To respond to a myth circulated by the usual crackpots in the Judeo-Yiddish fraternity of think tanks, Hillary Clinton who is the American Secretary of State, found it necessary to go before an audience at the National Democratic Institute in the District of Columbia and make it clear that her government will not oppose the political parties with an Islamic bent that may be elected in predominantly Muslim countries.
It must be understood that mythology powers the mentality of people who claim to adhere to the Jewish religion. And the latest myth they created is to the effect that Islam is not compatible with democracy. But because America was mandated by the self-described Jewish organizations to destroy what they choose to designate as undemocratic, America was expected to oppose the election of “Islamic parties” or destroy the countries that elect them. This possibility sent the chill down the spine of an America that is still agonizing from the Jewish ordered misadventures, many of which are still in progress. And this is what prompted Hillary Clinton to reassure the American people that their country will not obey the Jewish command this time.
But what is a myth and what do the Jewish organizations hope to achieve by creating them?
What a complicated question requiring a complicated answer! Well, let me try to answer it. If you define mythology as that which is impossible to make in reality but can exist in the imagination, you will find that mythologies do exist in the subject matters relating to the humanities because that is where the human imagination is fertile. But mythologies also exist in the subject matters that relate to the sciences, and there are people who believe in them. One myth that refuses to die is the perpetual motion machine which, if it can be made, would turn its maker into a God. Such machine rests on the idea that kinetic energy can be produced from nothing. But if this were true, it would mean that you can also create matter from nothing because matter and energy are mutually transmutable according to the relation E=mc2. And the ability to make matter from nothing would lead to the creation of a universe full of galaxies, stars and planets. In short, if you can make the perpetual motion machine you become God, the creator of all things.
This said, an interesting question poses itself: If the perpetual motion machine is impossible to make, can the reverse be true? That is, can we make a perpetual annihilation machine that will destroy things and turn them into nothing? The answer is no, we cannot do this either because the law that says you cannot create something out of nothing also says that you cannot turn something into nothing. It is one and the same law, and the principle upon which it is based is that we cannot add to what already exists or subtract from it; we can only transform it from one thing into another. Burn wood, for example, and you transform it into ash and an assortment of gases but every atom is still here and will remain to the end of time.
Being human, however, and possessing abilities that the other species do not possess, we can borrow rules pertaining to the humanities and apply them to the other spheres. For example, we can create the physical condition by which something is so transformed, it can be considered annihilated for all practical purposes. Sadly, this is what happens when people push matters to such extreme that war becomes inevitable. And when this happens, peoples, tribes and whole races are destroyed, even made to vanish altogether. What is notable is that when war happens, we always find at the center of the activities that led to it a group of people who adhere to a philosophy of life that is different from all the others. They are the people who claim to be Jews.
They claim that theirs is not just a philosophy of life but a full fledged religion and a monotheistic one at that. It is called Judaism, they say, and it has attracted adherents to its ranks for thousands of years. But like a bottomless pit, it has also vanished them as fast as it got them. Thus, while the other two well established monotheistic religions -- Christianity and Islam -- have existed for less than two thousand years and count more than a billion members each, Judaism counts less than twenty million members even though it has existed twice as long. It is that Judaism – whether a philosophy of life or a religion -- is a perpetual self destruct machine that obliterates its people and takes down other peoples in the process.
If you wonder how such thing can happen, two articles that appeared on November 2, 2011 in the Wall Street Journal illustrate how it can happen and why it does. One article was written by Douglas J. Feith under the title: “Israel Should be a U.S. Campaign Issue.” and the subtitle: “Major Jewish groups are trying to shield Obama from legitimate criticism.” The other article was written by Bret Stephens under the title: “Why Islamists Are Winning” and the subtitle: “When secular politics fail, Islamism is the last big idea standing.”
Feith who once served as under secretary of defense in America, sets the scene. He says this: “Pro-Israel organizations have long been active in American politics … Jewish groups ... have helped ensure that candidates' attitudes toward Israel would be an important element in congressional and presidential elections. Yet now, two venerable Jewish organizations ... are saying that it is improper to do this … But since when have American supporters of Israel believed that a candidate's attitudes toward Israel should be kept out of electoral politics? Since never.” The point made here (which thankfully can no longer be denied at someone's whim the way they used to deny it) is that the Jewish organizations have always injected themselves into the thick of things to promote their causes. It is right here, out of the horse's mouth in black and white.
In addition, there is also a revelation that is so sensational, it is explosive. It is that two “venerable” Jewish organizations now admit they have been doing the wrong thing since for ever. And this compels us to ask two questions. The first is this: Why were these people allowed to do the wrong thing for this long without someone stopping them? And the second question is this: Why some Jewish organizations are having a change of heart at this time? To find the answers, we need to understand what is behind it all. And to do this, we need to understand (a) how Feith has seen history develop around the subject matter, (b) where some Jewish organizations fear to tread now and (c) why Feith is quarreling with these organizations.
Here, in his words, is a sample of how he sees the development of history, what he thinks of it and what he believes: “In 1984, pro-Israel groups … block[ed] the re-election of … Sen. Charles Percy … critic of Israel and champion of U.S. engagement with the PLO … [he] attributed his defeat to the Israel lobby. Other politicians who met a similar fate include Reps. Paul Findley and Cynthia McKinney” A little later on, Feith writes this: “When running against … George H.W. Bush in 1992, Bill Clinton took full advantage of Mr. Bush's testy relationship with Israel … Jewish groups predicted … that … Bush would pay in the ... election for his demand that Israel freeze settlements.” Later still, he writes this: “One [Jewish] leader spoke of the 'anger and dismay … over Bush Administration policy … I imagine it will be translated into an unwillingness to vote … or contribute funds.'” This is how it used to be and this is how Douglas Feith wants it to be again.
But things have changed, he says, which is undoubtedly the reason why some Jewish organizations are having a change of heart and why he is quarreling with them. He goes on to explain that things have changed because Obama was elected to the office of President, a development he laments, and one for which he expresses sorrow this way: “President Obama came into office determined to distance the U.S. from Israel and to portray Israel as the impediment to Middle East peace. He insisted on an unprecedented Israeli settlement freeze … And he went along with the PA's refusal to renew direct negotiations with Israel, agreeing that the Palestinians could use U.S. officials to conduct indirect talks.” What a pity! What a great pity! An American President that works for America and not for Israel; who would have believed it?
Here we see what Feith would have wanted the American President to do to mirror what was done before. He would have wanted the President to let Israel do what it wants, including the breaking of international and American laws by building Jewish settlements on stolen land. And if the Palestinians did not give their consent to the rape of their motherland by Jewish hordes, America was going to say to the Palestinians: tough luck to you guys because if you do not accept the Jew raping you, we stop talking to you. America is obligated to protect the right of the Jew to rape whomever he wants to rape and we take our obligation seriously. Let it be known that Jewish rape of local societies is happening all the time and everywhere, including here in America. Thus, we see no reason why it cannot happen in Palestine. America shall see to it that it does.
To end his rant, Feith gives this last warning: “Mr. Obama can expect to pay a substantial political price in 2012...” And you wonder if these people can still pull off a coup like this. You think of the feud which seems to have erupted between two factions inside the Jewish family but you do not rejoice because you realize that the faction having a change of heart is not being remorseful. This faction is merely asking for a temporary tactical retreat in the face of what it sees as a looming danger whereas the faction that is headed by Douglas Feith maintains that the Jews can still pull it off and survive. At first glance the factions seem apart and opposed to each other but in reality, they are the two indispensable parts that make up a perpetual self destruct machine.
While the relentless machination is going on inside America, and doing so at a fevered pitch in an effort to mobilize that country and bring its political, cultural, economic, industrial and military potentials under the control of the Jewish organizations, the Bret Stephens article gives a glimpse as to how the Jews view the world outside of America. It is a view that so frightens them, they seek to use America's power to annihilate what they perceive as their enemies and thus bring the world under their control. This is important to them because they are taught from birth that the only way they can live as Jews and remain safe in this world is to control it. They are told that the choice they will always face in life will be to control the environment in which they find themselves and survive or leave the control to someone else and risk vanishing. And in this age of globalization, they have no choice but to promote Israel and control the whole world or vanish altogether. First, they must take control of America then use American power to firmly plant Pax Americana throughout the world.
Stephens begins the article with a direct quote that is the saying of someone he mocks. Here it is: “This is not an Islamic Revolution.” He then explains that this is the opinion of Olivier Roy whom he describes as: “arguably Europe's foremost authority on political Islam.” He uses a French word “sangfroid” to describe how other writers are keeping their cool in the face of what he later makes clear is a serious matter. He singles out Tom Friedman and Nicholas Kristof, both of the New York Times, whose words he quotes to show that they remain undisturbed by what is happening in the Middle East.
But he says that all this sangfroid has proved to be misplaced because nine months after the start of the Arab Spring, everything has gone badly in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Turkey, Lebanon and Palestine where the people did not do what he would have wished them to do which was to renounce their religion and promise never to return to it. So much for the views of Roy, Friedman and Kristof in the eyes of Stephens. But “Closer to the mark,” he says, is Bernard Lewis whom he describes not as an “arguable authority” but a Mideast scholar. And why is he closer to the mark? Because he sees that as a concept, freedom is less important to the Arabs than justice given that they lacked the latter under the regimes they just toppled.
But, he says, we ought to be careful because justice, which is a concept imported from Europe by the old Arab regimes, had been the mainstay of those regimes until they were toppled. Justice did not work for the ordinary people, says Stephens, and he predicts that justice will now be used by the Islamists only to win elections but not to give the ordinary people a better form of politics or a better government. Thus, what will remain standing when all is said and done will be Islam and nothing else. And so he asks: “What does its future hold?” And he gives a pessimistic view of that future.
He describes his own views by first laying out the view of the optimists which he quickly rejects. According to him, the optimists say that the Arabs will probably follow the Turkish model rather than the Iranian model. But he goes on to say that even of this were true, Turkey's domestic and foreign policies do not inspire him. In the end, he concludes: “Get ready for a long winter.”
There is one thing missing in all of this. It is that neither the Arabs nor the Muslims are here to please the Jews or the Americans, and they will not start doing it now. Characters like Stephens, Feith and others may have succeeded at subjugating a superpower and got it to do the dirty work for them, but four thousand years of Jewish history say that these people always lose in the end despite the gains they make at the start of every adventure they undertake. And while Stephens will be living the long Arab winter he is predicting -- waiting for Godot or whatever -- he better make sure that an oven-hot summer does not explode closer to home for, this has been the enduring legacy of the Jewish self destruct machine.
And if you want to know how this may come about, read his column of November 8, 2011 in the Journal. It is titled: “Now For a Real Iran Debate” and subtitled: “There's no more doubt about Tehran's nuclear-weapons program. How the West will respond remains open to question.” It is the usual rant about why America should try to destroy Iran, at the end of which he gives a final thought: “What would a strike on Iran do for President Obama's re-election chances? Improve them, I should think.” He said this in anticipation of a UN report that came out the next day and said nothing new about the Iran question.
Now, my friend, if you ever wanted a proof that democracy in the hands of charlatans can be as lethal as the worst of dictatorships, here is your proof. You kill and get killed to win elections, say the Jews. What can be more democratic than this? Sometimes they call it populist democracy to differentiate it from what is presumably a regular kind of democracy. But the fact remains that the Jews who invented communism are now running an apartheid regime in Israel and maintaining an intellectual censorship on the English speaking world that rivals the book burning celebrations of the Nazis. And they want America to destroy a world that is not democratic enough to suit their taste. It's all neat, clean and logical, isn't it?
Which leaves us with one question to ask: Which way to the gas chamber?