Evolution preempting human Schemes

Whether you love America or you hate it, set aside your prejudices and answer a simple question. What is worse from the standpoint of human morality: encouraging people to flock to your side, or the military occupation of these people? Now take America out of the question and replace it with Iran. Now do the same with Israel.

The fact is that people from Yemen to Lebanon are flocking to the side of Iran for anyone of many reasons, whereas Israel continues to maintain its long held military occupation of Palestine. There is no contest between these two jurisdictions: Iran is a true reflection of the historic evolutionary process that has characterized this planet since the dawn of civilization, whereas Israel is the product of a scheme that is beginning to fray.

With this in mind, look at the uproar that has erupted with regard to the scheme which Netanyahu of Israel, his ambassador in America and the puppet speaker of the House of Congress have cobbled together for a reason that remains obscure. It is that Netanyahu will soon address said Congress to reveal nothing that is new. This says that the intent of the address is to arm-wrestle the American administration in America to prove something. But what can that something be?

You may or may not find the answer in four articles written recently by Jews on that subject. One was written by Charles Krauthammer under the title: “The Fatal Flaw in the Iran Deal,” published on February 26, 2015 in National Review Online. The other three were published on February 27, 2015 by the following authors. William Kristol wrote: “Netanyahu's Moment,” published in the Weekly Standard. David Harsanyi wrote: “Obama's Iran Obsession” published in National Review Online. Matthew Continetti wrote: “Why Bibi's Speech Matters,” published in the Free Beacon.

Here is what galls Krauthammer: “Iran would re-enter the international community, as Obama suggested in an interview last December, as a 'very successful regional power.'” The fact is that the Jews never established a successful nation, let alone one that became a regional power. When they managed to get the former colonial powers to give them a piece of Palestine, they immediately started to scheme the demise of their neighbors to make of Israel a regional power. From getting America to block the building of Egypt's Aswan dam and hydroelectric station to the demand that America must obliterate Iran, Israel has worked to spread chaos where serenity used to dominate.

William Kristol admits to the practical uselessness of the speech: “Netanyahu's speech … will make familiar arguments … like the vast majority of speeches, it would soon be overtaken by events in Israel and the United States and the world.” This done, he asks the question: “What is he [Obama] scared of?” And he tries to answer the question: “The Netanyahu speech … will be a moment that could cause us to reflect … with new leadership, what kind of deeds we might once again be capable of. As it will be a moment of vindication for Zionism … On March 3, something remarkable will happen. The prime minister of Israel, speaking on behalf of the West will command the world's attention as he declares his refusal to appease the enemies of Israel and the West.” Get it, my friend? Kristol says Obama is scared that Netanyahu will conquer the West with a useless speech, then turn around and kick Obama out of the office to which he was elected.

As to Continetti, he has a more “high-schoolish” sort of view on the subject: He tells not of what he knows with certainty about the nuclear agreement with Iran but of what an AP report says the agreement “might” look like. And based on this, he concludes that Iran will be free – not to legitimately attract people to its cause – but to continue with “its campaign to co-opt Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon and Syria.” And that's what Netanyahu will warn America about, says Continetti, which is why “Barack Obama can't stand it.” High school stuff.

As to David Harsanyi, he does not answer a question; he asks one: “The problem … is that Netanyahu is going to make a powerful argument against enabling Iran to become a nuclear power. Americans will hear it. Many will agree. Devotion to Obama is not loyalty to your country … Surely, hearing out the case of an ally … doesn't need to come with this much angst from Democrats. But if it does, it's worth asking why.”

The fact is that along with the rest of the planet, the Middle East is evolving according to norms we cannot control. A kid that straps a bomb to his chest and detonates it in a crowded place or an F-16 that blasts a building full of people may nudge history temporarily in one direction or another but that does not constitute control. Evolution will continue on its chosen path and there is nothing that anyone can do about it; not even the Jews.

How to maintain an abusive Relationship

It happens all the time that a small country – think of Switzerland – finds itself caught between two or more giants. The only way such country can carry on with the semblance of a normal life is to stay neutral, and where possible, play one giant against the other … which is how Switzerland remained intact during the Second World War. Subsequent to that, the Swiss survival mode was used by members of the Non Aligned Movement, and continues to be used today by most everyone that is not a giant.

This mode of survival has developed on Planet Earth because it is in the nature of our human culture that it did. The kind of organism from which all life forms have developed requires that we maintain a working relationship with others while making sure we remain independent of them to maintain a reasonable amount of freedom, and operate as we must if and when we need to. However, because nothing that is devised remains free of evolution, that mode of survival has taken on several other forms; one of which being what may be called the abusive relationship.

We see that at the level of adolescent relations when a bully dominates one or more of his peers. We see it at the level of families when one spouse abuses the other at a time when it is impossible for the abused spouse to break free of the marriage. We see it in the workplace not only where the boss abuses the underlings who badly need the job, but also where an underling has information that can destroy the boss, and thus makes demands that may be called abusive.

Because abuse is a state that cannot be maintained for ever, such relationships come to an end eventually … whether it happens with a bang or a whimper. What developed on this planet, however, is that a culture has materialized whose fundamental precept remains the use of that survival mode to live abusively off the others. Adherents to that culture call themselves Jews who say they do what they do because it is their ideology; one that has taken on the obligatory force of a religious dogma.

These people tell the story of their foray into ancient Egypt where they played not one country against another but members of the royal family against each other. Their folklore says they played practically the same game in the Persian Empire. Later, when the world found itself divided into Christendom and Islam, the Jews tried to play one against the other but the Christians burned them alive before they got too far ahead with their schemes. Beyond that, the Jews played the game in every small jurisdiction they infiltrated in Europe, and where they initially met with some success but ended up being kicked in the teeth.

They were also kicked in the butt, an act that caused them to seek shelter and safety in America. But rather than change their ways by developing an approach that would allow them to live peacefully with their neighbors, they employed the same old game, and started to play members of the American family against each other. You can see how this is done by reading the Elliott Abrams article in the Weekly Standard which came under the title: “U.S. and Israel: The Manufactured Crisis,” published on February 26, 2015.

The Jews worked for decades to establish a distinction between the two factions of the American political scene: the conservative Republicans and the more liberal Democrats. As time passed, the Jews sharpened the distinction between the two members of the American family, succeeding to the point that each faction now considers the other to be the enemy. This done, the Jews forged a strong tie with each member, with the result that the Jewish causes are approved without question or debate on a bipartisan basis while the business of America remains paralyzed.

But an American President was elected to run the country at the start of the year 2009. He did not tolerate the nonsensical situation that existed at the time, and worked to avoid falling into its many traps. But led by the foreigner Benjamin Netanyahu, many Jewish Americans took up the fight against their own President to promote the foreign leader and to make his command supersede that of an American President – including the current one, and all future Presidents who will not dare to stand up to an Israeli fart, no matter how small it may be or how much it may stink.

And that's what the Elliott Abrams article is all about. The man is trying to smooth things out so as to carry on with the game for as long as possible before the Jews are kicked in the teeth and the butt yet again.

Clooney to enable a Sudanese Boko Haram

They are not there yet but he is working his ass off to get them there, and to see them flourish. These would be the Sudanese version of Nigeria's Boko Haram. His latest visible effort in this field comes in the form of an article he co-authored with John Prendergast and Akshaya Kumar under the title: “George Clooney on Sudan's Rape of Darfur” published in the New York Times on February 26, 2015.

Clooney and his accomplices want the world to believe that when gold was discovered in Darfur, the government of Sudan said the time had come to go rape the women there. He does not explain how this would benefit the government, but it was something like it that happened in Nigeria when oil was discovered there. At the time, predecessors of Clooney worked to create what came to be known as the Biafra condition. And given that today's Boko Haram have roots which trace back to that era, the work of today's Clooney clearly aims at duplicating that result in the Sudan.

Generally speaking, actors are like an empty vessel which the director fills with the personality that a writer has fashioned to tell the world a story – one that may be true or that may be fictional. Because of this, it is convenient to use the fame of an actor to promote a story ... however unlikely it may be. And this is how the true story of what is happening in Darfur has been supplanted by the fiction that when gold was discovered in the region, the government of Sudan decided to rape the women there.

So then, what is the true story? Well, you get a hint as to what that story may be when you read the likes of Victor Davis Hanson and Bret Stephens. These are mouthpieces who often lament the fact that nature has put oil wealth under the feet of the Arabs and the Muslims rather than the feet of the Jews and their followers. In effect, therefore, people such as these do believe that the natural resources of others must not be left to them, but must be taken away and given to someone else.

This is what tells you that when gold was discovered in Darfur – far from the government of Sudan saying let's now rape the women – it was someone else that said let's create a Biafra-like situation to rob the people of Sudan of their natural wealth and give it to someone else. The way to accomplish this would be to use an empty vessel such as George Clooney, and fill it with the fiction which they promote throughout the world. That's what they do with articles such as the one we are discussing, and with other events.

What tells you how naïve these people believe the readers are is a passage like this: “According to the International Monetary Fund, gold sales earned Sudan $1.17 billion last year. Much of that gold is coming from Darfur and other conflict zones. The government has attempted to consolidate its control over the country's gold mines in part by violent ethnic cleansing.”

What was that? The government has legitimate jurisdiction over its natural wealth, and legitimately benefits from it but initiates violent ethnic cleansing to accomplish another purpose? And what would that purpose be? To consolidate its control, you say? What the (bleep) does that mean, you brainless assholes going by the name of George Clooney ... and his associated mouthpieces?

Also, when they say “violent ethnic cleansing” does that mean raping the women? But where would the women be? Working in the mines? No, says Clooney and his associates. It is that the government of Sudan has set up model villages where it encourages Darfuris displaced by violence to go and settle. And that is where the soldiers of the Sudanese army go rape the women, they explain. They even call it: torture rape.

How interesting! Look what these people want us to believe: In order to consolidate its control over the mines it already controls and benefits from, the government of Sudan has set up model villages where it encourages people to go live. But when they do, the government sends its soldiers to go rape the women right there in the villages. But how does that consolidate the control which the government already has over the mines? No response there because no reality underlies that claim.

Instead, it is George Clooney and those behind him who rape their audiences with the aim to duplicate what was done in Nigeria, with the result that unless they are unmasked, these people will enable the rise of a Sudanese Boko Haram to do in East Africa what is being done in West Africa – creating the chaos that makes it possible for foreigners to share if not to control the natural wealth of the country.

The stated Situation that's no Solution

Michael Oren who used to be Israel's ambassador to America, and is now running for Israel's Knesset, has an ingenious idea: how to sell diplomatic stale bread soaked in water by calling it gourmet food. He explains all that in an article he wrote under the title: “Israelis, Palestinians and the Two-State Situation” and the subtitle: “Instead of demanding what each side cannot do, we must ask what each side can do – and then make the most of it.” It was published on February 25, 2015 in the Wall Street Journal.

Oren begins the article by stating what the promise of policy makers had been for more than 20 years; goes on to say that the effort has failed and then explains why this happened. Without saying it bluntly though, he basically tells that Israel could not keep a single one of the promises with which it entered the peace talks. No way was Israel going to cede land that many regard as sacred; no way was Israel going to evict 100,000 citizens from the territories they occupied by force of arms; and no way was Israel going to vacate East Jerusalem.

But he was blunt about something else … actually, someone else. He writes this: “A final-status agreement would also mean creating a Palestinian state ruled by a corrupt, unelected regime that...” and he continues: “...in the current regional chaos, is likely to fall to radicals.” Well, in the first part of this statement, the author makes the point that the Palestinians would remain the bad guys even if they will keep their promises – having made the point earlier that the Jews will remain the good guys even if they already broke the promises they made. Explanatory note: This is the Jewish sense of balance as explained by Jewish moral clarity and reinforced by Jewish straightforward ambiguity.

As to the second part of that statement – referring to the current situation, and using it as if to say there is some cosmic force out there agreeing with him – is a Jewish habit that used to impress the people who first heard of it, but has now turned into a kind of farcical expression capable at times, but not always, of eliciting a smile.

Sensitized enough by now to feel that he will not get away with a Jewish-style presentation of reality that is skewed to this extent, Oren tries to iron things out by blaming the Palestinians. He says this: “Such sacrifices and risks could be justified if the Palestinians were genuinely willing to end the conflict.” Mind you, he says so having shown earlier that Israel did not keep the promises it made. Still, he feels that the Palestinians are not willing to end the conflict because if they were, they would do something to prove it, he says.

He explains what that would be: “They would have to renounce all further claims to Israeli territory and a 'right to return,' and to recognize a legitimate Jewish state on their border.” He then unfurls the big deception: “But no Palestinian leader has ever agreed to those terms.” Well, even if we accept that these are meaningful demands – which they are not as we shall see in a moment – look at what Israel is holding back against them: No way is Israel going to cede land that many regard as sacred; no way is Israel going to evict 100,000 citizens from the territories they occupied by force of arms; and no way is Israel going to vacate East Jerusalem. Explanatory note: This is the Jewish sense of equity as explained by Jewish moral clarity and reinforced by Jewish straightforward ambiguity.

Let's now look at the Oren deception. By agreeing with the UN resolution to swap lands of equal value with Israel, the Palestinians have, in effect, renounced further claims. By stating that the right of return is a decision that only a Palestinian can make for himself, the Authority did the only thing it could do which is to invite Israel to negotiate individually with the Palestinians it displaced.

As to the recognition of a “legitimate Jewish state,” this is something that never happened before because nations call themselves what they want but do not force others to accept it. Moreover, the stupidity behind the call that Netanyahu made was demonstrated not long ago when he tried to ram the idea through his own regime. He caused a counter-reaction so fierce; he was forced to back off. Thus the question: Why would the Palestinians call Israel a Jewish state when the Israelis themselves will not do it?

Nothing is working, says Michael Oren, because the Jews are inherently good, and the Palestinians inherently bad. For this reason, he suggests that: “the time has come for a new approach,” which is this: “we can strengthen what already exists: the two-state situation.” Translated into English, this means: Let’s keep the status quo but call it something else … like saying ‘situation’ instead of ‘solution.’

How much more creative can this lad get? Some people sell old wine in a new bottle; he sells stale bread soaked in water and calls it gourmet food for the mind. He'll have a bright future in the Jewish Parliament where they practice Jewish moral clarity, and reinforce it with Jewish straightforward ambiguity.

Here is why America must drop Israel

It must be said that if you wait long enough, the perpetual slippery slope machine will make the case for you. In fact, this is what just happened thanks to the article that came under the title: “The Appalling Talk of Boycotting Netanyahu” and the subtitle: “Congress has every right, and even an obligation, to hear the Israeli leader speak about the Iranian threat.”

Written by the quintessential self-appointed Jewish leader: Alan Dershowitz; and published on February 24, 2015 in the quintessential Jewish mouthpiece: the Wall Street Journal – the article demonstrates that the only strong thing about the American-Israeli alliance is the stink that the fusion of the two entities has been generating all these years.

There has always been suspicion that Jewish activities on the American political scene were not entirely kosher, but very few people ventured to discuss the subject with the candor that would have shed enough light on the subject to make it possible turning off the machine which keeps the slope in perpetual lubrication. But Alan Dershowitz proved to be animated by a character so flawed, he made the case that – far from being a strong alliance – the relationship between America and Israel is worse than unhealthy; it is obscene. Why is that?

Well, a normal alliance is based on the premise that it remains free of coercion. It becomes a strong alliance when each member demonstrates a willingness to forgo something voluntarily to better accommodate the other member or members. It ceases to become normal when a member constantly pushes their luck, demanding more from the others. It can also become obscene when a member pushes their luck for no reason than to show he has the power to bully the others. This is what Alan Dershowitz – a recognized longtime formulator of the American Israeli relationship – has been doing from the start.

It must be said that in the matter of governing a ship of state, two codes of conduct are followed. One code is based on protocol and politics, the other on the law. The people who run the ship are given enough discretionary powers to use the protocol and the politics in a manner that suits them best. This is what expedites the decision making process which the democracies are famous for. But when it comes to the law, little flexibility is accorded to the members … and this is what can hold things back, even to the point of total paralysis.

And so, even though it is impossible to look at the contemporary American scene without noticing that it is paralyzed politically, and even though the suspicion has been there to the effect that the Jews have something to do with this paralysis, no one put their finger on how it is happening … until now. Very simply, the Jews have confused the two codes of conduct to give themselves maximum flexibility in promoting their interests. They do so by making things look like protocol and politics when they need to; and they do it by paralyzing everything else by making things look legal when they need to.

Dershowitz shows us how this is done practically in five steps. (1) He sets up the confusion: “This controversy is not simply about protocol and politics – it is about the constitutional system.” (2) He begins the legal talk: “it is the responsibility of every member of Congress to listen to Netanyahu.” (3) He creates the actual confusion by applying 'violate' which is a legal term to protocol which is not: “the idea that some members of Congress will not give [Netanyahu] the courtesy of listening violates protocol.”

He continues (4) by attacking the integrity of his opponent, the President of the Unites States: “What the president objects to is not that Netanyahu will speak but the content of what he intends to say.” And (5) by coercing: “This will endanger support for Democrats among pro-Israel voters. I would never vote for a member of Congress who walked out on Israel's prime minister.”

But wait a minute. This is Alan Dershowitz talking. He is the flawed character that dissed President Carter by having him uninvited after being invited; something that Alan has been bragging about ever since. What's going on? It is the obscenity of the situation displaying its ugly head. The truth is that the Jews are not looking for someone to protect them; they are looking for a cat they can come home and kick when everything they touch starts to suck except the vacuum cleaner. And so they procured America and made it their cat.

Better drop this household and go live somewhere else, America … before they skin you.

A phony Excuse after a revealing Pattern

Rudolph Giuliani says: “My Bluntness Overshadowed My Message” in an article that came under that title. It also came under the subtitle: “Whether you agree with me or not, I hope this can be the basis of a real conversation about national leadership.” That's a phony excuse to explain what he tried to do earlier, and a work that the Wall Street Journal saw fit to publish on February 23, 2015.

Giuliani writes this: “My blunt language suggesting that the president doesn't love America notwithstanding, I didn't intend to question President Obama's motives or the content of his heart.” This is his denial, after which he goes on to say: “My intended focus really was the effect his words and his actions have on the morale of the country, and how that effect may damage his performance.” And this is his excuse.

To begin with, using blunt language as opposed to using a diplomatic formulation to convey a message does not change the content of the message. If I tell the love of my life she is fat and ugly instead of telling her she needs to lose weight, does not change the fact that I believe she is fat and ugly … there is no two-ways about it. By that same logic, Rudolph Giuliani did question Obama's motives and the content of his heart … there is no two-ways about it.

As to the excuse that Giuliani was concerned about the effect which Obama's words and actions were having on the morale of the country, and their possible damage on his performance … well, this is an excuse that comes right out the Jewish book of demonic sleight of hand. The intent here was not to enhance the president's performance but to damage it by lowering the morale of the country with an accusation that Giuliani hoped will shake the confidence of the American people about their president.

And this is not the only thing that Giuliani plucked from the Jewish book of demons. His earlier assertion that Obama was not “like us” because he was not raised like him may be true in the sense that Obama was raised by a mother who contributed to the war effort, and a grandfather who fought in the war … whereas Giuliani was raised by a father who served jail time and worked for a relative in the business of organized crime. This is a difference that Obama can be proud of; and one about which Giuliani should want to keep his mouth shut.

This is not even the worst part of that statement because Giuliani's contention is that America is more like him than it is like Obama. That approach has been the pattern which the Jews have used since time immemorial each time that they decided to invade the space of a society with the intent of taking it over by plying their tricks inside it. So the question: What does Giuliani want, and who does he want it for?

We get a sense of what the answer may be when we look at a statement he made near the end of the article. It is this: “To say that American exceptionalism is no more exceptional than the exceptionalism of any other country in the world does not suggest becoming and endearing modesty, but rather a stark lack of moral clarity.” And as he noted earlier, this is the conversation he wants to have about national leadership.

Now, given that the Jews have defined moral clarity as the unequivocal dedication of the self to the interests of the chosen children of God, Giuliani's association of moral clarity with American exceptionalism reveals that his intent has been to blow the Obama administration to smithereens before Netanyahu's arrival where he is expected to make the point that America is threatened because Israel is threatened. And this, in the sick mind of Giuliani, is the test of leadership that the unexceptional Obama has failed to deliver, whereas Netanyahu that is the chosen child of God, has proven he can.

This again, confirms that Giuliani's intent had been all along to damage the president's performance even if it meant the lowering of morale in America. But it was all to the good, according to his sick mind, because he believes that Netanyahu's leadership of the American ship of state by remote control is more favorable than Obama's hands-on sailing of that ship.

In this sense, Giuliani can only be the worst kind of traitor; the type that is made to appear as working for the good of the country while sabotaging it to cripple it enough while the Jews take it over and make it their own.

That's what Giuliani has wanted all along, and has wanted it for his Jewish masters.

Is it a Rerun or a Repeat?

The interesting thing about looking at history and then attempting to draw parallels with a contemporary situation is that you can fall into a trap that will mislead you. To see how this can happen, imagine yourself turning on the television set and seeing a riot happening somewhere in the world. You watch for a minute and then turn off the TV because you believe you saw this scene before.

As you ponder the meaning of the riot, a question begins to nag you: Was that a rerun of the tape I saw before? Or was it a scene that has unfolded in the way that it did before? In other words: Did I see history repeat itself exactly as it did before? Or did history put on a show that only mimicked what it did once before? And there lies the dilemma of looking at history then trying to match moment for moment what happened in the past with what is happening now.

In addition, what we must keep in mind is that our view of history is only an interpretation of the never-complete knowledge we have of it. Also, our view of the contemporary scene is only an interpretation of the facts and the fiction that we choose to believe in. Thus, the attempt to draw parallels between history and a contemporary situation is an exercise that can be no better than ten percent science and ninety percent art. But how useful can that be, if it can at all?

To answer this question, we look at five thousand years of human thought on the subject. Surprisingly, we find the record to be remarkably simple and remarkably consistent. It is that thinkers, writers and ponderers – sages all – have boiled down the whole thing to a two pronged approach to life. They say that one prong will lead to a happy ending while the other will lead to a tragedy. But considering that in every unfolding drama, the two prongs do exist simultaneously, how do we know which side to take and which to suppress?

Well, it seems that Victor Davis Hanson is trying to answer that question. His latest attempt comes in the form of an article he wrote under the title: “Our Dangerous Historical Moment” and the subtitle: “Obama and European leaders are repeating the mistakes of their 1930s predecessors.” It was published on February 19, 2015 in National Review Online.

After drawing blow by blow parallels between the present and a past which he says has caused “the most destructive war in history,” Hanson posits in a very subtle manner that the world is made of a handful of good people, a handful of bad people and a whole lot of indifferent people. He then says that the destructive war happened because the indifferent people were too apathetic to join the handful of good people who wanted to confront the bad ones, and stop them before they do the damage that they did. And he suggests that the same thing is happening again at this time.

Of course, if Hanson's cherry picking of historical events are the only legitimate highlights of the era, if his interpretation of these events is the correct one, and if his description of the current situation is impeccable, then his conclusions as well as his suggestion will have to be considered absolutely correct. And the consequence of this will have to be that the world must mobilize right away, and go on a rampage to kill everyone that is pointed at by the finger of a Jew.

But this is not how the thinkers, writers and ponderers of the bygone eras are telling us to look at events. In fact, they caution that you cannot always judge someone by their appearance, and that a wolf comes in sheep's clothing … which is why every script has its unexpected twists and turns. The sages also say that the apparently indifferent people of the world are actually active both mentally and emotionally, except that they move slowly because they are a cautious bunch. These people take their time, say the sages, before deciding on something, but when they take a side or suppress one, they are always correct.

This being the case, the very fact that humanity has always sided with the Jews at the start of an event only to turn against them after the latter move to Jew the world, says that the silent majority of the human race is the good bunch that brings order back each time that the Jews screw it up.

And we should expect the same thing to happen again sooner or later.

On Love and the Desire for Perfection

Try to answer the two questions that follow, then read Kevin D. Williamson's article of February 20, 2015 in National Review Online. It came under the title: “Rudy is Right” and the subtitle: “Barack Obama doesn't even like America.” And here are the two questions: Can a father continue to love a son that shamed him by raping the little girl next door? Can a daughter love a mother that continually embarrasses her in public where she is never seen in a state of sobriety?

The point is that love manifests itself in many ways; one of which being “tough love,” which means disapproving of someone's conduct so vehemently as to hurt them now in the hope of saving them from something worse. With this in mind, you deduce that Williamson's article is not worth considering as a legitimate contribution to the conversation on the subject. And this may answer his own question: “Those are questions that we are not allowed to ask in polite society. Why?” He answered it: “Because polite society does not want to hear the answers.” But the fact is that a good debate on the subject would interest everyone regardless as to the conclusions that may be reached by the various debaters.

So then, we repeat the question that Williamson kept asking on behalf of Rudy Giuliani: “Does Barack Obama love America?” To respond, we recall that if you ask any politician why they run for office, the answer invariably comes back to the effect that they love the country so much, it hurts them to see it kept below potential by the management style of those they seek to replace in office. This is what candidate Barack Obama was saying … and a change in the style of management is what President Obama is now delivering.

As to Michelle Obama, she sounds like the daughter who never gave up loving her mother even when she thought the mother was ashamed of her. Michelle appeared to return the feeling till such time that the mother clearly expressed her pride in the daughter and her husband. Only then did Michelle utter the words: “I have always been proud of you too, mother America … and I never stopped loving you.”

The question to ask should not pertain to someone's love but to their loyalties. This is because love can neither be measured nor compared to something, whereas loyalty to someone or to something can be assessed and compared to the loyalty that one has to another someone or something. In this regard, it is better not to question Rudy Giuliani's own love for America, but to question the degree of his loyalty to America as opposed to say, his loyalty to Israel and to other Jewish causes.

What begins you on this track is the fact that Giuliani married three times. Right there, an endless stream of questions can be asked as to when he stopped loving one woman in favor of the next. And by what percentage his love for one woman was reduced before realizing that he loved another by a higher percentage. This being a futile exercise, it is better to leave it aside, and to stick with the question of loyalties.

And given the fact that the last of Giuliani's wives is Jewish; an ideology where no love is allowed to exist unless it is transformed into loyalty to Israel and to all Jewish causes, the question becomes this: Does Rudy Giuliani realize that he is motivated not by love but by a Svengali kind of brainwashing which makes him sabotage America's interests in favor of promoting Israel's interests – and the other Jewish causes?

This is pertinent in view of the fact that – like Rudy Giuliani – the people who question Obama's love for America are the ones who clearly, unequivocally and shamelessly display their “love” for Netanyahu … an almost exact replication of the intense love that the Jews used to display towards Joseph Stalin; the butcher of the old Soviet Union to whom they referred as their dear uncle.

When we see the intensity with which subject matters are being debated nowadays, we cannot fail to conclude that we are approaching the apogee of something without knowing what it is. The only thing we can be certain of is that a general kind of dissatisfaction is setting-in among the masses which are clamoring for the perfection of the authentic, wishing to see it triumph over the shoddiness of the fake imitations.

And Rudy Giuliani is a fake imitation of what human beings are really like.

The Bang that starts an ideological Universe

In the same way that the Universe came into being with a Big Bang, philosophical constructs start with a single idea from which branch out clusters of other ideas, constellations of thoughts and classes of concepts. If now, we reject the notion that religion is handed to us by a divine power we cannot question, accepting instead the notion that religion is an ideological construct we formulate in our mind – we must as a consequence, view religion as starting with a single idea from which eventually will flow an entire construct that resembles the Universe.

And so we ask: What was the starting point for each of the three Middle Eastern religions which shaped the history of the world so profoundly? In response, we can argue that Islam – being the most recent – makes no effort to hide the reality that it came to build upon the work done by the two which preceded it. Its founder, Mohammad, who was illiterate to begin with, suddenly found himself able to read and write when he embraced the notion that religion was the source of all knowledge. Ever since that time, when religion is not corrupted, Islam and the quest for new knowledge have remained tied together as a single movement.

As to Christianity, the notion of peaceful coexistence has been its foremost preoccupation. Its founder, Jesus, spent his time working to establish a sense of calm and serenity in the relationships that were forged by then between the Roman rulers and the Jewish masses. But when it comes to Judaism – which is the first of the three Middle Eastern religions – we discover that the entire Jewish universe had come out the single notion of hate.

In fact, the folklore relating to the birth of the Jewish religion and Jewish nation makes it clear that the prerequisite to being a Jew is to hate Egypt. The history which the Jews have been celebrating for nearly four thousand years on the day of Passover is that a nation was born to them the moment that they started to hate the land which nurtured them for something like four hundred years. Thus, for the Jew to be, he must first hate Egypt most profoundly, and he must do so at the visceral level … otherwise he cannot be a Jew and cannot claim to be one.

On that day, and in response to an urging of mysterious origin, the Jews got into the business of slaughtering the first born in every Egyptian household. They looted the treasures in the homes and the temples of the land, and they fled Egypt to embark on a long journey toward the Promised Land of Milk and Honey, as they called it. But in reality, that was Palestine – now known to be a member of the Fertile Crescent.

By contrast, to fulfill their mandate, the Muslims gave to the world (1) the university where interdisciplinary knowledge was taught; (2) the hospital where people went to get well as opposed to where they used to go while waiting to die; and (3) they gave to the world the principles of personal hygiene so as to remain healthy because the Muslims reckoned that a healthy mind can only exist in a healthy body.

The Christians, on their part, gave to the world the idea of love, togetherness and peace. Art of every kind sprung up around these notions – including literature and philosophy – thus making it impossible to put together a cannon law or a system of governance that does not encompass tolerance for the other … however different from the norm that other may be. Thus began the system of Liberal Democracy which served the Christian nations so very well for several decades.

When it comes to the Jews, however, we see that in contrast to all of the above, these people gave to the world trickery, wars, hate, fake racial supremacy, and what have you. The Jews see in these traits not a deficit of character but a source for their supremacy over the other races. Thus – in the eyes of the Jews – while any of those traits would be considered a reason to impeach an ordinary mortal, they become a virtue when seen to animate a Jew.

Thus, in a world that is made of authentic Jews, Christians and Muslims as well as fake Jews, Christians and Muslims – there unfolds a drama in which the stakes are high because they relate to matters of life and death. But this is a passion play that resembles a soap opera more than a one-off because the storyline never ends. The play keeps on going day after day without an end in sight because history does not end with the closing of one chapter.

Proof that a different Approach is needed

The February 19, 2015 edition of the Wall Street Journal carries an article by US Secretary of State John Kerry concerning the situation in the Middle East, and a piece by the editors of the Journal which demonstrates that the Jewish forces of destruction in America will kill the baby in the womb and abort it before the thing will have seen the light of day.

Kerry's article came under the title: “Our Plan for Countering Violent Extremism” and the subtitle: “Show the world the power of peaceful communities, and tackle bad governance that breeds frustration.” Expanding on these two themes, John Kerry seems to use the backdoor approach to promoting the George W. Bush so-called Freedom Agenda.

And this is the Agenda that landed among the unhappy peoples of Africa and Southwestern Asia like a lightening bolt, telling them that if they let the Jews run their lives the way they run the American Congress, those people will see their standard of living rise to levels they never dream about. And the peoples of Africa and Southwest Asia responded that the last thing they want is to see “Western” schools built across Africa and Asia to teach the dancing boys and little girls how to compete with the bordellos of Thailand and Sri Lanka where tourists go to have a moment of pedophilia ecstasy.

And they further cried out: “Boko Haram (or no Western education for our kids,) shoot or kidnap the girls before the Jews turn them into cheap sex toys they can play with. And they further commanded: “strap on an AK-47 or a suicide vest,” young lad, because we have been given the sacred duty of safeguarding the future and honor of our people in this generation and all those to come.”

It is the failure to understand the depth of feeling among these people which prompts someone like John Kerry to innocently say the following, and not realize he is throwing more gasoline on the fire: “We have to devote ourselves not just to combating violent extremism, but to preventing it. This means building alternatives that are credible and visible to the populations where terrorists seek to thrive.” To those who see the advent of the Western ways as the dissolution of their societies, the message means that Kerry will now seek to bribe and distract the entire society with shiny objects while implementing the plan to transform it into a giant bordello that will service the depraved men of North.

While it would be a monumental task to try and convince these societies that the Jews will not be allowed to turn them into a Congressional style Jewish whorehouse, it will be an even more gigantic task now, because past history is still fresh in the mind, and the plan for the future is evident in statements such as those carried by the Wall Street Journal and promoted on Fox News … as well as CNN.

Listen carefully to the guests that go on Fox News and put forth a plan to address the current situation. You'll find they behave like robots programmed to speak by one and the same programmer. They all say the same thing even if they say it differently. And what they say now is that America must avoid giving the people of Africa and Western Asia an economic plan that will work because in doing so, they may repeat the experience of the South-Asian nations which curtailed their pedophile prostitution practices when they got wealthy enough to do without it. Hence, the Fox News guests want to implement the old plan in the new lands, but do so minus the economic component.

This idea is repeated in the Wall Street Journal article which argues the point in the following way: “that narrative requires something more than a State department spokesperson did this week … working on 'root causes’ such as insufficient schooling and job opportunities in the Arab world.” In tandem with this, the editors of the Journal want to see a strengthening of the military offensive against people who are fighting for what they believe is their honor and the future of their people.

They want America to reply in this manner: “we need to recognize that the strength of radical Islamists is directly correlated to their battlefield success. Communist ideology lost its appeal when it was seen to fail against the prosperity and freedom of the West. Islamic state will lose its allure when it is defeated and humiliated in the arena it cares about most, which is the battlefield.” In other words, the editors want a war of the religions after which the entire Muslim world will be turned into a sexual fantasyland in the style of a giant Abu Ghraib.

One in Remission and one in Metastasis

Call me cancer survivor if you want but until all test results are in, and sufficient time has passed, there will be no certain way to determine that the cancer which infected my colon has vanished for good. As of now, it looks like it is in remission, which is good news to me. But I still face other health issues that will force me to stop writing for long stretches of time.

As to the truly bad news; it is that the world has not changed much: The cancer by which people still avoid looking at the subject of Jewish responsibility when it comes to problems created by the Jews themselves ... well, this problem is in metastasis and still menacing the world. The last I looked at before checking into a hospital was: “Obama's Middle East Fantasy” by Eli Lake, published in Bloomberg View on February 6, 2015.

This is an article which basically tells America it has failed to be what the Jews desperately want it to be; the lawnmower that grazed the Middle East of its indigenous populations, replanting the patch of land with newly converted Jewish settlers plucked from around the world. And despite the fact that something like this has always been the Jewish dream, fantasy and delusion, Eli Lake, finds a novel reason to blame America for not playing this role. It is because of Obama's fantasy and delusion, says the author of the article.

Whereas bygone eras produced leaders that were delusional fantasists when it came to understanding the realities of the world, America has produced Obama, its very own delusional fantasist, says Lake. And of course, we must expect that future eras will produce delusional and fantasist leaders who will not understand reality as it, and will do the things that will fail to rescue the Jews from themselves.

By the time I got out of the hospital, there was an article in the Orange County Register that hinted at the reality of the Jewish problem since time immemorial. It came under the title: “The Jewish world is contracting toward U.S., Israel,” written by Joel Kotkin and published on February 13, 2015. It said this: “Even then, Jews faced discrimination. Greeks, Romans and other ancient peoples often misunderstood and detested the Jews in their midst. As the Greek Sibylline Oracle suggested: “Every sea and every land is full of you, and everyone hates you, because of your ways.”

Thus, according to Joel Kotkin, Jews can invade any land they want, fail to integrate with the indigenous population but impose on it their own ways, however misunderstood and objectionable they may be, and then blame the entire schmaltzy, degenerating situation on the local populations for not seeing that: “The universality of the Jewish experience grows not from the soil, but from culture and thought developed largely in 'exile.' In this respect, the erosion of the French Jewish community, as well as others, is not just a tragedy for that country, but for the world.”

This means that the Jewish colonial power that never actually materialized has been the first to claim it is mandated to civilize the cultures it invades. But if the latter reject rather than embrace the Jewish ways – however at odds they may be with their own – the locals must be held responsible for what happens to the Jews as a result of the choices they alone make ... giving them the right to claim and receive compensation.

Because what fails to grow in the soil is rootless, the Jewish culture eventually comes to be seen by others as a strangling vine, suffocating them and sucking the life out of them. And despite this reality, you find an article written by Michael Ledeen under the title: “A Chance for Italy to Distinguish Itself” and the subtitle: “Confronting anti-Semitism, Islamic State and Russia's Putin.” It was published in the Wall Street Journal on Feb. 17, 2015

In it, the author plays the classic game of telling potential recruits to the Jewish ideology that the rewards will be awesome if they stick with their plan of marching all the way to conversion. And this is because there is hope that the Jews will be understood eventually. To wit, he goes on to say, tiny Italy is standing up to the combined destructive power of the Islamic State, Russia's Vladimir Putin, and humanity's anti-Semitism.

In fact, this is how the Jewish self-delusional fantasy always begins. But by the time it runs its course, the Jews find themselves facing not hope, by facing the proverbial one way rail line to a concentration camp and what comes after that.

Quiet Reflections on universal Healthcare

I depart from the sort of writing I have been doing lately, even from the style that I have adopted because I feel obliged to do so ... whether or not the effort I am about to undertake will bear fruit. It is that I am going to be away for a period of time that ranges somewhere between a few weeks and a longer duration depending on several factors … but that's not the story. The real story is that the system of universal healthcare we have here in Canada is one that no person on this planet should be without … and I have good reasons for saying so.

I have always tried to avoid talking about myself or the family, but I must say a few things now to illustrate the points I am trying to make. There was a time when a man working alone could support a family of seven, paying to send five children to private schools from kindergarten to college, including private tutoring when needed, and the flying lessons for the one that grew up and became a pilot. I must say, however, that I broke from tradition and chose to go to public school for one year just to see what it's like to be in a public school in Egypt.

And you know what, my friend, none of that would have happened if one of us was stricken by a catastrophic illness. Life as we lived it would have been different if the illness that I caught more than 65 years ago had developed into something more serious than it turned out to be. I caught malaria as a toddler, and the symptoms kept returning three years in a row at Christmas time before they vanished for good. Now a septuagenarian, something happened just before Christmas that caused me to spend the holiday in hospital. It is the kind of catastrophic illness that would have ruined the family had it happened long ago, had it not been in Canada where there is universal healthcare.

I knew I had a problem a few months ago when I was running out of energy, and was getting short of breath when making even a small physical effort. Seeing my cardiologist once a year, I waited for the day of the appointment to tell him of my condition. He thought that ten years after my quadruple bypass, a blockage could have developed, and that I may need a stent. He ordered a series of preliminary tests before going for the more definitive angiogram.

That in itself would not have been catastrophic except for the fact that the preliminary tests indicated the presence of pulmonary fibrosis. I will have to undergo a biopsy on both lungs to determine exactly what that is before a remedy can be prescribed. And then, something worse happened just a few days later. I lost as much as half a liter of blood to the toilet bowl. I went to the hospital where they checked the stomach and found nothing wrong there. They checked the colon where they discovered a growth, later confirmed to be cancer.

That's when all the other tests were put on hold till I undergo the cancer operation which will see half of my colon taken out. A determination will have to be made after that as to whether I should first go for the lung biopsy or the angiogram. Treatment for either or for both will follow, something that will require months of care at a cost that would have broken the budget of any middle class family.

This is why it baffles me that a country like America – having the potential for giving its people the kind of peace of mind I am enjoying at this time as I go into this thing – and not giving it. Even as a child, I could sense the anxiety that the adults around me felt every time my situation worsened. Would my mother have to go to work? Would we have to go to public schools? We had a car in the 1940s called Ballila, and then a Vauxhall later on; we also had bicycles and scooters. Would we have to sell all these and learn to live without them?

I can imagine the anxiety that people in America feel every time someone in the family falls ill. And why does this happen? There is only one explanation; it is that some people believe in the dogma which says it is okay to make money off people in dire need of something. And there is nothing more dire than seeing a member of the family getting worse and moving closer to death. Universal healthcare will do away with that, replacing it with the peace of mind that will rob the rapacious of the leverage they have to suck the blood of the desperate before ordering the blood work that will indicate what remedy they require.

Capitalism ceases to be capitalism when it relies on the exploitation of those it can compel to make it rich. This is where America stands today, and this is how it lost its capitalistic edge to newcomers who understand capitalism as well as did the old American generations, and better than does the new one.

I'll see you here again at some point in the future.

Seeking Wealth and Power by Fraud

Accusing people who disagree with them of antisemitism, and using the Holocaust as a backdrop to warn that when you disagree with the Jew, you help pave the way for the next holocaust, has served the Jewish leaders well and has strengthened their organizations for something like three quarters of a century.

But like the bullet which comes out the muzzle of a gun, the Jewish choice of treating humanity with ballistic aimlessness has hit a snag, and is in the process of flattening out. Accusing someone of being antisemitic for saying A instead of B, and accusing him of being antisemitic for saying B instead of A, has confused people, has forced them to shut up and has allowed the Jew to monopolize the public square in which he spoke alone for himself and spoke alone for everyone else.

This is how the ballistic bullet eventually meets its match which is the inevitable random wall of steel against which it crashes, melts and flattens out. You can see this happen in the column that was written by Thomas L. Friedman under the title: “A Bad Mistake,” published on February 4, 2015 in the New York Times. Having benefited from the setup just describe, perhaps more than any other Jew, Friedman is beginning to realize that coming out the muzzle of a gun with high energy and nothing more than a fantasy to the effect that there will be a salutary Armageddon at the end of the journey – will take the Jews nowhere more pleasant than the practice has taken them during the past few centuries … nowhere but the same old proverbial holocaust.

And so he counsels: “If Netanyahu wants some intelligent advice, he should listen to ... the widely respected Michael Oren who said that the whole gambit was creating the impression of a 'cynical move.'” Well, my friend, that's a loaded sentence because it shows how the Jews have been operating, why their approach has failed, and what makes them retain the old habit which keeps crashing them against the walls of steel.

The fact is that the Jews never listened to a counsel that was not their own because they always believed it was the most intelligent counsel on the planet. That was an idea they fanatically inculcated in their own young and in the young of an American public on which they spent a huge effort to “educate.” But what is it that Oren and Friedman worry about? It is that “the gambit was creating the impression of a cynical move.” As you can see, they do not worry about the cynicism of the gambit; they worry about the impression it is creating. This is so typical of the Jewish culture; the world must understand that they consider kosher the commission of any crime as long as they can make it look like it was committed to serve the greater good. The Palestinians know this well because they have been at the receiving end of Jewish criminal conduct … always whitewashed in America.

So you ask: Who was doing the whitewashing? And you get hit in the face with a reality that dizzies you long enough to miss the significance of this: “Netanyahu; his ambassador; the pro-Israel Aipac; Sheldon Adelson, the huge donor to Bibi and the G.O.P.; and Boehner all live in their own self-contained bubble.” Okay, but who was doing the whitewashing, and who is saying this now? Brace yourself, my friend, because here comes the answer: Tom Friedman of the New York Times spent his career up to now whitewashing every Jewish and Israeli crime; and he is only now talking about the self-contained bubble where Jewish decisions are made before they are shoved down the throat of the American people.

But like the kid who may someday become a late bloomer – but remains for now among the least intelligent – Tom Friedman who learned all those things by rote and by having them hammered into his thick skull over the decades, still cannot see the uselessness in choosing to stick with the form rather than the substance of what needs to be done. Look what he did when he tried to give advice to Netanyahu: “this speech to Congress is in poor taste … the anti-Semites, who claim Israel controls Washington, will have a field day.”

As you can see, he is not concerned that an unhealthy relationship has developed between the American Congress and the Jewish organizations; he is worried that someone will have a field day pointing out this reality. And then, to argue that it is illegitimate to even see this truth or to reveal it to the world, he calls it an act of anti-Semitism. It is hopeless.

But according to him, that will lead to the holocaust that humanity, and not the Jewish organizations, will be responsible for. Thus, no matter how these people feel about a new development, they always come full circle and seek to maintain the status quo by using fraudulent arguments. They are hopeless.

Jewish Hate given Form you can see and touch

I must warn the readers that something is pointed out in this presentation that will cause the Jewish mutilators of history to scramble and hastily re-mutilate the already mutilated history of their creation. What these characters have overlooked is a chronological reality that makes their fake narrative vanish into thin air without them realizing it. Now that they will be told about it; they will re-mutilate what they have mutilated once before.

To make it sound like the Arab Jews in the Arab lands wanted to stay in the countries they called home for centuries, but that their own countrymen (Christian and Muslim Arabs) chased them out, the history mutilators of the worldwide Jewish Establishment put out a story that is dismissed off-hand by those who know the region. The mutilators said that the exodus of the Jews from the Arab lands happened in the decade of the 1950s, following the 1956 tripartite aggression on Egypt in which Israel participated.

Those who dismiss this claim do so because they know that the animosity between the Jews and their fellow Christian and Muslim Arabs was greater earlier in the century when the armed and illegal immigration of the Jews into Palestine was in full swing. This was a time when the Jews were slaughtering the unarmed Palestinians wholesale, and were robbing them of their possessions – land, properties and all. It was an episode that came to an end in 1948 when all that the Arab countries – themselves under British or Ottoman occupation could do – was prevent the Jewish hordes from totally annihilating Palestinian families fleeing the Jewish bloodthirsty savages who were shooting them in the back.

Still, no Jewish exodus happened then despite all that animosity. But what happened a decade later was that the rulers of now-established Israel decided to prod the Jews of the world to go live in Israel where the rulers dreamed of creating a Jewish empire to rival the existing Christian and Muslim empires. They found that a large concentration of Jews existed in the Arab countries, Ethiopia and the old Soviet Union. This is where the worldwide Jewish Establishment began to agitate, and from where it received different responses.

The Arabs and the Ethiopians let the Jews go, but not the Soviet Union which insisted on the Jews paying for the free education they received in the country at the expense of the taxpayers, before they leave and go benefit someone else with that education. This is when the Jewish Establishment organized the campaign of “let my people go” against the Soviet Union … something they did not have to do against the Arabs or the Ethiopians.

What this says is that things do not happen to Jews because they sit quietly and try to live normal lives while the evil others seek to do them in – which is what they falsely claim is the case. No. The truth is that the Jewish leaders are the ones who always try something new and in the process, do it to what they call their people.

This being the history that the mutilators are trying to mutilate and convince the world of their version, takes on a live form, and shown to be animated by the kind of Jewish hatred that alone is capable of fueling it. What is happening is that history is repeating itself … this time not in the Arab countries or Ethiopia or the old Soviet Union but in America.

The Jewish hate you can see and touch is expressed in two columns. One was written by Marc A. Thiessen under the title: “Obama's offensive against Netanyahu backfires,” published in the Washington Post on February 2, 2015. The other was written by Bret Stephens under the title: “A Speech Netanyahu Must Give” and the subtitle: “Barack Obama collects hard favors from allies and repays them with neglect and derision,” published in the Wall Street Journal on February 3, 2015.

In fact, I see no need to analyze these columns because they speak for themselves. Regardless as to the merit of the arguments they carry, the Jewish mentality that is capable of generating this much hate against the country of your birth, says that no matter where these people go to live, they will always work to put the foundation for their own pogrom or holocaust, and will keep pushing till it happens.

Unlike most of the European nations in which they were burned alive, gassed or incinerated, the Jews got out of the Arab countries, Ethiopia and the old Soviet Union in one piece despite all that they did to provoke the locals. And the question is this: How will they get out of America when the time will come?

Self-serving Worldview that leads nowhere

What more effective way is there to get someone to die for you than to tell them the world is at peril and they can save it. This is how master terrorists recruit young and immature minds to become suicide bombers; it is how they recruit older and mentally deficient volunteers; it is how the Jews have been recruiting the fanatics who started wars for them throughout history, and it is how Josef Joffe is trying to incite America to continue the tradition of setting the world on fire in the hope of triggering the Armageddon of Jewish desires.

To contribute to the effort of doing just that, Joffe wrote: “The Unreality of Obama's Realpolitik,” an article that also came under the subtitle: “With the president unwilling to project U.S. might, Iran and other bad actors rush to exploit the power vacuum.” It was published on February 3, 2015 in the Wall Street Journal.

Well, having exhausted the old means by which he could have nudged America to die for the Jews, Joffe came up with a new approach. Being the intellectual lightweight that he is, however, he shot himself in the foot before he even started the presentation. Here is what he did: He first described what great powers do to maintain order in the world. He then asserted that the description applies to the situation between America and Iran. But having forgotten that this situation has been around for a long time, he described Obama's imagined response to it during the six and a half years that he has been in office, by something that happened less than a year ago.

Here is how Joffe put it: “The retort from Mr. Obama might go like this: Iran is No.1 in the region, and we need its help against Islamic State … So let's be good realpolitikers, especially since it's time for a little nation-building at home.” Well, Josef Joffe my not-so-dear friend, Obama's view about nation building is something he brought to the office since the moment he set foot in it. But the rise of the Islamic State did not happen till very recently. Thus, Obama could not have accommodated Iran to combat the Islamic State way back then when there was no Islamic State. You just shot yourself in the foot, Josef; find someone to care for it before it gets infected.

With this fumble hanging around his neck like an albatross, Joffe starts to make his presentation. It consists of drawing a distinction between what he calls a “revisionist” power that only wants more, and a “revolutionary” power that wants it all. You can accommodate the first, he says, but not the second. He gives the example of Napoleon, the early Soviet Union and Hitler “all of [whom] had to be defeated or contained for decades on end.”

This said, he went on to do the very Jewish thing of exaggerating the way he described what he was seeing. To make an ironclad case against Iran, he said it was both a revisionist power and a revolutionary one too. He couldn't miss with that, could he? It is not like killing two birds with one stone; it is like killing the same bird twice using two stones. So very Jewish, so very Josef Joffe.

Being on the train to doing Jewish things, he now attributes to Muslim Iran what is known to apply to Jews, and to Jewish Israel. He says this: “How do you compromise with Allah?” This is the first time that someone said this thing. It is the bastardized version of the original saying: The Nazis thought of themselves as the master race because of what they accomplished. The Jews think of themselves as the master race because God chose them to be his favorite children. When someone did as well as the Nazis, their contention was compromised and they got off the master race train. But how do you compromise with the God that chose the Jews to be his favorite master race? You can't … and this is why the Jews try to live like a master race, but always die like the race that never made it.

Still on the train of exaggeration, Joffe first blames the rise of Iran on George W. Bush who removed Saddam from the scene, and then says that “Mr. Obama is going one worse.” How is that? Well, says Joffe, it is that Obama counted on diplomacy but reaped stalemate. The neighbors are not amused, and the Russians are eager to exploit the situation both in the Middle East and in Eastern Europe. Hey Josef, ignore the neighbors and the Russians, and please explain how Obama's stalemate (if indeed it is the case) is worse than Bush's removal of Saddam.

No, the author does not care to explain. Instead, he says something about supping with the devil, an analogy he admits is dusty but leads to the lesson that you must keep your powder dry … which is what the U.S. failed to do in the spring of 1945, resulting in the subjugation of Eastern Europe and the subversion of Greece. Turkey, France and Italy … Holy misery; what's that about, Josef? And he responds: “The point is that Mr. Obama is confusing revolutionary Iran with a reasonably revisionist power.”

He goes on: “Hasan Rouhani may be reasonable; Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is not” which is why “Tehran keeps pushing forward all over the Middle East – damn Western sanctions, no matter how hard they bite.”

Well then, what to do, Josef? He does not give a straight answer. Instead, he responds with a riddle: “Power is as power does. Iran knows this … Obama does not.”

Forget about working with your head, Josef … there isn't much there you can work with. Better look for someone who will take care of the foot you just shot.

Hear them say they have bigger Fish to fry

Here's a cry that comes not from the heart but from a belly that's on fire: “Put More Pressure on Iran.” It is vintage Judeo-Israeli, but was let out by their mouthpiece; the editors of National Review Online (NRO). It was presented in the form of an editorial, and printed in that infamous publication on January 30, 2015.

Ignore for a moment the merit or demerit of what they say, and tiptoe instead on the pads which are offered by their logic to see where they will lead you. (1) “Senator Menendez and nine other Democrats … don't want to send the bill to the President's desk until March.” (2) “The arms-control community and the elite foreign-policy class back the Obama administration's opposition to the sanctions bill.” (3) “They argue that the bill would move the goalpost of the sanctions regime and the existing negotiations.”

So the question: Where does that lead? The answer ought to be: Wait at least till March before considering the talked about bill. But that’s not what the editors of NRO conclude. Here is what they say: “It would be better to pass it [the bill] now.” And why is that? Because “the bill sets the goalposts where they ought to be.” How do they make this out? Here is how: “It is the position needed to ensure America's and Israel's security.”

Do the editors give an explanation that debunks the opinion of “The arms-control community and the elite foreign-policy class who say otherwise”? No they don't because they say they have something better than the opinion of those guys. Oh yeah! What's that? It is this: “Even members of his [Obama's] own party recognize the folly here.” What folly? Obama's saying that he can't reach a nuclear deal with Iran if Congress [passes the bill].” But that's not what the senators did. In fact, our number (1) item cited above reads as follows: “Senator Menendez and nine other Democrats … don't want to send the bill to the President's desk until March.” Oh, never mind, we have bigger fish to fry here at NRO.

So you ask: Can you elaborate on that? And they say, yes, they can elaborate because there is logic behind it all. The problem, however, is that every time the editors of NRO unfurl their logic, the bellies of friends and foes alike from around the country, crack wide open from the laughter that the logic provokes. Here is an example of that: “In fact, the logic of the bill suggests that any more negotiations without it will be pointless or dangerous.” Hey guys, here reprinted is the number (1) item that was cited above: “Senator Menendez and nine other Democrats … don't want to send the bill to the President's desk until March.” Does it mean that these senators are engaged in a pointless and dangerous game? Oh, never mind, we have bigger fish to fry here at NRO.

Like what? Please explain your thinking. And they answer; we know something you don't know. Again, you cry out: elaborate, please elaborate. And they respond: Oh yeah, you want us to elaborate? Here is elaboration you will not find anywhere else. We can tell you something that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans will admit to. What's that, you ask? And they respond: “The supportive Democrats, plus the Republicans involved recognize a principle that the president does not: You need leverage, not trust-building exercises, to get the result you want.” But if this is true, then how come: “Senator Menendez and nine other Democrats … don't want to send the bill to the President's desk until March.” Oh, never mind, we have bigger fish to fry here at NRO.

You keep talking about bigger fish. What's that about? You really want to know what's that about? We'll tell you what it's about. It is this: “Iran's government budget is once again in tatters, thanks to falling oil prices.” That's it? That's what is getting you orgasmic? Of course, we're getting orgasmic. There is a time for ecstasy and this is it. You don't even have to ask for an explanation because we're giving you one for free. Read and rejoice:

“There was a time when the West had gathered the inventions of the East, and used them to make weapons with which to conquer these people and keep them underdeveloped. Thus, we stayed ahead of them for a while. But the current thinking is that we cannot grow economically unless they too grow with us. This is why many in the West want to do away with the economic sanctions that served us well in the past. But thanks to the Jews, America continues to throw its economic weight around, keeping the others down. We may yet prevail and succeed at reviving the good old days. It'll be exciting to see the Iranians come close to starvation.”

Question: Don't you think there may come a time when the table will be turned, and America will find itself standing alone, suffering economic sanctions imposed on it by the rest of the world? Answer: Oh, never mind, we have bigger fish to fry here at NRO.

Heckling 'low Life Scums' who kill the Virtuous

The other day John McCain called a heckler “low life scum” because he was expressing the view that Henry Kissinger is a war criminal who ought to be arrested and tried for his crimes. Of course, John McCain has the right to his views as does the heckler who may even have committed an ethical offense by violating a rule which forbids the carrying of handcuffs inside certain federal buildings.

That, however, is the sort of civil disobedience which is allowed in a democratic society. It is an act that the dissidents commit in the knowledge they may have to pay a price for what they do; a burden that is costly at times and less so at other times. In contrast, there is another kind of heckling which is done by characters that may not seem to dissent from current norms, but violate a tradition that remains noble in the eyes of many.

These are the fifth columnists that disguise themselves as patriots and play by the rules while they slide into the system of the institution they work to take control of. When they reach the point where they can participate in the governance of that institution, or when they take complete control of it, they begin to show their true colors. They do so by pushing their treasonous agenda on the gullible people that allowed them in and that let them grow into the grave menace which is now dismantling the country piece by piece.

While pretending to play by the current rules, these characters often employ a method that destroys the existing system because their intent is to replace it with one that is shaped in their image. They do so by using media outlets of their stripe to heckle and to drive away individuals of impeccable credentials who come forward to serve the country as best they can with honor and dedication.

One such individual is Chuck Hagel who was viciously heckled in the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere by a low life, treasonous scum named Tom Cotton. Every allegation, accusation and insult that the Jewish motivated maggot leveled against Hagel turned out to be a disgusting trait that best describes the accuser himself. As for Hagel, he proved to be the most honorable human to have graced Washington by his presence in a long time. After serving with distinction for while, he resigned his post and talked openly about the reason why with clarity so intense, it could have killed maggots the way that sunshine kills the germs of deadly diseases.

So here again is Tom Cotton, writing in the same Wall Street Journal, to express the desire of his Jewish masters for mobilizing America's human and financial resources, and for placing them at the disposal of Israel and World Jewry. But mobilize America to what end? To kill the innocent people who did nothing worse than acquire the knowledge which can improve life for them and their descendents. To discuss this situation, Cotton wrote an article under the title: “As the Iranian Nuclear Talks Drag on, Congress Must Act” and the subtitle: “Two essential requirements: congressional approval of any deal and new sanctions if the negotiations fail.” It was published in the Journal of infamy on January 30, 2015.

Here is what Tom Cotton said to himself when he looked in the mirror one morning not long ago: “Israel is not a rational or peaceful actor; it is a radical, Jewish tyranny whose Old Testament explicitly calls for Armageddon. Israel's Netanyahu has honored the call: Israel has been killing people and inciting America to kill alongside it for nearly half a century.”

But instead of writing those words in his article, Cotton wrote the following: “Iran is not a rational or peaceful actor; it is a radical, Islamist tyranny whose constitution explicitly calls for Jihad. Iran's ayatollahs have honored the call: Iran has been killing Americans for more than three decades.” What he did, in effect, is transpose the Iranian and Israeli actors and reverse their activities. It is a typical performance of the brains which are mounted upside-down in the skulls that house them.

Well, the time has come for this young man to acknowledge the mistakes he made when opposing the nomination of Chuck Hagel. He should beg his forgiveness, and also promise the people who voted for him to be senator that he will never again commit an act designed by the Judeo-Satanic cult. And he must warn that in trying to grind down the nations which Israel chooses to be the enemy of the day; America is made to lose its young lives, and made to bleed of its wealth.

This is how a low life scum can redeem himself and be in good standing in the eyes of history.