Karl Rove, a one-Man roving Disaster

Imagine having a magic wand you can wave and make things talk – things that tell you their stories in their own voices. And so, it happens that a hurricane hits your town at which time you wave the magic wand and ask the hurricane to tell you why it is destroying the town. Instead of answering your question, the hurricane complains about the folks who are not cleaning their town fast enough.

If you think this is a hurricane with gall the likes of which no human can acquire, think again. Think because there is at least one human that's endowed with this kind of gall. He is Karl Rove who tells you all about his mentality in an article he wrote under the title: “The Messes Obama Will Leave Behind” and the subtitle: “The list of unsolved problems is long and growing – and that's not counting foreign policy.” It was published on April 30, 2015 in the Wall Street Journal.

The title suggests that America is currently plagued with a multitude of problems that the Obama Administration will most likely not solve but leave behind when its current mandate expires in a little more than a year and a half. But when you read the body of the article, you realize that Rove is talking about one problem only: an economy that is not recovering fast enough.

But you know that this is the economy which crashed as a result of the hurricane that hit it toward the end of the George W. Bush Presidency; the one in which Karl Rove served as “Bush's brain.” Thus, the problems that Rove enumerates are those he left behind when, at that time, the American economy experienced a financial crash like it never experienced before, not even at the time of the Great Depression.

The trouble with Karl Rove is that he does not understand economics. He is not aware that creating wealth and representing wealth are two different things. The people that create wealth are those who produce goods and those who use their skills to serve others. The totality of the goods and services they create at the end of the day constitute the wealth of the nation.

On the other hand, all that wealth is represented by the amount of money that the central bank (the Fed) prints and distributes among the population, using a network of financial institutions to do so. The problem has been that under the Bush/Rove Administration the network was corrupted in two ways. First, the printed money did not go to the people that earned it; it stayed mostly with the financial institutions that were supposed to distribute it. And a great deal of it went to their cronies: the media moguls, the international wheelers and dealers, the gamblers and the like.

Second, the Fed failed to do the job of restraining the financial institutions that asked it to hand them more printed money than was warranted by the size of the economy. The reality is that the people behind those institutions were no longer doing business in America; they were competing against the moguls of overseas using the dollars they sucked from the American public and the American Fed. One way they competed against the foreign moguls was to dismantle America's industrial base and rebuild it in places where labor was cheap.

Unable to sustain this kind of financial anarchy much longer, the American economy reacted as would a human being that has just been kneecapped with a crowbar. It went down on its chattered knees – an event that was literally played out by Henry Paulson who dropped to his knees in front of Nancy Pelocy, begging her to pass the legislation that would save the day before the entire American system implodes.

This being the economy that Barack Obama inherited from George W. Bush and Karl Rove; he was able to bring it back to a reasonable state of steadiness without panicking and without dropping to his knees. In the end, it turned out that his performance was better than most economies of size could accomplish during that time.

Thus, for Karl Rove to come now and attribute to the Obama Administration the Bush failures, and attribute to the Republican House of Congress the success of the Administration, is to continue playing the same sort of political games that almost imploded the American system of governance.

Karl Rove is not a friend of America; he is a one-man roving disaster about to pounce again on its prey, and perhaps finish it off for good this time.

Ideas breeding Ideologues breeding Dogmas

It is not true that some people are born leaders and others born followers. This statement is correct because leadership is linked more to nurture than it is to nature. Look at the history of the leaders who made a mark on history, and you'll find that they were individuals who accomplished extraordinary feats because they were brought up in a certain way, and because fate put them in the right place at the right time.

Wherever you look in whatever field of endeavor you research, you'll find that some people are better suited to lead. Also, there is no denial that some people feel more comfortable following a leader rather than think for themselves, or act independently of someone. To use an analogy, there are the captains who excel at devising strategies, the foot soldiers who are happy to implement those strategies, and everyone else doing different things up and down the hierarchy.

Ever since the principle of division of labor gave nascence to that hierarchy, society has functioned well using it. But like everything else in life, what began as useful soon developed a dark side … and that’s because good and evil are the two sides of the same coin. In no time at all, division of labor fell prey to that reality and developed a dark side that infested the entire hierarchy, spoiling it from head to toe. This resulted in leaders getting drunk with power, and ordering the commission of atrocities. It also resulted in foot soldiers slavishly following the ideas with which they were imbued even after the leaders had disappeared from the scene.

To visualize this phenomenon, it is useful to recall what the apartheid regime in South Africa used to do. It used to train dogs to go into the submission mode when seeing White people, and go into the attack mode when seeing Black people. They were trained to bark at the Blacks and to bite them … and because dogs have no intelligence comparable to that of humans, they would attack even a Black person trying to save a White child from drowning in a swimming pool. This is not a far fetched analogy to make when describing people that turn the ideas hammered into their heads – into the dogmas that make them act as thoughtless dogs. In fact, this is where the word dogma came from.

One American leader, whose example spawned a multitude of ideologues, especially after he disappeared from the scene, is Ronald Reagan. This former President of the United States came up with a few ideas that some people adopted with enthusiasm and did well with them, improving their own lots and contributing to society. Unfortunately, the Reagan influence did not stop here. It affected some feeble minds as well – people that turned the ideas into dogmas they followed with the same dogged determination as that displayed by the dogs of South Africa. And their effect on the American culture has been devastating.

One such dogma freak is Lee Smith who not only consumed every idea that was attributed to Ronald Reagan – whether it was a correct attribution or a false one – but also consumed every idea that the Likud party of Israel threw at the mindless dogs that were willing to bark the refrain of the party in America. The work of Lee Smith is on display in the piece he wrote under the title: “A Study in Contrast, Iran Edition,” published on April 28, 2015 in the Weekly Standard.

In that piece, Smith demonstrates how incapable he is to understand that Reagan was endowed with a flexibility in thinking which allowed him, for example, to bomb Libya without announcing it, but restrained him from bombing the Soviet Union which he mused he would do. Smith contrasts that President with Barack Obama, the current President, who is endowed with the same flexibility in thinking; a view that Lee Smith does not share.

Despite the fact that Obama attacks America's enemies anywhere he finds them but holds back when provoked by the unruly faction inside the Iranian setup, Smith fails to see that the two men are similar. On the contrary, he believes they are opposite to each other.

To prove his point, Smith mentions an incident that happened recently in the Persian Gulf involving Iran. Despite the fact that the differences between the two are stark, he sees a likeness between that incident and what happened three decades ago when Reagan was President. Because Reagan responded forcefully whereas Obama did not, Smith concludes that “what's different now is the man sitting in the Oval Office.”

He wishes Obama had been an ideologue who responded with force as did Reagan because it is what dogma dictates must be done. Well, you can see why these people are hopeless and why nothing will change for them.

They know not legal from legitimate

Published on April 28, 2015 under the title: “Why Is Pakistan More Legitimate than Israel?” Dennis Prager's column sheds much needed light on the reasons why the American culture came to be screwed up so badly under Jewish domination.

The simple truth is that these people do not know the difference between what is legal and what is legitimate. Confusing the two realities in their minds, and spilling that into the American culture, they pushed the spiritual down to the level of the mundane while elevating the pedestrian up to the level of the sublime.

The Jews have repeatedly demonstrated that they do not understand the “legal” to be an artificial construct. It is invented when a number of people get together in the name of society and decide to codify the rules by which that society will be governed. These rules are normally fashioned in such manner as to be compatible with the norms of the society that spawned them. And this is why different societies have different rules ... called laws. In fact, what is permitted in one society could be banned in another. More than that, it happens that the same society reverses itself and allows what used to be banned, or bans what used to be allowed.

Of course, a change of heart of this magnitude does not come easily to human beings. This is why it happens at times like these, that some people invoke what they term the “natural law.” They do so to give strength to their voice as they call for the repeal or the amendment of the laws they say have become incompatible with a society that is evolving.

Even though the term natural law has not gained the wide acceptance it deserves, it carries imbedded in it a profound meaning. It stands for the law that is arrived at by logic and by human instinct when the artificial law that was put together by man has ceased to serve the purpose for which it was invented. In other words, the natural law is the “legitimate” that people look up to when they realize that the “legal” isn't working anymore.

This turn of events can, for example, lead to the possibility of creating anew an artificial legal construct that justifies the splitting of a country into two pieces to accommodate a Hindu and Muslim populations no longer able to live together … and decided to divorce, so to speak. This is what happened to the Indian Subcontinent when the local inhabitants were given the choice of living in one or the other of the newly formed jurisdictions: India or Pakistan.

In addition to being legal, this artificial construct – which was invented by the United Nation – can also be considered legitimate because logic and the human instinct approve of it despite the fact that some people suffered while the plan was being implemented.

By contrast, logic and the human instinct have objected to an illegitimate artificial construct that was put together in circumstances like those which created an Israel out of a Palestine, even if the creation was ultimately given the force of law by none other than the United Nations. That is because the Palestinians were not divorcing or splitting the property they owned as a people. No, this was not happening.

What happened instead was that the property was split into two pieces without asking the local population. One piece was given to the Palestinians, and the other to a total stranger who made a mess of his life antagonizing every property owner in the world that tried to shelter him and nurture him … and ended up having nowhere else to go.

Furthermore, the moment that the stranger took occupancy of what was never his in Palestine; he started to encroach on the little that was left for the Palestinians. And this is where the rest of humanity felt the buyer's remorse, and looked to see if what is legitimate trumps what was made legal. More and more, the people of the world are coming to the idea that if they tolerated the legal status of Israel in the past, they can no longer tolerate its legitimacy.

Sadly, no one has come up with a humane solution to a situation that should never have existed in the first place. And so, it is up to the Jews to do what they failed doing for nearly four thousand years, which is to live like normal human beings. If not, they will continue to suffer what they have suffered throughout their existence.

If Dennis Prager can be made to understand this, he might wish to start teaching human logic and human instinct to the other Jewish leaders, and together begin to fix the American culture they screwed up, as well as restrain the savages now governing in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories.

From Yellow Peril to White Iranian Peril

Old timers such as yours truly remember a time when the West feared the Yellow Peril of Asia. We thought at the time that the Japanese will eventually get together with the Chinese and the other yellow races in Asia to begin the process of conquering and colonizing the planet.

This fear developed despite the fact that the history of the yellow races, especially the Chinese, indicates that these people – as an organized society – are more introvert than they are extrovert. The proof is the Great Wall of China behind which the inhabitants enjoyed being left alone, living their lives the way they saw fit … and without bothering anyone.

Yes, the history of Planet Earth – from Alexander the Great to Hitler – is full of examples that tell the story of this or that one trying to dominate the World. Except for a handful of successful empires, such as Rome and Great Britain whose reigns lasted a number of centuries, most other attempts have failed because the people that the invaders tried to dominate fought back and expelled them after a short period of time. Eventually, every empire that rose came to an end; leaving a world so structured, it will not allow another empire to rise ever again.

Thus, it is a foolish exercise for someone to badmouth a nation like say, Iran, by accusing it of working to dominate its region, if not the world. Yet, this is what Soner Cagaptay, James F. Jeffrey and Mehdi Khalali have done in the article they wrote jointly under the title: “Iran Won't Give Up on its Revolution,” published on April 27, 2015 in the New York Times.

The silly thing about this article is that the authors make their point by citing the history of Iran, saying essentially that the country has hegemonic aspirations such as those that motivated Russia, France, Germany, Japan and Britain in the past. But, instead of concluding that Iran would fail if it tried to repeat those histories, the authors of the article conclude that in the way those countries pushed the world into war in the years 1914 and 1939, so will Iran in our time.

In effect then, the writers are saying that Iran will not achieve its goals without triggering a war. But if such is the case, what comes after that? The authors do not say, because they stop pursuing this line of thought at this point. They neglect to say who will be drawn into the war, how it will go, and how it may end. Also, they avoid saying if they would recommend that someone should spoil a possible Iranian attack on the neighbors by attacking Iran preemptively.

And there is a good reason why they avoid getting into this line of inquiry. It is that it leads to one outcome only; that of saying – to avoid a war that may or may not happen, “our” side must launch a war now, and eliminate the possible Iranian threat before it happens ... if it was going to happen at all. In other words, the certainty of a war we launch is preferable to the uncertainty of a war Iran may or may not launch. And this, my friend, would be the kind of Jewish logic that led the Jews to the proverbial gas chamber time after time.

Now, if we are to believe the propaganda of the Nazis, they were the Aryan race; the Caucasians who migrated from the Iran/Caucasus region to settle in Central and Northern Europe. They tried once to establish what they called the thousand years Reich but failed because they did not represent enough of a White Peril to intimidate their foes and convince them to refrain from fighting back. Alternatively, they could have befriended those they wished to dominate, but failed to do so as well.

Now comes Iran, which represents the authentic in-situ Caucasian race, reviving the notion of a White Peril, and having the chance to succeed where the previous Reich has failed. The authors of the article stress the point that the leaders of this country aim at “building Iranian influence through sectarian and political alliances,” wrapping themselves in the flag of the Shiite Muslim religion only when it is convenient for them to do so.

Thus, while standing as guardians for the broader Shiite community throughout the Middle East, the leaders of Iran see nothing wrong in befriending belligerent Sunni actors, or siding with Christian Armenians against Shiite Azerbaijan when that works for them.

This is what makes the new White Peril more dangerous than the Nazis, in the eyes of those who fear Iran.

When the Whisper goes in-your-Face

George Will wrote a column under the title: “Why Lindsey Graham Would Make for a Fun Addition to the 2016 Field” and had it published on April 25, 2015 in National Review Online. In addition to expressing his own views on the subject, the author tells who Lindsey Graham is, and what he wants to accomplish.

That's when the reader realizes that Graham wants to implement in-your-face what the Jewish lobby and the Israelis have been whispering in America's ears for decades but could sell only partially. Apparently, we are now in for a full blast of the Jewish agenda … an event that George Will says will be fun to watch and to live through.

Does he believe so because he expects that Graham will enliven the Republican presidential scramble with his “quick intelligence, policy fluency, mordant wit, and provocative agenda”? Not exactly, even if this is how the author views the politician. But the author believes in an upcoming lively presidential scramble because the politician describes himself like this: “I'm somewhere between a policy geek and Shecky Green, the comedian … Campaigning brings out the entertainer in you.”

And “so, his [Graham’s] town hall meetings involve '15 minutes of standup, 15 minutes of how to save the world from doom, and then some questions.'” At which point George Will adds a closing sentence to his column: “He at least will enlarge the public stock of fun, which few, if any, of the other candidates will do.” Well, we can see the standup part of those meetings, we wonder about Graham's formula to save the world from doom, and we are uneasy as to those questions.

And there is a reason why we should be uneasy. It is because instead of responding to questions that must emanate from the audience in a more or less unrehearsed fashion, Graham tells the attendees what questions they must ask of the other candidates. And this, my friend, is exactly what the Jewish whispers have been about ... now expressed in-your-face courtesy of Lindsey Graham.

And because those questions have to do with the doom of the world, we must be concerned about a comedian who is in the pocket of the Jews, seeking to put his finger on the American nuclear button by getting elected commander in chief. This is something that the Jewish leaders have craved for decades, and would sacrifice the lives of millions of Americans to achieve.

To get there, Graham is ignoring that half a century of Jewish advice to America (partially or fully taken) on how to conduct its foreign policy, has given rise to groups of Arab and Muslim militias. These youngsters grew up unhappy with their own governments because the latter failed to protect them against foreign invaders. They took matters in their own hands as would any self-respecting militia, and warned America: “we shall do to you what you do to our people.”

Despite the fact that they proved they can do so by recruiting America's own youngsters and getting them to do their deeds for them, Graham wants to implement the most extreme of what the Jews have been advising. If he is as quick, fluent, mordant and provocative as George Will says he is, he must know that this will stir up the militias even more. The result will be that they will recruit more youngsters from America and the West, thus come close to unleashing a war of the religions … something that the Jews crave to achieve even if it means sacrificing the lives of millions of Americans.

To justify all that, Graham has decreed that the Arabs are eligible for the American value set. For this reason, he is committed to putting radical Islam back in the box (the coffin,) says Will. He will do so in the no-country-left-unbombed style because the alternative is to leave it to the Saddams of this world whose governance is on the wrong side of history and cannot be sustained. Well, perhaps – just perhaps – Graham could “take out” all the Saddams of this world. But this will make the joy of the young militias who will then take on America … and win.

Aside from that, Graham has an economic message, says George Will. It is that the old model has failed the country. To fix the problem, the politician wants to replenish the country's workforce by attracting more immigrants because 10 percent growth will not be enough to erase the trillions of dollars of unfunded entitlement liabilities, and no American will volunteer having four children after age 67.

The clown has had his last laugh. But does it mean America will have its last breath under his rule?

How to weave a paranoia net and wear it

If someone is after you and you detect his moves, what you do in response – whether it is effective or not – can't be construed as an indication that you suffer from paranoia. If someone is not after you; it is so demonstrated to you time after time but you insist that you're pursued, this would be indication that you suffer from paranoia.

I see three possible levels of severity when it comes to suffering from the misery of paranoia. The first and mildest level is the one that you have acquired when you were pursued at some point in the past but are no more. And yet, you occasionally suffer from the recurrence of symptoms associated with the mental disorder. The second and more severe level of paranoia is the one from which you suffer at all time even when it is repeatedly proven that what you say is there doing this and that, is never there doing neither this nor that.

As to the third and severest level of paranoia; it is the one from which you suffer so intensely, you structure your life around visions you keep having … visions that never materialize. And yet, you keep responding to events that are never there, spending a great deal of time and effort taking measures that prove to be wasteful if not harmful. This is the kind of paranoia you see displayed in the article that was written by Lee Smith under the title: “Empowering Iran,” published on April 24, 2015 in the Weekly Standard.

Speaking on behalf of the Jewish rank and file that never mandated him to speak for it, Lee Smith and his comrades – all self-appointed leaders of the Jews – wove a complete net made from yarn of paranoia, and forced the Jews to wear it whether or not they like the thing. The latest manifestation of what they are doing is the attacks they continually mount against their American President, Barack Obama, whose every move they interpret as one that aims to empower the enemy they chose for the day – this time Iran.

Despite the fact that America, and other countries, always calls for the cessation of hostilities when they take place anywhere in the world, Lee Smith saw America's urging of Saudi Arabia to halt its air campaign in Yemen as part of Obama's conspiracy “to protect Iranian arms in Yemen [to] protect the Obama nuclear agreement with Iran.” That's paranoia of the third degree.

Having determined that America's toppling of regimes in the Middle East at the behest of World Jewry and the American Jewish lobby – created the horror that is now sweeping the region, President Obama chose to make a deal according to which chemical weapons were removed from Syria ... rather than listen to the same old Jewish songs, and topple the regime there too.

And despite the fact that the Syrian High Command made it clear it will use its chemical arsenal against Israel if America attacked, you see Lee Smith accuse Mr. Obama of doing “nothing to stop [topple] Bashar al-Assad lest he endanger his nuclear agreement with Iran.” This is the kind of paranoia which makes him believe it is better to see another six million Jews gassed in their homes rather than be seen as having given a Jewish marching order to the White House, whereupon the order was ignored.

Another thing that paranoia of this intensity makes you do, is to imagine the unfolding of scenarios that can never happen in real life. Here is the one that Lee Smith is most fond of. He first posits that Tehran's position is a house of cards: “Pull out one, and Iran's burgeoning empire quickly collapses,” he goes on to say.

And this is where he begins to imagine the unfolding of his fantasy: “It's interesting to imagine how the last six years might have gone … As Assad's position became weaker … Another administration might have weakened Iran's position in Damascus and Beirut … Israel might have attacked Iranian nuclear facilities...”

There is one problem with this fantasy, however. It is that when someone is attacked, they tend to respond. And we don't have to go too far to determine how Syria, for example, would have responded. The Syrians themselves said what they would do. They would have gassed Israel to kingdom come, which is the very thing that the Jews say they want America to guarantee will never happen again.

It seems that Lee Smith and the Jewish Establishment in America could not care less if this happened. Why is that? Is it because they would then claim compensation? What a bunch of fraudulent savage demons!

The confused Jewish Sense of Identity

Whatever inspired Charles Krauthammer to write a column under the title: “Obama's Inverted Nixon Doctrine: Anointing Iran,” published on April 23, 2015 in National Review Online, he came close to showing that the 1960 film of Alfred Hitchcock “Psycho” is not such a far fetched story, after all.

In the film, the character of Norman Bates confuses his own identity with that of his mother whom he murdered ten years before and kept the skeletal remains at the family motel – now his alone. The identity of the mother takes over his own when he becomes sexually attracted to another woman and so, he (she) kills that woman. The plot of the film can be thought of as a metaphor approximating what usually happens with the elites of the Jewish establishment.

For example, anyone that converts to Judaism is made to feel and to act as if he (she) were a descendant of the ancient Hebrew tribes. To believe they have a legitimate right to the land of Palestine, they pretend they have a spiritual attachment to the land … an attachment that is stronger than what the Palestinians may feel for a place they have been calling home since the beginning of time.

Moreover, to appease the humanitarian crowd that still believes the Palestinians have more rights to Palestine than converted Jews from Russia or Ethiopia, the Jewish establishment has adopted the argument of the old colonial powers to the effect that “we are more advanced than they … therefore we have more rights than they,” and so the Jews became a legitimate colonial power … in their own sick minds.

But this also made them superior not only to the Palestinians but to everyone else, including the Americans by whose largess they live. For example, they peddled stories to the effect that upon arrival in the land of milk and honey, a Russian Jeweler instantly became the best farmer that the universe has known since before the Big Bang. This is how and why the milk and the honey of Palestine were transformed into the olive and the orange groves in the patches of land where the Jewish Jeweler poked his finger into the ground.

As to the Jewish relationship with the scientists and engineers of Germany and America, Volkswagen would not exist today were it not for the Israelis who made a magnificent discovery about magnesium, the thing that saved the German company from an assured death. And the Americans would not be having the success they are having in Yemen and Pakistan were it not for the Israelis who taught them how to build and use drones.

Now comes Charles Krauthammer who demonstrates that the Jewish confusion of the identities does not end here. Writing about Iran, look what he says in this passage: “a nightmare for the Western-oriented Arab states.” The fact is that the Jews – even those who do not live in Israel – are having those nightmares. These are not the fears of Arabs; peoples that never suffered a pogrom, a holocaust or were “wiped” off the face of the Earth.

Later in the column, the author goes on to say the following: “The [Iranian] regime's ultimate strategic purpose is to … annihilate America's Middle Eastern allies. Which has those allies in an understandable panic.” No, only Israel is in a panic. But given that nobody gives a hoot about Israel's fate anymore, the Jewish establishment has adopted the Norman Bates syndrome in “Psycho” of confusing Arab and Jewish identities. Thus, whatever jealousies, pain or longing the Jews feel, they attribute them to the Arabs.

So you ask: from where might Krauthammer have acquired those notions? And the possible answer is this: “The [Saudis] are resisting being forced into Yemen negotiations with Iran, a country that is, in the words of the Saudi ambassador to the U.S., 'part of the problem, not part of the solution...’” But that's a far cry from Netanyahu saying: “We are about to suffer a second holocaust.”

Seeing someone as being the problem rather than the solution is not the same as seeing him being the agent of the next holocaust. To confuse these two positions is to reveal serious psychological problems.

No, it is not the Arabs who are panicking; it is the Jews. It is therefore fitting that it be left to a former psychiatrist to bring this out. But the odd thing is that he has not presented his views like a dispassionate clinician; he has presented them like the patient who diagnosed himself accurately.

The dark Side of Democracy is Jewish

On the one hand, it can be said that every good thing has a dark side. Whichever way you look at this side, you'll find it to consist in the abuse of what is good about the thing. To use a raw analogy, sugar is sweet but eating too much of it will give you diabetes ... known to be a silent killer.

On the other hand, there is the saying: the cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy. So how can we tell if “more democracy” is a cure or an abuse that may kill? This is the question that confronts us when we read an article such as the one written by William Kristol under the title: “Time for Senators to Step Up on Iran” later revised to read: "A Dark Gulf," published on April 23, 2015 in the Weekly Standard.

The author begins the article by quoting the late Winston Churchill who said three quarters of a century ago that Britain was descending “the stairway which leads to a dark gulf.” But the nation was not roused, says Kristol, and the result has been World War Two. What he avoided doing is tell what would have happened if the nation was roused by Churchill's speeches. Would starting the war a year and a half earlier done Britain any good?

Using this incomplete analogy as a stepping stone, Kristol goes on to say that America has had its debate on the Iran issue because: “For the first time! The op-ed pages and the journals have been full of arguments. What's remarkable is how many sympathetic to the deal with Iran have been critical.” So you ask: Was this the rousing of the nation he wished to see? Or was it the tool that failed to rouse the nation? What did Kristol expect, and what did he get in the end?

He does not answer these questions directly but makes it sound like he is not fully satisfied because the Congress did not speak up. He put it this way: “But the Congress? No.” He blames the Obama Administration for keeping “the elected representatives of the American people” from weighing in. But then, in a typical Jewish fashion, he contradicts himself: “Now they have the chance to do so. The occasion is the Corker-Cardin bill which establishes a process for congressional review of whatever deal the administration reaches.”

But then, descending the stairway to the dark gulf of his own mentality, Kristol calls the bill toothless because it allows the Congress to do what it could do without it “in any case, at any time.” So you ask: What, therefore, does this guy want? And he more than answers this question. In fact, he inadvertently defines how democracy is abused by the Jews. Here he is: “There is no reason to think that passage of this bill significantly increases the chance of reversing such a deal once it is agreed to.” In effect then, he says that democracy for the Jews consists of putting down a process that assures the outcome before the process is even begun. Jewish democracy right out the rear end of a skunk.

But Kristol indicates he is not completely disheartened because “various senators plan to offer amendments … Each needs to be considered and voted on. Such a debate could put the administration and the Iranians on notice as to what Congress would accept.” Why is he saying this? In fact, it happens to be the way that the Congress has functioned since the writing of the US Constitution. Is Kristol, by any chance, hinting that all this came about because he made it happen?

He does not answer that question either but goes on to trash the American process of democracy because he foresees that – unlike the Jewish process – it will not guarantee at the start, the outcome he wants to see at the end of the debate. Here is how he says that: “nothing is more impressive than the forces now arrayed against such a debate … the administration … the republican chairman … the leading pro-Israel group, all prefer quiet approval rather than a serious debate and series of votes.”

And so – playing the role of mamma William Kristol – he now tells everybody what to do. He says: “We think it is in the nation's interest to have a full and free congressional debate. Amendments should be considered carefully, debated thoroughly, and voted up or down … Let amendments be offered. Let votes be taken. Let the debate be engaged.” But mamma Kristol forgot to tell the kids to wash their hands, especially if after peeing, they decide to eat the sandwich she packed for them.

His aim is this: “Perhaps the nation will be roused.” He is trying to provoke such rousing by telling America how to Jew and abuse the system that has worked for it a quarter of a millennium.

They need Training at a deeper human Level

It is happening at an increasing frequency that people in America who are in a position to affect the lives of others, are asked to undergo sensitivity training because they do not know how to comport themselves while interacting with their fellow countrymen. These would be the judges, the policemen and policewomen, some business people, politicians and a few others.

Now, think of it this way – if prominent Americans do not know how to treat their own countrymen, how deficient would they be in their treatment of foreigners? The fact is that these people are very deficient in that area … which is why foreign matters tend to go bad for America even when some of its leaders display a depth of understanding that may impress the foreigners.

And to think that this is not how America used to be should sadden those who are fond of the old days. The reality is that America used to enjoy both the admiration and the affection of most people on the Planet. It happened because America used to give a helping hand to those who needed assistance – acts for which America was rewarded with a brain transfer that enriched it culturally, economically and scientifically.

Something then happened to America which affected its moral compass, sending the ship of state in a direction that spoiled its code of conduct both at home and abroad. It is that a movement which, in time, came to be called Neocon saw its members pave the way for its founding long before this was thought about.

What these people did was attack the benevolent nature of America, and replaced it with the tendency to provoke other nations for the purpose of getting them to react. When they did, the would-be Neocons pounced on America, and urged it to respond with the full force of its military … which it did, regrettably too often.

Although the thought existed to doing so, the Neocon movement was never registered as a formal organization. However, the participation of its members in promoting the goals of their common ideology leaves no doubt that the movement is here and operating at full speed. It also leaves no doubt as to who is in it, and who is not.

Two examples of the work that these people do came into the public domain on April 21, 2015. One was given the title “Congress Should Try to kill the Iran Deal Now,” a piece written by the editors of National Review Online (NRO). The other was given the title: “A NATO Setback in the High North” and the subtitle: “Finland's election weakens a bulwark on Russia's doorstep,” a piece written by the editors of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ).

As to the editors of NRO, the title of their piece says it all: “kill the Iran deal now.” They go on to explain both openly and in subtle ways what other members have been saying for a while; mainly that Iran must never be allowed to dabble in such technologies – whether for peaceful purposes or any purpose. And since Iran will not agree to these demands, America must get ready to bomb it.

As to the editors of the WSJ, the title of their piece tells of a sadness that has gripped these people because the election in Finland “marks a setback for NATO enlargement.” They explain that the newly elected leader “prefers developing Finland's Partnership for peace with the Western Alliance, [one that] doesn't extend NATO's Article 5 clause.” And they tell what that is in this way: “Much of the Finnish political class doesn't mind that, viewing the country as an area immune to conflict.” Can you imagine this? The Neocons weep because America is getting involved in a place that promises no conflict. What has the country done to merit a fate as boring as this?

It is easy to dismiss all that as the work of lost souls mouthing off what comes to mind, unable to come up with something eye-catching or provocative enough to give them the notoriety they crave. Whether or not this is entirely accurate, it leaves a profound impression on people in the other professions, among these being the judiciary and the police who deal with naturalized Americans of foreign origin. It also leaves an impression on business people and politicians who do work at home and abroad by mingling with foreigners.

Thus, the sensitivity training which these people receive must go beyond the awareness of the cultural differences that keep the ethnic groups apart from each another. It must extend to making them aware of their own humanity because this is what connects people to each other at a level that is deeper than any culture can take them.

Jewish moral Clarity vs. the new hard Realities

The reason why the American Congress initially connived with a handful of Jews, transferring a good part of the nation's governance to the Jewish lobby, is because the Jews promised to bring relief to the overtaxed brains of the men and women who exhaust themselves mentally running for office. The Jews promised the victims of this so-called democratic process, the kind of moral clarity that will reduce every decision they make to checking point A or checking point B.

And so, in the same way that the grand strategy for dealing with foreigners or with domestic opponents was reduced to the gambit 'you're with us or you're against us,' Jewish moral clarity simplified the world to a point where members of the Congress could see no shades of gray between what was good and what was evil. For this to work, a slew of nouns and adjectives were employed to indicate what was what. For example, freedom being a good word, it was attributed to America's friends. Dictatorship being a bad word, it was attributed to America's enemies.

The gambit worked as long as the world was divided into two spheres, each influenced by one of the two superpowers – one regarded as good; the other as evil. But when the “evil” Soviet Union dissolved, and America became the sole superpower, the force that made the gambit work began to weaken. This prompted the Jews to hurry up and divide the world into two new spheres of influence: one democratic and aligned with America; the other terrorist and bent on destroying America.

Soon, however, things began to get complicated because the world fragmented into a multi-polar state, and a great variety of influences. It is a place where a friend in one set of circumstances can be the enemy in another set of circumstances. It is also a place where my friend's friend can be my enemy; and my enemy's enemy can still be my enemy. It is the new hard reality; the graveyard where simpleton Jewish moral clarity was buried.

This development shook the American intellectual landscape so badly; it surprised those who are old enough to remember a bygone era when people knew instinctively that the world was made of shades of gray. They developed relationships with all kinds of people and all kinds of institutions, each at a different level of trust and friendship. These relationships continued to be maintained whether they turned out to be the friends or enemies of other friends or enemies developed earlier.

So the question now is this: how do you deal with a world that is this complicated from a vantage point at the helm of America's system of governance? Two American Presidents faced this question. The first was George W. Bush who left the governance of America to minions that made a mess of his presidency. The other is the current Barack Obama who employs the “horse sense” that Ronald Reagan was famous for. Reagan followed his instinct rather than the advice emanating from Jewish ideology. So does Barack Obama whose moral clarity makes Jewish morality look, smell and feel like the spray of a skunk.

You can sense the mental anguish suffered by those who grew up bathed in the sea of Jewish moral clarity. Among these are the editors of the Wall Street Journal who wrote a piece under the title: “Shadow Plays in Yemen” and the subtitle: “Obama tries to back Saudi Arabia – but not enough to rile Iran.” It was published on April 22, 2015 in the Journal. Like the subtitle suggests, Obama is trying to establish the correct balance between two poles that can easily tip-over and turn extreme.

Instead of seeing this diplomacy as a kind of wisdom attributable to the horse sense that was known to Reagan, the editors of the journal compare it to the move that was made by his predecessor, Jimmy Carter, a President that also governed with the same kind of horse sense.

But the editors of the Wall Street Journal do not like what they see. They call the Carter move a signal with “not much resolve,” and they speculate that the Saudis will not be impressed by Obama's sending an aircraft carrier to the coast of Yemen without signaling his preparedness to stop Iranian ships, also on their way to Yemen.

From this point on, the editors go on to do all sorts of mental somersaults trying to justify the taking of a hardline against Iran, but collide each time against a reality that is as complex as the following:

“The Saudi move follows rumored back channel talks between Riyadh and Tehran.”

“Mr. Obama has insisted that the nuclear negotiations with Iran will not affect broader U.S. Mideast policy or reshape U.S. regional alliances.”

“In Syria the U.S. has gone out of its way not to hit regime targets.”

“The Administration also reached out to the Houthis as recently as January.”

“Mr. Obama seems to believe that his nuclear concessions will mollify Tehran and moderate its behavior in the region.”

“Would Mr. Obama risk his nuclear deal over a naval incident? The Iranians surely doubt it.”

Any of those moves would have been applauded if made by the “Greatest Generation” that governed America right after Word War Two. History would be discussing them now in glorious terms. But such is not the case with Obama having made those decisions because the sea of Jewish moral clarity flooding America has severely disfigured the current intellectual landscape.

Let not America's moral clarity which is now forming, come to resemble the Jewish moral clarity that died under the weight of a complex multi-polar world, and was buried unceremoniously not long ago.

From self-loathing to nostalgic Pride

What does Israel need? And what do the self-appointed guardians want for it? To answer the first question, we note that Israel pretends to be a nation, therefore it must need what every nation on this planet needs: to be at peace with its neighbors and the rest of the world as well as have reasonably good relations with everybody.

As to the answer with regard to the second question, we have an example of what one self-appointed guardian of Israel wants for it. He is Bret Stephens who wrote: “Israel Alone,” a column that also came under the subtitle: “Previous quarrels between Washington and Jerusalem were about differing Mideast perceptions. Now the issue is how the U.S. perceives itself.” It was published on April 21, 2015 in the Wall Street Journal.

The subtitle and the introductory sentence instantly reveal that this is going to be a display of logic so weird it applies not to the human species of this planet, but to a strange kind of existence from somewhere else. The introductory sentence reads as follows: “senior Israeli officials are shot through with a sense of incredulity. They can't understand what's become of U.S. foreign policy.” Thus, the guardian who lives and writes in America, and the leaders who live and govern in Israel hold the view that Israel needs something having to do not with Israel or its relation with the neighbors and the rest of the world – but has to do with the way that the U.S. views itself, and the way that such view determines U.S. foreign policy. Weird indeed.

When someone is powered by this kind of logic, you don't expect him to explain how Israel views itself in relation to its neighbors and the rest of the world; or what it is doing to improve those relations. You expect to see something strange come out the screwed up mentality of that guardian of Israel. And guess what, this is exactly what you get from the mind of Bret Stephens who says that the leaders of Israel: “don't know how to square Barack Obama's promises with his policies. They also fail to grasp how … they are astonished by … and they wonder why...”

Wait a minute, you scream as you shake your head at the computer monitor. What's that about, Bret? He says it's about the nonchalance of the American administration with regard to Iran's power plays, al Qaeda's gains, Assad's use of chemical weapons, the success of ISIS, and Russia selling missiles to Tehran. It is also about the solicitude that the American President has for Ali Khamenei's political needs while neglecting those of Benjamin Netanyahu. So you ask: Is that it? That's what defines Israel's needs? That's what the Israelis and their supporters have been working on during all these years in fulfillment of Israel's needs as the normal nation it pretends to be? Yup. That's what Israel needed in the past and hopes to continue receiving in the future.

There is a problem with that approach, says Stephens, because “the Israelis haven't yet figured out that what America is [now] isn't what America was [previously].” He goes on to say it may be tempting to wait Mr. Obama out till someone succeeds him, but quickly warns that this would be a bad idea because of two reasons. The first is that the current administration is “creating a set of irreversible realities” in the Middle East, he says.

The second reason is that while: “Previous quarrels were mainly about differing Mideast perceptions; the main issue now is how the U.S. perceives itself.” Again, the author reminds the readers that what Israel needs is something which has to do not with the relations it develops with the neighbors or the rest of the world, but with the way that the U.S. views itself, and how such view determines U.S. foreign policy.

And he explains all that. Without using words which are no longer in vogue, he says (using different words) that America used to believe it could provide for guns and butter; the first to be used abroad, the second to be consumed at home. But now, Obama believes that the interplay between the two is a zero-sum game ... an either or situation. Stephens goes on to whine: “The result is an Israel that, for the first time in its history, must seek its security with an America that has nobody's back but its own.”

A moment later, he contradicts himself by saying that up to the 1967 sneak attack which Israel mounted against its neighbors, America was “an ambivalent and often suspicious friend.” He goes on to say that in light of this, Israel took strategic gambles because it understood the value of territory and terrain while throwing to the wind concerns about international legitimacy. He lauds Israel having constantly taken the military initiative, having acted as a foreign policy freelancer, and sometimes even as a rogue one. He says all that as if to mean that Israel must revive the old approach and take it again.

Well, there is only one thing that can be said about all this. It is that Bret Stephens is lucky he was too young to utter these words during those days because were he not, he would have been called a self-loathing Jew who is also an anti-semite. He would have been ostracized by the Jewish Establishment and everyone that’s under the control of that monstrous institution.

But now, like everything that used to be an expression of anti-semitism, this one too has become a source of phony pride to the turncoat Neocons of the current era.

They robbed him; he wants back what is his

The editors of the Wall Street Journal are unhappy with the Ayatollah of Iran because they say he is getting what he wants. They treat him as if he were a bloodsucking Netanyahu in the business of whipping the American Congress into giving him all the weapons that a terrorist regime desires; also give him money, money, money.

But the fact is that the Ayatollah wants nothing that's not his. All he wants is what America and some of its friends froze when they listened to the whispers of the devil himself. You can see what that devil has done to America when you read “Whatever the Ayatollah Wants,” an editorial in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) that also came under the subtitle: “President Obama keeps giving and giving and giving.” It was published on April 20, 2015.

What the editors do not have the IQ to grasp is that in saying Obama is giving and giving and giving, they have admitted that America had been taking and taking and taking. Well, in the civilized worlds that have not yet been contaminated by Jewish whispers, such activities are called thievery. It is that America has coerced some of its friends into joining it to freeze that which belongs to Iran. And why is that? Because the Jews, who do nothing unless they are forced into it, believe that everybody is like them. Therefore, they seek a giant – such as the American Congress – that is also a retarded specimen; and use it to coerce the enemy they choose for the day.

The latest memory the Jews have of what was done to them, is the time when the Nazis humiliated their elders by having them spit on the floor and lick the thing in full view of the family and the neighbors. And this is the sort of humiliation that the Jews wish to inflict on their enemy of the day. Thus, even if the Iranians accept every condition imposed on them, the Jews will still force America to try and squeeze a humiliating something out of Iran. If you want to know how they would go about doing this, study the history of the negotiations that went on for two decades between a fully armed Israel and a totally disarmed Palestine.

Until you do that, look at the WSJ editorial at hand, and pick out indications to the effect that humiliation is what these people wish to inflict on Iran. They start by identifying the demands that were made by the U.S. and its European partners; and by naming the additional U.S. positions – all of which were made before anyone had begun to negotiate with Iran. In fact, they were all Jewish demands and positions … which is why the editors of the Journal are unhappy that the Western negotiating team did not force Iran to take them and be humiliated, or leave them and be bombed.

Because the West failed to make all that as clear as can be to the Iranians, the editors of the Journal lament that Iran will now get back 30 to 50 billion dollars of its own money. In addition, the chances are that more relief from the sanctions will be granted without a credible guarantee that they will be snapped back if Iran cheats. And the editors sort of predict this will happen because the charges of cheating will go to an international committee for resolution … not a Jewish dominated American tribunal. And this will be enough of an incentive for the Iranians to cheat, say the editors of the Journal who speak on behalf of the Jews.

But the bomb is not really what the Jews fear about the Iranians. What they fear is encapsulated in the saying: “He is too smart for his own good.” This is not an analogy which exactly compares a young genius who is also mischievous ... to an Iran that can do nuclear research yet remains dangerous to the world. But it is close enough to show that the Jewish fear is the progress that is made by Iran and by any of Israel's neighbors.

The Jews reckon that if the neighbors get so much ahead of the American weapons supplied to Israel – the latter will be deterred from creating chaos in the region, thus run out of pretexts to ask for donations on which to live. The flow of money will dry up as will the supply of weapons.

This is why the Jews want to deprive Iran (as well as all the neighbors) of any progress – military or otherwise – that would advance those neighbors economically or militarily. The American Congress is too stupid to understand these realities, and will continue to do what it does now. It is diminishing America by a ton for every ounce of accommodation it gives to Israel.

As to the rest of the world, it can be said that those who were under an American spell or a Jewish one, have snapped out of it. They are looking after their own interests … leaving America behind, and leaving the Jews to their fate. It is what their leaders have been inflicting on them for nearly forty centuries.

If only he understood the Message of Mattis

Without saying what he believes the message is, William Kristol presents as a “must-read,” excerpts from the message that General James Mattis gave while addressing veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars – a message that was carried earlier in the Wall Street Journal. Kristol made his presentation in an article under the title: “A Message From Mattis,” which he published on April 18, 2015 in the Weekly Standard.

In case William Kristol did not understand the Mattis message … perhaps the reason why he came up with a trick to get the public involved and help him understand it, I offer my humble effort to help the all-knowing half-Jew understand what the gentile soldier was saying. Simply put, the General was telling the veterans not to be cynical because: “We know that cynicism is another way to give up … consider[ed] as cowardice.”

The four-star General went on to say: “Watching the news, you might notice that cynicism and victimhood often seem to go hand-in-hand, but not for veterans.” With this, Mattis has connected together not only cynicism and victimhood but also 'watching the news.' And this was the point he alluded to earlier while reminding the veterans: “When you looked past the hot political rhetoric.”

But why would a veteran be tempted or even forced to give up? Mattis gives one possible reason. It is this: “Most of us lost the best of friends. They proved their manhood at age 18 … never playing the victim card.” He goes on to talk about the American military in which “units where teenagers naturally stood tall.” But then, something happened, he points out. It is that after serving their country and the world, the former teenagers came home into a society “where victimhood often seems to be celebrated.” Wow! Celebrated, he said. But celebrated how, where and by whom? Well, he answered that question at some point: by watching the news.

But where in the news did they speak of teenaged soldiers who became victims of one thing or another? Maybe – just maybe – General Mattis was referring to the whining of the Israelis and their Jewish American supporters who bellyached: “They throw stones at our soldiers. Oh pity me, pity me!”

These characters were moaning their lot not because Israel was arming young soldiers to the teeth, sending them in tanks and armored carriers to terrorize the unarmed civilian population of Palestine – they were moaning because Palestinian mothers, who were protecting their homes and their toddlers, threw stones at the tanks and the armored carriers. Hence the Jewish groaning: They throw stones at our soldiers. Oh pity me, pity me!

Playing the role of victims being the culture by which the Jews win sympathy, the trick spilled over and infested the American culture. Thus, being victim has become the badge of honor that an increasing number of young Americans consider as the thing to wear on their sleeves. In the face of this reality, the veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan find it difficult not to despair. They go on to become so cynical as to give up on society, and in many cases give up on life itself. They take their own lives in droves to be out of the misery of having to live in America, a place that is shaped by the Jewish dominated dissemination of the “news”.

Old enough to remember how America was like before the advent of the Jews, and comparing it with what it has become under their rule, the four-star General tells the new veterans that they need to come home “like veterans of all America's wars … we endured nothing more, and nothing less, than vets of past wars.”

Not only does the General want the new veterans to avoid being affected by what is ailing society, he wants them to do more than that. He wants them to set the example that will help heal that society. He tells the returning troops: “This is an area where your example can help our society rediscover its courage and its optimism.” But is this realistic? Can it be done?

The obstacles are formidable. To know what they are, you only need to watch Fox News, the audio-visual sister publication of the Wall Street Journal. This is where the political rhetoric that Mattis has warned against is often developed. For example, they bring the grieving mothers of dead soldiers, promising them that publicity will help, but exploit the helpless women by letting them pour their grieving hearts out … over and over and over again.

They also bring in fake quacks who call themselves “concerned veterans” when the only thing that concerns these charlatans is how to bleed America to feed Israel. And what the quacks do on air is quack the kind of political rhetoric that never saved a veteran on the verge of taking his own life.

Jewish Fanaticism forever choking America

Like all groups – be they religious or otherwise – which take in recruits, and make it near impossible for them to leave, the Jewish lobby in America has made it near impossible for the Congress of the United States to do anything that is not in the interest of World Jewry and Israel. The fanaticism fueling that lobby is of dimensions that can only be described in absolute superlatives, as indeed all that is Jewish has become in the America that was fashioned since the days of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.

That fanaticism, and the methods used to inflict it on the American political system, especially the Congress, reveals itself as you study the piece that was written by William Kristol under the title: “The Iran Deal: Oppose, Obstruct, Delay … Defeat,” published on April 17, 2015 in the Weekly Standard. As the title suggests, these imperatives are the ingredients used to cook-up the gridlock which paralyzes the business of America, and moves the business of World Jewry and Israel.

The moment that you read the first few words of the first paragraph in this infamy, you realize that the target of the author encompasses not only the Congress but goes beyond it, extending its reach to the entire system of politics and governance in America. Look at this introduction: “Hillary Rodham Clinton … spent Monday in her van heading out to Iowa. She was preparing for arduous mixing with 'everyday Americans.' We don't know if she had time to take a look at the Wall Street Journal [WSJ] report 'the Kremlin has lifted its ban on the delivery of missiles to Iran.'”

In other words, Kristol is chiding Clinton who is running to be President of the United States, for choosing to consult with everyday Americans rather than spend her time reading the flagship publication of World Jewry, the WSJ, which happened to be reporting on a matter of interest to the Jews and to Israel. This is an unmistakable indication that Kristol is signaling to this candidate and to other candidates that what counts is Israel, only Israel and nothing but Israel.

Having made it clear what the Jewish lobby expects from America, Kristol explains his logic. Speaking of the deal that is in the making between the West and Iran, he warns: “Iran will have no incentive to moderate its behavior at home or abroad … It will be far more dangerous after [it] has pocketed the concessions on the offer.” But you ask: How does he know that? And he says that Churchill has spoken. Apparently, the dead foreigner had said the following decades ago: “they should know that we have sustained a defeat without a war.”

What? Where is the analogy? What war is Kristol talking about? What defeat is he referring to? But then again, this is the age in which deluded souls hear voices echo in their heads. They pick up a gun and shoot innocent people randomly. These are mad men who should be locked up before they go on a rampage. And this is what must happen to every Jew that accuses someone of being evil, or that predicts something bad will happen if his advice is not followed. It is important that America responds in this manner because a deluded man with a gun may hurt a handful of people whereas a Jew speaking on behalf of the lobby can flesh-eat an entire superpower.

Having put on display the full panoply of his deluded fantasy, the author reveals: “Which brings us back to Hillary Rodham Clinton. She supports the Iran deal.” He mentions the legislation that was passed by the Senate on this subject but laments what he judges to be its shortcomings. And so he offers his own remedy; that which he calls the avenues of opposition. They would be the four legs of Congressional gridlock. (1) “Congress can seek to pass bills and amendments retaining U.S. sanctions and removing the president's waiver.” (2) Congress could insist on no waiver of sanctions.” (3) Congress could require all manner of reports on the implications of the [Russian] missile sale to Iran. (4) Congress could block waiver or removal of sanctions.”

He says this is important because: “The key is to work to stop the deal from being signed.” And again you ask: why is that? And he responds: “[Congress] has to summon the spirit to challenge the Obama presidency … a great political party has to have the courage to oppose, to obstruct, to delay … and defeat the deal.”

He goes on: “Let's leave Clinton … seen doing everyday things with everyday Americans. The question is whether the Republican party has the nerve to rise and do what is best for America.”

Well, those of us who know these people, know that to them America has become euphemism to mean Israel, only Israel and no one but Israel.

Snake Pit Attendant running for Office

There was a time, following the explosion of an atomic bomb by the former Soviet Union, in which the self-designated Free World began to worry that the Communist regime in the Union and its Warsaw Pact satellites will come under severe economic pressure and fall. This prediction came true, but the worry that the Pact of the “Eastern” bloc will unleash its military on the world before dying, turned out to be “Western” paranoia.

What happened instead, shortly before the fall of the Berlin Wall, was that the leaders of the Soviet Union and its former satellites began to realize that their centrally planned economic system was not efficient, and they should liberalize it before it crashes – an event that will cause the state itself to implode. And so, the Communist leaders allowed for change to come into their system. In some cases they even asked the West to help them smooth out the transition.

Looking at the world today, the saying that applies most aptly is this: The shoe is on the other foot. In fact, from the looks of it, the members of the Free World are coming under increased economic pressure while those of the 'Second' and 'Third' Worlds are experiencing the sort of high growth that has allowed the 'First' World to begin industrializing a couple of centuries before the rest. And the question is this: Should humanity worry that sensing it might implode, the so-called Free World of the NATO alliance will unleash its military on the world before dying?

Right now, a small segment of the intelligentsia in those countries – calling itself Right Wing – is advocating the use of the military to solve problems it has not yet identified. But in all of this, what cannot be ignored is the paradox of the Right Wing in America being mostly populated by Jewish members, whereas the Right Wing in Europe is mostly populated by anti-Jewish members. How the interaction between these two will end is anyone's guess, but the one thing that remains glaring is that religion will continue to play a large role in America.

In fact, there is in America a religious movement calling itself Evangelical, which can better be characterized as political Judeo-Christianity. It boasts several million voters, which is why everyone running for office on the Right seeks to woo these people. However, instead of carrying a card that says they are members of the ideological faith, the candidates who seek office go before the group and declare allegiance to it. They do so by shouting out their infinite and eternal love, as well as their dedication to Israel and to its Right Wing leaders.

One of those – apparently running for office – is closer to being a religious figure more than a politician; and he goes by the name Mike Huckabee. It happened that a week ago or thereabout, he published a written piece and a video in which he said something to the effect that when you deal with Political Islam, you're dealing with rattlesnakes. He recommends that you take their heads off with a shotgun before they bite you – because the one thing you can be sure of is that snakes will bite you if they can. He included Iran in what he described as Political Islam of the rattlesnake variety.

This conjured up the image of Palestine being the paradise that remained heavenly for almost twenty centuries, but was then rattled by a movement of Political Judaism calling itself Zionism. This happened because of what people everywhere see as the Zionist snake that came to dig itself a pit in Palestine, and turn it into the nest out of which horrors of biblical dimensions will be unleashed on the world.

But of course, a snake pit of this kind requires that someone be there to nurture it, protect it and feed it. Call him a snake pit attendant, that's exactly what Mike Huckabee has been to Israel. Whereas other devoted fanatics have worked to transfer money, money, money from America to Israel, Huckabee realized that residents of a snake pit cannot live by money alone.

What he realized was that the Jews of Israel required protein on which to live. And so, while he joined other attendants in bringing money, money, money to them, Huckabee went beyond all that, and brought them protein. Yes, my dear reader, Mike Huckabee organized for plain loads of American youngsters to be transported to Israel, from whom blood – real blood out of their arms, not metaphorical blood – was drawn to feed something or someone in Israel.

This surely demolishes the claim that the old “blood libel” was a fabrication. It also cements the claim that the Jews never stop working to start wars, and live on the blood which results from them.

Bipartisan Killer of America’s foreign Credibility

In an article published in the April 15, 2015 online edition of the Weekly Standard, Matthew Kroenig explains what, for decades, had been America's policy with regard to the subject of nuclear proliferation in the world, and what he believes it has now become. The article is published under the title: “A Nuclear Turning Point” and the subtitle: “The longstanding, bipartisan nonproliferation standard is dead.”

For a reason – strange or not – Kroenig frames his views inside the context of that nebulous something they call 'American bipartisanship' as if the world gives a hoot whether a Democrat has voted with the Republican majority, or that a Republican has voted with the Democratic majority. The laughable irony – if not a sickening irony – is that the article came out on the same day that the Iranians let it be known they made an agreement not with the United States of America but with the (P5+1) group of nations. And that's a long way away from what the American Democrats or the American Republicans are said to believe in.

The thing they call bipartisanship means something in America that eludes the people who live outside of its boundaries. In America it means that the Jews have spoken, and every American is on notice they must shut up. To the outside world, however, American bipartisanship has come to mean that the Jews have flushed America's credibility down the tube, and that all the nations out there must now speak and act as if America was irrelevant or non-existent.

Thus, you can imagine how the world must be reacting to the first sentence in the Kroenig article: “If there is one thing on which Democrats and Republicans can agree, it is that it is undesirable for countries other than the United States to possess nuclear weapons.” And then you add to this notion the demonstrated “bipartisan” support for America to stand by Israel as it tells the world it may or may not have nuclear weapons, and will not come clean because ambiguity is a cornerstone of Jewish ideology they call religion. Yes, the world says: piss on America and its newly acquired bosses.

Look at this passage: “When it became clear that Pyongyang had been … enriching uranium, Washington sought to shut that program down, demanding 'complete, verifiable, and irreversible disarmament.'” And this passage: “Washington's position sat in uneasy tension with the 'inalienable right' to peaceful nuclear technology, but when superpower is willing to enforce its interpretation of international law, it can have a profound effect.”

Now contrast this with the Jewish song still ringing in the ears of foreigners: “We may or may not have nuclear weapons but will not come clean because ambiguity is the cornerstone of our Jewish religion.” Yes, indeed, says the world, it is time to piss on America and its newly acquired bosses.

As if all of that were not enough, look at this passage: “Perhaps more important, the Iran deal sets a dangerous precedent. The United States is making this exception not for any country, but for Iran, a longstanding U.S. enemy...” Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Wait a minute. Precedent? What Iranian precedent? What about the Jewish precedent of Israel that preceded the Iranian precedent? Does that count for something or not?

Is Kroenig saying that what makes the Iranian example a precedent is the fact that Iran is an enemy of the US whereas Israel is not? How does he think this notion will sit with a world that views Iran as having been the victim of American meddling since the middle of the last century, and the victim of America's ally, Saddam Hussein, who used American technology to gas Iranian troops and Kurdish civilians? Yes, indeed, it is time to piss on America and its newly acquired bosses.

Kroenig goes on: “It will be difficult for Washington to explain that it trusts Tehran but not other countries [who] will demand similar rights, further weakening the nonproliferation standard.” Well, this would not have been such a trivial thing to say – coming from an American – if it had included: Tehran and Tel Aviv.

But don't expect that something like this will ever happen because it is the bipartisan stance in America that Israel should be singled out for praise and protection, but never singled out for the criminal things it does singly or jointly with an American Congress that is willing to stand with Israel and piss on America and the American people.