A saying that's uttered in many languages goes like this:
“The mountain went into labor and delivered a mouse.” It is used to describe an
important person or an institution going through much effort, and delivering very
little of what was expected of them.
Because most of the time, the word “mouse” invokes the image
of a lovable Mickey Mouse kind of creature, the saying elicits warm sentiments
toward the person or institution that worked hard to deliver something nice but
fell short of achieving its goal. Given that the message of this article is not
meant to elicit that kind of sentiment, I used the word “rat” in the title
instead of mouse. That's because in the vernacular of everyday, the rat invokes
the image of a rodent that's carrying deadly diseases and spreading them
around. It is anything but lovable.
Well then, the mountain I have in mind is Herbert London. As
to the rat, it is the content of the article he conceived and wrote under the
title: “Why the U.S. should
withdraw from the Iran
deal,” and the subtitle: “A bad deal that is not in American interest only sets
an example for other rogue states.” It was published on October 5, 2017 in The
Washington Times.
The point of the article is what appears in the title: The
U.S. must abrogate the Iran
nuclear deal. As to the reasons for doing so, two are mentioned in the
subtitle: One, the deal is contrary to American interests. Two, the deal sets a
bad example for other rogue states. As to the possible consequences that may
result from the abrogation, there are two as well. First, “the effect on our
ties to Iran
would be negligible,” says Herbert London. Second, “North Korea would learn that a
different stance on world affairs is now in order,” he goes on to say.
Had the author made those points and ended the discussion
there and then, the mountain would have delivered a mouse. It might not have
been a lovable mouse, but one that was not ugly or deadly. That's not what the
author did, however. He went further and tried something that should be
interpreted as a trial balloon for tricks that the mob of Jewish pundits will
want to use in the future if the balloon flies and does not crash.
To fully understand what Herbert London tried to do, we need
to remember how it was that the mob of pundits had managed to create the
conditions that were used to justify George W. Bush appearing in front of the
Congress and delivering a “memorable” speech. That's when W. Bush used the
pre-World War Two rhetoric about a gathering storm, which he predicted will
culminate in a mushroom cloud forming in the sky. And this was enough for him
as commander in chief of the American armed forces, to go ahead and commit the
country's biggest mistake: the unforgivable crime of invading and occupying Iraq .
However, it is important to know that the justification to
invade Iraq
was not the product of Bush's imagination. It came as a result of the repeated
mention of the year 1938 by members of the mob. This was the year of
appeasement, said the mobsters of the Jewish mob, with one pundit after the
other coming out and repeating the same words in a relentless cadence that
could have defined monotony. This was the year, said the mobsters, that Neville
Chamberlain of Britain
appeased Hitler of Nazi Germany, an act that encouraged the latter to get
aggressive and start the Second World War.
Because the American adventure into Iraq turned
into a disaster, the mobsters decided not to use the analogy of 1938 again.
They looked for a substitute and found 1928. This is how Herbert London
introduced the readers to the events of that year: “Next year will be the
anniversary of the 1928 Kellogg Briand pact [which] introduced a period of
naïve complacency that invited Nazi aggression a decade later.
So there you have it, my friends, the mobsters of the Jewish
mob of pundits have now absolved Chamberlain of the charge of appeasement that
led to the Second World War. They did it to pin the war on Kellogg Briand whom
they deem will serve their current purpose better that Chamberlain. Who else
would have conceived such a deadly rat to serve their purpose but Herbert
London and his Jewish mobsters?
Let's hope that he and they will realize that the people who
were fooled by the 1938 analogy once before, will not be fooled a second time
by the analogy of 1928. The mobsters should expect to see their trial balloon
crash upon takeoff, and yield nothing that will do them any good.