bringing our own matzos, food and kitchen appliances—and the time it takes to find a quiet corner for Shacharis. But in the dream, we were just getting out of the car when I looked at my watch and saw we had only two hours to check the bags, get through TSA, and ensure every child had four snacks. A note of terror pulsated through my heart. I saw the whole Seder in Orlando falling apart! Oy, the horror! Oy, the pachad! MAMESH!!! Like the 11th makkah."

Yanky’s wife, Faigy, said this sort of nightmare is a regular occurrence for her husband during the month of Nissan.

"Honestly, he’s just a bit stressed about the logistics," she commented while labeling boxes of non-perishables. "The trip is still three weeks away and he’s already checking the Waze patterns for 4:00 AM on a Sunday. He’s on a hair-trigger right now; if I even mention the word 'Pre-Check,' he starts hyperventilating."

At publishing time, Lefkowitz had woken up from another nightmare in which he had successfully gotten the family through security with four hours to spare, only to realize that  they were at Terminal 5 and were supposed to be a Terminal 2.