With history on his mind President George W. Bush of the United States will soon head to the Middle East. No doubt he will carry with him a vision for carving a place for himself in history that is in league with the likes of Winston Churchill. He can do it if he maintains the right frame of mind when he meets with those in Israel who have thus far made it more likely he will secure a place that is in league with the likes of Baby Doc and Idi Amin.
This is because there came a time when "moral clarity" was a big phrase in the American discourse as the discourse was conducted by the Zionists alone without opposition from someone else. It was possible for something like this to happen because hardly a day went by prior to that time without a number of Zionist voices rising to condemn someone out there or to call on someone here to do it for them.
The Zionists asked for this service as they spent their own time praising everything Jewish and all things Israeli. And the reason they gave for wanting to condemn all those others was that if you let people get away with doing the wrong thing they will keep doing it and thus turn the world into a horrible place.
As it happened this was what everybody else was saying and it was the very reason for which the people wanted to condemn the Jewish bad behavior they encountered once in a while and condemn the Israeli evil they witnessed all the time. Oh no, said those Zionist voices, do not condemn the Jews or the state of Israel under any circumstance because if you do, you will be called anti-Semitic whatever the circumstance.
Thus the Zionists kept doing the wrong things and they were the ones who turned the World into a horrible place. Faced with nonsense that is this shameless the World wanted to ask a series of questions and follow up with more questions to clarify a few things. This was done, in fact, but not in the manner that you would expect it to be done.
The trouble was that the discussions were carried out in the absence of a real dialogue because the questioner and the responder represented not two different points of view but one and the same Jewish view. In this format, moral clarity which was supposed to mean taking a stand against terrorism became the immorality of genocide which was encouraged, protected, nurtured and paid for by the Americans.
American money and weapons as well as political support at the UN and elsewhere were lavished on Israel in the belief that terrorism conducted with American weapons was no terror at all but was something that the victims of the horror awaited and prayed for in places like Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon.
We can see shameful examples of such discussions in the North American media when over several decades only the Jews were invited to speak on both sides of the issues concerning the Middle East. This happened while the Arabs who were supposed to represent one of the sides were blacklisted and banned from having access to the public stage.
Those discussions were a strange sort of incestuous give and take done with one side and itself. A new word was coined to express the phenomenon. That word was the monodialogue which must now be given a place in our vocabulary and defined as one party representing both sides of the same issue during one and the same discussion.
The difference between the dialectic and the monodialogue is that in the dialectic, one party may wrestle in private or in public with the opposite poles of the same issue in order to bring to light all the parts of the issue whereas in the monodialogue the same party plays the devil's advocate and the responder for reasons that are not always pure.
The Jewish lobby made use of the monodialogue to identify the possible criticisms which may be leveled against their stand. This done, they fabricated the most watertight lie they could think of to use against a possible opposition if and when it came to the fore. And this is when the lie was deployed forcefully and in a surprising manner so as to catch the opposition unprepared and to leave it speechless.
In reality the monodialogue is not a new invention. It has roots that go back to antiquity but its modern version can be traced to an era when the Talmud was first assembled two centuries after Christ. The monodialogue was then conducted in total secrecy by a group of people who had come together to destroy Judaism and replace it with Rabbinical Judaism which served the purpose they meant for it.
The rabbis invented Rabbinical Judaism, developed its tenets and compiled these in a book they called the Talmud. The idea behind the exercise was to have a living document much the same way that the constitution of a country is put together. The original purpose was to allow the Talmud to morph and to mutate, to adapt to every taste thus seduce the many and replenish the Jewish ranks with new converts.
The rabbis failed in that department but the Talmud has survived to this day. It is a book that is full of lessons which tell the Jewish leaders how to continually change the spin on current and past events to suit every taste at every moment. The idea is to expunge what is no longer acceptable and to re-explain what has been explained without changing the fundamental principles that should ultimately lead to the realization of their agenda.
At the beginning, the agenda was the creation a nation that will take in and protect the Israelites, a people over whom the leaders wanted to rule like the Pharaohs of ancient Egypt. The dream was later enlarged to encompass the whole world, something that turned the Talmud into a constitution to bring humanity under one rule; that of the self declared Jewish Pharaohs.
Two themes in the form of command emerge from the reading of the Talmud. Theme one tells the Talmudic leaders to always strive to have it both ways. To this end they must confuse their interlocutor by asking a trick question; something in the form of the false choice: “Will it be God or Caesar?” Theme two directs them to invent something like the monodialogue, a trick by which two partners pretend to tackle both sides of an issue and thus leave no room for an authentic opposition to take up the other side. In this way, heads the Jewish side wins and tails the non-existent side loses.
This is what President Bush will be walking into as he visits Israel. He will be made to believe he is participating in a dialogue when in reality he will be lectured to and then turned into a bullhorn that will spew the bull to the World as he was made to do when he hired the Zionist speechwriting riffraffs who put words in his mouth and made the World laugh at him.
What the President needs to do instead is to realize that the monodialogue is now dead. Therefore the time has come to see the issues from the Arab and Palestinian points of view. Moral clarity now dictates that Israel be told in public: You can no longer use America's good name and her weapon systems to commit the crimes against humanity you have been committing for decades. You do that one more time and America will disarm you the only way that America knows how to disarm a rogue nation. This will be the carpet bombing of your cities, something to shock and awe your population.
It will be fitting for the President to deliver a speech containing these ideas from the balcony of the King David Hotel which was blown up once by the Jewish terrorists who ushered in the age of terrorism in the Middle East and later invented the concept of mud clarity but called it moral clarity.
If the President can muster the intestinal fortitude (guts) to do that, he will go down in history as the best leader humanity ever had. Rabbinical Judaism has been the plague of mankind for 18 centuries and to put an end to it with one speech will make him the savior of mankind. And this will mean a place that is one or more notches above Winston Churchill.