Between self-Reliance and the Exploit of others

There has probably never been a single article illustrating the important reality as to why the Jews were pogrommed and holocausted in Europe (including the European part of Russia) but not in the Middle East or North Africa (the MENA region) … until now.

David Makovsky has written what may prove to be a classic example of what happened to the Jews when they moved their base of operation in the second century AD from the ancient world of the Middle East and North Africa to the rising new world of Europe. He wrote: “Trump Builds Rapport in Israel; Policies to come?” a piece that was published on May 23, 2017 on the website of the Washington Institute.

The article is about President Trump's visit to the Middle East where he met with most Arab and Israeli leaders, and about his visit to Europe where he met with most European leaders. The American President reversed much of what he considered to be obsolete, and resurrected much of what used to be America's domain but died naturally or was killed by a deliberate act.

What is notable about Makovsky's article is that it highlights the way that the Jews who migrated to Europe began to treat their neighbors. It stands in sharp contrast to the way that those who remained in the ancient world continued to treat their neighbors. In fact, David Makovsky's article is a study in contrast between the self-reliant “old” Jewish culture and the exploitative “new” Jewish culture. The undercurrent reality being that the ancient cultures of the MENA region did not allow the Jews to get out of line, thus had no reason to punish them. In contrast, the new cultures of Europe let the Jews run as wild as they wanted, then turned around and hit them with pogroms and a holocaust.

And so, what jumps at you when reading the Makovsky article, is the question he asks interminably: What has Donald Trump done for us, Jews? The answer he gave each time was “nothing.” But he never neglected to give hope to the rank-and-file; assuring it that Donald Trump will eventually come around and give the Jews what they crave most. This is the modern manifestation of what the Jews began to develop when they moved to Europe nineteen hundred years ago.

This is not to say that those who stayed behind instead of migrating to Europe were saints. Far from it. The truth is that they kept the savage habits which can be seen in the Old Testament. However, they were wise enough not to try exploiting their neighbors who read them like an open book, and would move to discipline them before they went too far.

What follow are crammed excerpts from the article showing how the writer develops two themes simultaneously. On one hand, he says that Donald Trump has done nothing for the Jews. On the other, he says there are signs Donald Trump will do more for Israel than former President Obama ever did. Here is how he put it:

“...a more assertive American tone in contrast with Obama's policy of resolving tension via diplomacy with Tehran … Israeli leaders alongside a grinning Trump declaring [they] appreciate the American change in policy on Iran [but] it remains unclear what has changed besides Washington's tone … Trump [avoided] magnifying US-Israeli differences; omitted virtually all Israeli-Palestinian policy issues. This marks a major shift that Washington needs to clarify … Trump suggesting that Palestine peace talks could contribute to regional peace, but Netanyahu suggesting the reverse … Trump may be planning to follow up his trip with a new set of policies that provide a sense of direction for the road ahead”.

No one; not a Jew; not an American or even the Secretary General of the United Nations could go to any of the ancient countries, and speak to them or speak about them in that tone. They could not do it now, and could not do it in the old days. And neither could the Jews who knew what would happen if they dared to be as vulgar as to say something like: “a shift Washington needs to clarify”.

They would have been told in no uncertain terms that no one owes them anything; not even a clarification. If they want to live in peace with their neighbors, they'll have to rely on themselves and develop good relations with the neighbors. Unlike Washington which keeps pimping for them, they would have been kicked out for asking someone to intervene on their behalf and smooth out their differences with a neighbor they keep abusing.

And they would have been told they must learn to enjoy suffering the calamities they bring on themselves because it is the way they'll learn to stop provoking the others – moves that earn them the calamities they incessantly complain about.

American Think Tanks in moral Disarray

Ambiguity – no matter how creatively it is crafted – is a double-edged sword that is certain to turn against its creator whether or not it has had the desired effect of allowing him to have it both ways in the first place.

A creator of ambiguity uses his handicraft as a tool and a weapon to try and falsely enrich himself or hurt his opponents or both. Because this is a double-think sort of behavior that is not accustomed to in any civilized society, people do not immediately respond to ambiguity. This gives its creator a chance to score a few gains initially. But sooner or later, people come to realize what's behind the ambiguity, and turn against its creator. If lucky, he is stopped in his tracks and forgotten about. If unlucky, he is made to pay for his behavior.

No one plays the game of ambiguity like the Jews who are religiously programmed to seek having it both ways in everything they do and everything they choose not to do. Those among them who renounce that approach when interacting with others, end up living as normal a life as anyone. Those who embrace the game, turn repulsive and are treated as such by a society that would not touch them with a ten foot pole.

Thus, you find that from its beginning, Israel and all those who promote it have played the game of ambiguity because their endgame has been to acquire properties that belong to Palestinians. Their aim has been and continues to be giving them to the Jews who have nothing to give in return. Here again, we assume that the Palestinians would have agreed to sell their homeland … and do what? Exit the planet?

And so, the Jews came up with all sorts of ambiguities designed to work on a variety of temperaments. As expected, they had a few initial successes but were stopped in their tracks eventually. This happened everywhere in the world except in America where the Jews still forge ahead unimpeded. One of the reasons for their continued success in that country, is their appropriation of think tanks – what used to be institutions of high integrity they turned into grotesque propaganda factories for Israel and for all the Jewish causes.

A think tank whose members rank among the most notorious of the Jewish fanatics you'll see anywhere, is the Council on Foreign Relations. It happens to be headed by Richard N. Haass who published an article you might view as a model of ambiguous double-think. It came under the title: “The Six-Day War at 50,” posted on May 23, 2017 on the website of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Speaking of the 1967 sneak attack on Egypt – which he calls a war – he says early in the article that “its legacy remains pronounced a half-century later.” A little further down the article, he says this: “the 1967 war has had an enormous impact all the same.” This means he admits that the attack has had consequences – make that “enormous” consequences – that persist to this day.

In fact, Richard Haass tells what these consequences are: “The battle and its outcome put an end to the notion that Israel could be eliminated. It made Israel permanent. The new state acquired a degree of strategic depth. Most Arab leaders came to [see] their strategic goal as Israel's return to the pre-1967 war borders.” In effect then, Richard Haass is saying that the 1967 Israeli attack on its neighbors has resulted in good consequences accruing to Israel.

Okay, we hear you Richard Haass. But has there been a nefarious consequence to someone? Perhaps to Israel or the neighbors or the world? No … don't expect him to go there. The principle of double-think ambiguity will not allow him to commit an act as sacrilegious as this. What Haass does instead, is respond to those who think the Jews can be responsible for something nefarious – by offering them his yang to their yin. Here it is:

“Even if there were peace between Israelis and Palestinians, it would not bring peace to Syria, Iraq, Yemen, or Libya. Fifty years after the war, the absence of peace between Israelis and Palestinians is part of an imperfect status quo that many have come to accept and expect”.

Translation: I, Richard Haass, choose to play the ambiguous game the Jews have been playing for half a century. I say we want peace because it is good for us. I also say we don't want peace because it means giving up the land. It is because we want both that we say it is the Palestinians who reject the peace. This allows us to freeze things where they are … as we have done for half a century. So get used to the status quo, all of you out there who think of yourselves as more civilized than the Jews.

The sneak Attack that started a long War

Under the title: “The war that made the Mideast” and the subtitle: “A half-century ago, Israel battled its Arab neighbors; we still feel the ramifications,” Michael B. Oren who now lives and works in Israel, wrote an article about the Pearl Harbor style sneak attack that Israel launched on Egypt in June of 1967. The article was published on May 28, 2017 on the website of the New York Daily News.

The attack started a war that lasted six years, culminating in the Egyptian army crossing the Suez Canal in 1973 and chasing the Israelis out of the Sinai. The thing worth noting, however, is that when Michael Oren says, “we still feel the ramifications,” he means we feel them today, half a century later. This is a hugely important point to have been made because – deliberately or not – Oren just slammed the spin doctors populating the mob of Jewish pundits in North America … those who are trying to pull a very nasty trick.

What these characters are trying to do is cement the idea that ending the crime of Israel's occupation of Palestine will not end the troubles we see elsewhere in the Middle East because they want you to believe there is no connection between Israel's behavior and those troubles. This is like saying: if we stop poisoning the patient, he will not recover because there is no connection between his illness and our poison, so let's continue to poison him.

No, no, no, says Michael Oren, you are wrong, fellows, because what Israel did half a century ago has created ramifications we feel today. In addition, the clarification of this point has allowed the writer to establish the reality that every action committed by Israel – indeed by any actor in the neighborhood – creates ramifications that last a long time, affecting those in the region and those beyond.

In effect then, the lesson that the mob of Jewish pundits needs to grasp – and do its blasted best to impress it upon Israel's leaders and their congressional enablers – is that the leaders of Israel must stop living like the hoodlums of a street gang and start acting like normal dwellers of the neighborhood. What cannot be denied is that these thugs think of nothing when passing through a corner of the neighborhood where they wreak havoc before moving on to another corner. Sadly, the Israelis do what they do because they know that no matter what calamity they cause, their congressional enablers will keep enabling them.

What follows is a condensed version of the passages in the article where Michael Oren gives a thorough description of a desperate Jewish entity that's cut-off from the world, facing an economic crisis and going downhill. It is situated in a neighborhood that is full of jubilant Arabs whose future can only get brighter. To renew its sense of purpose, the entity did the very Jewish thing of “defending” itself by attacking neighbors that never threatened it, and by looting what it could from them … so very Jewish. Here are the pertinent passages:

“On one side are those who insist the Arabs never threatened Israel. Others maintain that Israel had no choice but to fight and that this defensive war provided the state with secure borders and a renewed sense of purpose. To decide one has to return to 1967. What did Israel look like then, and how did the region – and the world – appear to its leaders? Israel in 1967 was a nation of 2.7 million, many of them Holocaust survivors. At its narrowest, the state was nine miles wide. Its cities were within enemy artillery range. Economically, the country was in crisis, and internationally it was alone. Most of its arms came from France which, just days before the war, switched sides. The Arabs, by contrasts, were jubilant. With the Soviets arming Egypt, Iraq and Syria, and the U.S. arming Jordan and Saudi Arabia, they enjoyed massive superiority over Israel”.

What then did Israel do? It took a page from the history of the Pacific war a quarter of a century earlier. That was a time when Imperial Japan was mired in endless wars with its neighbors whereas America was jubilant and rising. Washington made it clear it will not tolerate the status quo forever but did nothing to threaten Japan. On their part, the Japanese made moves to lull America into believing they were ready to talk. At the same time, however, they were quietly preparing to launch a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, which they did eventually.

Israel played a similar lulling game during the months leading up to June 1967 because its military leaders wanted to catch the Egyptian Air Force on the ground and destroy it before anything else. Those leaders knew that if they could achieve this feat, the Sinai and Syria's Golan Heights and the West Bank of the Jordan would be an easy walk for their tanks and armored vehicles.

The Israeli politicians played their cards well, and the military followed by executing the plan they had been working on since 1956 when the French and the British showed them how to do these things. Israel pulled it off, thus triggering the six-year war whose ramifications continue to be felt today.

As to Michael Oren, he goes to great length spinning the tidbits of information he cherry-picks from the history of the event to make it sound like Israel was justified in “defensively” attacking and looting its neighbors. This is the way that Jews have lived since their genesis; it is the reason why they ended up alone, reviled and shunned by the human race ever since that time.

The psychotropic Vision of a former Shrink

If you're looking for a spokesman to accurately represent Israel's collective state of mind at this time, you'll find Charles Krauthammer to be a perfect candidate for the task.

The Israelis – or rather the Jews – were not always of the current state of mind. They went through several transformations since the ancient days when they were nomadic tribes roaming the desert in the northern part of the Arabian Peninsula. This was a time when little was developed about the concept of “nation state” having borders as well defined as they are today, and territorial integrity jealously protected as today.

Even the great empires of the time – Egypt, Mesopotamia and Persia – that surrounded the deserts where the Jews roamed did not have lines drawn in the sand to indicate how far they extended. And so, nothing was there to obstruct the Jewish nomads who started to venture into those empires looking for food and shelter. In addition, the Jews discovered that unlike the tribal habit of huddling with your kind, xenophobia was unknown to the dwellers of the empires, a situation that the Jews exploited to the hilt.

Realizing they cannot go back into the arid desert and build an empire as great as those which rose on the banks of rivers, the Jews put together strategies to infiltrate the ruling classes of the existing empires and share in their governance. In time, they got so greedy as to develop two trends that turned out to be the ingredients of their demise. They tried to intermarry with members of the ruling class, and tried to monopolize the levers of power. When the locals understood what the Jews were scheming, they took action to protect themselves and the empire. This meant hard times, even deadly times for the Jews.

By the time that the territory now known as Greece had developed enough to form city states, the Jews that were in Egypt had developed the vision to go to fertile Palestine, snatch it from its owners and build an empire there. By the time they secured the land, the Greek culture had moved west to Rome where it blossomed into the Roman Civilization. And the first thing that the Romans did was expand their empire by conquering other lands. This had them grab Palestine where the Jews were still struggling to build their own empire.

The advent of the Romans helped scatter the Jews everywhere, including Rome where they had little luck infiltrating the ruling class. But as the Romans expanded their reach into the rest of backward Europe, the Jewish sophisticates of Rome were able to impress the locals enough to teach them and to marry from among them. However, Christianity that was having better luck in Rome was also making inroads in the rest of Europe. To compete against it, the rabbis transformed Judaism in the second century AD, trying to make it attractive to the pagans of Europe. The new concoction took on the name Rabbinical Judaism but – flashing the message of exclusive superiority – it failed to compete against the Christian message of compassion and equality. The number of Christians rose whereas the Jews barely budged.

Meanwhile, as the Romans got into prolonged fights battling the Persians, the empire began to disintegrate, and the seat of power moved to Constantinople (now Istanbul, Turkey.) The weakening of the two empires made it possible for a Muslim Empire to rise, conquer and assimilate Persia and the remnants of Rome. This is when the Jews saw an opportunity to turn Europe into the empire of their dream. They embraced the rising Arab Civilization, and tried to impose it on the Europeans. The trouble is that a Frenchman by the name of Charlemagne wanted to unite Europe and rule over it. He was Christian, thus used Christianity to raise armies and went after the Semites – be they Muslim Arabs or Jewish Hebrews.

During the melee, the Jews made the mistake that planted the seeds of antisemitism. To understand how it happened, we need to know something about the ancient Egyptian word, “khem.” It referred to the black silt of the Nile, a material that's used to make many things ... from cosmetics to pottery to building material and what have you. In fact, it was the indispensable chemical agent of the time, so much so, that when the Arabs put down the foundation for modern science – which they started with the development of chemical science – they tweaked the word khem, turning it into al-kemia, which then became alchemy in Europe, and later still, chemistry.

Europe that was mostly Christian by now, considered the practice of al-kemia to be black magic inspired by the devil, meant to compete against Christianity and aimed at destroying it. The Church opened an inquiry to investigate the matter, a setting that came to be known as the Spanish Inquisition. As the Arabs began to be driven out of the parts of Europe they had conquered, the Jews began to slide down the slope of horror, reaching the bottom of the pit a few centuries later in an operation called the Holocaust.

Seeing that small European nations such as Portugal, Belgium and Holland were able to create empires of their own using modern weapons, and colonizing those that did not have them, the Jews got the idea of going down the same path and build their own empire on the backs of others. They also got the idea of enticing the old colonial powers of France and Britain to join them at trying to reconquer the colonies from which they were kicked out.

This began the calamity that took on the name “Occupied Palestine” which is the subject that Charles Krauthammer tackles in an article that came under the title: “Why Middle East peace starts in Saudi Arabia,” published on May 25, 2017 in The Washington Post.

Once an extreme fanatic advocating Pax Americana according to which he envisioned an American military steamroller guided by Jews, sweeping across the Middle East and smashing the existing set-up – Charles Krauthammer was forced to abandon the fantasy for now. He put on hold the underlying dream of crushing the local regimes, erasing the borderlines between the jurisdictions, and placing the resulting parts under Israeli control. In lieu of that, he developed a new delusion; one that happens to be a fantasy that's also shared by all members of the mob of Jewish pundits.

They imagine the formation of an anti-Iran, anti-Sunni terrorism alliance of Sunni nations that will side with an America that's controlled by Jews. This will lead to detente between the Arab countries and Israel, they say, and will force the adoption of the “outside-in” approach to resolving the occupation of Palestine. But when you parse what that means, it comes down to the Arabs joining America in a criminal conspiracy to give Israel what belongs to the Palestinians without Palestinian consent.

All of this will happen, says Charles Krauthammer, speaking in the name of all the Jews. It'll happen because the imperfect Arab peoples and the imperfect Palestinians will finally see the light and come to accept the view that the Jews are impeccably perfect all the time, and unquestionably correct each and every time – he assert with absolute certainty.

The Jackson Diehl Way to praise Egypt

At first blush you might think: What a funny way to tell a forgiving story about a country that was savagely maligned for every good thing it has accomplished!

But when you think about it, you can only wonder what else could Jackson Diehl have done without getting himself fired, maybe even stoned to professional banishment by those who invented punishment by stoning? Read the Diehl article, and pass your own judgment. It came under the title: “Trump got Egypt to free an American prisoner. Here's her story.” It was published on May 25, 2017 in The Washington Post.

It is the story of Aya Hijazi, an American citizen of Egyptian descent. She was charged with something, and imprisoned in Egypt, a development that prompted a number of American publications to write horror stories about her ordeal. And Jackson Diehl decided it was time to add his two-cent worth to the debate.

Uncharacteristic of the mediocre writer he proved to be over the years, he shows an unexpected burst of talent in this article. You can tell this is the case when you see how he began the article, how he let it progress and how he ended it. Knowing that the audience expects to read something bad about Egypt, Diehl responded by letting the readers believe he agrees with the premise of that expectation. But he quietly went on to paint a more pleasant picture of Egypt while exposing the hard facts of the case.

Here is how Diehl started the article: “Hijazi learned years ago that being an American citizen can get you in jail on trumped-up charges in Egypt.” Here is how he proceeded with the development of the story: “I met Hijazi and her husband to hear [that] theirs is a tale of what can happen to activist Americans in an increasingly hostile world … [Egypt] regards civil society groups backed by U.S. money or activists as national security threats”.

This was the first hint dropped by Diehl that Egypt may have been justified to suspect that Hijazi could be harboring nefarious intentions. Conscious of the fact that the American public and government are reeling from the effect of foreigners interfering with their system of governance, Diehl counted on that same public grasping the danger inherent in strangers going to Egypt where they establish unlicensed foundations financed with foreign money and run them out of apartments in residential areas.

This done, Jackson Diehl went on to describe how Egypt conducted itself in a laudable manner – in this case as in all the others – despite the unending storm that's engulfing the region.

Here is Diehl's description of the situation on the ground: “There were other reasons too: They were young and political. Young people drove the 2011 revolution [that toppled] Hosni Mubarak and so are seen as a strategic threat … They were intoxicated by the seeming potential for change in the country but disillusioned by the polarization of its politics”.

Hijazi and her husband may have been free of nefarious intentions, but a country that saw constant interference in its affairs for decades could not forgo investigating what this couple was up to. Past interference in Egyptian affairs came in the form of pirate radio stations established for the sole purpose of inciting the population – twenty four hours a day – to rise against its own government. Following such incitements, the country was repeatedly invaded by old colonial powers and new wannabes.

It was from such experiences that the Egyptians gathered what the American intelligence services are just beginning to learn. It is that foreign agents are trained to entangle unwitting American citizens in seemingly benign activities, but then gradually turn them into traitors without the citizens realizing what they are becoming. Now, you can be certain that the Americans will change their procedures to reflect these realities, thus come to resemble the Egyptian procedures.

America may someday put people in jail; may even execute them not knowing they were innocent. Perhaps this is happening now in America … and there is no telling what horror takes place in its jails. At the same time, however, all that was said about maltreatment in Egyptian prisons turned out to be false. Aya Hijazi and her husband came out of one as good as they went in … physically and mentally.

Thank you Jackson Diehl, I couldn't have said it better than you.

A Mob's Lesson for the Morons of Congress

Nothing scares the elected representatives of a so-called democracy – one that's devoid of lofty principles – than a groundswell of opposition coalescing against a stance they take, or one they fail to take on an issue.

The leaders of the Jewish worldwide crime syndicate understood this reality and took advantage of it by mobilizing the foot soldiers of their rank-and-file, and got them to flood the members of Congress with personal calls and letter writing campaigns. They told the morons how to serve Israel, always Israel and no one but Israel.

And then it happened that the rank-and-file began to realize they were not serving Israel or the “Jewish people,” but the self-appointed Jewish leaders in America, and those they elect in Israel; every one of which proved to be an accomplished kleptocrat, and some going to jail. In all cases, those charlatans stole and continue to steal not only the aid money that's provided by the American taxpayers, but also the European money that's specifically sent to compensate Holocaust survivors who, by the way, continue to live in abject poverty.

Meanwhile, the erosion of the Jewish rank-and-file forced the Jewish leaders to mass produce a new generation of so-called journalists and media pundits. It trained them to bark the same refrain in unison, and do so on cue. It then sent them out to occupy every nook and cranny in the print and audio-visual outlets of America. Calling itself the voice of the people, the mob pretended to speak in the name of the millions of voters across the land.

The people are angry, said the mob, and they can't wait for Election Day to arrive because they are eager to throw the rascals out. Repeating this performance at every election cycle, the Jewish leaders managed to scare the morons of the Congress who succumbed to the trick and played up to them. The morons' reaction was to double and triple the sums of money they send every year to the Jewish kleptocrats in Israel, thus enriching them and enriching those in America too.

One of the Jewish pundits that's fulfilling his mandate as efficiently as any is Jonathan S. Tobin. He wrote: “Who's Ready for Peace?” an article that was published on May 24, 2017 in National Review Online. He is echoing the same refrain as Benny Avni whose article came under the title: “Trump and the promise (and pitfalls) of Mideast peace,” published on May 22, 2017 in the New York Post. It was reviewed on this blog just yesterday in an article that came under the title: “The self-deceptive Fantasies are starting to roll,” by yours truly.

Tobin begins his article like this: “President Trump's unfounded optimism...” and ends it like this: “Trump is likely to fail as miserably as every American president who gambled his reputation on a fool's errand.” Between the start and the finish, Tobin does what Avni did two days earlier. He tells layers upon layers of lies based on mutilated history, fashioned to slander Mahmoud Abbas, an exemplary human being they detest for no reason except that he is a good man.

Like Benny Avni, Jonathan Tobin rejects the call to peace now because he assures us that despite all those Jews who are rejecting the call to peace – and have been for half a century – the culprits are the Palestinians who rejected the peace on all previous occasions. This performance and half a century of experience, leave us with the certainty that five years from now, the Jews will reject the call to peace once again, and claim it was the Palestinians who rejected it five years ago. And the performance will be repeated time after time after time.

Given that the American voters have realized that throwing the rascals out means getting another set of rascals to replace them, is there a way to shame the congressional morons of every stripe, and force them to serve the people that elect them rather than those pretending they have the power to tell the electorate who to vote for?

Well, when it comes to sociopolitical and/or economic transformation, my view has always been that nothing artificial we can do, will replace what natural evolution will. This is why we should let nature play itself out, do no more than prod it to help it along, and avoid administering what some call “shock therapy”.

America is on a trajectory whose destination no one can predict. For this reason, we cannot prod it to move in any direction and be safe. What we can do, however, is push back against those who prod it in a direction we know is unsafe. How we know that? We know it because the pushers are the Jews who've had a four thousand year track record of calamities for themselves and for those they touched.

Their influence must be snipped to save America and the world.

The self-deceptive Fantasies are starting to roll

Here is an example that shows why at the end of every run, the Jews prove to have screwed up everything they touched. What's boggling – but no longer surprising – is that they always argue they did everything right except that the antisemitism of others prevented them from getting their due rewards.

While no such argument is offered this time, there is plenty that shows how the Jews begin every run with a lie that's designed to give credence to their fantasy and with this, start the ball rolling. The example in question is an article that came under the title: “Trump and the promise (and pitfalls) of Mideast peace,” written by Benny Avni and published on May 22, 2017 in the New York Post.

To understand the author's thinking, we must begin with the reality that a situation called status quo already exists. From the title of the article, we understand that the writer has developed expectations for the future, but warns that everything may come to naught. What we need to know, therefore, is the basis of Avni's expectations, and whether or not they were pushed to the level of fantasy. As well, we need to know if the pitfalls mentioned in the title are real or if they are the expression of fear that the status quo may be altered negatively. That is, instead of altering to realize the fantasy, the status quo may alter and make it impossible to achieve the fantasy.

The first indication we get that Avni is building a monument of cards, comes early and goes on – peppered throughout the article to the end. It unfolds like this: “Trump's language about Muslims has gotten him in trouble [but] the Sunnis were more concerned about America's tilt to Shiite Persia … The Sunni leaders quietly turned to Israel in recent years … In this newfound amity, Trump sees potential for peace between Israel and the Arabs”.

In fact, Avni bases his assessment of the current situation on what President Trump has said upon his return from Saudi Arabia, and what happened during his sojourn there. He reports that Trump said this: “Their [Arab] feeling toward Israel is positive.” As to what happened during his stay there, Avni recounts these events: “There's progress: In the 1970s, a Jewish secretary of state, Kissinger, needed a permit to enter the Kingdom. This week, envoy Greenblatt got kosher meals there”.

This is a non-story that Avni has turned into a pillar supporting his fantasy. The reality is that in the 1970s, the Egyptian army had crossed the Suez Canal, and was mopping up the Sinai of the Israelis that had invaded it. Despite the fact that President Sadat of Egypt had assured President Nixon of the United States that he will not cross the border into Israel, America intervened in that war against Egypt. And Saudi Arabia responded by instituting an oil embargo against the United States.

When the Americans indicated their desire to talk to their Saudi “friends” about the situation, the latter insisted that the envoy America will send, obtain an entry visa before coming. It happened that the envoy was Henry Kissinger who needed the visa not because he was a Jew, but because he was American. As to envoy Jason Greenblatt, he may have eaten kosher meals in Saudi Arabia, but he tasted the graceful nature of the celebrated Arab hospitality.

But why is there a need to build a house of cards in the first place? The simple answer is this: To perpetuate the fantasy that the mob of Jewish pundits has been pushing for sometime to reassure the rank-and-file. It is this: “Arab leaders never really cared about the Palestinians much … In the end, uniting against Iran may well be more important to them. Which means they'll give a bit on the Palestinian issue”.

Finally, what would be the worth of a Jewish article if it did not contain a lie that's based on mutilated history, fashioned to slander an exemplary human being they detest? Go through everything that a Jew has said during the last half century, and you'll find the Jewish rejection of the call to peace “now” because the Palestinians rejected it “previously”.

Here it is one more time, expressed by Benny Avni: “Will Arab leaders lean on the Palestinians to drop unreasonable demands … Abbas is demanding to start talks from where they stopped last tine when he said no to concessions made by Ehud Olmert. And Palestinians scoffed at this week's Israeli gestures. Netanyahu partners oppose those concessions anyway”.

In other words, Avni says: blame the failure on Abbas because I am telling you he said no previously, even if you're hearing Netanyshu's partners say no at this time.

And this is why, my friend, it will not be surprising if the Jews manage once again to torpedo the march to peace. It will not be surprising either if they proved yet again to have screwed up what they touched.

Arab Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

Trying to teach the editors of the New York Times the meaning of their own American Constitution is like trying to teach rocket science to a 4-year-old.

Let me begin with the concept of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is easy to construct a visual representation for this concept, so maybe it'll do them some good. Imagine a car or any sort of vehicle you build to transport things. You need two important mechanisms in such vehicle: an engine to make it move, and brakes to make it slow down or stop.

A life in motion is a life that progresses, which means a life that evolves. But every progress is not necessarily a good thing; and even a progress of the right kind can be bad if it happens at the wrong speed. This is why you need brakes to slow down progress when it races ahead too quickly; or to stop it cold if it proves to be of the wrong kind. There are two ways to make brakes that work on the evolutionary process: There is the method of the traditional rituals, which evolve over time; and there is the method of the reasoned out codes, which are usually made in response to newly attested needs.

Even before our species had developed the ability to reason, we instinctively accumulated a slew of rituals to govern our interactions with each other and with the other species. And then, for thousands of years after that, we adhered to those rituals but allowed them to evolve so that they jibe with the changing circumstances. Eventually the rituals became what we now recognize as the “Common Law” whether or not we call it by this name as do the British.

As long as life moved leisurely at its own pace, the Common Law remained the governing law in Britain and in the places where they called it by a different name. But something happened around two and a half centuries ago that accelerated the pace of life exponentially. That was the Industrial Revolution. Its effect has been to necessitate the formulation of another set of laws that could quickly respond to new needs. This set took on the name of Civil Code, a body of laws that was formulated in France, and was put to use almost everywhere else. America, whose Constitution was formulated at that time, was heavily influenced by those ideas.

All of the above is the background that should help us understand the difference between the words “function” and “code.” Here is a definition for each. A function is the work you perform if and when you can. You do it because you take pride in your achievements. A code is laws you adhere to because you respect it and/or you know that if you break it, you'll be punished.

We are now ready to see what it is that makes the editors of the New York Times repeatedly come up with editorials as shallow and silly as their latest. This one came under the title: “President Trump's Mideast Contradictions,” published on May 23, 2017 in the NY Times, of course.

Speaking of the speech that President Trump gave at a gathering of Muslims in Saudi Arabia, the editors chided him because they say “he said nothing about the need to advance the cause of human rights in Muslim societies that discriminate against women and minorities.” To keep the discussion moving, we pretend that the editors are correct, which they are not, given that Trump said this: “That means promoting the aspirations and dreams of all citizens who seek a better life – including women, children, and followers of all faiths. Numerous Arab and Islamic scholars have eloquently argued that protecting equality strengthens Arab and Muslim communities”.

What are these editors missing? Their biggest problem is their lack of realization that to be solid and to hold together, a construct of any kind must be coherent. This means all of its parts must work together as smoothly as possible. If an external force intervenes and causes a change on one of the parts, all other parts must adapt or the entire construct collapses. Because the parts do not all change simultaneously, they take time to complete the transformation. If the change to accelerate is made by outside intervention, the power of the rituals (in this case called tradition) or the Common Law itself spring into action, and slow down the change or stop it cold.

In the old days – before the Industrial Revolution – the process for change came naturally and was eventually incorporated into the Common Law. But when the Industrial Revolution accelerated life, it became necessary to reason out new laws so as to keep up with the times. This is how the Civil Code came to be.

Now that this code is here, the people who are in charge of writing or amending it, try not to go too fast changing things. Instead, they take into account the ability of society to absorb the laws that will compel them to do things differently. This is a process that takes place all the time in every jurisdiction.

As to Saudi Arabia, they have been working quietly on changing their society for decades, and they put down a plan that will bring it to modern levels by 2030. They took their time writing the necessary laws because their goal was not to motivate people out of fear or punishment. Instead, they wanted the people to embrace the coming evolution out of pride for the progress they will be making as they contemplate living their lives in liberty and happiness.

The way that President Trump reminded their leaders of this commitment, shows a deep understanding of those concepts. The way that the editors of the New York Times attacked him, demonstrates they are as ignorant as ever and getting worse.

Scrounging for Leftovers after the Banquet

A complex story is unfolding on the world stage at this time but little of it can be told as of now because the story is still in the early stages of development. What we can do, however, is create a fictional story and develop it along the lines of what we know is true about the real story, and what we project will happen.

We imagine that the world is represented by a hotel. It has been around as an institution for a long while, and was run by a multitude of managers and sub-managers. It has seen chefs and sous-chefs, and masters of ceremony of all kind, come and go. These individuals served for a while – some for a long time, and some a short time – and then left on their own accord or were let go for one reason or another.

One chef from among the multitude of all the chiefs that came and went, stands out because he lasted longer than anyone. Moreover, when he was asked to step aside, he did not simply disappear. Even though he is officially no longer in charge of anything at the hotel, he lingers on inside the premises where he passes unsolicited judgments on everyone and everything … behaving as if he owned the place.

In the real life that is unfolding on the world stage, that chef is actually a political pundit named Eric Trager. He just passed judgment on what's happening on the world stage, putting his thoughts in the form of an article that came under the title: “Trump's speech in Riyadh puts ball squarely in court of Muslim-led governments to fight terrorism,” published on May 21, 2017 in the New York Daily News.

When you read the article, you cannot help but develop an image of the unemployed chef of the fictional story, going into the dining room of the hotel just after a banquet in search of something. In reality, he is hungry and looking for leftovers to eat; and he is hungry to find something to criticize ... and perhaps get his old job back. Indeed, Eric Trager used to be the voice that everyone took into consideration when looking for guidance on the Middle East, but is no longer what he used to be in this domain or any other.

And so, making light of the fact that circumstances on the ground in the Middle East have changed a great deal since the day that former President Barack Obama visited Cairo eight years ago; and since the time that former President George W. Bush was in office sixteen years ago – Eric Trager draws comparisons between the approaches that were taken by the three Presidents.

Eager to build a case that jibes with the vogue that's currently propagated by the mob of Jewish pundits, he asks the question: “Can this step-up-and-defend-yourselves strategy work?” and answers it like this: “There is ample reason for skepticism.” This paves the way for him to conclude the article in the image of a chef that just gorged himself on leftovers, and then took one last bite just to spit it out. He did so while crying out with scorn that this dog food is inferior to his own cooking.

And so, in the space between Trager's question and his conclusion, a scornful writer attributes the changes that came to the Middle East – not to the evolving local circumstances over sixteen years – but to the changes in the strategies that were adopted by the various American Presidents.

He begins to describe that line of thought with this observation: “[Trump's] address reflected a more substantive break” from the approach taken by his predecessors. He goes on to explain that Trump focused on the governments and on terrorism rather than the people and the “conditions that catalyze volatility and violence” in the Middle East. His intention is clear, he wants the world to know that Trump is making a mistake by dropping the Jewish line of using “freedom” and “democracy” as weapons to dominate the world . Here are his words:

“Nor did Trump link terrorism to the absence of democracy or freedom within the Muslim world … Trump's speech didn't include the words 'freedom' or 'democracy' anywhere … 'We are not here to lecture – we are not here to tell other people how to live, what to do, who to be, or how to worship,'” he quotes Trump as saying.

It is worth mentioning that a casualty of the Jewish approach has been the re-defection of most Second World nations. They once believed in America's democracy and defected to it, but then discovered it was mangled by the Jews to serve Israel. They quickly discarded it, and dared not look in the face of Third World nations lest they hear them say: We told you so.

Is this another Mountain begetting a Mouse?

Do you know the story of the mountain that went into labor and begot a mouse? If you don't, let me tell you about one that may be in the making.

But before we delve into the storyline, we look at the moral of the story. Imagine someone telling you how you should do things, then saying how well you did them, then saying he is not here to tell you how to do the things you did well. What do you think is going on here?

The best way to answer this question is to look at an actual case. It is that of the President of the United States of America, Donald Trump, who went to Riyadh in Saudi Arabia and delivered a speech to the predominantly Muslim nations of the world that had gathered there. Trump said the following to them:

“Many already are contributing: Jordanian pilots are crucial partners. Saudi Arabia and a coalition have taken strong action. The Lebanese Army is hunting operatives. Emirati troops are supporting Afghan partners. American troops are supporting Kurds, Sunnis and Shias. Qatar is a crucial strategic partner. Kuwait and Bahrain continue to enhance security. Afghan soldiers are making tremendous sacrifices … The nations here will be signing an agreement to prevent the financing of terrorism. It is another historic step … The Gulf Cooperation Council also blocked funders from using their countries as a financial base for terror”.

The trouble is that just before that, Trump had said the following:

“The nations of the Middle East cannot wait for America to crush this enemy for them. They will have to decide what kind of future they want for themselves, their countries and their children. It is a choice between two futures; one that America cannot make for you. A better future is only possible if your nations drive out the terrorists and extremists. Drive them out of your places of worship, your communities, your holy land and this Earth … For our part, America is committed to adjusting our strategies to meet evolving threats and new facts. We will discard the strategies that have not worked, and apply new approaches informed by experience and judgment. We are adopting a principled realism rooted in common values and shared interests”.

Looking for the roots of that ambiguity, we find some of them in passages like these:

“The future can be achieved through defeating terrorism and the ideology that drives it. Few nations have been spared its violent reach. America has suffered repeated attacks – from the atrocities of September 11 to the devastation of the Boston bombing, to the horrible killings in San Bernardino and Orlando. The nations of Europe have also endured unspeakable horror. So too have the nations of Africa and even South America, India, Russia, China and Australia”.

This says that the roots of the problem are numerous, and all are not growing in the Middle East. In fact, most are endemic to the places where the acts of terror take place, committed by local individuals or groups. These are youngsters who develop local grievances, and lash out at the societies that cause their grief.

Only the September 11 tragedy can be attributed to Arab nationals operating away from their base of operation. It was masterminded by Bin Laden, a former ally of America who was put in charge of assembling an army of fanatic Islamists willing to die fighting a “godless” Soviet Union that had invaded Afghanistan. Bin Laden fulfilled his mission with the help of the Taliban in return for an American promise to assist in rebuilding Afghanistan, and to keep its military out of Muslim lands. When America broke both promises, Bin Laden sought to teach it a lesson, and so he did with the 9/11 operation.

What happened after that, and after the end of the Cold War that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union, is that the Jewish Hate And Incitement Machine (JHAIM) saw an opportunity to create a new villain for the “West” to hate. It fired up all its operatives, and put them in charge of spreading hatred for Arabs and Muslims anywhere they happen to be. It also incited the politicians of the so-called democracies – those in government and those waiting in the wings – to act as if they had declared war on Islam. This was the wake-up call that awoke the local youngsters who were growing up under the weight of official and societal discrimination. If anything, it motivated them to fight back in Europe, Africa, South America, India, Russia, China and Australia”.

What now?

Well, there seems to be a good idea in the speech that was given by President Donald Trump at the gathering of Muslim nations. Here is what he said:

“We will make history with the opening of a new Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology … we will discuss many interests we share together. Above all we must be united in pursuing the one goal that transcends every other consideration. That goal is to meet history's great test – to conquer extremism and vanquish the forces of terrorism”.

This is good, but until that center is opened, staffed and made operational, President Trump can make good use of his upcoming trip to Israel. When there, he can look in the faces of those in charge and tell them:

“State terrorism is state terrorism whether it is decided by autocratic dictate or by 'democratic' vote. The occupation of another country is the most extreme form of terrorism. When practiced, like you're doing for the purpose of uprooting the indigenous Palestinians, and giving their land to settlers that come from around the world – you show yourselves to be a worldwide crime syndicate. A better future for the world will only be possible if your extreme ideology is driven out of the synagogues, the communities, the holy land and this Earth”.

Unless President Donald Trump says something to that effect while in Israel, his trip to the region will have proven to be a recreation of the mountain that went into labor and begot a mouse.

Demonic Rearrangement of the same old Tune

Speaking on behalf of the Israeli leaders as they often do, Dennis Ross and David Makovsky are at it again telling the world they want to see the Palestinians – who had everything taken away from them – place the fate of their children and grandchildren in the hands of the Jews … and all that in return for nothing.

The Jews also want America to pressure the Arab and Muslim countries to accept this demonic scheme, thus legitimize it in the screwy sense that the Jews define the word “legitimization.” All this and still more can be seen in the article that Ross and Makovsky co-authored under the title: “A Mideast peace gameplan for trump,” published on May 19, 2017 in the New York Daily News.

If you are familiar with the saying about the same old wine being sold in a new bottle, you'll understand what the two authors are trying to do for Israel. It is that after securing for themselves everything that is Palestinian except the Palestinian consent to keep it, the Israelis have at long last learned that the Palestinians will never consent to the robbery of their country. So they gave up on this quest and sought instead the consent of America and the Arab countries to keep what belongs to the Palestinians. This is logic made with Jewish DNA and nothing else.

To confuse, deceive and implement the horror, Ross and Makovsky came up with the idea of splitting the issues separating the antagonists into two categories. One is a package called core issues, which the writers say must be shelved for now. It contains the delineation of the borders, the security arrangements, the matter of refugees and Jerusalem. The Jews also came up with a last-minute trick – as they often do – to serve as booby trap for when they'll need to use it. They called it “mutual recognition of the character of the other's side state”.

Aside from the booby trap, the package of core issues is where the Palestinians stand to get back some of what is theirs. And this is precisely why the two writers say it must be shelved for now to concentrate on the package of non-core issues. The latter contains the Palestinian implicit acceptance of what the Jews have grabbed and what else they may wish to grab from future Palestinian generations. This is what Ross and Makovsky say must be agreed to at this time … not by the Palestinians, mind you, but by the Americans and the Arab countries.

The Jews want American and Arab acceptance of the idea that what's “inside the security barrier” – euphemism that means stolen Palestinian territory – is land that the Jews can keep without negotiating for it; a kind of up-front bonus for Israel. In return, the Jews will promise not to steal anymore Palestinian land, but only as long as the negotiations will continue to the satisfaction of the Jews. And there is another catch; they want the Palestinians to get “serious about fighting incitement to terror” by starving the families of Palestinian youngsters who commit an act deemed violent by the Israelis regardless as to why a youngster may act as youngsters do. Breaching any of these conditions will give Israel the right to resume the rampage of looting Palestinian lands.

To convince the Americans and the Arab countries that this is the only way the peace process can move forward, Ross and Makovsky are advancing the following arguments:

First, recognize that the conflict cannot be solved at this time, but that a dent must be made in the “culture of disbelief” that's now gripping the antagonists. Implementing the package of non-core issues will make that dent.

Second, recognize that the Sunni Arab leaders “desperately want the US to remain engaged in the region,” thus can be pressured to give the Jews what belongs to the Palestinians out of fear of the Iranians.

Third, without advocating the repeal of the infamous “Jerusalem Embassy Act,” which legitimizes the criminal annexation of Palestinian East Jerusalem by Israel, Ross and Makovsky call on President Trump to do some kind of abracadabra magic and “align perception with reality” which should lead to the recognition that “West Jerusalem is and will always be part of Israel”.

Fourth, recognize that Donald Trump must challenge both sides (not the Israelis and the Palestinians, but the Israelis and the Arab countries,) pressing the Israelis to stop stealing any more Palestinian land while the negotiations are ongoing; and pressing the Arab countries to admit that West Jerusalem is part of Israel, without the repeal of the legislation that makes East Jerusalem an inseparable extension of West Jerusalem.

If Ross and Makovsky have it their way, Israel will get all of Palestine today, tomorrow and forever by the consent of America and the Arab countries without the Palestinians having a say in the matter. So very Jewish!

Proof that Israel is a ghoulish charity Case

If you ever wanted proof that Israel is a charity case, there is one now; and you have Jonathan S. Tobin to thank for the service he just rendered. He wrote: “The Latest Trump Controversy Shows Why Israel Is Not a Charity Case,” and had it published on May 18, 2017 in National Review Online.

His first sentence is this: “[Israel] is a strategic asset we rely on for indispensable intelligence." He goes from there to say “that without Israel's help, America is often flying blind in the Middle East.” To that end, he described the failures that America suffered in the region without mentioning one success. If he wants us to believe this is not flying blind, we might object, but...

But you know what, my friend; Jonathan Tobin is correct. The reason I say this is that the history of the region can only be described as that of Israel and her mouthpieces forcing America to promote Israel's interests at the expense of America and its people. Guess what else comes out of Tobin's presentation; America paid Israel for the deadly disservice, and kept increasing the payments year after year.

No, America's leaders were not flying blind in the Middle East; they were clear-eyed about what Israel wanted, and they delivered it with extra bonus each and every time. This is why Israel kept getting inflated with the passage of time whereas America kept getting deflated.

Tobin expands on his point of view by correctly pointing out that Israel's Pearl-Harbor-style sneak attack on Egypt in 1967 was conducted with French Mystere and Mirage warplanes. In fact, that was the only battle Israel ever won. But it was the battle that started the 6-year war which ended in 1973 with the Egyptians crossing the Suez Canal and booting the Israelis out of the Sinai.

What happened during the interim six years – known as the War of Attrition – was that the Jews were able to con the US Congress into believing that Israel was winning, and that it deserved to be rewarded with a finger of American largess; a reward that kept growing till it swallowed the whole arm. Israel continues to nibble at what else is there despite its defeat and the necessity for America to rush to its rescue.

So you ask: What kind of weapons was Israel using in 1973 when it was defeated? And what king of success did it have using American weapons? The answer is that Israel was using American weapons in 1973 when it was defeated. It started receiving them because General de Gaulle – then President of France – was angered by the Israelis when they used French warplanes to bomb the civilian airport of unarmed and helpless tiny Lebanon.

Ever since that time, all that Israel was able to accomplish using American weapons, was to bomb unarmed and helpless tiny Gaza or bomb unarmed and helpless tiny Lebanon or send a warplane to bomb a position in Syria at a time when that country had its hands full with an ongoing civil war.

In addition to telling a mutilated history, Tobin said this: “The Americans were able to draw upon Israel's intelligence network throughout the region, as well as take advantage of Israel's expertise in designing weapon systems.” So you want to know how America might have benefited form Israeli intelligence, and you look for an answer in the article. You find this: “Israel still faced enemies, including an Iranian regime that was strengthened by the toppling of Saddam Hussein.” What a surprise! Was this the outcome of America benefiting from Israeli intelligence? Or was it the direct result of Israeli fabricated intelligence?

As to America taking advantage of Israel's expertise in designing weapon systems, there are several fascinating stories to tell in this regard. The two most comical examples involve the Chinese and the South Koreans.

The Israelis went to the Chinese and said they are experts in designing airplanes, and they can help them set-up an indigenous Chinese aerospace industry. Great, said the Chinese, when can we come look at the facilities where you gained all that expertise? Astonished, the Israelis exclaimed: facilities! What facilities? We don't have facilities; this is why we came to you. We have the experts who will advise you, and you'll do the work. And the Chinese looked at the Israelis in the eyes and told them something like: get the f**k out of here, and don't you ever show your ugly faces around here again.

The Israelis tried to pull a similar sort of stunt in South Korea with regard to steel-making, and were met with the same kind of reaction because as everyone that worked in industry knows, you can read up on how to make something, but until you make it over and over again … failing and succeeding partially many times till you have it perfected, you cannot call yourself an expert. It seems that the Jews will need another million years of evolution before they can grasp this concept.

Sadly, there was a time when the Israelis were able to fool someone as to their expertise in something. That's when they convinced the editors of the Wall Street Journal they had the secret to using water efficiently. The editors published the story of the great Israeli invention that was going to educate America on how to become a water-rich nation. The lesson was this: make the users pay for the water they use, and this will compel them to be efficient. Whoa! How brilliant! What a bunch of geniuses those Jews. Why did God not create all of us as smart as them? Yes, my friend, believe it or not, this is America under Jewish tutelage.

The reality is that the Jews know as much about designing weapon systems as a squirrel knows about brain surgery. Anyone that believes they know more should have their head examined by a squirrel. Otherwise, better believe that Israel shall remain an eternal basket case in the same way that the Jews have remained a basket case since the beginning of time.

Moaning to Monetize a fake Moment

You engineer a fake incident with the view of exploiting it but the events take a life of their own and develop differently from what you had in mind. You quickly rearrange the chips to exploit the new moment.

Instead of the quid pro quo you were aiming for, you now have a situation in which you can play the victim and gain as much as you originally wanted or maybe even more. What a lucky Jew you are!

This kind of scenario can only play itself in America, and the actors can only be the usual suspects. They would be Israel playing the role of the bloodsucker, America playing the role of the pushover, and the four stooges being played by The Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and the Weekly Standard.

Scene One opens on May 17, 2017 with each of the last three publications relaying one aspect of the story. Writing an op-ed in the New York Times, Yossi Alpher lays out the background like this: “[2 days ago] The Washington Post reported that President Trump had disclosed highly classified intelligence to senior Russian officials.” He says this much in an article he wrote under the title: “What Israel Makes of Trump's Intel Gaffe,” published in the New York Times, of course.

As to Jenna Lifhits, she reassures the diehard rank-and-file that has not yet defected to the ranks of the BDS movement, that “Trump Disclosure Unlikely to Harm Intel Cooperation with U.S.,” an article that was published in the Weekly Standard. And last but not least, you have none other than the editors of the Wall Street Journal who instruct President Donald Trump and warn him that “Loose Lips Sink Presidencies.” It is an editorial that also came under the subtitle: “The Russian intel story shows the price of Trump's lost credibility,” published in the Wall Street Journal, of course.

Since Yossi Alpher served in Israel's Mossad, and since he directed a center for strategic studies, what he reveals about this matter tells more about Israel; about what it wants and how it goes about getting it – than what the Wall Street Journal or the Weekly Standard or the New York Times can ever reveal. After all, these publications as well as the Washington Post were the stooges that Israel used like umbilical cords to suck America's blood and treasure.

But considering that Yossi Alpher intended all along to derive maximum benefit for Israel from what happened, how did he spin the argument? Well, the first thing he did was to cast a wide net of ambiguity over the event. Look how he did that: “Islamic State plots to blow up airliners with bombs planted in laptops … The specific accuracy of these press reports is a secondary issue. The primary issue is the affront to protocol...”

In other words, he first asserted that this was an important event because lives could be affected by what happens next. He then added: But you know what; nothing of what was said may turn out to be accurate.

Having produced a confusion he can exploit, he now seeks to create a fake moment he can dance around. To this end, he tells what else came with the affront to protocol. It is this: “...as well as concern for the safety of the intelligence source, which was compounded by the impression that the leak came from a witless leader oblivious to the gravitas of his office.” Wow! There is enough here to turn even a paraplegic into a Fred Astaire.

Not only did Alpher engender sympathy for the intelligence source that may or may not exist in a dangerous zone, he also denigrated the President of the United States whose light weight intellect is no match to the weight of his obligations, says Alpher.

But having admitted to “Israel's considerable dependency on American support,” why did he take a chance insulting the President of the United States so viciously? He did it because there is nothing more powerful than to moan: “I have been victimized by one of your own, America; one that's so demonstrably stupid, you should have kept on a leash”.

In fact, this is what allowed Yossi Alpher to end his article with these words: “No question, Mr. Trump has caused totally unnecessary damage. But does that mean he now owes Israel a favor that Mr. Netanyahu can call in?” You bet Netanyahu will do just that. But the useful question to ask is this: Will Trump listen to him or will he tell him: not one red cent till you get out of Palestine.

Fictitious Dots on a Map that never was

The truth is like a dot on a street map. Each dot marks a crucial point on a street that represents an event of some significance. When you connect the dots, you create a road-map that's supposed to lead to a desired outcome conceived in the mind ahead of time.

The beauty (if you can call it that) about adhering to the Judeo-Yiddish culture is that you're allowed to design the truth that suits your changing circumstances as time passes. Each time that the circumstances are altered, you discard the worn out truth and design a new one. The trouble is that connecting the dots under these conditions leads to the creation of a new road-map each time that the circumstances change. Because this approach replaces the singular truth with a malleable fabrication, you can be certain that you'll be hit with outcomes you never thought you’d see.

Half a century ago, an alien culture of the Judeo-Yiddish kind infested the American culture, reducing it quickly and to such an extent, no one realized what was happening till it was too late. In fact, the alien culture became the source of confusion and paralysis that gripped America, and has maintained it in that state ever since. What was a superpower that had everything going for it became almost unrecognizable in no time at all.

In fact, there was a time when America did not have to scare nations to be respected; and did not have to cozy up to people to be loved. By comparison, America's most formidable task force could not now scare a pauper nation; and the wizardry of its scientific and industrial achievements could not impress even a primitive people.

You can see an example of the confusion that has led to America's paralysis in the article that came under the title: “There's No Such Thing as the 'Arab Street,'” and the subtitle: “Suddenly, Middle Eastern intellectuals are coming to me for 'ground truth.'” It was written by Jonathan Schanzer of the comical outfit that calls itself 'Foundation for Defense of Democracies,' and published on May 16, 2017 in the Wall Street Journal.

It is difficult at times to discern the demarcation line that separates one era from another because the change usually comes gradually and almost imperceptibly. Not in this article as you can see in the terse declaration that's in the title, “There's no such thing...” This tells of an era replacing a time when the ability to speak in the name of the Arab street used to be the credential the “Middle Eastern intellectuals” had to have before telling the audience how the dots connected to create the road-map that leads to the nirvana of the Arab World.

America bought a jar full of something believing that it contained the potion that’ll lead to the promise the Arabs should realize but didn't know how to do it. What America got in reality was a jar full of Jewish venom proven to be the deadliest substance since time immemorial. Not knowing any of this, America went on a fantastic journey to the Arab nirvana of its own imagination, and produced an Iraq of pure horror, a Libya of sheer sorrow, a Syria of endless lamentations, and a South Sudan of heartbreaking pity.

What you see now are the likes of Jonathan Schanzer wiping out the old approach and replacing it with the new. In a typically Judeo-Yiddish fashion, you see him erase the ideas that used to make up the arguments of olden days. These were the concepts that led America to believe it knew enough about the Arab Street to ride the tanks and the gunships, and go tell the Arabs what was wrong with them. Connecting the fictitious dots on a Jewish map that never was, America packed the Arab World with pure horror, sheer sorrow, endless lamentations and heartbreaking pity.

Now that Schanzer and the clowns like him have had a change of heart, they admit they used to pursue a silly joke that caused the biblical size calamities we see today in the region. No matter, he says, because he developed a new theory about the Arab World. But worry not he hastens to add, because he is certain it will work better than the one he and his buddies just discarded. To flesh it out, he explains that the Arabs are not a monolithic mass, but individuals like everyone else. Who would have known that?

He goes on to say that local intellectuals and Arab ones too go to him and ask what to do, but he tells them he doesn't know anymore. As to the people that populate Trump's State Department, he wishes them good luck because they face two harsh realities: ‘the Arabs hate America, and the Middle East is a quagmire,’ he says.

In other words, he is reviving the formula that tells America: Give us the money and the weapons, and we'll complete the job you started in the Middle East but did not finish. That’s his demonic message.

The Difference between the two is self-Respect

It is hard to believe that the Jews are now asking America to treat Israel the way that Russia does. But is the request for real, or is it another Jewish sleight of hand that lets you look at one thing yet see another thing? It's all there, my friend, look at it and judge for yourself.

It is an article that came under the title: “Russia Recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's Capital. Why can't the U.S.?” and the subtitle: “Trump must soon decide whether to move the embassy. Doing so would help promote peace.” It was written by the infamous Eugene Kontorovich and published on May 15, 2017 in the Wall Street Journal.

The story Kontorovich has taken up this time is that of the no-self-respect congress of 29 standing ovations, doing it to America one more time; the Jews are at it again. They are the ones that tried to do an end run on America by sending their pregnant women to Jerusalem to have their babies there (in a demonic plan that was eventually rejected by the Supreme Court) and force America to recognize as legitimate the criminal annexation of Palestinian territory by Israel.

What happened is that the body of shame that's made of a house of ill-repute and a chamber of second screwed up thoughts, had decided in 1995 to make a law they called the “Jerusalem Embassy Act.” What is meant by Jerusalem in this document of eternal infamy is the part that's been Palestinian territory since the beginning of time, and the part that Israel built in modern time. To get the Chief Executive – who is in charge of foreign policy – to sign it into law, the shameless body was compelled to add a waiver allowing the President to postpone the implementation of the Act. And it has been postponed by several Presidents ever since.

And so, Eugene Kontorovich is now arguing that President Donald Trump must not invoke the waiver when the time will come on June 1, 2017, thus let the Act be implemented, and let the American embassy be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem; implicitly recognizing as legitimate the criminal annexation by Israel of Palestinian Jerusalem, and make America an accomplice in one more Jewish crime against humanity.

To convince the President this is the right thing to do, Kontorovich the illusionist is using the Russian example as something the American President must emulate … and using a host of other fake arguments as well. Moreover, had he waited one extra day before writing the article, he would have had the opportunity to point to something that two Arab countries – Egypt and Jordan – did, and misrepresent that too.

The truth is that neither Russia nor Egypt or Jordan have recognized Israel's annexation of Jerusalem. What Russia did was recognize only modern “West Jerusalem” as being Israeli territory. What Egypt and Jordan did was recognize ancient “East Jerusalem” as being Palestinian territory. Instead of these acts doing what the Jews had hoped for, they did the opposite in that they recognized East and West Jerusalem as being – not one and the same city – but two different cities in two different countries.

But why could the three countries do what America can never do under the present circumstances? The three countries were able to act rationally and in their self-interest because they are self-respecting cultures governed by legislative assemblies that were never turned into private Jewish urinals as happened to the United States Congress. They listen to the people that elected them, not give them the middle finger or work to promote the interests of Israel, always Israel and no one but Israel as happens in America at the expense of Americans, always Americans and no one but Americans.

But now that the American presidency has the upper hand – perhaps for a narrow window of time – President Trump can tell the Congress to rescind the abusive piece of toilet paper called Jerusalem Embassy Act because it is an insult to America and to its citizens. When this happens, the move will serve as precedent to encourage the Congress to go through all the filthy garbage it has passed previously – that which tells the world the United States Congress remains the private restroom of Jews and Israel.

The time has come for America to start a political renaissance that will make it a regular country again, thus rejoin the civilized world where nations act freely because they are free. When this happens, the American people will find it infinitely more pleasant than to live the illusion of being free just because the Jews tell them they are exceptionally free.