America Victim of the Judeo-Evangelical Alliance

What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object? The answer to this question is more complicated than it looks or sounds. That's because time is a big factor in what happens, and that is almost never fully deciphered.

Nevertheless, what is known to happen is that in order to maintain their postures, both sides use the energy they have in reserve. The immovable object spends its energy to hold on to its inertia, whereas the irresistible force spends its energy to keep intact its potential for momentum. What happens next is that the side which exhausts its reserves first, yields to the will of the other. Either the immovable object begins to move or the irresistible force becomes easier to resist.

When we seek to understand why something in life happens the way it does, we discover that all things are subject to the interplay between inertia and the forces of momentum; between the status quo and the winds of change. This has been true in every society since before we became human, and is true today however civilized we may have become. But the difference between us, human beings and the other species is that every one of us represents both the object that resists change, and the force that seeks to change the others.

Those realities have been at the forefront of America's struggle to forge a societal covenant that's acceptable to every group in the land. And nowhere is that clearer than in the arena of race and cultural relations. In the racial arena, America had a civil war, and the side that sought to abolish slavery won, forcing the other side to go underground from where it is waging a quiet civil war. As to the cultural arena, America was spared a brutal fight because its founding fathers declared freedom of worship to be a fundamental principle early on. But things are slowly beginning to change, and the potential exists for a quiet or maybe even a brutal civil war to be fought in this arena.

What tells you this possibility is real and potentially in the offing is that the forces are lined up on a multitude of fronts, each defending its turf while sniping at the others. The most visible part of the struggle involves the relationship between the Christians who seek to maintain the status quo while doing very little proselytizing, and the Jews who constantly proselytize, not to convert others to their religion but to convert them to the idea of Jewish ethno-religious supremacy – whatever that entails.

Moreover, the Jews are trying to draw the Muslims into the mayhem because they believe they already won the war against the Christians. And so, they set-up a colonial style master/subject relationship with them, and used this construct to enlist the Christians into mercenary legions formed to wage war against the Muslims.

You can see all that in two articles that appeared the same day, January 29, 2018 on the pages of the same publication, the Washington Times. One article came under the title: “The growing friendship of evangelicals and Jews,” written by Wesley Pruden. The other article came under the title: “A message for the evangelicals,” written by Cal Thomas.

The Wesley Pruden article shows how easily the older Christian Americans surrendered to the aggressive Jews despite the winds of change that were blowing against this sort of trends. The Christians also let themselves be drafted into the Jewish legions which are fighting against the Muslims. Here, in brief, are the passages that reveal those realities:

“The Jews are comfortable with Christians without a lot of 'Jesus stuff' … President Trump was persuaded by evangelicals to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and sent Vice President Pence there … The trip stands against the reality of polls that suggest young American Christians are not devoted to Israel as their parents were … There's concern that the relationship needs a revival among the young. The Israeli education minister says he is 'very happy' with the evangelicals; adding that their influence with Trump created opportunities for the Jews … Israel is now looking to evangelicals to build support in Central America”.

As to Cal Thomas, he seems to have moderated his religious fanaticism enough to see merit in the saying that goes: “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's”.

The result is that Thomas now counsels his fellow evangelicals to give more weight to the issue oriented positions of the political candidates they consider voting for rather than judge them by their personal beliefs.

And what all of this says is that the Jewish force which seeks to reshape America is disoriented, whereas the immovable object that America used to be has become confused. How the standoff between the two will end remains a mystery.

Setting himself up for a bruising self-deception

When someone suffers from a cultural bipolar disorder, they behave like the Jewish leaders who see a conspiracy brewing against “their people” everywhere they look, or see eternal salvation in every act of kindness that is directed at them, no matter how insignificant the act may be. And so, you'll find these leaders apt to go from extreme depression to extreme euphoria and back in no time at all.

In fact, these back and forth swings happen to Jewish leaders whether they deal with big events or with small ones anywhere they happen in this busy world, given that pervasive and instantaneous communication keeps nothing hidden from anyone. What is odd, however, is not that the Jewish leaders respond to events, but that they interpret them like no one else does.

There are times when the Jewish response to an event rises to the level of the troublesome, and you can see a manifestation of that in two recent articles. One article came under the title: “A Historic Holocaust Awareness Awakening in Saudi Arabia, of all places,” written by Robert Satloff and published on January 26, 2018 on the website of Washington Institute. The other article came under the title: “Israel, Poland in row over Holocaust bill,” carried by Agence France Presse (AFP) on January 27, 2018.

It often happens that when Jews see a non-event, they interpret it to be a significant event. They will not tell you this, but their reaction will cause you to think they just visualized the messiah coming down in blazing glory to hand them the ownership parchment of Planet Earth. You'll get that sense when you see how euphoric Robert Satloff became as he described his encounter and subsequent dealings with a Saudi official that treated him with warmth and respect.

He says he went to Saudi Arabia where he was well received by an official of the Muslim World League named Issa. When he returned home, he wrote to Issa inviting him to come to Washington and address the Washington Institute. Being a Jew, he did not think this was enough, so he asked for one more thing. He asked Issa to also visit the Holocaust Memorial when he comes to Washington, and meet with its director, Sara Bloomfield. Issa wrote back accepting both requests.

Now, my friend, I ask you this: What do you think happens to a Jew when he gets so greedy that he asks not just for one finger but for two of them, and gets them? The answer is that he gets greedier still and asks for the whole arm. Here, in Satloff own words, how he did just that: “A few days later, I had another 'why not?' idea. I wrote Issa asking whether he would send a letter to Bloomfield that she could make public,” and Issa did.

To any normal human being, the way that Issa responded was natural human behavior. Anyone in Satloff's place would have stopped telling that story here. But that's not what happened to Satloff the Jew who went on to do the equivalent of a dog urinating on your rug. Look at the following pack of hateful lies and be disgusted:

“My passion has been to engage Arabs and Muslims in a discussion of the Holocaust … Tearing down the walls of Holocaust denial so widespread in Arab and Muslim culture is a critical element in the fight against hatred. I worked with the Holocaust Memorial Museum in an effort to legitimize discussion of the Holocaust in Arab and Muslim countries to help prevent future genocide by spreading the lessons of the Holocaust”.

The truth is that no Arab or Muslim would deny or confirm the Holocaust anymore than they would deny or confirm that my next door neighbor used to have a brown cat. They don't know, don't care and don't waste time trying to learn a foreign word. The truth is that once in a thousand blue moons or so, one Arabic publication might mention the Holocaust, writing it the way it is pronounced in English. They deliberately avoid using the Arabic translation – which would be “naqba” – because that's what happened to the Palestinians when Israel was created. And no Arab or Muslim that reads Arabic – pronouncing it “hooloocost” – would bother asking what the hell that is because they don't give a hoot.

In addition to his load of beastly lies about the Arabs and the Muslims, Robert Satloff repeated what he knows is the opposite of what's increasingly happening in Europe, Latin America and even North America. Here is that part: “...discussion of the Holocaust to help prevent future genocide by spreading the lessons of the Holocaust.”

No. He and all Jews know by now that shoving the Holocaust down the throats of people rekindles what has come to be called antisemitism. If another pogrom or holocaust happens to Jews, it will be because the Jews brought it on themselves trying to keep milking the one that took place three quarters of a century ago. This much can be deduced from reading the AFP story.

The story tells about a Polish Parliament that wants to make it so that any reference to what happened in Poland during the Second World War will reflect exactly what happened historically, and not what Benjamin Netanyahu wishes had happened so that he may continue to suck money directly from Poland and indirectly through the European Union. More power to the Parliament.

As to the Arab and Muslim worlds, instead of letting sleeping dogs sleep, you can bet that Robert Satloff, who got the fingers and the arm already, will push his luck so far with the Saudis that someone will look at him straight in the eyes and yell: “kefaya!” and “yakfeek!”

Suckered by the Adjectives and the Flattery

What would you say separates the men from the boys; the women from the girls? It is the level of maturity, of course. And how do you determine the level of maturity someone has attained? If you want an answer to this question, stick around for a long discussion.

As toddlers, we learn by observation, by trial and error and by being taught what is good and what is bad. While this is happening, a mysterious mechanism wired into us, separates us from the other organisms constituting life on Earth. No one has yet identified that mechanism, but its manifestation is detected early in toddlers when they repeatedly ask the question: Why?

When the brain receives an answer to that question, it does not treat it like an end in itself. It uses it as a brick in the philosophical monument it will build over time as the child grows older and accumulates more answers to more whys. Later, as a teenager or a young adult, that person will decide it has built a monument that is large enough and sturdy enough to stand on its own. It will resist taking-in unsolicited advice but will seek to further develop the monument by relying on its own experience and its own research.

One important thing happens at this stage of human development. It is that the maturing adult realizes the more he knows, the more there is of what he doesn't know. This is the start of wisdom and the opening of the mind. But it is also a dangerous time because it can be the start of confusion and the loss of confidence in the ability of the self to make it alone in the minefield of everyday living.

Ideally, this is what happens in a normal society. And it is at this stage that some individuals go on to become leaders while others go on to become followers. But while this is the natural order of things, you'll find that in some big city cultures, the situation has evolved in ways which are anything but ideal. You'll find that groups have formed to pursue their own agendas. To this end, they work to dismantle the existing philosophical monument by spreading confusion and doubt into the culture underlying it. Their immediate goal is to take down that which developed normally one brick at a time. Their ultimate aim is to supplant the existing leaders, thus exploit the society to better serve their agenda.

The way they achieve all that, is by infiltrating the society while acting sweet, suave and sociable. Once they gain the trust of their hosts, they seize on events that might have escaped the notice of ordinary people, and spin them in such a way as to make them appear more ominous than they are. The groups repeat that performance till they get the society scared to almost paralysis. At this point, the groups spread confusion by turning upside down all the pillars of the existing monument.

You can see an example of how this method works by going over the article that came under the title: “Trump in the Middle East” and the subtitle “Note Who Curses America, and Who Blesses It,” written by Yoram Hazony and published on January 23, 2018 in National Review Online. It is a long article that goes on for almost 1,500 words, but the essence of what's said is the same throughout the article. It is encapsulated in the subtitle: “Note who curses America, and who blesses it”.

What the reader should note instead is that the writer of the article regards the American society as standing at the adolescent level where being cursed by someone or blessed by another is all that matters in life. In fact, teenagers can sink into a depressive mode, even take drugs and risk dying to relieve the pain of being cursed instead of being blessed by others. But who is the writer of that article, anyway? He is Yoram Hazony, an Israeli that didn't think it necessary to physically infiltrate America to confuse it and turn its pillars upside down. He is doing it by remote from his base in Israel.

But is the scheme working? Has America lost the full breadth of its philosophical monument? Has it been reduced to relying on flattery or the absence of it; using it as guide to make it through the minefield of everyday living? The truth – the sad truth – is that the evidence is overwhelmingly pointing in that direction.

Even if we cannot see a direct relationship between Hazony's article, and a Wall Street Journal editorial that was published 2 days later, we cannot help but marvel at the level to which America's foreign policy is now determined by adjectives used in the decoration of sentences rather than by concepts of strategy which are fully analyzed in articles and in serious books.

The Journal's article in question came under the title: “Testing Trump in Syria” and the subtitle: “Turkey, Russia and Iran want to push the U.S. and its allies out.” Its main feature is this sentence: “The Kurdish People's Protection Units in Syria fought valiantly and deserve training and protection”.

The clue that tells America's policy makers what to do is contained in the adjective “valiantly.” It tells the captains of the American ship of state not to worry about the strategic implications of getting involved deeply in the Middle East because the only thing that counts is that the Kurdish forces fought valiantly.

Is this a way to govern a superpower?

When will the Dodos exit Sodom and Gomorrah?

I did not need to read Norman Finkelstein's books or attend any of his lectures to know that the Jewish leaders worldwide or that the politicians in Israel had turned the Holocaust into a cash cow, using it as proxy to suck billions of dollars from the wallets of America's Evangelical suckers and from the congress of dodo birds.

All I needed to do was watch Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, shed fake tears in commercials and infomercials in which he begged the gullible to help feed Jews in Israel with 25-dollar donations, explaining that these are difficult times for Israel because it is forced to spend on security measures rather than feed its poor. All this is happening according to him despite the billions of dollars that America sends to Israel year after year to murder Palestinians and rob them of their properties.

Throughout the years, I had the feeling that as long as the rabbi was shedding fake tears, he was getting enough money to refrain from rocking the boat. And so, my secret wish was to see him rock the boat because it would mean that the number of American suckers parting with their money to support fake causes, had diminished enough to alarm him. Finally, the rabbi rocked the boat on January 27, 2018 when he wrote an article under the title: “The UN's horrid Holocaust hypocrisy,” and had it published in the New York Daily News.

If you haven't read the article yet, begin by doing two thought experiments that will serve you later. First, imagine you're viewing a short video clip. You see a scene in which a man shoots a gun into the sky, and then a scene in which a bird falls off the sky. What does that mean to you? Of course it means there has been a cause and effect situation: the man just shot a bird out of the sky.

Now the second experiment. On one line in a statement of claims written by a lawyer, it is stated that the defendant's car was seen to drive through a red light. On the next line, it is stated that the plaintiff had the right of way but was struck by a hit and run car. What does that say to you? Of course, it says that the defendant's car hit the plaintiff and left the scene of the accident.

Look now how Yechiel Eckstein starts his article: “Thirteen years ago, the UN General Assembly designated an International Holocaust Remembrance Day to commemorate the murder of 6 million Jews. The UN also urged nations to educate their citizens about the Holocaust.” Next, Eckstein writes this: “Yet, across Europe and worldwide, we have seen the rise of extremist politics, much of it fueled by neo-Nazism and the very same anti-Semitic language and tropes that gave rise to Nazism and the Holocaust”.

What does that say to you, my friend? Of course, it says there is a cause and effect relationship between the act of shoving the Holocaust down the throats of people, and the people's resentment at being used as props for every Jew that knows not how to earn an honest living – to nevertheless live a luxurious life paid for by people that had nothing to do with the Holocaust to people that had nothing to do with the Holocaust. And all that is done in the name of––get this now––“helping to prevent future acts of genocide.” Who are they fooling? Do they take us all for dodo Evangelicals?

To rub salt in the wound, it is only now that Eckstein admits what everyone knew instinctively for a long time. He just confessed he had been deceiving his donors when he told them he needed the money to feed hungry Jews in Israel when he was, in reality, doing something else with that money. Here is his confession: “Since late 2014, the fellowship has helped nearly 12,000 Jews from 26 nations –– from Europe to Latin America –– immigrate to Israel, some simply out of fear they can no longer live safely in their native lands”.

Can you imagine a situation like that, my friend? The simple claim by a Jew anywhere in the world who falsely or correctly asserts that he fears he cannot live safely where he resides, causes the Eckstein fellowship to arrange for the throwing of a Palestinian family out of the only home it has known for generations to make room for the incoming Jew. Put yourself in the shoes of one such family.

This scenario is repeated at least 4,000 times a year at the hands of Eckstein and his thugs, by his own admission. Now think how much real suffering is visited on the Palestinians to alleviate a potential suffering of Jews that may or may not materialize. And even if it did materialize, these people can be accommodated by sending them to a country that lives on immigration such as Australia, Canada or the United States, for example.

But animated by the evil motives that lurk in the hearts and souls of the Eckstein thugs, this is not what they choose to do. Instead, they commit the most horrific crime against humanity you can imagine because they know they have the backing of someone as thuggish as they.

And this is why the human race responds the way that it does to every crime against humanity that the Jews and their American benefactors commit.

Naftali Bennett did it to himself again

Naftali Bennett is Israel's Minister of Education and Diaspora Affairs as well as a member of the security cabinet. The thing to know about him is that every time he opens his mouth, he stiffs himself real hard.

He did it again in an article he wrote under the title: “My Country Bars Enemies From Entry. Yours Would Do the Same,” published on January 27, 2018 in the New York Times. His point is that the people and organizations that support the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement against Israel (BDS) do not simply object to Israel's policies; they object to Israel's existence. And this gives him the right to ban them from entering Israel.

The argument he put together to justify his logic begins with the article's title. The points he makes are contained in the part that says: “Yours Would Do the Same.” It conveys the idea that if you do not see thing his way; it's because you are pursuing a double standard. In effect, you would be denying Israel the right to do what everyone else does. And this, in his view, is what defines the double standard.

So you go over the article to see how he develops that argument. What you discover instead is that in the same way the rabbis of old started the intimidation of America by accusing those that criticized anything Jewish or Israeli of being antisemitic and working to start a holocaust – Bennett is now accusing those who support BDS of trying to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. However, whereas the rabbis succeeded in achieving their goal five decades ago; Naftali Bennett isn't doing as well today.

Look at his problem. He says that “BDS is a new name for an age-old strategy: demonizing and delegitimizing the Jewish people ... The movement aims to make the case that the Jewish state doesn't have the right to exist in the Middle East.” But why is there such a movement to begin with? Good question. Well, he says that the movement was started by the Palestinians in 2005. This happens to be 38 years into the occupation of their country by Israel's military.

But in case you did not catch Bennett's logic, he means to say that instead of loving the occupation, having lived under it for 38 years, the Palestinians decided to ask the world for help to end it. He is suggesting that this act does not mean the Palestinians have had enough being occupied by the military of a foreign entity; it means they are so evil as to have adopted the age-old strategy of demonizing and delegitimizing the Jewish people.

But deep down, even he suspected this might be reasoning that's funky enough, he must explain it. And so, he said this: “The logic behind this policy is sound: We won't welcome enemy soldiers into our territory. If you actively work for our destruction, you can't come into our home.” He thus made it so that instead of the Israeli military being the enemy that invaded Palestinian homes, it was the Palestinian farmers, carpenters and doctors who were the enemy that refused to welcome the Jewish invaders when the latter went into Palestine riding tanks and armored vehicles.

And the long term effect of that 'sound policy' has been that every piece of Palestine the Jews grabbed became a piece of Israel. In fact, after fifty years of occupation, what was Palestinian West Bank became Israeli Judea and Samaria. That's the name Bennett and the gang making up the Israeli government gave it. In the end, the reality on the ground exposed the intent of the Jewish policy as being a plan to make the Palestinian identity vanish from the face of the Earth. This was the latest idea that the Jewish leaders came up with to deal with the Palestinian question, having failed to demonize and delegitimize the Palestinian people.

And so, we now have the Orwellian situation of a Tom, Dick, Harry or Naftali coming from anywhere in the world, deciding to expel the indigenous Palestinians “out of my country,” having turned the Palestinians into foreigners in their own Palestine.

And Bennett wants the world to understand that even if Israel has not yet annexed the entire West Bank, the fact that the Jews covet that piece of real estate, means it is in theory a piece of Israel. This is why he says the Jews can treat the Palestinian population that remains on it as foreign slave labor producing the goods that the Jews are trying to sell to the world and pocket the money. It is also why, in the logic of Naftali Bennett, to BDS those goods, is to commit an antisemitic act aimed at the destruction of Israel itself.

But the world saw through this turning of reality upside down, and considered it a double standard pursued by the Jews while falsely accusing the world of pursuing a double standard against them by practicing BDS. And this is how Naftali Bennett shafted himself once again.

Not lost but mutilated in Translation

Benny Avni's latest column came under the title: “Asia is wondering if Trump will defend Taiwan,” published on January 23, 2018 in the New York Post. The first thing that came to mind upon reading that title was the question: How does he know that?

The second thing that came to mind was the thought that he, and the rest of the people in the loop of elites that live in the same culture and speak the same language, don't even understand each other. And this guy wants us to believe he had a meaningful conversation with Asians? In what language did they communicate?

The third thing that came to mind was a very telling scene. It happened a long time ago ... most probably on PBS around the end of the twentieth century or the start of the twenty first. There was a moderator, there was Richard Perle and there was a female French journalist who spoke perfect English. They were discussing Iraq when the subject of nuclear proliferation came up. For several minutes Perle and the journalist wrangled sharply about proliferation. They did so not because they disagreed that proliferation was bad – they did not – but because each had a different definition of the word proliferation. And so, neither understood what the other was saying.  

Inside the head of the French woman, proliferation meant possessing something lethal and distributing it to others. And so she was adamant there was no proof that Saddam Hussein was proliferating nuclear technology. As to what was going on inside the head of Richard Perle, the fact that Saddam possessed nuclear technology at all (which she did not deny because she didn't know) was in itself the definition of proliferation. And so he believed she was contradicting herself in the same breath; whereas she thought he was stubborn like an ass.

Now, my friend, imagine a scene similar to that with Benny Avni sitting across the table from Asians (that may be a hundred percent fluent in English but) with principles of coexistence bouncing inside their heads in ways different from how they bounce in Avni's head. The Asians are thinking: How can we explain to this hyphenated American that we have so much to look forward to, our interest is to calm the situation in our region? And you have Benny Avni thinking: How many American lives would Netanyahu be willing to sacrifice if he were prime minister of Asia with two or three billion people under his governance?

If you don't know the answer to that question, look for clues in the Benny Avni article, and you'll be able to paint an accurate picture of what the Judeo-Israeli syndicate has in mind. Here is a summary of the article:

“China is supplanting America as the top global power. It flexes muscles in its neighborhood. It launched new routes near the line separating its air space from Taiwan's. Things are heating up around that island. America has vowed to confront Chinese annexation attempt –– militarily if needed. Beijing limited trade and tourism. Is a military confrontation next? Will America rush to the rescue? The Asians have noticed that the U.S. increasingly retrenches from military engagements. Replenishing the military will take time; America has got to start immediately. China is backing Kim Jong-un's regime. China is the power that can challenge America's economic primacy and outgrow our military. Trump must state that America's military is a tool in our national-security kit. And that we're ready to use it”.

It is clear that the writer is preoccupied with the power of the United States and the readiness of its military at the exclusion of everything else. He wants America to use Taiwan as an excuse to go after China right now because he sees that, if not stopped, China will soon replace America as the predominant power in the world. And since the Jews have no influence on the Chinese, Avni and the syndicate to which he belongs, fear they will have their wings clipped.

Now, my friend, put yourself in the shoes of Asians sitting across the table from Benny Avni discussing America's role in their region. Do you really believe they would have told him they wonder if Trump will defend Taiwan without mentioning what the consequences of a war in their backyard will do to the populations of the region?

Of course, this can only be a fantasy on the part of Benny Avni who is motivated by the desire to rekindle America's fighting spirit. He is winding up America's drive to fight wars while disregarding their consequences as long as they serve the Judeo-Israeli agenda.

And these characters get paid for what they do.

How much will America sacrifice for the Israelis?

Clifford D. May reminded us of what Richard Armitage said fifteen years ago.

This done, he took it from there and built on it to justify his message for the week. As it happened, it was the same old message: war, war, war –– but this time, the message came wrapped in a new package lest the readers discard it before reading it. Clifford May did all this in a column that came under the title: “The terrorist A-Team,” published on January 23, 2018 in The Washington Times.

When discussing Richard Armitage, Clifford May avoided mentioning that the gentleman was joined at the hip by two other characters: Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. They were two prominent figures in the team that planned the dissemination of fake evidence, falsely accusing Iraq of producing weapons of mass destruction (WMD.) The two characters were also among those that planned the disastrous invasion of Iraq to rid the country of the destructive weapons it did not have. What deception can be more Jewish than that?

No, Clifford May is not calling that team the A-Team; he is calling someone else by that name. It happens to be a Lebanese militia formation that was forced into existence by Israel's repeated military abuses of that tiny country, and the inability of the Lebanese government to defend its citizens. The team called itself Hezbollah; a ragtag militia army that grew to become a well organized and formidable force. It proved itself capable of defeating all kinds of weapon systems America gave to Israel.

Clifford May says that Richard Armitage “regarded al Qaeda as less capable” than Hezbollah, but was confident that America's war on terror “would soon result in the defeat of both organizations.” Because this prediction was made fifteen years ago and the two organizations are still here, there was only one thing that Clifford May could do now. It was to complain: “We haven't yet.” He then warned that we should “expect to hear more from al Qaeda over the years ahead.” And he proceeded to do the very Jewish thing of ignoring past useless advice, and gave more advice on what to do next.

But in reality, he added nothing new of his own to the debate. All he did was describe the situation as it exists in the world today, and what the Trump administration is proposing to do to fight terrorism. And for now at least he gave his blessing to that. But when you compare the situation the way he described it with what the Trump administration is proposing to do, you wonder if these guys are serious in what they are doing.

Here is the situation on the ground the way that Clifford May described it: “Hezbollah has gone from strength to strength … Today, it effectively controls the Lebanese government … Hezbollah troops have been fighting in Syria ... Hezbollah has fought several armed conflicts with Israel”.

And here is what he says the new administration is doing: “U.S. Attorney General announced the creation of the Hezbollah Financing and Narcoterrorism Team … He said the goal is to ensure that all investigations are given the needed resources and attention to come to their proper resolution … We may not be winning what used to be called the war on terror but at least we're back in the fight”.

And dragging America into the fight has been the goal of the Jews both in Israel and America for several decades. Aware of the reality that you cannot go into a neighborhood, poke everyone in the rib that mind their business trying to get ahead, and expect them to remain passive, the Jews stirred things up in the normally quiet Middle East to awaken the locals and get them to respond. Simultaneous to that, the Jews nudged the Americans to get involved in the fight, hoping it will last to perpetuity.

The ultimate Jewish goal being to establish an Israel that stretches from the Nile to the Euphrates, America's involvement will have to be perpetual or last till America gets depleted … whichever comes first. Thousands of lives and trillions of dollars have been wasted so far, and the only tangible result there is to see, is the rise of a resistance movement led by Arab and Muslim youngsters.

The resistance is manifesting itself in different forms, but all forms have the goal of defending their people, convinced that the governments cannot or will not do it.

Fired up with idealism typical of the young, the militias are determined to fight fire with fire, prepared to sacrifice their own lives to save those of their people.

And this raises the question: How many of their sons and daughters are the Americans prepared to sacrifice to further inflate the already fattened Jewish moguls of Israel?

One Slip is a Calamity; two will be pure Horror

In his latest column, Ralph Peters asked the question: “Why on earth are we permitting his [Recep Tayyip Erdogan's] attack on our Kurdish allies?” By “we” he means Americans, and probably the Western alliance too.

In any case, he answered the question the way he sees things, and in so doing opened the door for anyone that's curious about the way he expresses himself, to question his motives in writing that column. To be sure, this is not a one off piece of work; it is one in a series that reflects a deep desire by the author to play out something that's gnawing at his soul. It is clear that Ralph Peters is recreating scenes of cathartic tinge by making real actors on the world stage play roles that represent the full range of his alter egos and their antagonists.

His latest column may not rise to the level of Dante Alighieri's Divine Comedy, but you'll find it interesting and tragically entertaining just the same. See for yourself, as it came under the title: “Don't abandon the Kurds to the 'mercies' of Turkey's tyrant” and was published on January 22, 2018 in the New York Post.

Versed in the art of using extreme superlatives of flattery to inflate the actors that wear the good-guys hat; and the use of extreme superlatives of disparagement to denigrate the actors that wear the bad-guys hat, Ralph Peters begins his column by identifying who's who in his latest drama. Here is his opening sentence: “The United States has been the ally of the Kurds that proved to be, man-for-man and woman-for-woman, the best fighters”.

In case you didn't know, that's how he and people like him used to describe the Turks when the latter were friends with Israel, and were opposed to everything Arabic. But now that the Turks have done what others did since the beginning of time, Peters and his fellow echo-chambers flipped. In fact, what the Turks did was break with evil the moment they discovered it was a horrible culture disguised as a religion. In response, Peters et al described the Turks like this: “a NATO ally gone rogue–– Turkey, which is led by the odious 'President' Erdogan”.

There is no escaping the conclusion that what gnaws at the soul of Ralph Peters is what fuels his extreme views on this issue. And we get a clear idea of the magnitude of the issue when we realize that he considers it related to what he calls the Jewish “backstory.” Thus, the extreme fanaticism that Ralph Peters expresses – seemingly to defend the Kurds – is germane to his relationship with the Jews more than it is with the Kurds.

Look at the following passage and you'll wonder: “Kurds have been butchered en masse, denied fundamental rights, imprisoned, tortured, raped, cheated and scapegoated. (All of which should sound unnervingly familiar to those who know Israel's backstory.)” The truth is that none of that happened to the Jews anywhere but in the territories that were occupied by the Nazis during the Second World War. Thus, what obsesses Peters, has to do with a relationship that connects him to both the Jews and the Nazis. What can that be? There is only one answer: Ralph Peters is conscious of his German lineage.

In light of this, we must pose the following two questions: Is Ralph Peters motivated by remorse for the bad things his ancestors did to the Jews before he was born? Or does he believe that the Jews are overplaying the events that occurred long ago to enrich themselves now? It could be that the Jewish slandering of his German ancestors, and the milking of his American homeland are the double whammy he can no longer stomach.

The problem with answering the first question with a yes is that it makes no sense. That's because it would be saying there is justice in rewarding the Kurds to expiate sins that were committed against the Jews by people who are now dead. And that's not to mention there is a gap of seven decades between the two events.

Well then, what about the second question? Is Ralph Peters so angry with what the Jews are doing that he wants to minimize the consequences of the Nazis' handiwork by creating a Kurdish homeland that will turn out to be another Israel-type calamity in the Middle East?

Is Peters trying to generate a level of noise that will make people forget about the events of the Second World War, and force them to talk about the butchery, denial of rights, imprisonment, torture, rape and scapegoating that's being committed in the twenty-first century?

If that's the case, it would mean that Ralph Peters is an evil genius. Might he be a reincarnation of Heinrich Himmler?

A classic Construct by hapless perpetual Losers

Imagine a situation in which a gang of thugs invaded a home and took the family hostage. They made public demands to the head of the family that managed to escape the house; and so they wait to hear from him.

The town sheriff was called but as he waits outside the house with his men, the outlaws do not fear him because he is corrupt and no one knows it better than they. But they also know that a good number of the town folks are armed, and would not tolerate the sheriff engaging in a behavior that might suggest he is helping the kidnappers. These guys also suspect that the head of the family is out there calling on the town folks, asking them to help him free the family.

As much as they want it, the bosses of the gang realize that the current stalemate will not last much longer. They huddle in the War Room––which they modeled after Wolf Blitzer's Situation Room––to discuss the matter and look at the possible alternatives that the head of the family may have. The thing, however, is that Blitzer is not there representing himself. However, an almost identical clone that goes by the name David Makovsky is. He usually does as good a job as Blitzer glossing over the gang's crimes, and making them look like virtues.

Makovsky wrote an account of how the meeting of the bosses might have gone. He put the composition under the title: “Abbas Still Faces Unattractive Alternatives to Peacemaking” and had it published on January 16, 2018 on the website of the Washington Institute.

Clearly the focus of the gang was centered on what alternatives the head of the Palestinian family, Mahmoud Abbas had, which alternative he might choose and how he would proceed with it. Makovsky says the gang saw 5 alternatives open to Abbas, none of which would be attractive to him. This was fine with the outlaws, says the narrator, because it was like manna from the sky falling in their lap. In fact, the best thing they hoped for was to see the stalemate prolonged till the members of the family could not take it anymore and asked for a quick resolution of the situation. The gang viewed such development as adding to the bargaining chips in its hand.

The outlawed thugs saw five possible alternatives open to Abbas; and David Makovsky saw five reasons why neither alternative would appeal to Abbas. They are as follows:

First, because Abbas is committed to the two-state solution, he does not get along with the Hamas Islamists who believe in armed struggle to liberate all of Palestine. In the eyes of the gang and those of Makovsky, the Hamas Islamists also refuse to give up their weapons, and this makes it impossible for Abbas to work with them toward a shared vision and a shared goal.

Second, not only does Abbas reject any move to start a round of armed struggle in the occupied territory, he has repudiated a previous round known as the intifada. In Abbas's view that operation was too costly in terms of lives lost while accomplishing very little, if anything at all.

Third, everybody knows that Israel will never accept the one state solution, as it would kill the Zionist dream of having a Jewish majority state. Because this alternative would be out of the question to the outlaws and to David Makovsky, Mahmoud Abbas too must have considered it out of the question.

Fourth, Abbas will not resign because there is no one that can fill his shoes at this time. That's fine as far as the gang of killers is concerned because any change in Palestinian leadership would drastically alter the prevailing predictability, and replace it with something that the Israelis may not have the experience to handle. And so, it is better to live with the devil you know than the one you don't.

Fifth, Abbas may not get all the help he'll need to advance his cause from the Arab governments because of reasons that Makovsky cannot explain. But he wants the readers to accept this proposition on faith anyway.

And this, my friend, is a classic example of the “opium for the masses” that the Jewish leaders brew each time they are ready to tell their rank-and-file: climb aboard, chosen children of God, we promise you clear sailing ahead … all the way to the port of warm waters where we'll have our cakes and eat them too. And no one will say boo to us ever again.

How the Jews killed America's 'Democracy'

Soon you might see television commercials parading people that say: “I'm from Russia, and I am freedom's safest place.” If this happens, it would be a consequence of the legacy that the Jews brought to America.

To understand what's brewing in the world today, we recall the saying about getting frustrated at work, and going home where we kick the cat to relieve the frustration. While this may be happening rarely or not at all in real life, something else seems to be happening more often than we want to believe. So let me tell you the story of a young man I used to work with in a department that consisted of a dozen people or so.

We did not like our know-nothing but pompous supervisor, and often complained to each other about him. The young man among us, however, did not get as visibly upset as the rest of us (even though he insisted he was) because he said that frustration did him some good after all. He explained that when he goes home frustrated, he engages in a vigorous round of sex that pleases his wife so much, her pleasure rubs off on him, and they both have a heavenly orgasm.

That seems to be what's happening with the Jews who discovered that Uncle Sam was impotent and that Aunt Samantha had transformed into a nymphomaniac. And so, when the Jews get frustrated at a world that gives them no respect, they turn to her and she invites them into her bedroom. That's where they all have an orgasmic hanky panky of the politico-diplomatic kind.

In real life, the Jews brought the Judeo-Yiddish culture to America. They ordered the full mobilization of the country's resources, and used that to try imposing their will on the rest of the world. In contrast to a bygone era when America's edicts were obeyed by most nations, not many bend to America's will anymore. In fact, some nations not only reject America's attempts to impose the Jewish will on them, they turned the table and started doing to America what America has been trying to do to them.

One of those countries is Russia. Whereas America failed to influence Russia's elections, the latter pulled a more sophisticated game on America. That game seems to have yielded results that cannot be assessed at this time, but cannot be denied either. One of the methods used by Russia was to take advantage of America's election financing laws, enlisting the assistance and services of the National Rifle Association (NRA).

This outfit happens to be the one that used to run commercials parading people that said: “I'm [so and so] and I am freedom's safest place.” Well, you can imagine the producers of NRA commercials inserting the word Russia in future productions to say: “I'm from Russia, and I am freedom's safest place.” And you know what my friend? People in America and around the world will gradually believe that Jewish-free Russia offers its citizens more freedom than does Jewish controlled America to its citizens.

As unreal as this may sound, a debate regarding the possibility that all this is real now or may come to pass, has started in America. You can see an example of it in the article that came under the title: “An insidious foreign dark money threat” and the subtitle: “New reports about Russian money going to NRA could prove watchdog's fears correct.” It was written by Ciara Torres-Spelliscy and published on January 19, 2018 in the New York Daily News. It is worth mentioning that the writer is not just anybody; she is research chair and associate professor of law at Stetson University College of Law.

But why would Russia and perhaps other nations too, want to do such a thing to America? The reason why is contained in the warning that people such as yours truly and others have been raising for some time now. The warning said that when America takes Jewish advice – believing it is as good as God's advice – and tries to inflict it on other nations, America will fail to score but will anger the others. It will anger them so much that they will employ professionals vastly superior to the Jews, and do to America what America tried to do to them. This is now happening at the level of governance, pitting so-called American democracy against Russian whatever, and the Russians are winning … and they are winning big from the looks of it.

There used to be a functioning system in America going by the name “democracy.” But whatever was there isn't there anymore as evidenced by the fact that America has joined the kingdom of losers where the Jews sit on the throne, wearing the glitziest of crowns.

But the situation is unsustainable, and America must make a choice. It may continue to take Jewish advice and remain in the kingdom of losers where the graveyard of democracy is located, or it may cut loose from Israel and the Jews, and reenter the kingdom of winners … the way things were in the good old days.

Jews as Mooches of intellectual Property

Something happened that compels me to make an exception to my commitment not to talk about myself.

What happened is the publication of an article that came under the title: “Why Arabs and Muslims Will Not Accept Israel as the Jewish State,” written by Mordechai Kedar and published on January 19, 2018 in Algemeiner. Actually, an earlier version of that article was published on December 14, 2017 by Israel National News.

I interacted very little with old friends in the regular media since the start of my blog. But when I did, I was asked why I continue to write and publish for free, refusing to accept advertising on my blog, and refraining from submitting articles to the regular media that would “most certainly publish them” … if only to see me get off this blog. I always answered that I write because it is what I like doing–which is true–but in fact, there is another reason why I write; a more profound reason.

During the 40 years that preceded the launch of this blog, the politico-journalistic elites (calling themselves the loop) had their eyes and ears on me all the time, whether I voluntarily communicated with them or because they heard about me from Canada's secret police that had me under surveillance 24 hours a day. The goal of the bumbling beastly snoops was to gather the kind of daily information about me that would help the Canadian Jewish Congress intercept and torpedo any progress I make so that I never become successful enough to be taken seriously if I tried to tell my story.

To understand what happened next, the reader needs to know what normally happens to the elites in the loop. These would be the people that exhaust themselves mentally and emotionally fighting to get to the position where they wield the power they crave. What happens to them is that they soon discover that chasing the prize made them suffer from a mental block which prevents them from knowing how to use that power. This leads them to engage in the modern version of plagiarism known as mining. That is, instead of stealing what others say, and repeat it verbatim, they lift the gist of what was said and adapt it to other situations. This way, the mooching elites reap the benefits of the robbery and avoid getting caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

At first, you feel sick when you realize that someone you never met is sponging your work without giving you credit. You feel sicker when you realize further that the characters robbing you are the ones who intercept and torpedo every progress you make so that they may continue robbing you. But then, you develop immunity against feeling sick, no matter what these guys do. And what the Jews do next is several degrees more horrific than anything you can imagine … as it will become apparent when reading the Mordechai Kedar article.

The point Kedar makes is that the Jews must keep all of Jerusalem (The Eastern and Western parts) because if they don't, “many Jews will leave Israel for the countries from which they came.” In reality, this is the newest scare the Jewish leaders are spreading. In addition, they falsely attribute the saying to the Arabs who never expressed such a thought. In fact, the Jews did not control East Jerusalem until 1967 but they kept going to Israel all the same rather than leave it … Jerusalem or no Jerusalem.

Putting out scare after scare is an old trick. It is one that has served the Jewish leaders well. First, they said the 1948 line was not enough to keep Israel safe. They wanted a bigger Israel and they got it. Then they started scaring their followers about losing the 1967 line. Take it away, said the Jewish leaders, and we're back to the 1948 line, and from there to annihilation. After that, they put out the scare about losing the Western Golan. And now, the focus is on their criminal annexation of East Jerusalem.

That's the point at which Mordechai Kedar falsely attributed new thoughts to the Arabs. But look what else he did. He said this: “In Islam's view, Jews are not a nation but a collection of religious communities to be found in various countries: a Jew in Poland is a 'Pole of the Mosaic religion' and a Jew in Morocco is a 'Moroccan Arab of the Mosaic religion'”.

That's a serious distortion of the facts. Such thought was never expressed by any of the 350 million Arabs living in the Middle East or the 1.6 billion Muslims living in the world. It is the thought that I, a Canadian of Egyptian Christian descent, made in several of the 2,520 articles posted on this blog.

I did not pluck that thought from thin air; I argued every point of it after careful analysis of the hundreds of articles that were written by Jews living in North America, England, France, Germany and Israel. Other articles I consulted were authored by writers with names that indicate they belonged to a variety of ethnic backgrounds; people that had come to America from just about everywhere in the world. And that's how I determined that Jews are not a nation but a collection of religious communities to be found in various countries: a Jew in Poland is a Pole of the Jewish religion; a Jew in Morocco is a Moroccan of the Jewish religion.

Contrast my approach with that of Kedar who expressed the stolen thought, attributing it to the Arabs and the Muslims without giving reference as to how or where his claim can be verified. That's depravity of such magnitude, only the Jews can engender it.

So, if you ask why I write without considering getting something in return; the answer is that it’s what I wanted when I was young and charting the life I foresaw ahead of me. Unfortunately I was besieged by demonic savages early on, and came to recognize them as the plague of Planet Earth.

They altered the life I was meant to live, and so I resolved not to let my loss be in vain. I concluded that the way to give meaning to the life I was forced to endure, was to make as big a contribution as I can to alert future generations, thus do my part at disinfecting the Planet of the deadly plague that's ailing it – before I leave.

The double Standard makes the Jews different

In the ongoing debate regarding the new immigration policy that America is considering for the future, the debaters that favor a liberal approach to immigration, have followed an established standard formula for presenting their point of view.

What they did was introduce themselves as descendents of immigrants that came to America with little to their name. The newcomers were maligned by the existing population, said the debaters, but the immigrants worked hard and raised families that did well, thus proved to be no different from those that came before them. This being the pattern that every group of immigrants has encountered, the debaters predicted that the newest groups will be successful despite the adversity, and will contribute to the nation.

Because the goal of the debaters in such circumstances is not to talk about themselves or their ancestry but to advocate for the newcomers, they use the space and spend the time to describe the ways that the immigrants can succeed. Some debaters even go as far as to suggest the ways that the newcomers can be helped to adapt them to their new life more quickly, thus make them more productive sooner.

This approach also serves to reassure the existing population that even if the newcomers look and act differently from them, they are fundamentally the same kind of people. In time, they will assimilate and fully integrate into the society, becoming as indistinguishable from the rest as anyone else, say the debaters.

But you know what, my friend. There is an exception to that rule, and Bret Stephens shows how it is played. In the effort to show how similar the Jews are to everyone else, he handles the discussion about immigration in a most dissimilar way. That is, instead of talking about today's newcomers exhaustively, he barely mentions them, and then switches to talk about his ancestors as well as other Jews at great length.

Also, instead of arguing that today's newcomers from Africa and Latin America are the same as the existing population, he does something really weird. He argues that Jews are the same as everyone else because those that came to America in the past were treated as badly as today's newcomers from Africa and Latin America. Apparently, this is proof enough for him that Jews are normal people; as normal as everyone else.

Bret Stephens made that abnormal presentation in a column that came under the title: “A Modest Immigration Proposal: Ban Jews,” published on January 19, 2018 in the New York Times. Unfortunately for him, another publication had come out a day before, supporting the view that Jews are anything but similar to everyone else. That publication came under the title: “The anti-Israel BDS Movement seeks the destruction of Israel, not a two-state peace with Palestinians,” written by Patrick Dunleavy and published on January 18, 2018 on the website of the Fox News Channel.

To avoid being criticized for trying to prevent others from exercising their right to free speech, Patrick Dunleavy is accusing demonstrators in New York City––who advocate for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement––of seeking the destruction of Israel. Given that even if this were true, it would not violate any law, Dunleavy has decided to accuse the demonstrators of violating their own stated purpose, which is advocacy for a two-state solution to end the occupation of Palestine.

How does he know that? He says he knows it because there are at least two signs that so indicate. First, the demonstrators chant words to that effect, says Dunleavy. Second, if you scrutinize the background of some demonstrators, you'll find them to be of the unsavory kind, he goes on to say.

Well, this is something that happens often during political campaigns when emotions run high. The latest example is the one that took place in Charlottesville when demonstrators pretending to support Donald Trump chanted: “Jews will not replace us” and “Blood and Soil.” Does that convince Patrick Dunleavy that Donald Trump seeks the destruction of Israel? Obviously not.

Well then, why does he believe it when it happens to demonstrations pertaining to Israel? There is only one explanation to this question; it is the famous Jewish double standard.

And that, my friend, is what tells you the Jews are not like the rest of us, despite what Bret Stephens says.

A drowning Man's last Act of self-Delusion

The diminishing quantity of oxygen going to the brain of a drowning man causes him to hallucinate, and he remains in this state of delusion till he is rescued or he dies alone.

That's a real life actuality that can serve as metaphor to illustrate how someone that spent a lifetime filling his masters' swamp with trash talk, now finds himself drowning in the toxic dugout of his own creation. That man is John Bolton whose intellectual posture operates like a drainage pipe tying the sewage-collecting holes in the House of Judah to the Jewish swamp he is serving with suicidal fanaticism.

Bolton spent his professional life advocating for the realization of the Armageddon that the Jews believe must happen before the messiah will come. That's when he is expected to appoint them guardians of the planet, and give them the key to his earthly kingdom so that he may enjoy a well deserved retirement. But nothing like that happened, and nothing like it is in the offing. And so, like the drowning man that's coming to his end, Bolton is now living his final moment of delusion. Guess how that's going. He believes he is seeing a straw, and spends the last ounce of his energy trying to latch onto it. More on that later.

These are the impressions that the readers will get when they go over the article that John Bolton wrote under the title: “Beyond the Iran Nuclear Deal” and the subtitle: “U.S. policy should be to end the Islamic Republic before its 40th anniversary.” It was published on January 16, 2018 in the Wall Street Journal.

It does not take Bolton long before he demonstrates how deluded he is. In fact, he ends his first paragraph with this saying: “The Europeans are more interested in trade with Tehran than a stronger agreement.” But he soon forgets what he just said, and warns that “spending 120 days negotiating will leave the West in stasis.” Well, someone ought to remind this guy that the Europeans are a big part of the West. If they are happy trading with Tehran; they are not mired in stasis.

Aware that the old arguments badmouthing the Iran nuclear deal did little to kill it, John Bolton got the idea of hitching the Iran issue onto that of North Korea, thus gives it a free ride on the wave of hatred for North Korea that is sweeping America at this time. Here is how he did that: “Little is known about Iranian-North Korean cooperation on nuclear and missile technology. It is foolish to play down Tehran's threat because Pyongyang's provocations. They are two sides of the same coin”.

Believing that he successfully played a winning card, Bolton seeks to add to his gain by arguing that there is nothing anyone can do to improve the deal. His aim, of course, is to convince the public and the White House that the thing to do now is to nix the deal, not try to fix it. Here is what he says in that regard:

“Some proponents propose to eliminate the sunset provisions. That would achieve nothing … One idea is amending the law to avoid the certification [process]. This is like taking aspirin to relieve the pain of a chest wound … Putting lipstick on the deal will not fix it … If Trump is going to abrogate it, he has the authority he needs … Some have suggested restricting his ability to withdraw from the deal without congressional approval. This folly warrants a Trump veto”.

Having concluded that the chances are slim to none the Iran nuclear deal will be abrogated by the United States, and that the Europeans will go along, John Bolton sank deeper into his delusional reverie. It is the one that made him imagine the straw he believes he can latch onto and save his life. Here is Bolton's account of his own reverie:

“Tehran's rulers are far more unpopular than previously believed. It would be tragic not to torque up the pressure, and adding more … America's declared policy should be ending Iran's 1979 Revolution … Arab states would welcome this approach and help finance it … Recognizing a new Iranian regime in 2019, the former hostages can cut the ribbon to open a new U.S. Embassy in Tehran”.

This is such a depressing saga, we cannot help but ask: Is there a silver lining hidden somewhere that can redeem it? For what it's worth, we can think of the Bolton article as helping future historians understand how the Jews dragged America into the swamp without someone stopping them. It is that they cultivated the likes of John Bolton, and populated the American institutions with them. The rest was child's play for the Jews.

What they choose to become is their Business

The urgency to find what's necessary to sustain life, such as food and water, causes most organisms to search for a solution to the problems of scarcity that arise from time to time.

For example, if water is no longer replenished in a place where a herd lives, that herd will go searching for a more hospitable place to live. You may call this activity organic advancement, a trait that is shared by most organisms, including the human species.

But the advancement that's exclusive to our species is that of recognizing anomalies. For example, if we see that grass grows 6 inches everywhere, but grows 8 inches on a small patch of land, the anomaly draws our attention and curiosity. We investigate and study the phenomenon till we find why this is happening. When we have the answer, we exploit the accumulated knowledge and use it to make grass grow 8 inches everywhere, if not taller than that. And this is the kind of advancement that only human beings are capable of achieving.

While the anomaly of grass is easy to spot and describe, other anomalies are harder to discern. But as we grow more knowledgeable and sophisticated, we observe and we understand complicated anomalies so well, we use them for good and for ill. For example, when scientists observed a difference between the mass of two supposedly identical quantities, the anomaly led to the formulation of the E=MC2 equation. And that was a giant advance in the history of science.

Unfortunately, however, despite our impressive progress in science, the anomaly we never seem capable of resolving is that of acknowledging the double standard in which most of us engage from time to time. When this happens, we fail to see the double standard for what it is: an affront to human reason. In fact, it is not an exaggeration to say so, given that to recognize anomalies is what sets us apart from the animals. When we lose this ability, we erase the demarcation line between us and the animals. In effect, we descend to their level.

Examples as to how egregious some double standards can get are provided by Benny Avni. He did so in an article that came under the title: “The only way to 'negotiate' a North Korean solution,” published on January 16, 2018 in the New York Post.

First, we recall that Benny Avni is an important part of the Jewish propaganda machine whose main interest is to promote and defend the Israeli agenda. In this capacity, Avni never ceases to lash out at the Boycott, Divest and Sanction (BDS) movement the world has slapped on Israel for its continued occupation of Palestine.

In addition, Avni continually reminds his audiences that Israel has the right to defend itself. And he makes a virtue of Israel employing all kinds of tricks to avoid coming under the rule of law. Now, contrast that stance of Avni with what he says about North Korea, and you'll see a huge anomaly that will make you wonder to what species Benny Avni belongs.

First, Avni quotes the following saying by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson: “If all countries cut off or limit their economic and diplomatic engagements with North Korea [our] efforts will increase the chances of a negotiated resolution.” Avni makes clear he thinks of this idea as being only a drop in the bucket of what needs to be done.

He goes on to stress that before North Korea is invited to the negotiating table, it must adhere to a number of preconditions. But he quickly kills this idea by throwing his hands in the air and exclaiming: “even if Kim [North Korean leader] agreed to our preconditions (big if), what's to negotiate?”

Having established that the world ought to BDS North Korea; having placed preconditions before agreeing to negotiate with that country, and having refused to negotiate because “there is nothing to negotiate,” Avni now says what it is that America must do amid all that Jewish confusion.

Because confusion creates uncertainty, Benny Avni advises that “when in doubt America must lean toward an aggressive stance, rather than a conciliatory one.” He further explains: “Ending the menace without firing a shot may not be possible … Take the diplomatic option off the table, and stop forever pretending the military one is off limits”.

That's what humans become when they lose their humanity. And they have no one to blame but themselves when real human beings start treating them for what they choose to become.

Return of the Gullible-catching Trawler

There is good news for the young students of history who were not around fifty years ago to witness the method by which the Judeo-Israeli lobby used to corral and herd the elites of America's politico-journalistic establishment, turning them into obedient subordinates in the service of the Jewish and Israeli causes.

It is that the Jewish lobby is at it again. The Jews found themselves back at square one in their futile attempt to Pax Americana the world by first “Paxing” America herself, and going from there to greater conquests. When things did not go their way––and not knowing what else to do––the Jews used the same old techniques in the same old way, hoping to achieve the same results, or maybe they thought something new will happen this time.

Two articles that appeared on January 15, 2018 provide enough examples to give the reader a good idea as to how the Jews went about saturating the debating environment with noise pollution that so overwhelmed the gullible 50 years ago, the Jews pulled them to their side like a fishnet scoops thousands of fishes and hauls them to the trawler where they are kept frozen and taken to a processing plant.

One article came under the title: “Can an Israeli-Saudi Detente Work?” written by three Israelis, Yoel Guzansky, Khader Sawaed and Ari Heistein, and published in The National Interest. The other article came under the title: “A secret Middle East alliance,” written by Herbert London, and published in The Washington Times.

Except for alluding to an Arab green-light allowing Israel to gobble up the rest of Palestine, and for them to team-up with Israel to confront Iran, the aim of the Israeli writers at this early stage of their new adventure, is to avoid discussing any other fantasy. What they try to establish in the minds of those who will read them, is the idea that a new era of cooperation has begun with the Sunni Arab World because a rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Israel is now a reality. And of course, the Israelis would not be Jews if they did not claim to be in control of the situation, being the superior member of the team. A summary of their presentation follows:

“The question is this: regarding the Iranian threat, is Saudi Arabia willing to concede on some demands regarding the Palestinians? The Kingdom is now in the midst of political transition. It undertook steps to shift the regional balance in its favor. In addition, the internal situation is sensitive. What could bring about a change? A promise from Washington to increase pressure on Iran, followed by more than just words. The possibility is there that Saudi Arabia could circumvent the Israeli-Palestinian issue altogether. The Houthis in Yemen and Qatar exposed the limits of Saudi power. The era of fabulous wealth is over, leading to bankruptcy within the next decade or two. The U.S.-Saudi bond is breaking. Saudi Arabia is unpopular in Washington. The United States' reputation has suffered in Riyadh. Israel and Saudi Arabia have shared interests. It is important to recognize the kingdom's limitations. Israel would be well advised to prepare for its potential decline, and the struggle against Iran falling on Israel's shoulders”.

As to the aim of Herbert London; it is to tell a fantastic story to three disparate audiences. He is talking to a world that could not care less what he is saying. He is talking to America's politico-journalistic establishment that is bored to death with Jewish fiction pretending to be reality. And he is talking to a Saudi audience he hopes is gullible the way the Americans were 50 years ago when the Judeo-Israeli lobby had managed to coral and herd the elites of America's politico-journalistic establishment, turning them into obedient subordinates in the service of the Jewish and Israeli causes. A summary of his presentation follows:

“A Swiss newspaper reported that a secret alliance between Israel and Saudi Arabia was moving forward. Military cooperation exists. The Saudi government sent a military delegation to discuss Iran's role in the region. It appears that Saudi Arabia is considering the purchase of Israel's [non existent] Iron Dome system. In any Sunni defense condominium Israel will have a role to play. Israel has become an ally of necessity. This explains why the Iron Dome is so critical as a strategic defense. Will demonstrations in Iran lead to the government's fall? Will the modernization of Saudi Arabia work? Will the Egyptian war on ISIS and al-Qaeda succeed? Will the U.S. continue to participate in Mideast affairs? Will Russia continue to secure Bashar Assad's position? If the Saudi-Israeli alliance yields regional stability, these issues will disappear”.

Will the freshly painted decrepit trawler help the Jews catch any Saudi gullible the way it did America's gullible 50 years ago? Not likely. The most likely scenario to unfold is that the Saudi ocean will produce the Moby-Dick that will snap and sink Jewish quackery once and for all.