The dead Corpse of American Diplomacy

The year 2014 has ended with the Palestinian Authority (PA) demonstrating to posterity not only that American diplomacy has been a dead corpse for a while, but also how and why the American image of being a force for good has so quickly transformed into that of the greatest threat to civilization since the Nazi era.

The PA did it by taking its case to the World, insisting that a vote be taken at the Security Council of the United Nations on the matter of Palestinian statehood. This is when the expected happened in that the submitted resolution was defeated thanks to the effort of the United States of America that worked relentlessly to this end. The way has now been cleared for the PA and its allies to pursue the entire Palestinian question along more promising lines working inside more favorable venues.

It is unknown at this point what will come out of the new Palestinian move as only time can tell how the various players will line up, and what they will do in response to the events as they unfold. What can be said with some certainty, however, is that some kind of parallel will be drawn between the way that local American politics was paralyzed in favor of fast-tracking the Jewish and Israeli interests at the expense of the American people, and the way that American diplomacy was paralyzed internationally in favor of fast-tracking the Jewish and Israeli interests at the expense of the Palestinian people if not the entire human race.

And that's where the image of America is beginning to change from the saintly projection that used to reassure the world America was here and would bring justice to those who deserve it … to the image of an America that continues to protect, encourage and pay for the most savage case of national rape the world has ever seen. In fact, since 1967 when the Security Council and the General Assembly of the United Nations have called on Israel to end its aggression in Palestine, America has stood by Israel and played the dirty game of speaking like a saint while behaving like the dreaded prince of darkness.

It is that time after time, Israel has ignored the resolutions (that America did not veto) calling on it to stop plundering more of the Palestinian properties, and to start the process of ending the occupation. And time after time, America pretended to stand for what was right by echoing those sentiments but then financed the plunder of Palestine, replenished Israel's munitions depots after every genocidal war that the latter launched on the Palestinians, and paid the government of Israel cold cash as if to reward it for the savage job it did with cold-blooded precision.

The lesson that will come out this history will be to the effect that humanity did not treat the Jews as harshly as it did because of a capricious streak or a kind of evil intent; it treated the Jews the way that it did at different times and different places because of what the Jews had taken with them going into those places at the times that they did. In fact, there has never been something wrong with the human race; there has always been something wrong with a Jewish ideology that worked against the generous people who took the Jews in and sheltered them, only to see them turn into the little beasts that worked from within to paralyze their host at home and abroad the way they did with an America that is now useless at home and useless abroad.

Afflicted by an ideology which says nothing can exist that does not work to promote the glory of the Jews and of Israel, America is being transformed from the top down into a beehive of millions, all dedicated to work for the purpose of constantly praising the Jews in America, of keeping an eye on the treatment of Jews everywhere else in the world, of tending to the never-satisfied needs of Israel, and of dying while fighting the wars that the Jews would not fight for themselves.

It happened on previous occasions that the Jews attempted to transform one jurisdiction or another into a place such as that. They came close to achieving their goal but then, the ordinary people rose up and took matters in their own hands. They dealt with the Jews in a manner that was, in most part, proportional to how far the latter had gone at transforming the place that sheltered them into a place of so much misery, it could no longer be considered the laughing stock of humanity.

America is coming close to that point, and no one knows how all of this will be resolved. But Palestine will be the agent that will tell future generations the full and sordid story of the Jews in America.

Asian Cabal corrupting American Democracy

John R. Bolton is a Jewish lawyer, which makes him an automatic citizen of Israel, a so-called “nation” situated in Western Asia. The fact that he was born in America and continues to live in it is a convenience that serves the purpose of working from within to promote the interests of Israel at the expense of America. Also, John Yoo is an American educated lawyer who was born in the Eastern Asian nation of South Korea. He has lived in his adopted country since he was a small child, was educated there, and now practices law within its jurisdiction.

By random chance or by some other phenomenon, we find that the two Asian lawyers have wrapped themselves in the American flag, and have authored a joint article that can only be considered the ultimate insider's job in sabotaging the interests of the host country to promote those of outside jurisdictions – in this case, Israel in the Western part of Asia, and the “democratic” states in the Eastern part of Asia … such as South Korea, Taiwan, Japan and other nascent democracies in the region.

Bolton and Yoo co-authored: “Advice on 'Advice and Consent,'” and had it published in National Review Online on December 29, 2014. What they do in this piece is deliver the second punch in the debating technique known as the one-two punch. This is a trick that consists of delivering what amounts to a blow in the face of the audience so as to divert its attention while preparing to deliver the more powerful and more substantive second blow … in fact, the several second blows that follow.

The diversionary blow came years ago when the Jewish propaganda machine propagated the notion that Arab kids from the back-alleys of some rundown Third World cities had mastered the intricacies of the American judicial system, and had been exploiting it to their advantage. The proof the Jewish machine tabled was to simply state that the Arab kids were telling each other not to give information to interrogators when caught doing something that displeases America. And this was enough to inflame the passions of American commentators and legislators who saw enough red to be blinded to the fact that the Jews were delivering a slew of second blows to the American legislative and judicial systems.

To do this, the cabal of multi-faceted Jewish organizations has infiltrated the two chambers of the U.S. Congress and has used the existing parliamentary tricks as well as those it added to the system, to promote the interests of Israel and World Jewry by paralyzing the business of America. Those organizations also infiltrated every so-called think-tank in the nation, and every judicial and quasi-judicial body where they turned upside down the principles that made America the unique cultural phenomenon it used to be … but is no more.

And now, you see the Jewish machine recruit the likes of John Yoo, and have him add his two-cent worth of blabber to promote what is incontestably recognized as being the eternal passion of the Jews: war, war, war … running blood, mutilated flesh and broken bones. You see them argue for all that – as in their latest article – by making the legislative part of America declare war on the executive part in an effort to force the latter to mobilize the nation for a war against humanity that will last for ever and ever.

But what is it that gives the Jewish argument the force it seems to have when falling on the ears of America's legislators and media types? The best way to answer this question is to pick an example and discuss it. Because Bolton and Yoo could not find something in the Constitution that would compel the American President to launch a war against a nation that did not hurt America, the two authors engage in the infamy known as intellectual masturbation of the most Jewish kind. And this is how they do it:

First, they advise: “Checking Obama should be a top priority for the Republicans in Congress.” Second, they speculate: “Obama desperately wants a deal with Iran.” Third, they warn: “the administration has pledged not to use military force against Iran.” Fourth, they suggest that: “Republicans and Democrats should agree that renunciation of the use of military force limits U.S. sovereignty.” Fifth, they opine that this: “violates Article II of the Constitution.” What? Say it again. How do they make this out?

Masturbation, my dear Watson, it is Jewish masturbation. The way they do it is not to assert in a clear and honest manner that Obama has violated Article II of the Constitution, but that he “may well have violated the Article.” And why is that? Because the Article says that the president “shall have power to make treaties.” Okay, he has that power and he did not exercise it; what's wrong with that? No, no, no, they say, you don't understand. He has the power but only if two-thirds of the Senate approve.

Approve, they say? Approve of what? And they answer (get this now, my friend) approve that he will not unleash a war against a sovereign country that did not hurt America. Wow … Wow … Wow the power of Jewish masturbation. But does that apply to the other two hundred jurisdictions on the planet? No. It only applies to Iran, they say, because for now, only Iran is hated by the Jews.

And while John and John are masturbating, the universe is unfolding as it should, says Desiderata.

Penury is the Father of Resilience

Let it be known that if necessity is the mother of invention, then penury must be the father of resilience. This is most likely what the economic historian of Bret Stephens imagination will be telling her students in the year 2050. You can check on his thinking in this regard by reading: “The Marvel of American Resilience,” his latest column which also came under the subtitle: “Autocrats can always cultivate prodigies. The question is what to do with the remaining 99%.” It was published on December 23, 2014 in the Wall Street Journal.

Stephens started with an idea that is worth exploring but quickly fell into the trap of looking at the world through the lens of politics and jingoism, thus wrote a lousy column. The reality of our world is that no two cultures are the same which is why things happen in one culture before they do in another. And given that some things happen in America before they do in other places, it is worth exploring what America has that others may lack.

The trouble is that our author disabled himself before writing the first sentence by assuming that only “non-autocratic” forms of governance can be home to resilience and innovation. In taking this stance, he dismissed thousands of years of progress in science and technology before what he would call a “liberal democracy” was first established. To justify his thinking, he came up with this bizarre explanation: “Autocracies can cultivate chess champions, piano prodigies and nuclear engineers; [their] quandary is what to do with the remaining 99%. They have no answer, other than administer, dictate and repress.” What on earth does that mean?

Hey Bret, please tell us: who do you think are (or are not) the resilient innovators? Are they the autocratic rulers or the chess champions, the piano players and the nuclear engineers? And while you're at it; who designed and built the pyramids? The pharaohs that used them, or the engineers of their time? Who invented the fireworks, the china and the silk fabrics? Were they the iron-fisted ruling dynasties, or the resilient innovators of their time? And who invented the jet engine and the rocket? Was it Hitler himself or the German engineers of the Nazi era?

Stephens also seems to make a big deal out of the fact that America has gone full speed ahead in the use of fracking. What must be said is that he misses something in this regard … perhaps because, like he says, he “grew up as an American living abroad.” In fact, it was in the year 1973 that the North American Continent feared it was in danger of losing the lifestyle it had grown accustomed to; a fear that was brought about by the oil embargo which the Arabs imposed on America to punish it for coming to the aid of Israel as they were chasing the Jews out of the lands that the latter had been occupying since 1967.

This is when the debate began in earnest about developing the Canadian Tar Sands and the American Shale oil deposits. Research started immediately in order to determine a way to do this, and the result was that the best option was to start with the Tar Sands. As to the development of the Shale Oil deposits, the research never stopped in the States or in Canada. Large numbers of researchers in independent labs as well as government and university labs participated in the effort, and countless papers were written about the progress that was being made – every step of the way. In fact, this is how these things are done.

Now contrast that reality with what a columnist accustomed to fantasy and self-delusion has written. Having never done science, having never participated in the development of technology, having never worked with his hands, Bret Stephens imagines that fracking has appeared on the scene spontaneously by the conversion of the following circumstances: “fracking happened in the U.S. because Americans have property rights to the minerals under their yards. And because the federal government wasn't really paying attention. And because against-the-grain entrepreneurs like George Mitchell and Harold Hamm couldn't be made to bow to the consensus of experts. And because our capital markets were willing to bet against those experts.” Really? This is like watching a high powered pump spewing organic fertilizer onto a field.

Let a teacher in 2050 say something like this to her students, and you can bet that there will be at least one parent who will demand that she be sent to learn what she never did in real life, relying instead, as she does, on the output of an army of lightweight intellects such as those who took control of the so-called think-tanks and the media in the latter part of the Twentieth Century, and gave the Americans what Stephens admits has been: “the wretched state of their schools, the paralyzed nature of their politics, their mounting fiscal burdens and the prediction of impending decline.”

I shall continue to write and publish when the scheduling of my medical requirements will allow it.

The Mideast Behemoth has five Legs

NOTE: The following is an article written by Fred Habachi before taking a medical leave of absence.

Under the title: “To Leave the Mideast, Unite It,” Vali Nasr writes that American diplomacy in the Middle East is facing four paradoxes but neglected to mention there is a fifth one. The article containing his argument was published on December 19, 2014 in the New York Times.

The undeniable fact that can no longer be hushed up is that America's ability to freely navigate its diplomacy on the world stage is severely curtailed by the Jewish tyrannical control of the political as well as the informational institutions of the nation. Until this albatross around America's neck is dealt with, the fifth paradox that is embodied in the antics of Israel, will remain a serious impediment to resolving the various issues facing America overseas, especially those pertaining to the Middle East.

It is not that Vali Nasr is unaware of the Jewish factor in America; it is that he – like the other commentators – are forbidden from mentioning it, threatened by the specter of personal and professional ruin if they defy the long established rule. Thus, you catch Nasr write: “The Middle East today is deeply unsettled. Extremism seems on the rise everywhere” then go on to write about Muslim extremism without mentioning the Jewish extremism that is responsible for triggering all other forms of extremism in the world – the Muslim one being the latest. Now the question: What to do with a Jewish scourge that has been plaguing humanity since the beginning of time?

Because one or two commentators cannot alone face a Jewish tsunami made of thousands of Fifth Column agents that never go into sleep mode in their cells, the President of the United States – being in charge of foreign policy – has the duty to do what is good for America. Thus, when the Congress of traitors that has become a Jewish bordello, gets ordered by Israel to start interfering with America's initiatives, the President should address his people and tell them that the nation's interests are being trampled on to serve the glory of Israel. He should then call on the people of America to make sure that their members of Congress will start serving the nation or be prosecuted for treason … an action that will be brought about by public pressure.

When this is done and the executive branch has given itself a clean table on which to plan its Mideast moves, the four paradoxes that Nasr is talking about will lose their force and become simple enough to deal with. The first paradox he cites is this: “pivoting our attention away from the Middle East to focus on Asia” which, he says, could no longer be considered an option. In fact, it will again be a viable option if and when the other three paradoxes are solved by vanquishing the undue Jewish influence on America's decision making process.

As to the other three paradoxes, they are related by the fact that there exists at their roots the single source that spawned them, that is nurturing them and that is fueling them. To understand what that is, we need to look back at history. It was around the second decade into the twentieth century that hordes of illegal Jewish migrants started to pour into Palestine, driven by religious fanaticism. Groups of young Muslims countered this development by forming the Muslim Brotherhood.

When two decades later, the Jews started to slaughter the Palestinians, to take their lands at gunpoint and to steal their properties, the young Muslims discovered that the Jews were helped by former colonial powers whose role was to render the Arab governments powerless. Thus, the idea of the young Muslims taking matters in their own hands was born. Two more decades after that, the Palestinian resistance movement came into being. It formulated the vision of fighting the Jewish occupation at the same time as fighting the Arab governments that neglected to mobilize and fight the Jews and their backers. Four more decades after that bring us to the current era, a time when Jewish fanaticism has reached new heights, and young Muslims are responding accordingly.

The Jews have America backing them, and there is NATO behind America. The Muslims have the numbers, and a determination of steel to protect their religion. Thus, the two groups will remain locked in battle as long as America will take marching orders from Israel and from World Jewry.

But if at the behest of their President, the American people put an end to that disgrace, the three remaining paradoxes mentioned by Vali Nasr will be rendered moot. They are: (1) America's Arab allies are indispensable but weak. (2) Iran's cooperation is necessary which makes it imperative that the Sunni-Shia split be mended. (3) Left unchecked, Sunni extremism can become a powerful force.

In short, neutralizing the influence of the Jews in America will turn the Mideast and other global problems into a cakewalk.

Announcement

Fred Habachi is on medical leave and will be for a while.

Jewish Ideology producing cultural Venom

Imagine someone criticizing the work of a Holocaust survivor. Imagine her criticizing the people who assisted that survivor. Imagine her criticizing the art gallery that exhibited his work. Imagine her criticizing the organization that sponsored the event … calling it a racist organization.

Did any of this happen in reality? No, it did not. It did not happen exactly like that. What happened was that the notorious Anne Bayefsky wrote an article, published in the Jerusalem Post on December 18, 2014, in which she accuses the United Nations of inciting antisemitism by sponsoring a Palestinian exhibit. Her article came under the title: “UN Turning Back the clock to pre-1948 is the real endgame” and the subtitle: “Apparently, a direct attack on the legitimacy of the UN member state of Israel is now interpreted in UN circles as consistent with the principles of the United Nations.”

And so, what you have here is a world which, for 70 years has been inundated with waves after waves of stories and exhibits relating to the Nazi enforced Holocaust of the Jews, without once hearing criticism from anywhere about such work. And what you have now is the same world having to put up with criticism relating to the first exhibit on the Jewish enforced Holocaust of the Palestinians. This is a manifestation of gall so massive and so intense; no human mind can size it up or grasp it.

But why is Anne Bayefsky so angry? Believe it or not, because she says that Israel is not receiving equal treatment. No, no. Don't get this part wrong, my friend. She is not saying that Israel is getting preferential treatment compared to the Palestinians whose rights are almost never mentioned. No. What she says is that the Palestinians are getting too much out of this exhibit (that's one exhibit in the entire history of the Palestinian Holocaust) while Israel is getting very little from it. She would have wanted equal treatment for Israel in this Palestinian exhibit. It is like saying, the mountain I hold is all mine; the pebble you hold is half yours, half mine.

The pertinent question is this: How could the Jews have gone on for half a century making such one-sided presentations to their North American audiences, and get away with that? The answer is right here in the Bayefsky article. She begins: “The exhibit contains a litany of hate speech.” This says that the first thing the Jews did was to establish two kinds of speech: free speech and hate speech. Then they decreed that anything said by Jews of others is free speech, whereas anything said by others of Jews is hate speech. And she gives examples of what she calls hate speech in that exhibition:

“The roots of the Palestinian problem date back to the late nineteenth century, when...Zionism developed in Europe.” “The Balfour Declaration was legally, politically, and morally dubious.” The 1948 war consisted of “acts of terrorism...by the Zionists.” Jews were busy conducting 'massacres,' while Arabs were busy fleeing. The “leading Zionist representatives headed by the subsequent Prime Minister of Israel David Ben Gurion, planned and implemented the ethnic purge.”

This is hate speech, she says, even if it is not a full length movie or a slide show or even a single painting showing an Israeli president or a prime minister having his head blown off. Mind you, the exhibition could have shown a painting like that, and it would have been legitimate because Israel did, in fact, blow the head of people with booby-trapped portable phones … and bragged about it.

Now, if we consider a false accusation to be slander, and we consider slander to be hate speech, then hate speech is what the Jews have been spewing for the past half century. It is that when they made a point but had no evidence to back it, they invented the evidence, and made sure it was of the most damnable kind. Here is an example of that: “The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem collaborated with the Nazis … al-Husseini pressed Hitler to extend his solution of the Jewish problem to Palestine.”

The Jews have been dumb enough to accuse everyone that did not display hostility to Hitler as being a sympathizer of the Nazis. Almost no one escaped this accusation, from Chamberlain to al-Husseini. But this is the first time that someone has said al-Husseini pressed for a solution of the Jewish problem in Palestine.

If only that woman, Anne Bayefsky, had known that the world didn't know about what went on till the end of the war when the allied troops unearthed the evidence, she would not have made that mistake. But then again, she is so dumb; she might still have made it.

The Attempt to 'Palestinize' Cuba

No one comes as close to telling it like it is as Marco Rubio. It is just that we have to understand what he is saying. And in fact, he is saying as much as can be said on the subject without indicting himself as to the real motive behind the reaction of some Cuban expatriates and their descendents in America, to the latest news.

Rubio expresses his sentiment in an article he wrote under the title: “A Victory for Oppression” and the subtitle: “President Obama's policy is bad news for the Cuban people living under a dictatorship, and it sends a dangerous message to the world.” It was published on December 18, 2014 in the Wall Street Journal.

The news is that the American government and its Cuban counterpart have decided to resume diplomatic relations after five decades of estrangement. Why is this a bad move for the people who protest it? Well, let Marco Rubio tell you why in his own words: “The announcement on giving the regime access to American dollars is bad for the millions who live in exile and lost everything at the hands of the dictatorship.”

That was the edited version of what he said. The full version contains talking points that should sound familiar to readers of this kind of topics. Here are the points as they were adapted by Rubio to suit the Cuban situation: The move is bad for the “oppressed Cuban people.” It is “a victory for oppressive governments the world over” which is why it will have “negative consequences for the America people.”

To say that he worries about the welfare of oppressed people the world over, and how this will affect the people of America after making a case for the “millions who live in exile” and whose hope for restitution has always rested on Cuba being denied “access to American dollars,” is to force the reader to cry out: What? What on Earth is this about?

To get a sense of what this is about, we recall that before the fall of the Berlin Wall, the industrial and commercial setups in East Germany were described as being the most advanced in the Communist world, and close in sophistication to their Western counterparts. But after the wall fell and the East Germans asked to be unified with West Germany, commentaries started to be made to the effect that the setups in the East were worthless and just as primitive as everywhere else in the Communist world. The intent was to talk down the value of the assets in the East so as to buy them cheaply.

You see a version of this kind of game being played every time a country gets into temporary trouble. The financier who would not get off the phone giving instructions to his broker even as he watches the building next door go up in flames, would put his broker on hold to tell you that the assets he does not own worldwide are overpriced and must be reduced, whereas the assets he owns are under-priced and must be re-inflated.

In the case of Cuba, the trouble that the country has been experiencing lasted for five decades, taking a heavy toll on the development of the nation. The result has been that everything on the island was cheapened, while at the same time the expatriates in America were amassing great wealth. By now, these people should have enough money to buy all of Cuba many times over. This is what they always dreamed of doing, but worried sick that the regime may be given access to American dollars, a move that will re-inflate the Cuban assets and keep the regime safe and in place.

Well, the dream has now turned into a nightmare. The tears that Marco Rubio and those like him shed are real tears when they speak about themselves. But when they speak about the Cuban people and all the oppressed people of the world, those tears turn into the kind that crocodiles and the other reptiles shed.

It is unclear what they will do now. What is known is that these people have adopted the Jewish propaganda techniques for getting the Congress to dance to their tune. What they had in mind was to Palestinize Cuba in the sense of turning it into another offshore haven where the Congress was going to send money by the tons, and see some of it return as campaign contributions into the accounts of the treasonous members.

Will Rubio, Cruz and Menendez turn themselves into the agents of Cuban acts of treason? Time will tell.

A heroic Effort turned out to be a Dud

On December 16, 2014 the editors of National Review Online (NRO) made a heroic effort to parse the hostage-taking incident that unfolded in Australia the day before. They even displayed unusual creativity when they recalled ancient history to show that violent fame seekers may get the fame they crave, but it will be more in the form of infamy than admirable fame.

They wrote an editorial to elaborate on these points and a few other ones under the title: “For Whatshisname, the Dustbin of History” and published it on December 16, 2014. Their aim being to deter similar incidents from happening again, they praised the call of the Prime Minister to the effect that “the Australian security should now look closely at why they failed...” They also praised all “Australians – Christians, Jews and Muslims – [that] held joint prayer meetings for the hostages.” So far so good.

But will that work? No. Not likely; and that's because the editors of NRO – like their counterparts in many other places – have formulated a wrong understanding of what is happening in this realm, and have proceeded from there. It is a good thing to go back in history and search for clues that might shed light on what is happening today, but you have to know what it is you're looking for to begin with. And the editors missed two important epochs. They missed the Eighteenth Century that should have told them what not to do, and they missed the Twentieth Century that would have told them what caused the problem they seek to remedy in the first place.

It happened in the Eighteenth Century that the age of reason and enlightenment was descending on Continental Europe while the British monarchy was fighting to preserve the system of tyranny that had served it well up to now. This forced the British dissidents to flee to the mainland, most notably France and Holland, from where they attacked the rulers of their former homeland. But all they could do was to write letters that few people on the Continent or the British Isles could read since the vast majority of the populations were illiterate at the time. Eventually, the regime in Britain was replaced due to the external wars that drained the nation, and the internal revolt that was led by the dissidents who remained at home and worked from there.

And then, it happened that in the middle of the Twentieth Century, a couple of former colonial powers from Europe (Britain and France) teamed with members of the Zionist movement now occupying a good chunk of Palestine, and worked with them to subvert the nations of the Middle East they did not like. One of these was an Egypt that was ruled by a popular and nationalistic president named Gamal Abdel Nasser for whom the colonial powers had an antipathy which caused them to move against him, motivated not by reasoned considerations but by hysterical motivations.

To punish Nasser and his Egypt, the European powers set up something like a dozen radio stations, and beamed propaganda messages that aimed to incite the Egyptian population to rise up against the regime. They failed in that only a handful of individuals responded to the call. Unable to do anything that would cause the population to revolt, these individuals left Egypt and went to live in Europe, mostly in Britain from where they continued to agitate against their former homeland. But very little of their effort bore fruit.

Despite all the failures, it was that history that whetted the appetite of Britain and its former colonies – all English speaking – to welcome the dissidents of regimes they consider to be undemocratic. This is how the NRO's “Whatshisname” ended up in Australia. And this is why, despite all the mischief he caused in that country, he was not placed on a watch list. He was, after all, a dissent that was pursued by the autocratic regime of Iran, his former homeland. This made him a good guy; one that would do nothing to hurt the country that took him in. Well, they turned out to be wrong.

Maybe the Australians did not get the memo that a successor to Gamal Abdel Nasser had sent to the Brits. He told them that one of these days, they will come to learn they have created the monster that turned against them. That's what is happening in Britain more than anywhere else. And that's what is beginning to happen in Australia.

What these countries need to understand is that when they hate someone, they must not embrace everyone that professes to hate that same someone. This is because he may end up hating you too. And when this happens, he could someday pretend to kiss you … but that's only to get close enough to chomp your head off.

A Poison named System of democratic Justice

Michael B. Mukasey who, for two decades, was judge and then attorney general of the United States of America wrote an article where he seeks to show that “The CIA Interrogations Followed the Law” which is the title of his article. It also came under the subtitle: “Some of those now criticizing the program as illegal seem oddly uninterested in the laws they themselves helped write.” The article was published on December 17, 2014 in the Wall Street Journal.

Knowing that when he says: “Some of those now criticizing the program,” he means Senator Dianne Feinstein, and when you juxtapose that subtitle with a sentence that comes later in the article, a vast window of fresh perceptions opens to you. What comes into question as a result is the validity of the system that spawned this whole debate in the first place.

The sentence in question is this: “Sen. Feinstein wins the argument only by defining herself as both the standard setter and the winner.” Thus, according to Mukasey, it was Feinstein who participated in the writing of the laws that no longer interest her. But she took it upon herself to criticize the program that was set-up based on those laws, and she wins the argument by defining herself as standard setter and ultimate winner of the argument that she herself started.

Do you know what this sounds like, my friend? It sounds like the world talking about America, something that happens each time there is an international legal matter involving that country, or involving Israel where America is summoned to crush the due process and get Israel off the hook. Unfortunately, despite protestations to the effect that America is a nation of laws, the world has lost faith in the ability of that country, or even its willingness to follow the laws it seeks to impose on others ... with the exception of Israel, of course.

We're not talking about small legal matters such as those that arise when trade disputes flare up between jurisdictions and where administrative tribunals are set-up to handle such cases. No, we're talking about matters that involve human rights, and where the cases that come up for adjudication have universal implications so serious, they sometimes engender ramifications that lead to interventionist wars under the guise of the “right to protect” or some other concoctions.

Now, when Mr. Mukasey argues that the CIA followed the law, he does not mean to say America followed a law that would be recognized by the world. He means to say that America followed a set of laws which are subject to the kind of endless hair-splitting debates that ultimately turn into partisan disputes. This drags on till the end of the electoral cycle, and one side wins the election. The dispute is then left without resolution, and shelved to gather dust, perhaps for ever. And what all this means, is that no one is held accountable, no one is declared culpable, and no justice is done or seen to have been done.

This being the system that America has set up and called democracy, it compares poorly with any of the systems which are set-up under the so-called authoritarian regimes. That is where the cardinal rule is to let would-be violators know at the outset what the penalties will be for the actions they choose to take, and by which they may break the law. These may not be fair penalties but they are well defined, and they are not subject to hair-splitting by those who will decide your fate behind your back.

In contrast, the so-called democratic system fails to let you know where the hair-splitting will take you. Thus, you are robbed of the chance to choose making an informed decision about yourself … ultimately about your fate. Also where the autocratic system lets you know what you're accused of, and lets you face your accuser – however horrible he may be – the democratic system robs you of the dignity of knowing what you're defending yourself against.

In most cases, you are simply told ... not publicly but with a whisper in your ear, that you have been displaying bad intentions. You must, therefore, prove that you had good intentions by publicly groveling and begging forgiveness for offenses you never knew you committed.

Now, set aside the merit of the accusations where they exist and where they don't. Contrast the treatment that the American detainees received in North Korea with the treatment that America inflicted on the Guantanamo detainees. Now be honest and declare North Korea to be civilized, and America to be a primitive savage.

Harking back to an earlier Era

Two articles in the New York Times, each saying several things about the present, inadvertently add something important that harks back to an earlier era – one that is worth revisiting.

The first article came under the title: “Did Salaita Cross the Line of 'Civility'?” It was written by Joseph Levine, and was published on December 15, 2014. It is about free speech, academic freedom, the Middle East situation and what have you … all current topics, which I discussed on previous occasions and will avoid this time. Instead, I see buried in the article the concept of personal responsibility, a topic I shall take up while emphasizing its early formulation during the decade of the 1970s.

The second article is actually an editorial of the New York Times that came under the title: “Egypt's latest Outrage” and was published on December 16, 2014. It has to do with what the editors of the Times call “aid” to Egypt, but is regarded by the people of Egypt as an American trick to funnel Egyptian aid to Israel, and want to see it ended here and now. What is buried in this editorial is a link that ties it to the Joseph Levine article.

What began to happen in the 1970s was the gradual acceptance of the principle that to let people do as they please was a good idea because it permitted the creative minds to take flight, and thus enrich all of society with new insights, knowledge, art, science and what have you. But what also happened in this new and 'permissive' era – as it came to be called – was that crime of the most spectacular kind began to increase. Rather than ask for the recall of the steps taken to allow permissiveness to flourish, commentators in many places attributed the criminal acts to the ills of society, and thus absolved the individual perpetrators.

That approach did not sit well with another group of people. These rejected the interpretation given by the first group, and began to formulate the concept of personal responsibility. They said that to claim we are the product of the environment is to deny the concept of free will. Instead, they pushed the argument that we are the product of the choices we make because we have the free will to make them. For example, two people living in the same environment will make different choices and end up in different places.

Well, what was difficult to see at the time, was the possibility that things will evolve in such a way that there will be no choices to make. Even in a so-called free, open and democratic society, the day will come when you'll have to toe the line or perish. When this happens to someone, it will be a fate more difficult to take from an open society than from its authoritarian counterpart. And this is because you'll not be seen to have courageously opposed tyranny and paid the price; you'll be judged to have failed in life … and that's all that counts.

Look now how things have evolved over the decades as described by a passage in the Levine article: “Think about the average person who supported Israel's attacks this summer. Someone who gets most of her information about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from the mainstream media, and generally identifies with the reigning ideology of current American political culture, will find severe moral condemnation of Israel's actions difficult to accept.” Well, professor Steven Salaita learned this lesson the hard way. And the damage done to his career will last for a long time if not for the rest of his life.

This brings us to the editorial of the New York Times. As far as Egypt is concerned, nothing in what is said in this piece is worth the paper it is written on because it will no more derail the plans for development adopted by the country than a mouse could derail a freight train going somewhere. But what this editorial will do is contribute to the “reigning ideology of current American political culture” that tells the people of America which line to toe if they want to keep their jobs. And that's a fate worse than you'll find in Putin's Russia, North Korea or Iran.

Still, there is one thing that the Egyptians will take from this editorial. Look at this passage: “a government [of Egypt] whose treatment of people like Ms. Dunne will discourage the tourism and development needed to revive the economy.” This is an old message that refuses to die.

The fact is that every article which calls on the American government to punish Egypt also predicts that tourism, foreign investment and/or development will be curtailed. However, everyone knows this is not a prediction; it is a wish that is shared by the editors of the Times and Ms. Dunne. They are birds of the feather, you see.

He says he's not sorry for the torture

Bret Stephens wrote an article to say he is not sorry the CIA inflicted waterboarding on detainees; a practice he refuses to call torture. He said this much under the title: “I Am not Sorry the CIA Waterboarded” and the subtitle: “Dick Cheney says he would 'do it again in a minute.' He's right.” The article was published on December 16, 2014 in the Wall Street Journal.

The readers that studied the Stephens philosophy from his writings would have noted that he likes everything which promotes Israel and the Jewish causes; and that he dislikes anything that would harm them. Thus, for him to come now and admit that he is not sorry the CIA waterboarded, is to say he believes that neither Israel nor any of the Jewish causes will suffer as a result. But that's where he is mistaken.

The truth is that America is the cash cow which Israel and the Jews are milking non-stop – the first doing it to survive; the second doing it to keep up with the billionaires of Europe, Asia, the Middle East and those of North, Central and South America. Thus, it stands to reason that the more that America gets hurt, the least that Israel and the Jews will be able to milk it. So the question: Did this reality escape the attention of Bret Stephens?

The reality surrounding this question is so puzzling, there is only one way to answer it: Who knows? In fact, anyone that has been observing and studying the Jews for an extended period of time would know that no matter what these people concoct in response to a situation, they never work out an exit strategy or a plan B. This means they do not look ahead to prepare for the possibility that something may go wrong.

This makes of the Jewish method a ballistic operation more than a guided one. In fact, this is the way they want it to be, and that's because they adhere to a religious dogma that compels them to launch their projects, and leave them in the care of some divine providence that will determine the end result. They believe they have the solemn promise of the Almighty that He will save them in the end, provided they accept the setbacks they will encounter on their way there.

This being their method of operation, Bret Stephens and those of his ilk could not care less what happens to America as a result of what it does when handling detainees … which happens to be something that pleases them anyway. But why would they be pleased by torture even if they have the ability to place themselves in the denial mode and refuse to call it by that name?

The answer to that question is simple: The indoctrination of the Jews is continually being updated and refreshed by the self-appointed leaders who run a propaganda machine designed to imbue everything that young Jews – and old ones too – see, hear, taste, smell and touch, with notions to the effect that the world is a dangerous place for Jews to live in.

In fact, these people are continually being told there is no one out there that did not hurt the Jews at one time in the past, that is not hurting them now, or that will not hurt them in the future. Children are fed this sort of propaganda with their mothers' milk. They learn more about it in school, in the synagogue, in field trips to holocaust memorials, and in trips overseas when they visit the concentration camps of a war that ended before their parents were born, and in some cases even their grandparents.

And these youngsters grow up feeling not physical pain (unless it is psychosomatic,) but a psychological pain that is soothed by one thing only: the knowledge that someone else is suffering as much if not more. And when they learn that the suffering of others came in response to the pain that was inflicted on them, they take it as sweet revenge and find it even more comforting.

All that comes out from a montage of passages in the Stephens article. Here it is: “I am not sorry KSM was waterboarded 183 times. [He] murdered Danny Pearl. I am sorry he remains alive nearly 12 years after his capture. I am not sorry that the drone strikes killed hundreds, perhaps thousands of innocents who committed no crime deserving of death from 30,000 feet. I am sorry that we are having a convulsion over the fact that the CIA captured, interrogated and killed two detainees.”

Call it savage, call it depraved; it is fundamentally Jewish.

When a 'friend' begins to urge genocide

Elliott Abrams wrote an article under the title: “The Scholars Who Ban Disagreement” and posted it on the website of the Council on Foreign Relations on December 14, 2014. That title is a blatant lie because no one is banning disagreement.

In Abrams own words, what happened is this: “A group of academics is calling on the US government and EU to impose sanctions on four prominent Israelis who lead efforts to insure permanent Israeli occupation of the West Bank and to annex all or parts of it in violation of international law.”

This is what the American academics have said, and what Abrams quoted them as saying. When you look at the matter closely, these people have a good reason for wanting to see their suggestion implemented. It is that the Israeli individuals are advocating at least the cultural genocide of the Palestinian people if not their long-term physical annihilation … which will most certainly happen as it did to other cultures, including some here on the American continents.

In arguing against that suggestion, Abrams does something strange even for a Jew. First, it must be noted that these people are notorious for shooting themselves in the foot every time that they try to have it both ways – which must be said is often. But what this guy has done is to fire at least four bullets into his body. In fact, he mentions Iran, China, Syria and Russia, and laments that the academics who cited Israel, have failed to cite those nations as well for sanction.

Elliott Abrams did all that despite the fact that he is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a position that allows him to know for certain that those nations have been sanctioned for activities that come nowhere near being as severe as the Jewish genocide of the Palestinian people. Did he not realize that the mere mention of these nations would destroy the point he is trying to make? Really, this is a strange phenomenon that happens to be purely a Jewish one.

Abrams does another thing that suggests he must be undergoing a serious transformation – perhaps having a bout with male menopause or something. Look what he says: “the brilliant idea of these intellectuals is to ban from the United States democratically elected parliamentarians with whom they don't agree. Or with whom they really, really don't agree, seriously, a lot.” Well, set aside for now all those who were elected in the past, who rose to high positions and then committed horrible acts.

What does Elliott Abrams think of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Iranian members who were democratically elected to their parliaments? Will he urge the Council on Foreign Relations to invite them to America even though he disagrees with them on many issues – really, really, seriously, a lot? Failing this, will he be happy to see someone else invite them? Perhaps to give a commencement speech at some college, or to address the chambers of the United States Congress? Or maybe even promote the idea that America must now drop the sanctions imposed on Iran?

Abrams further demonstrates how much his mental faculties have been affected when he tackles the same subject but from a different angle. He makes the point that what separates the prominent Israelis from the American academics is not that a fundamental principle is involved – given that one side is advocating genocide while the other is abhorred by it – but that a simple disagreement exists between two democratic groups.

Thus, it must be said that according to Elliot Abrams, it does not matter what the disagreement is about because what matters more is that the two sides are democratic. This alone lifts the disagreement from the level of the fundamental – in this case genocide – and places it at the level of the trivial – in this case a simple chicanery about nothing between two democrats.

What we have here is a situation in which someone you know – maybe a close friend, or maybe not so close a friend – doing something you know will hurt him because it happened many times before, and he does not learn from the past. You try to help him but to your dismay, his mental faculties have diminished so badly, he is rebuffing you.

The Story of Usama and the Dick

Imagine a number of years from now when all of us who are alive today will be dead and spending eternity somewhere beyond the outer boundaries of the universe. There will be those of us playing with the angels in the playground of enchantment. There will be those of us fighting with the devils to secure the coolest spot in the dungeon of fire. And there will be those of us sitting in a limbo room waiting for the Big Guy to decide our fate.

This room is full of souls, but is emptying one soul at a time when an angel comes to take it to the playground of enchantment, or a devil comes to take it to the dungeon of fire. After a while, no one is left in the room but two characters that dare not look at each other in the eyes. The door opens, and this time no angel or devil appears. Instead, it is the Big Guy himself who enters the room and tells the two that he doesn't know what to do with them. For this reason, he has decided to let each one determine what must be done with the other.

He says he'll be back in one hour to see what they have decided, and exists the room closing the door behind him. Soon after, one of the two characters speaks to say that his name is Usama. He also says he recognizes the other as being the Dick.

DICK: Not the Dick. My name is Dick ... Dick Cheney.

USAMA: And I am Usma ... Usma Bin Laden. I think you should go to hell because of what you have done, and what your people are doing: Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, savage interrogations, you name it. You did it all, leaving nothing to the barbarians.

DICK: No. Not us. You should go to hell because you killed 3,000 of our people on 9/11. This is what started the war between us, and we had no choice but to respond. We didn't know what else you were planning, and we had to know one way or the other.

USAMA: If you didn't know what we were doing, we knew what you were doing. For decades and decades, if not for a century or more, you used every excuse you had to interfere with our lives, our resources, our relationships with each other or with the rest of the world. Invited to do a small job, you overstayed your welcome and desecrated our land. Invited to discipline one of our own who went out of control, you went out of control yourselves and ruined his country and his people. Invited to work with our organizations showing the respect we have always shown to your organizations, you sought to destroy what we had the way that you tried to destroy our OPEC.

DICK: This is only natural. We teach our kids to be competitive. When they grow up and see an opportunity, they let nothing restrain them if they determine they can overcome it. If you are weak in an area where you're in competition with them, they'll take advantage of the situation and seek to derive maximum gain.

USAMA: When we have an understanding with someone, we honor what we pledge and we expect the other party to honor what they pledge. Your people have not been doing this.

DICK: Of course not. Like say, contracts are made to be broken. Our kids are taught not to avoid reneging on a pledge but to avoid being caught doing so.  When they grow up, they try to get away with what they can if they feel they can. It is up to you to make sure they cannot.

USAMA: And that's what explains why you pretend to be a nation of laws when all you do is look for ways to get around it. As to us, we talk less about the law, and do more to keep our word as well as honor our pledge. Your conduct is deceitful; ours is noble.

DICK: Still, I say our system is superior to yours, and the proof is that we have a stronger nation.

USAMA: You may want to think so. But as the battle between us continues to rage, you'll soon learn that my people will defend themselves because they would rather die than be crushed by someone. You say give me liberty or give me death. We don't wait for someone to give us liberty; we say, I'll fight for my liberty till I die. What my boys did on 9/11 was to send a message to your people that we'll do to you what you do to us.

DICK: But you're not doing what we're doing. We may cheat and we may double-cross, but our methods are civilized compared to yours which are primitive.

USAMA: No, you're wrong. You are comparing the wrong things. What must be compared are your deceitful pretenses against our honor and our nobility. It is also what your military does that must be compared to what our kids do when they cease listening to their elders, and take matters in their own hands. Look at it closely, and you'll find that we are a noble people; you are cheats. Also, using the most terrible weapons, you murder us by the hundreds of thousands. This prompts our kids to retaliate by killing one or two of yours. This is a comparison that shouldn't even be made.

DICK: I guess you're saying I may indeed be a dick, but I'm not good enough to be your dick.

USAMA: You said it; I didn't.

DICK: So what do we do now?

USAMA: We tell the Big Guy you wish to have a sex change.

Egocentric America shifting to Narcissism

The difference between being egocentric and being a narcissist is that the first regards the self as being at the center of all that matters, therefore is able to function without the approval of others. In contrast, the narcissist lives as much in the gaze of others as his own. He, therefore, lives with the constant need to be told that the others admire him as much as he admires himself.

With this in mind, there is no denial that America has been altruistic during at least the first half of the Twentieth Century in that it gave to other nations more than it received because it had the capability to do so. But as the other nations were able to stand on their own feet, they needed less of America's largess, and the latter retrenched. Still, the image of a capable America did not fade altogether in the eyes of the others.

As time passed and the threat to the nation that was predicted by the antics of the McCarthy era began to fade, new generations of Americans developed the sense that they can be independent of the world in matters of morality, intellectual discourse, the application of legal philosophy and so on. This made of them and their country an egocentric lot. At the same time as that – and no longer viewed with suspicion – the Jews who were the target of the McCarthy allegations began to work on implementing the agenda they never forgot … McCarthy or no McCarthy.

The Jews saw that America was still a capable nation in many fields – not least of which the military one – and that it kept a reserve of its old altruism. Thus, they worked to take advantage of the situation to prop up Israel and boost the finances of World Jewry. To do this, they had to think and act like Israeli Jews (which they were according to Israeli law, even if they never set foot in Israel) but they also had to talk like Americans so as to communicate with them in their own familiar language.

As Jewish Americans, they were now a breed apart driven as much by the ego-centrism of the Americans, as they were by the narcissism of the Jews. And for nearly half a century after that, they worked on transferring their Jewish characteristics to the American culture. The effect has been that the country was transformed into an actor on the world stage that perplexed the other nations no end.

You can get a sense of this when you read the editorial of National Review Online that came under the title: “Torturing the Truth,” published on December 11, 2014. Speaking of the report on CIA interrogation operations, the editors have this early passage: “How the report's revelations will affect the loyalty of our foreign partners has yet to be seen. But for now, the work of the intelligence community has been smeared for partisan purposes.”

This says that while America's preoccupation remains the back and forth that is generated by the ego-centrist game inherent to the partisan chicanery which is firmly planted in the American character, there begins to develop some concern for how the loyalty of America's foreign partners will be affected. And this concern would have been generated by the Jewish characteristic grafted onto the American culture.

Struggling with a personality split whose American side says waterboarding is no more than enhanced-interrogation techniques, the Americans are forced to co-exist with a worldly side that says it is torture. Are they patriots defending their homeland, or criminals torturing people like savages? The Americans do not know what to make of themselves; and you can imagine how confused the foreigners must be.

America's own law and the interpretation of it says that “the CIA committed no prosecutable instances of abuse.” But what about the international laws, much of which America ratified and adopted as its own? How can the Americans violate these laws and expect the world to continue admiring them as much as they admire themselves? They wish to become full fledged narcissists but don't want to pay the price for it. What to do?

Luckily, the editors of National Review Online came up with an answer that is as practical as America was in the past, and devious as only Judaism can be. They suggested having a two-part investigation. The first will find that the CIA committed no abuse under American law … which is what actually happened. And a second part that should be made public “when it becomes reasonably safe to make it.”

That last part will come under the banner of “Americans deserve to know,” which, apparently, will signal to the world that the American system deserves to command their continued admiration.

Free Speech to tell the Truth partially or fully

What separates our species from the others is that we can reason, we can communicate complex thoughts to each other, and we can achieve the things that the other species cannot. We call civilization the sum total of our achievements, and recognize that it is the result of our natural talent to reason, to communicate and to do the things that the other species cannot do.

Given that speech is an important component of what constitutes our civilization, we need to know that it is not misused at any time or abused in any way. And this is why there has always been give-and-take on the subject of speech with regard to what is allowed and what is not. This approach has led to the making of rules which included penalties for violating them … going as far as execution.

The give-and-take continues to this day, which is why we encounter two fresh articles on the subject of speech. One article came under the title: “The Flight from Reason on Campus” and the subtitle: “And the madness of crowds.” It was written by James W. Ceaser and published on December 12, 2014 in the Weekly Standard. The other is a piece written by the editors of the Wall Street Journal under the title: “Unfree Speech on Campus” and the subtitle: “A new study shows too many colleges still behave like censors.” It was published on December 13, 2014 in the Journal.

James Ceaser, who is a university professor, explores the relationship that exists between speech and its use as an instrument to find the truth. He reminds the readers that the university has been the traditional place where the quest to find the truth has taken place. But things have changed, he goes on to say, and that is no longer the case. He laments that the speech which goes after the truth for its own sake is all but banned on campus nowadays, whereas the adoption of lies that quickly become dogmas, is flourishing because the idea of a lie in the service of a good cause is readily embraced by what he calls a gentle mob, postmodern style.

He gives numerous examples to this effect, one of them being a reported rape case on campus that turned out to be greatly exaggerated. When the truth came out despite the effort to conceal it, the “activists,” as he calls them, were disappointed but remained undeterred. This is because in their view “the facts of this case ultimately do not matter. It is the larger cause that matters.” And this is what leads Ceaser to conclude that: “Far from being an end in itself, the truth is now treated as an instrument of combat. It is wielded when it promotes a preferred cause and then abandoned when it produces the opposite result.”

As to the editors of the Wall Street Journal, they cite a report prepared by a foundation which claims that it found “severely restrictive” policies were adopted, and that they remain in force in a high percentage of the colleges it surveyed. The editors give numerous examples of this, which they use to criticize the colleges when in fact; the examples demonstrate that the colleges are earnestly struggling to find a formula by which to allow free speech while restricting its possible misuse or abuse.

Some of the activities that the colleges are trying to curtail fall under such categories as “abusive and offensive remarks” as well as “threats and intimidation” also “Cyberbullying,” and “harassment.” And this is precisely what forces us to steer the discussion in the direction of the history that brought us to this point. It is something that both James Ceaser and the Journal editors ignored for a reason that may be obscure to some but not to yours truly. Look to the top of this page, and you'll find a moniker that says: “Ideas that were suppressed for 40 years.” I am speaking from experience … a very long experience.

It was the Jews who decades ago set out to “educate' the North American public as to what was “offensive” or “insensitive” or “dis-comfortable” to the Jews. They sued or threatened to sue anyone for being “slanderous,” even “antisemitic” if they deliberately or inadvertently said the wrong thing. That sent the chill down the spine of everyone, including the editors of wealthy and powerful publications who saw that hundred million dollar lawsuits were too big a burden even for them to want to challenge the Jewish threats.

But having no money they can sue me for, I dared write: “Don't listen to propaganda, Egypt is a civilized country” and that was slanderous and uncomfortable enough for them to threaten anyone who would publish me, with ruin. And they all cowered like puppies that ran to hide under the sofa.

After forty years of Jewish horror, I was able to overcome the difficulties – including those pertaining to my health – to take advantage of the internet and tell my story thus neutralize the ocean of filth that the Jews have been pouring about me behind my back. They did it at a time when I had no means to defend myself even if I knew what they were whispering in the ears of those who listened to them.

And it is those same Jews, and their same organizations who are today trying to “educate” the North American public as to the value of free speech. This is the voice of the serial rapist telling the head of every North American household: I may have raped your wife and you're not happy about it but if you lend me your little daughter, I promise I'll only show her how to enjoy sex when it is done for love.

No, editors of the Wall Street Journal, you're not fooling anyone anymore.

A million Jewish Lies cannot kill one Truth

Apparently, the editors of the Wall Street Journal have just noticed that there is out there: “A Broken Voice of America” caused by someone doing the wrong thing. They say so in an editorial that came under that title, and also came under the subtitle: “Portraying a zombie Uncle Sam won't win hearts and minds.” It was published in the Journal on December 12, 2014.

The editors were motivated to write that piece by the “common complaint these days that Washington isn't devoting enough resources to countering propaganda from the likes of Vladimir Putin.” Well, let me assure those editors that reallocating the resources as they suggest, or increasing them as suggested by others will not fix the problem. And that's because the deficiency is in the kind of message that America is sending to the world. To be blunt, the message and the way it is delivered will never convince a ten-year-old anywhere on this planet that day follows night or that night follows day.

Do you know why this is so, editors of the Journal? Because no instrument of news and commentary that is paid for by the American government will come out in a straight forward manner and say that day follows night or that night follows day. What they will say is something like this: “If you noticed that the Jews are perfect, you'll know that day follows night.” Or they will say something like this: “If you noticed that Hamas is bad, you'll know that night follows day.”

Do they really say that? No they don't. They do not exactly use these words, but the effect of what they say comes close to that. It would be bad enough to refrain from saying something negative about Israel or the Jews because everyone is told that “it will increase antisemitism in the world.” And it would be bad enough to refrain from saying something positive about the Palestinians because everyone is told that “it will increase sympathy for Hamas.” But... and there is a but...

But to have a program that purports to teach English to kids in South America, Asia and Africa by telling them stories about an Egypt that is dysfunctional (you would think it is describing the US Congress) isn't going to move those kids who know better because they follow other sources of information. No matter how you look at this kind of insidious Jewish propaganda, it isn't going to stand up to what Moscow is telling those kids, or indeed what ISIS is telling them. In fact, the kids will be more amenable to a message which the editors describe as follows: “Earlier this year, the flagship broadcaster drew heat for a video to solicit affiliates that showed two young South Asians attacked by a zombie Uncle Sam.”

The truth is that America's voice to the world is presented not only by a zombie Uncle Sam that is asleep at the switch, but also a Jewish propaganda machine that would throw Uncle Sam under the bus as easily as it would glorify Netanyahu and his gang of murderers in occupied Palestine. All of America's instruments of propaganda at home and abroad are run like the fusion of Fox News and Wolf Blitzer's Situation Room on CNN. Whether it is Radio Free this, or it is Radio Liberty that, or it is VOA, NPR and the like, they all have been transformed into dogs barking the Jewish lies and spewing the Jewish hate.

The world is tired of this and looking somewhere else for real news and smart analysis. People are inclined to do so because a million Jewish lies, no matter how they are wrapped and how they are presented, can never kill or dislodge one honest truth.

Even if people had no other source of information, if you can fool them today, you will not fool them tomorrow because their instinct will help them see through your dishonesty. And when this happens, they will seek the refreshing realism that Putin's radio is offering. And they will seek the honest propaganda of ISIS – no matter how it looks on the screen – rather than be subjected to the hypocrisy of a brain dead zombie thrown under the bus by his Jewish masters.

The editors of the Wall Street Journal end their piece like this: “If Washington wants to meet Moscow and Beijing on the public-diplomacy battlefield, deploying resources more transparently and efficiently is an excellent start.” If they mean doing so fiscally, they are participating in the cruel joke on America. If they mean doing so by purging the American propaganda machine of its Jewish elements, they are talking business.

That's no Pretzel; it's a Persian Deli

Benny Avni has an article that's the ultimate in twisted logic. Without mentioning Israel, which is the worst thing that happened to Planet Earth, he tries to do the dirty work for it by attacking Iran, an ancient civilization that, on the whole, has been an exemplary nation for thousands of years. Avni does what he does in an article that came under the title: “Pretzel diplomacy: Our twisted approach to Iran,” published on December 10, 2014 in the New York Post.

The “our” which you see in the title, refers to “we, Americans” when in reality, Avni considers himself to be a Jew and a citizen of occupied Palestine, the place that the Jews have renamed Israel. Of course, this is not what he sees as being twisted logic; his problem being that America has slowed down the process of self-immolation that the Jews started a while ago in an effort to give semblance of life to the dead corpse they fantasize as being a legitimate Jewish state.

Here you have an Israel that is swimming in an ocean of Security Council and General Assembly resolutions whose “citizen” Benny Avni, complains about an Iran that the American administration says is in compliance with the Security Council resolutions. And here you have the member of a Jewish organization comprising a John Bolton who spoke for Israel and all the Jews when he said that the top third of the UN building in New York deserves to be blown up. And here you have a Benny Avni who has the gall to chide the administration for what he says is “undermining the authority of the UN Security Council.” If this is not a pretzelian performance, what is?

Like every typical Jewish article, that of Avni begins with a dump that looks like a dog poop left on your porch. Here it is: “The council has long declared Iran a cheat, a pariah and worthy of punishment. At the same time, though, Washington courts Tehran as if it were a prized bride.” The fact is that none of that happened. But what did happen is that in addition to the resolutions that were passed against Israel, and those that America has vetoed, the human species has considered Israel – and now all Jews – to be cheats, pariahs and worthy of the ultimate if not the final punishment. And if Israel is still here, it's because Washington treats it like a prized bride.

Avni says he is confused and scared by what – on the surface – looks like a comic mess. It is that Reuters has reported the sighting of an Iranian citizen in Iraq despite the fact that the UN banned him from traveling outside of Iran. There is also a report about Iran buying new components for its plutonium-based nuclear plant, an activity permitted under the pact which Avni derides as containing “so many loopholes, it doesn't bar Iran's shopping spree for its plutonium plant.” That's what makes Iran a pariah in his eyes?

What also galls Avni is that “the Obama administration believes Iran is a valuable partner against ISIS.” He goes on: “You see, President Obama believes his diplomats are best off negotiating with Tehran by relying less on Security Council sticks and more on American carrots.” So you ask: What's wrong with that when Israel has always been the poison that weakened America militarily and economically, and has ruined its standing in the world while claiming to be – not the parasite that it is – but the valuable partner and “strong” ally of America? You see, unlike Israel, Iran is not sucking America's finances or the blood of its young soldiers who die for the glory of Israel, Iran is actually spending its own blood and treasure to fight ISIS.

In light of all that, what do you think the Jew will do? You got it, he will call on the Fifth Column of American traitors in the soon to be Republican-controlled Senate, and have the assembly of moral prostitutes “threaten new US sanctions on Iran.”

His expectation is that Iran's decider “may put the kibosh on any agreement his negotiators sign.” Whether or not this will come to pass is beside the point. What is important is that Jewish expectations have, once again, shown to be based on the fantasy of something happening by chance, and turning out to be what they wished for.

And again, Avni ends by making the standard Jewish prediction of an apocalypse resulting if things are not done by declaring war on the people that the Jews have chosen to be their enemy of the day.