False artificial Axioms that lead to Disaster

An axiom is a truth you discover by observing the natural world. It is so self-evident, you state it without having to prove it. Axioms serve as the bases upon which complex theorems in mathematics, geometry and science, are constructed. Here is a simple axiom that is understood by everyone:

Because 5+3=8, therefore 3+5=8

But what about the humanities? Are there axioms in those disciplines upon which theorems of any kind are based? The answer is no; not in any formal sense. But in real life, axioms are almost always used informally in the humanities. It happens every time that someone cites a stereotype, a prejudice or a fundamental belief upon which stands a worldview or a philosophy of life. From these realities, artificial axioms are often derived and used to build complex arguments. The thing, however is that such axioms can be rebutted by a solid counterargument, which is what happens more often than not.

Where false axioms of the artificial kind are not rebutted for whatever reason, complex arguments based on them, grow stranger and stranger with the passage of time. When powerful institutions adhere to them without question or revision, they take decisions that often lead to disaster. Examples abound in which America is shown to have gone into places to fix things in response to misrepresentations advanced by the Jewish princes of darkness, and brought disaster to those places instead of the promised stability and prosperity.

Two recent columns give a sense of how false axioms come into existence. One column came under the title: “Donald Trump Is Bad for Israel,” and the subtitle: “As usual, the president makes his predecessors look better.” It was written by Bret Stephens the Jew, and published on December 27, 2018 in the New York Times. The other column came under the title: “Let's make sure ISIS fighters stay locked up – even after our Syria pullout,” written by Marc Thiessen, a lackey of the Jews, and published on December 28, 2018 in the New York Post.

If you are someone that was never interested in Middle Eastern affairs, and have no idea how Jews operate in America; such as the ways in which they force the foreign policy apparatus to hand them the decision-making process, you'll come out the reading experience wondering: What the hell does this guy, Bret Stephens, want?

As far as you can tell, Stephens is saying that Donald Trump is bad for Israel because he is not doing: “What Israel most needs from the US today is what it needed at its birth in 1948: an America committed to defending the liberal-international order, as opposed to one that conducts a foreign policy based on the needs of the moment.” Which you take it to mean that to be good to Israel, an American President must not bother taking the hundreds of split-second decisions he does every day in response to phone calls that come to him at three o'clock in the morning or three o'clock in the afternoon.

But if the President does not respond to the urgent needs of the moment with split-moment decisions, who will? That's a good question, but the problem is that Bret Stephens does not give a straight answer. Instead, he gives examples that boil down to saying: Leave it to the Jews because only they'll know what decision must be taken for every occasion, at every moment.

To show how wrong American presidents have been since 1948, he cites specific examples where only a Jewish response could have given the right answer. The examples cover situations in the Middle East, the rest of the world and the United Nations. The conclusion you are expected to draw from all this, is that Bret Stephens wants to re-engender the now aging and tired axiom that used to ring: Leave it to the Jews; only they know what to do.

As to the axiom that Marc Thiessen wants to re-engender, its intended effect will be to instruct America it must stay inside the box, and not try to think outside of it. Aware that even though ISIS was defeated militarily on the ground, its worldwide membership has grown several folds, Thiessen wants to maintain the two situations that gave rise to ISIS and to all such movements. He wants to keep American troops stationed (indefinitely) in an Arab country. And he wants to maintain open the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, even enlarge it to bring in more detainees.

All in all, the New-York/Tel-Aviv crime syndicate that has been running America's foreign policy for a number of decades, is trying to reinvigorate its grip on America. It is doing it by creating new axioms that take into account the changes that came to the world and to America since 1948, especially during the last decade.

The syndicate is mobilizing Jews such as Bret Stephens, and directing them to spread double-talk, confusion and fuzziness they call clarity.

It is also mobilizing lackeys such as Marc Thiessen, and directing them to advocate the adoption of policies that will maintain the status quo.

Jews and lackeys do the work by painting a picture that makes a reinvigorated status-quo look like it is the only good alternative available to America.

A historical Beginning is not always a Principle

Finally, David French has decided to set aside, at least temporarily, the religious lens through which he used to interpret the events under discussion. But when he replaced that lens with something else, his confusion manifested itself.

French does not seem to realize that “beginning” and “principle” are two different things. There are times when the two coincide, but most of the time they don't. Whether in the reality of mundane living or in the drama of the courtroom or in the specialized endeavors of the ivory tower, the interplay between the two concepts make up the bulk of the ideas that the sides try to communicate to each other.

For example, in a domestic dispute that's unfolding in the home or in front of a marriage counselor or on “shock” television shows, each litigant would hark back to a different point in time and builds a case from there as if it were the beginning of the dispute. In a real case, he might say, she humiliated me last night when she danced with my boss and let him kiss her on the lips. And she would say, he made me feel like trash last week, telling his mother at the dinner table, how much he wishes I were half as good a cook as she is.

In this case, the reason for the dispute is the same: humiliation that occurred at different points in time. But there could have been two different reasons, even multiple concerns raised by each litigant — which is usually what happens in real life. But in all such cases, the principle that is alluded to, but not voiced by the litigants, would be that of fidelity and the promise to stand by each other through thick and thin. Thus, if the litigants would stop for a moment and define for each other how they want the promise of fidelity to apply in their relationship, they can resolve the dispute quickly and create a covenant by which to be guided going forward.

Taken to the national level, such covenant is called Constitution. And this is where the beginning and the principle usually coincide. For example, in America, the beginning of the Republic, and the form of Democracy it has adopted have coincided with the adoption of the Constitution. This is where the rights and obligations of the citizen and those of the authorities are defined.

When it comes to international relations, unless we speak of obligations under resolutions adopted by competent tribunals such as the UN Security Council, what bedevils litigants and their supporters in the world of punditry, is the burden of having to sort out what is principle and what is beginning. In addition, when someone hasn't even thought of the subject, he produces a confused mishmash of tangents having no core from which to begin, and pointing in directions that lead nowhere.

This is what you see in the David French article, which came under the title: “The Frustrating Necessity of Staying in Syria and Afghanistan — Explained,” published on December 28, 2018 in National Review Online. It is in the first sentence that David French has stated the principle he applied to the discussion. Speaking of ISIS, he wrote this: “We know who will dominate in our absence, and we know their hostile intent.” Note that the principle was not stated by ISIS who supposedly adhere to it, but impugned to them by David French.

And then, 300 words and several paragraphs later, David French stated what he says are bin Laden's grievances that would explain why ISIS is hostile to “us” and why it wants to dominate. Here is what French wrote: “Never forget that one of the grievances Osama bin Laden listed as justifying his attack on America was the Christian Spanish reconquest of Muslim Spain.” Once again, you have a situation in which David French has asserted what it was that motivated ISIS, a speculation he based on what he says is the historical point in time that must have motivated bin Laden in the first place. Weird, isn't it?

In any case, whether or not these events have legs to stand on, is immaterial. The truth is that we have it from the litigants themselves that they are fighting back against a war they did not start, but one that was brought to them. It was brought, they say, not by an enemy they can see wielding a familiar weapon, but an enemy that blows their families in their homes before anyone had even realized he was there targeting them.

Time after time, those who join ISIS have stated that the principle motivating them was that the “West” was sending its war machines to kill their people in their homes, their cities and their fields in Muslim lands. When France was interfering in the Algerian election, the Muslim kids retaliated by blowing up targets in France. When France stopped, they stopped. When Spain joined America, and killed Muslims in their homes, the kids went to Spain and blew up trains there. When Spain withdrew its forces from the Muslim countries, they stopped attacking Spain.

This is the observable truth, the principle that is different from the historical speculations, which David French and those like him fabricate to justify maintaining a situation so absurd, it becomes deadlier and costlier for America as time passes.

If David French would base his discussions on the observable and stated principles enunciated by the people he is talking about rather than speculate on what historical events may have motivated them, he would write articles that readers can take seriously. He is not there yet — unfortunately.

Trying to drag America into an African Waterloo

Can you imagine a sub-Saharan Africa of half a billion people on their way to doubling their numbers before the end of the century — coming under the control of Jewish America?

This is the same Jewish America that's increasingly seen as being the most virulent disease to have plagued planet Earth since the beginning of time. And here is the Judeo-American crime syndicate, scheming to turn a good part of Africa into a Gaza-like wretched continent, ready to be exploited like the bad old days.

This is what the Jewish crime syndicate, together with John Bolton and the very Jewish Hudson Institute teamed up to accomplish. They have Arthur L. Herman pitching a diabolic scheme in their name, as he tries to sell the plan to the Capitol Hillbillies who already put a deposit of a quarter of a trillion dollars — paid out over several decades to buy Israel — only to see the thing give itself away to the Chinese, free of charge.

Pretending to work in the open to appear transparent, Arthur Herman wrote an article in which he spelled out what he wants the readers to believe is a good plan for Africa. The article came under the title: “The coming Scramble for Africa,” and the subtitle: “China, and Russia to a degree, are ahead of the game, but the US has the advantage going forward.” It was published on December 26, 2018 in National Review Online.

Herman is pushing a classic argument; one that’s tailor-made for suckers. Stripped to its essence, the argument says that future successes will be scored in Africa. China is already there doing itself a great deal of good, and it's about time that America gets in, or it will lag behind to such an extent, it will never catch up. Still, because China is playing a dirty game in Africa, there is a chance for America to win the race despite China's head-start, provided America gets in now.

But what do Israel and the Judeo-American crime syndicate want, anyway? Well, already in the embrace of China, and having America in its own embrace, Israel wants to bring the two powers in one place (Africa) to play them against each other, the way that America's Jews played the Republicans and the Democrats against each other, a formula that turned the US Congress of hillbillies into a cash cow. Volunteering to speak in the name of Israel, here is how Arthur Herman of the very Jewish Hudson Institute put it:

“At stake are Africa's natural resources, rapidly growing markets, and political and military influence over the Southern Hemisphere. This scramble will shape the 21st century and become the epicenter for the competition between the US and China for economic and strategic leadership”.

Will the scheme work? And if it does, what will it accomplish? Well, bear in mind that when John Bolton claims he speaks in the name of the administration, he does not mean the one in the District of Columbia; he means the one in occupied Jerusalem. And when he says 'America,' he uses that name as a code word to mean Israel. So, here is what Arthur Herman says John Bolton wants to accomplish:

“National Security Adviser John Bolton gave a speech unveiling the administration's new Africa strategy. Unfortunately, China has a big lead in this competition. But America has one advantage. The scramble has two bad actors, Russia and China, and one good guy ready to ride to the rescue — namely, the US. While China's effort in Africa have been neo-colonialists, we can, as Bolton indicated, show Africa's countries how to preserve their independence in ways that benefit their people and the prosperity and security of the United States … The new policy will ensure, according to Bolton, that ALL aid to the region advances US interests”.

Stop for a moment and think about it, my friend. You have a Continent whose people suffered enormously under colonialism, and fought for several generations to liberate themselves, now being told by a nutcase he has a lesson to give them on how to maintain their independence. Would you tell something as idiotic as this to the Nelson Mandelas of Africa?

And that's not all, because that someone is none other than the Judeo-American beast whom no one can stand at the United Nations. In fact, the African delegates in that international forum routinely get together with the rest of the world to condemn the regime of genocidal colonialism that terrorist Israel and its American sponsor, have been maintaining in occupied Palestine for half a century … and refusing to quit.

And there is still more. The genocidal beast says openly and shamelessly it wants to tell the Africans how to live their lives in a manner that will “benefit the prosperity and security of the United States [read Israel] … ensure that ALL aid to the region advances US [Israeli] interests”.

And these nutcases believe that the Africans will think of them as being the good guys while thinking of the Chinese and the Russians as being the bad guys.

Well, let me tell you something: don't bother booking a psychiatric appointment for these guys; they are too far gone to be saved.

And they claim this is not Warmongering

Year after year, and decade after decade, the self-appointed Jewish leaders have blown their entrails out of their bellies, hollering that it was anti-Semitic to accuse them of warmongering. They said that such accusations make ordinary people hate Jews, an attitude that has the potential to lead to a holocaust, perhaps the ultimate one.

And yet, year after year and decade after decade — make that, day after day and week after week — you see a spectacle of Jewish punditry like the one that's running now. Featured in today’s show, are the three horsemen of the apocalyptic mob of Jewish punditry, doing their usual warmongering thing. They are Benny Avni, Clifford D. May and Daniel Pipes.

Avni wrote two columns in less than a week lamenting President Trump's decision to end America's involvement in the Syrian war, and then advised him to rekindle America's penchant to go to war. On December 19, 2018, Avni published: “The Syria withdrawal may be Trump's biggest blunder yet,” and on December 25, 2018, he published: “An 'America First' strategy for Trump in 2019.” Both columns appeared in the New York Post.

As to Clifford May, he wrote a column lamenting President Trump's decision to end America's involvement in the Syrian war and to reduce America's involvement in the Afghan war. This is the one that has been going for 17 years, and was dubbed America's longest war. May's column came under the title: “Looking for the exits,” published on December 25, 2018 in The Washington Times.

As to Daniel Pipes who should be nicknamed 'Master of Redundancy,' he did it again. He wrote: “Tectonic shifts in attitudes toward Israel,” an article in which he mentions yet another reason why Israel's military should move-in massively and wipe the Palestinians off the face of the Earth. The Pipes article was published on December 26, 2018 in The Washington Times.

In his December 19, 2018 column, Benny Avni chides President Trump for making what he says was a bad deal. Here is how he put it: Trump leaving Syria was a component in a deal with Erdogan. The Turks get a free hand dealing with the Kurds, while America gets nothing. Trump blundered conceding to Ankara without getting commitments in return.

Speaking of blunder, do you realize what blunder Benny Avni committed in writing that passage? Let me tell you: He forgot what he wrote a year ago about the concession that Trump made without getting something in return. Trump had moved the American Embassy to Jerusalem without getting as much as a commitment from Netanyahu that there will be no more theft of Palestinian land. Benny Avni hailed Trump's move as if it were the best thing that happened to the Milky Way since the Big Bang.

And that's not all, my friend. After chiding Trump on December 19, 2018 for the concession he made to Ankara, Avni went on to write the following, only 6 days later in this December 25, 2018 column: “Trump moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem, pleasing Israel.” He meant it as a compliment to Trump even though moments before, he was chiding him for treating Turkey the same as he treated Israel. Call this the shameless celebration of Jewish double standard.

As to the Clifford May article, there is little in it that’s not a rehash of what he has been spewing for years. The only thing that might catch your attention is Clifford May's quoting George Orwell who said: “The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it.” Of course, Orwell being Orwell, he must have had a corollary for that saying. It may be sitting in a drawer or an attic somewhere, waiting to be discovered. Until this happens, we may speculate as to how the corollary might go. How about this: “The quickest way to win a war is never to start one.” It sounds very Orwellian, does it not?

Let's now look at the Daniel Pipes article. After describing the new world order, not as it is, but as he wishes it had become, Daniel Pipes relied on the fantasy he created to argue yet again for the resolution of the Palestinian situation, not by the rule of law as spelled out in Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, but by crushing the Palestinians. This is like saying the way to deal with a rape victim who refuses to accept what's being done to her, is to murder the thing, thus establish her silence.

Here are Daniel Pipes' actual words: “A resolution of the Palestinian issue should be a priority for Israelis. It does not mean touting a peace plan. It means, an Israeli victory and a Palestinian defeat will achieve this. Getting the Palestinians to cry uncle is an urgent priority for Israel and its supporters”.

What can be more beastly, more savage and more Jewish than this?

I have Opinions because I can feel and can judge

Richard Cohen wrote a column under the title: “Anti-Semitism is not just another opinion”.

It is not clear if Cohen means that anti-Semitism is no opinion at all, or that it is part opinion and part something else. The column also came under the subtitle: “The New York Times should know better,” and was published on December 24, 2018 in The Washington Post.

To avoid getting lost in the thick fog of haggling, we must begin the discussion by sharpening our understanding of the word 'opinion.' So let's begin with Rene Descartes' saying: “I think, therefore I am.” If we accept this concept, we acknowledge that human existence stands on the factors that produce thinking. These are the capacity to 'feel,' which we share with other primates, and the capacity to 'judge,' which is ours alone.

Because feeling and judgment are the ingredients that lead to the formulation of opinions, we conclude that our existence as human beings, stands on our capacity to formulate opinions. Take this capacity away, and we descend to the level of the lower primates. What this boils down to is that anti-Semitism and similar sentiments of revulsion toward the others, are natural products of our humanity.

The question is this: Is anti-Semitism based more on feeling which is a naturally produced sentiment, or is it based more on judgment, which is an artificially produced attitude? It's important to resolve this question because the answer can lead to a better management of anti-Semitism.

There is no doubt that people who do not know each other feel more at ease being among people that look like themselves than being among people that look different — be that a different color of the skin, of weight, of general appearance, of accent or what have you. This is a natural reaction whose sting is diminished by getting people to know each other, which results in the fear of the unknown becoming acceptance of the familiar.

In fact, the Jews in Europe understood this reality centuries ago, and sought to resolve their difficulties by mounting a comprehensive scheme to change their looks from the Semitic appearance they had, to the European appearance they acquired using a questionable method. What the Jews did was kidnap, adopt or lure Nordic looking children into their ghettos where they raised them as their own. And they worked on cross-breeding a new crop of Jews having looks more amenable to the European population outside the ghetto.

The scheme worked for a period of time, but anti-Semitism returned more intensively in Europe. It happened because the Europeans turned out to be reacting more repulsively to what the Jews were doing rather than how they appeared. Where they reacted with indignation to the Jewish supremacist attitude in the past, they now reacted viscerally for being conned by Jews that remained as supremacist as ever, but were now wrapped in a European skin.

That drama played itself in Europe for centuries, culminating in the Nazis forcing the Jews to wear a yellow Star of David so that they can easily be spotted and identified by the innocent Germans who might be conned and harmed by Jews that were made to look like them, members of the master Aryan race.

This happens to answer the question that was asked earlier: Is anti-Semitism based more on feeling, or on judgment? The answer is that anti-Semitism is based more on what the Jews do, than what they are as an ethnic or religious group; more on how they interact with other peoples than anything else. And this suggests that the resolution of the problem they label anti-Semitism, rests on the shoulders of the Jewish leaders themselves, one of whom is Richard Cohen.

Like the other Jewish leaders, Richard Cohen plays a big role in telling the rank-and-file how to interact with the rest of society. His latest column is about that. To see what he's doing wrong, compare two of his stances, and marvel at the double standard that determines his manner of interacting with the rest of society. He is doing it in full view of his readers, some of whom will undoubtedly emulate him:

First, Richard Cohen quotes Pamela Paul as saying: “We never question people on their choices … The people's answers are a reflection of their opinions, tastes and judgments.” To this, Cohen expresses his own opinion as follows: In other words, anti-Semitism is just another opinion, taste or judgment.

Second. Richard Cohen ends his column by making two accusations, and by demanding a remedy. Here they are: “What's lacking from the Times is appropriate shock at Alice Walker's bigotry and its own refusal to admit a mistake. An apology would be fit to print”.

In other words, Cohen is saying that we must apologize for being human enough to form opinions of the kind that do not acknowledge the supremacy of Jews.

For this, Richard Cohen should apologize for being human enough to accuse Pamela Paul of appalling judgment, and Alice Walker of bigotry. Will the Washington Post see fit to print such apology?

Their Number one Principle is to be unprincipled

One of the tricks that the Jewish leaders made use of to impress their audiences at the start of their conquest of North America, was to claim that the position they took, whatever it was, rested on matters of principle.

That repeated pretense on the part of the Jews, invoked the image of them being modern-day Moses in the eyes of the mostly Christian audiences that grew up hearing their own priests and pastors tell them they were sinners. Not only that, but they were accused of being proud sinners that must begin to practice modesty or be prepared to go straight to Hell.

And one of the ways that the Christians practised modesty, was to refrain from questioning the Jews who were anything but modest. In fact, the Christians thought that the Jew was holding an invisible sceptre he can wave and open the ground under them, thus dispatch them straight to hell for challenging the Jew who was sent to speak the word of God to the immodest Christian sinners. It was that bad half a century ago.

But those of us who lived with Jews for thousands of years, knew better. Alas, the Jews were many in North America, and we were few. They made the most of the advantage they had, and managed to silence our side by slandering us behind our backs. This done, they claimed the debating field all to themselves, and spewed enough rubbish to overflow many landfills. They were believed by others because there was no one left to push against their streams of quackery. After all, North America was a society that believed there are two sides to every story, but only one side to the word of God, especially when that word came out the mouth of a Jew.

Those days are gone, and the Jewish leaders of the second and third generations that claimed the mantle post that era, do not seem to have learned the tricks that allowed their predecessors to succeed so well. Unlike the old days when the Jew did not have to explain why 2 plus 2 added up to 5 or 7, to suit the point they were making on a given day — today's Jews feel compelled to give some kind of explanation to every assertion they make, no matter how screwy the explanation may turn out to be.

You'll detect this sort of philosophical bedlam in the article that came under the title: “On Syria, Trump Is Wrong — and Contradicts Himself,” written by Jonathan S. Tobin and published on December 24, 2018 in Algemeiner. As can be deduced from the title alone, Tobin is attacking Trump's decision to pull American troops out of Syria. He proceeds with his analysis, believing that because Trump made numerous promises as a candidate running to be President, it was inevitable that he should contradict some of the promises he made and positions he took.

What is eluding Tobin is what must have eluded his predecessors. But the difference is that the old-timers were not put to the test because there was no one around to test them, whereas Tobin and his contemporaries must show some level of logical cogency, or be deemed intellectual lightweights pretending to be giants.

Here is what the Jews did not understand in the past, and do not understand today: If your philosophy of life flows from one solid principle, you can branch into as many directions as you need, and your promises or positions will not contradict each other. But if you adhere to no principle except the one of being unprincipled, your stances, no matter how few they may be, will contradict each other, and will nullify the effect they were meant to produce.

Not knowing this, Jonathan Tobin relied on the politically laden talking points that were put out by the Jewish propaganda machine — of which he is one cog — to attack Trump's Syria decision with the argument that the decision contradicts some of the stances taken by candidate-cum-President Donald Trump. What Tobin has produced, however, is not a coherent argument but a philosophical miasma as opaque as the dirty waters in which the Jews go to catch their fish. The following are 84 words that represent the essence of what took Jonathan Tobin more than a thousand words to say:

“Few protested when Obama abandoned Iraq in 2011. Trump understands better than Obama the danger of allowing Iran to go unchecked. Obama began a military effort against ISIS. Trump unleashed the military free of Obama's micromanagement. By declaring victory and pulling out, Trump may have strengthened Iran when, for the first time since Obama, the regime seems to be faltering. Trump's version of America First will prove to be as weak as Obama's approach. It is a pale imitation of Obama's flawed foreign policy”.

It is obvious that Jonathan Tobin has relied — not on a philosophical principle — but the single stance of attacking a debating opponent, Barack Obama, to make his thesis look like holding together.

That is why Tobin’s side has failed to present a coherent message, and why their philosophy of life cannot be said to flow from a solid principle.

It is Time for America to rethink its Role

There are many constants attributable to Jews, but the one that's associated with them the most, is the old Communist saying: “What's mine is mine and what's yours is debatable.” Actually, the Jews have upgraded it to now say: “What's mine is mine and what's yours will soon be mine”.

You see that mentality at play in the Middle East where the Jews have stopped talking about the Golan Heights and the West Bank being territories, they will hold till they can negotiate an agreement with their neighbors. What they do now is savagely attack anyone that suggests these are occupied territories. By that, they mean to state that the territories are theirs. Period.

You also see that same mentality at play on the international stage. It manifests itself each time that an inquiry cites Israel as being culpable of a violation. This motivates the Jews to rise and immediately start mobilizing the resources of the United States. Regardless of the cost to America's taxpayers, the Jews put these resources to work on reversing the citation.

And you see that mentality at play in America's domestic affairs as well. It happens that every decision adopted locally to favor the Jews, acquires an ironclad solidity, whereas every decision that contradicts Jewish interests, triggers a sustained tsunami of pressures to reverse the decision. In fact, that's happening at this moment with regard to the decision to save lives and wealth by pulling American troops out of Syria.

The latest in the realm of applied pressure, is an article that came under the title: “Why the United States must stay in Syria,” written by Gary Anderson and published on December 23, 2018 in the Washington Times. You see that title and you decide to read the article, thinking that reasons were overlooked why America must continue to sacrifice blood and treasure in Syria rather than pull out … but what you discover amazes you.

You are amazed not because Gary Anderson discovered the eureka argument that has eluded everyone up to now, but because the retired Colonel has leveraged his training as a Marine Corps officer, as well as his career as a military man, to rehash the talking points that the Jewish leaders are distributing among their lackeys.

You'll find that the sum total of Anderson's arguments rests on the principles of Jewish haggling. From using the wrong yardstick to evaluate his opponents' arguments ... to the attempt at gaining credit for his side by discrediting the political opposition ... to the speculation about a future that will unfold in misery unless things change drastically — everything is there to indicate that Gary Anderson was schooled in the art of playing the Jewish game. What follows is a brief summary of what he said:

“Trump is screwing up in withdrawing from Syria. He should re-evaluate. He is doing what he criticized Obama for doing. Nothing will be gained politically by the Syrian withdrawal. There are no teach-ins, demonstrations at the Pentagon or hoards of military-age males heading for the Canadian border to avoid service. More Americans will die in traffic accidents in a single day over the holidays than will die in our Syrian involvement. A field exercise by Marines costs as much as supporting the troops in Syria. A power vacuum is like having molding food under a refrigerator; it attracts vermin. In 2010 I was on patrol with my security detail, and ran into the al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) governor of the district. He said that someday we'll be gone and AQI will be there governing again. Without a cleaning crew, the mold under the refrigerator will regrow and the roaches will return”.

He says the absence of demonstrations at the Pentagon by would-be draft dodgers, proves that the situation in Syria today is not as critical as it was during the Vietnam War. That's because there is no draft now, dumbo!

The writer also tries to pull a fast one on his readers by making the asinine Jewish argument that because Americans die in car accidents (something that cannot be avoided) and because they spend money doing military exercises (out of necessity) they can just as well waste a few lives by sending them in harm’s way, and waste a few billions of dollars doing it. Perfect Jewish logic. Is it not?

To end his argument, Gary Anderson came up with the analogy of rotting food under the refrigerator that attracts roaches. The poor man does not understand that there is a natural place for everything. When things remain in their place, life unfolds as pleasantly as it should. When they are displaced, they disrupt life for everyone.

Thus, when the Americans go under the proverbial refrigerators around the world where they do not belong — they become the rotting food that attracts the roaches looking for something to feed on.

This is why the world wants America to remain inside its borders. Humanity just wants life to be as pleasantly natural as it was meant to be.

France gave them a Republic they could not keep

At the ripe old age of 81, three years before he died, Benjamin Franklin, having participated in the deliberations pertaining to the Constitutional Convention, was asked by some delegates what exactly did they just create. He replied it was: A Republic if you can keep it.

The man was asked a short question, and he gave a short answer. But the history behind all of that, involved not only what happened before those words were spoken, but what happened long after them as well. It was the struggle, the sacrifices and the wars that the American colonies had to endure to gain full independence from Britain. And while all of this was unfolding — as most historians would agree — France played a major role in helping the American patriots win the struggle, achieve independence, and create the Republic they sought.

But here is the bad news: While the Americans have managed their Republic reasonably well, and kept it in a manner that would have pleased Benjamin Franklin for more than two centuries, they began the process of losing it after that. Now federated into a single country, the Republic is gradually turning into a massive Jewish colony. There are obvious signs this is happening, and there are clear answers how the trend can be reversed. But what is in doubt, is that the will exists in America to embark on such a project.

One of the obstacles standing in the way of the American public mounting a concerted effort to prevent their Republic from turning into a plantation in the service of Jewish causes, is the concerted effort that the Jewish leaders and their brainwashed Christian cohorts have mounted to defeat the spirit of independence that used to fire-up the imagination of Benjamin Franklin's generation.

One of those cohorts is David French whose specialty is to produce and purvey subtle deceptions. This time, he put himself in charge of interpreting current events in a manner that tells a story contrary to what's happening in reality. You can see this when studying the article that he wrote under the title: “Don't ignore the warnings in Gen. Mattis' resignation letter,” published on December 21, 2018 in the New York Post.

The task at hand being to force President Trump to reverse the Syria decision he took in order to end America's habit of hemorrhaging blood and wealth for the sake of others, David French volunteered to lead the charge against Donald Trump. His worry being that when America stops hemorrhaging, Israel begins weakening, he decided to turn up a sleight of hand that will make sure America stays in the business of hemorrhaging blood and treasure, thus strengthen Israel and weaken its neighbors.

The idea is to give the Jews a chance to establish the empire they have been dreaming about since the days of Moses. They want America to pave the way for them to walk all over a neighborhood that's weakened by American aggressive military, diplomatic and economic moves. To achieve all this, David French interpreted General Mattis' resignation letter in a way that gives the impression the General wanted to see the implementation of the Jewish scheme; when in fact, the General was opposed to the scheme they concocted for Palestine.

Here is the passage in the Mattis letter that David French is emphasizing: One core belief I have always held is that our strength as a nation is inextricably linked to the strength of our unique and comprehensive system of alliances and partnerships … We cannot protect our interests without maintaining strong alliances and showing respect to those allies.

Given the history of David French's fanatic support for Israel, what he did in quoting those words, is give the false impression that General Mattis regards Israel as useful when it comes to protecting America's interests. But you'll find that the reality on the ground is the opposite of that. You’ll find it when you study what the General thought of America's relationship with Israel. In fact, in addition to opposing the ditching of the Iran deal, Mattis opposed moving the embassy to Jerusalem. And he spoke extensively about the occupation of Palestine. Here is some of what he said in that regard:

“I paid a military security price every day as the commander of Central Command because the Americans were seen as biased in support of Israel, and because the moderate Arabs who want to be with us can't support the people who don't show respect for the Palestinians ... If I'm in Jerusalem and I put 500 Jewish settlers to the east and there's 10,000 Arabs here, if I draw the border to include them, either it ceases to be a Jewish state or you say the Arabs don't get to vote. This is apartheid. It didn't work the last time I saw it practiced in a country”.

America is paying a military security price being too friendly with Israel, is what the General has said. He could not be more emphatic repudiating that relationship. It’s because when you sacrifice your security to the one that’s already bleeding you financially and in term of standing in the world, you become a colony of that someone. And the General would have none of that.

This is a situation that would have horrified Benjamin Franklin no less. He would have called David French a traitor, and would have demanded that he be treated accordingly.

Lindsey Graham, “échappé de la Capote”

A French saying that used to be in vogue decades ago may no longer be in use today in France or elsewhere in the French speaking countries. But I do remember it decades later because something (actually someone) keeps reminding me of it. He is Lindsey Graham, a so-called member of the US Senate.

The saying goes like this: “C'est un échappé de la Capote,” which translates into: he is an escapee from the condom. It is an insult which means to convey the idea that the person is so bad, he was not meant to be born. But he is here anyway because: While his parents were making love using a condom, a defect in the condom caused the semen to leak and fertilize the mother. And so, the world is stuck with the thing known as Lindsey Graham, and we are condemned to live with it.

Of course, Graham is not the only so-called Senator deserving to be thought of as an accident of fertilization; a number of others have earned that label. For example, two notorious escapees are Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. But the difference between them and Graham is that while the word 'escapee' applies to all, Graham escaped the condom whereas the other two were born to fathers that escaped a Communist regime they didn't like.

So then, what is there about Lindsey Graham that makes him an undesirable sojourner in the midst of Life on Earth? To answer this question, we need to recall what he is supposed to be doing as a member of the US Senate, and compare that with what he is actually doing.

The American system of government was tailored after the British system, which itself comprises a bicameral legislative assembly known as Parliament. It is made of the Lower Chamber where legislation is initiated, and the Upper Chamber where the appointed elder statesmen give the legislation sober second thoughts, and approve it or recommend that it be amended.

In America, the system was slightly altered to have the two chambers elected. And both were given the right to initiate legislation. Whereas the name “Congress” refers to both chambers, it is used colloquially to mean the House of Representatives; equivalent of the British Lower Chamber. As to the American equivalent of the British Upper Chamber, it is called the Senate. Each state in the Union is represented in the House by a number of “deputies” commensurate with the size of its population. But to stress that all the states (no matter the size) are equal, each is represented by two senators.

To complete the American system of government, there is the Judicial system which is independent, and ranks as an equal branch. And there is the Executive branch, which comprises among other things, the key institutions of the White House, the Department of State and that of Defense. Each of the three branches of government (legislative, judicial and executive) has a mandate spelled out in the American Constitution.

For the sake of brevity, it suffices to say that the duties of a senator compel him or her to preoccupy themselves with the concerns of their state. As to the duties of the nation's President, they comprise foreign affairs and the conduct of wars … once they are declared by the Congress and funded by it. So the question to ask is this: Is Lindsey Graham fulfilling his duties faithfully and letting others fulfill theirs? Or is he using his time and the powers of his office, not to enhance the lives of his constituents, but to exploit the resources of his country (America) to promote the interests of a foreign entity (Israel)?

To find out, we consult two articles written lately about Lindsey Graham. One was published on December 19, 2018 under the title: “Graham: 'Obama-like Mistake' for Trump to pull Troops from Syria.” The other article was published on December 21, 2018 under the title: “Graham Demands Congressional Hearings on Syria Troop Withdrawal.” Both were authored by Mairead McArdle and published in National Review Online.

Here is the essence of what Lindsey Graham said on December 19, 2018: “The decision to withdraw troops from Syria would be a huge Obama-like mistake. He explained that ISIS is not defeated in Syria, Iraq or Afghanistan. He added that an American withdrawal will be seen as a boost to ISIS. It will undercut the effort to contain Iran, and puts the Kurds at risk”.

And here is the essence of what Lindsey Graham demanded on December 21, 2018: “...that Congress hold hearings on the decision to withdraw from Syria, a move he strongly disagrees with. Known for his hawkish positions on foreign policy, Graham said he needs to hear about the fate of the Kurds; also needs to know if there is a plan to protect the allies. And he asserted that America was paving the way toward a second 9/11”.

To speculate that someone will want to inflict on America the tragedy of 9/11 is to wish (perhaps unconsciously, perhaps not) that such a thing would happen ... whatever the hidden motive.

But even if such were not the case, Graham's constant use of fear mongering as a weapon to usurp the powers of the Executive branch while neglecting to serve his constituents as a senator, proves that the man is not fit for the job.

Lindsey Graham should resign his post and register as a foreign agent lobbying for Israel. The same goes for the Rubios and the Cruzes that have contaminated America's system of governance by their persistent pretenses.

They may all have escaped something, but they will not escape the reality that they are traitors.

How the Fifth Column was smoked out

It turned out that the Jewish mob of pundits was nothing more than the tip of the iceberg. The rest of the monstrosity remained hidden to the human eye as if submerged beneath the ocean. But it was there all the time, waiting for something small or something titanic to come close and be given the iceberg treatment.

When Donald Trump announced he was pulling America's troops out of Syria, he wandered too close to the fifth column that was sitting quietly, waiting to be put in action. This happened when commanded to come out in force by the Tel-Aviv/New-York crime syndicate whose work heretofore was expressed only by members of the Jewish punditry. But the Trump announcement was so consequential, it was necessary for the full iceberg to throw its full weight behind the effort to force the American Commander-in-Chief to “reconsider” his decision. And this is how the Fifth Column was smoked out of its hiding place.

From the Left and from the Right, hordes came out wearing the Conservative stripes and the Progressive stripes. They were the Democrats and the Republicans, the Fox News talking heads, the MSNBC talking heads and everything in-between. They were the White House correspondents, the State Department correspondents and the Pentagon correspondents. And they were of the Wall Street Journal type ... as well as those of New York Times, the Washington Post, the New York Daily News, and many others.

The only people that were not given the opportunity to come out in the open and express their opinion, were the ninety-seven percent of the non-Jewish ordinary Americans who yearn to rebuild their country rather than see its energies deployed to destroy the foreign countries that did nothing to harm America.

Pumped up by a religious fanaticism that turned him into a reusable kind of suicide-bomber designed to detonate upon receiving the signal from his Jewish controllers, David French was made to detonate once again on December 20, 2018. He did so when he wrote the article that came under the title: “Defeating ISIS: Separating Fact from Fiction,” published in National Review Online.

Here is how David French made his case:

“Trump’s decision to withdraw troops from Syria has shocked advisers inside and outside his administration. Lindsey Graham and Mike Huckabee, were alarmed. ISIS attempted to build a nation-state. The nation-state has been crushed, but ISIS still lives. So, while Trump deserves credit for stepping up the war, he is stopping short of complete victory. He must make sure that the state doesn’t reconstitute, and must complete the campaign against the remaining force. When Trump says ISIS is defeated in Syria, he’s not telling the truth. His decision is reckless and dangerous. Let’s hope he changes his mind again”.

Considering that there remain only 2,000 American troops in Syria, David French is trying to fool his readers into believing they can prevent the metastasis of ISIS, which already put roots in dozens of countries — extending from Nigeria in West Africa to the Philippines in East Asia, as well as in Europe and the Americas. It is conducting physical terrorist operations on the ground, and running a social media campaign to recruit local youngsters it brainwashes, teaches them to make weapons, and motivates them to commit terrorist operations.

This being a proposition too absurd to con even a child, we must search for the real reason why David French wants to see America maintain a token force in Syria. We must at once dismiss the notion that the force will be expected to engage in any kind of serious battle. This is just not America's style at making war when its well publicized doctrine of war is to engage the enemy with an overwhelming force and crush it rapidly.

As we continue the search for what motivates David French, we run across two critical clues. One is that the writer is a self-described card-carrying religious fanatic who will stop at nothing to promote what he says are Judeo-Christian causes. The second clue is that, token forces are often stationed in remote places to serve as a tripwire. Putting the two clues together, we conclude that David French, and all those who make up the hidden part of the iceberg, are working to turn America into a sentinel that will stand as guard at Israel's gate. Its purpose will be to hold back an attacker as long as possible, and call for the overwhelming American force to come rescue Israel.

David French should be told to develop the intellectual honesty to reveal his true motives rather than come up with fantastic stories that insult even the intelligence of a child.

A new Religion for the Masses. A new Opium?

Very few if any, will dispute the notion that throughout the centuries, religion was used by the mighty as a tool to control masses of people that may not be powerful when operating individually, but could be when banding together to push back against the imposition of harsh measures, such as paying high taxes for example.

It is this notion that gave birth to the saying: religion is the opium of the masses. But this idea came up at a time that was called “age of innocence.” There was no instant worldwide communication then, no 24-hour news cycle, no social media, and no rumor mills that put out a thousand pieces of fake news for every genuine item that found its way to the ether or to cyberspace.

The world has changed. It has become complicated; and the people everywhere, have become sophisticated. A transition period bridged the gap between innocence and sophistication; and it was during this period that the nature of religion was transformed to match the changing times. From relying on the spiritual, religion gradually embraced the materialist way of thinking. Where there used to be God, demons, good and fallen angels; there was now, private and national interests, strategic alliances, and make-believe narratives … all tailor-made to sedate societies that may be experiencing discontent or may be approaching the level of rebellion.

Because there are nearly 200 national jurisdictions in the world, many of which are subdivided into a number of provincial and municipal jurisdictions, they each exhibit cultural traits that may not always be understood by the others. But there are also jurisdictions that share similar cultural traits because they are neighbors or because some of their groups might have migrated from place to place, taking with them distinct cultural attributes.

One such group calls itself Jews. Even though they are divided into several subgroups, they take pains to project the image of having a common ancestry serving as a thread that connects them to each other wherever they happen to live in the world. Time after time, complex historical events have combined with the system of beliefs to which these people adhere, putting them at odds with the rest of humanity. This sort of scenario happened to Jews throughout time, wherever they went in the world. In fact, they came close to being annihilated at the hands of others on several occasions — so much so that their leaders developed the habit of designing a new strategy for each occasion to keep the flock sedated, keep it together and keep it alive.

You can see how the latest Jewish strategy was made to work when you read the article that came under the title: “A modest Middle East detente,” written by Clifford D. May and published on December 18, 2018 in The Washington Times. Seeing the world tighten around them like the noose around a neck, the Jewish rank-and-file are worried. Clifford May who’s a Jewish leader of some renown, wrote the article that he did to tell these people they must not panic despite what they see unfold around them.

The truth is that he cannot tell them all is rosy and looking great for the Jews in America, Europe, Asia or Africa because they can see it’s not true. Well then, what to do? Because the Jews have been conditioned to believe that the Arabs are demons who will hate Jews no matter what, May has discovered that telling them the Arabs are changing, does as much good as putting ointment on their wound or letting them inhale a few puffs of the funny stuff.

In fact, to believe that the Arabs are changing from what they were not, to what they have not become, makes the Jews feel good even if they suspect that the ointment is but a placebo, or that the funny stuff they are made to inhale, is but a sick joke. Still, this is what Clifford May is doing in his article. In fact, this has been the strategy adopted by most Jewish leaders for some time now.

Clifford May began the discussion by telling the story of Israel's Netanyahu that traveled to Oman where he met with Sultan Al-Said, head of the government. To make it sound like this is a unique event, the writer neglected to mention that a similar meeting took place previously when Israel's Rabin made a visit to Oman in the wake of Egypt and Israel signing a peace treaty.

Instead of arguing that such occurrences do not take the Middle East back to becoming a normal neighborhood, thus concluding that a new approach is necessary for this to happen, Clifford May chose to play the same old game: reviving the discredited stereotypes, and leaving the situation as bad as when he first tackled it.

In fact, instead of telling his audience that the Arabs gave Israel this one more chance to accept the proposal they put on the table more than a decade ago — calling for the end of the occupation of Palestine in exchange for full recognition by all the Arab countries — Clifford May slandered the Arab people as would a hopelessly diseased individual.

Here is the filthiest lie he fabricated this time: “Average Egyptians and Jordanians have been indoctrinated to despise Israelis, and their attitudes won't change anytime soon.”

But why did he pick on the Egyptians and the Jordanians who are the only two of the twenty-two Arab countries that signed a peace treaty with Israel? Don't you know the answer, my friend? It is that Clifford May is a Jew. And the surefire way to get a Jewish dagger planted in your back is to be good to him. The Egyptians and the Jordanians were good to Israel, and that's how the Jew expresses his thank you.

Now you know why as long as there will be Jewish leaders of the Clifford May caliber, there will be pogroms and holocausts inflicted on Jews by people who will not be as gentle or civilized as the average Egyptians or Jordanians.

The perpetual Hate Machine right out of Hell

What do you think would be the most apt and most concise description of primitive and savage tyrants? Try this for answer: They can hate but not be hated. They can speak but cannot be spoken to.

Now think about it. Who “enjoys” such privilege in America today? You got it. They are the Jews who can hate so much as to have an innocent man in his nineties deported because it makes them feel better. And while given this gift each time they ask for it, they cannot be resented, let alone hated, for arguing that they deserve to be compensated for a Holocaust they never experienced, while at the same time arguing that African Americans who served as slaves for several generations, have no right to claim compensation, let alone receive it.

Okay, got it. But what about the business of speaking or being spoken to? How does that factor in our query? Well, ever since our species acquired the ability to speak, the gift of speech was monopolized by the authorities. They used it at will, or granted it to others upon request. It even happened that for a long time, the women and the lower caste of both genders could not make a request to speak in the presence of the authorities. While spoken to, they were not allowed to signal the wish to address the one that’s governing over them.

After ten thousand years of experimentation: of trials and errors, successes and failures, disappointments and triumphs, we, of the human species thought we had a workable system so close to perfection, it required no more than minor tweaks to round the corners and render the system absolutely perfect. But we proved wrong because among us, lived a virulent organism that defines evil incarnate.

These are the people who convert to what they believe is an ethno-religious philosophy of life called Judaism. But the reality is that they are embracing neither an ethnicity nor a religion. They are embracing a criminal way of living, which they sustain by curtailing or totally obliterating the right of others to live their lives, secure in the knowledge that they can express themselves freely without being “watched” and constantly hounded by the evil incarnates or by their beastly followers. Also … live their lives without being harassed physically or via other means by the same beasts or by different ones.

What is hateful, and deservedly so, about these characters, is that they make the moves by which they pretend to play the game of life according to the rules prescribed in the social contract. But what they do in reality, is play a dirty game, always trying to trip or hurt those that play by the rules on the same playing field. The goal of the evil characters, is to put the other players out of commission, thus win the game by default.

The Jews do that, but then pay for it dearly when a society becomes convinced that they have reached the point of no return. For the first time, the Jews are coming close to that critical juncture in America, and you'll understand why, when you read the New York Times editorial that came under the title: “Curbing Speech in the Name of Helping Israel,” and the subtitle: “A Senate bill aims to punish those who boycott Israel over its settlement policy. There are better solutions.” It was published on December 18, 2018 in the New York Times.

Stripped of the niceties that sanitize the language used to describe the characters from Hell, you'll see in the paragraph that follows how the editors of the New York Times describe what those characters are doing at this time, to trigger the next holocaust:

“An issue involving Israel is before Congress, testing America's freedom and right to dissent. It is a proposal that would impose civil and criminal penalties on American institutions that participate in the right of Americans who oppose Israel's occupation of Palestine. The proposal's chief sponsors, Senator Ben Cardin, a Jew of one stripe, and Senator Rob Portman, a Jew of another stripe, want to attach the proposal to the package of spending bills that Congress needs to pass before midnight Friday to avoid a shut down of the American government”.

That is, the two Jews are using the powers vested in them, not to play the game according to the rules prescribed in the social contract — thus serve the people that elected them — but play dirty tricks in violation of the code of conduct that's observed by everyone else, and expected of them as well.

And so, instead of fulfilling their duty to make life better for the American people—count them—only two Jews masquerading as American senators, are holding hostage, the well-being of 320 million Americans. They are doing it by threatening to shut down the government unless the animal settlers calling themselves Jews, in far away occupied Palestine, are given the means to continue ethnic cleansing the land they are occupying in defiance of international and American laws.

And we thought we had a workable system that was so close to perfection, the Congress of the United States could go to sleep and let the lobbyists run the country.

They are digging a Hole for the new Cesspool

If you are a society that lives by the work of your members, you organize yourself in such a way as to produce as much as you intend to consume; even produce a surplus you'll stash away for a rainy day.        

On the other hand, if you are a parasitic society that lives by the effort of others, you train your members to look for and identify useful idiots in productive societies; characters you intend to train, and use to carry out schemes they are made to believe are important for the betterment of humankind. But what you do, in reality, is con these idiots into installing the machinery that will allow you to suck the blood of their society, thus have your gang live freely at their expense.

However, to accomplish all that in a modern and complex society, is increasingly becoming a circuitous trajectory. For this reason, you'll find that the Jews, who stand as the quintessential parasitic society, begin to prepare for projects years ahead of time, even decades before they can be activated to start yielding the free lunches that the Jews count on to stay alive.

But how circuitous can a project be? Well, the situation that's unfolding at this time, requires that the American military remains in Syria to protect Israel's flank as the latter cleanses the nation of Palestine of its indigenous population. Given that the American commander-in-chief can no longer be counted on to carry out the Jewish dictates, the folks that operate the New-York/Tel-Aviv crime syndicate, have decided to give back to the Congress the war-making powers of the United States, having shifted those powers to George W. Bush once before, when they deemed him more useful to Israel than the Congress was at the time.

One of the useful idiots that the syndicate has conned into doing work for Israel at this time, is David French. He began to lay the groundwork for pulling a tricky operation with the writing of an article that came under the title: “Donald Trump's Syria Policy Is Strategically Wise — and Thoroughly Unconstitutional,” and the subtitle: “Congress is required to weigh in.” It was published on December 17, 2018 in National Review Online.

Picking up an argument from where the Washington Post had left it a few days earlier, David French needed to make a number of points. They were that American troops should remain in Syria given that they are dominant and safe. Moreover, if these troops withdrew from Syria, they'll leave behind a vacuum that will eventually threaten American security.

However, keeping the troops in Syria violates both international law and the American Constitution. For this reason, the Congress must convene and take back the powers for making war from the hand of the commander-in-chief. This done, the Congress will be able to properly deal with that question.

Conscious of the reality that the American public has had it up to here sending young Americans to die for Israel, and burning oodles of American cash borrowed in the name of future generations, David French recalled a story that was created by the Judeo-Israeli propaganda machine some time ago. Like many others, he helped put the story into the public domain on a previous occasion, and did it again this time. And yet, now as then, not a single voice was allowed to question the veracity of the story's improbable content.

The purpose of the story being to reassure the American public that there will be no mission creep with the troops staying in Syria, the Jews wanted to con the public into believing that the 4,000 American troops who are there at this time, will not be increased, because they have it within them to do the job required of them without a single American soldier getting killed or wounded.

Here is how the story goes: Given that by all accounts, there are at least 30,000 terrorist troops in Syria, how could 4,000 Americans battle them, yet suffer not a single casualty? Even a Hollywood scriptwriter, trained to produce Rambo-like movies, could not contrive a storyline that is this unbelievable. Well, with a straight face, the Jews made such a claim. Not only did they claim it can be done; they claimed it was actually done.

They told a story in which 40 Americans killed 300 enemy troops in a recent battle without suffering a single casualty. Multiplying the two sides of the equation by 100, yields the argument that 4,000 Americans will be able to kill 30,000 enemy troops without suffering a single casualty. Now tell me this, my friend. Who will dare to argue against mathematics, the most perfect of the sciences?

In fact, the Jews did not need a useful idiot of the David French caliber to make the point for them; math alone did it. But David French was welcome anyway, because he came like the icing on the cake.

Whatever will be the impact of his contribution to the Jewish project, David French will go down in history as one of those who helped dig the hole that became a bigger cesspool than anything seen previously.

Through the Lens of vanishing Paradigms

Dimitri K. Simes has written an interesting article about a new world order that's in the making, except for one thing ... in fact, except for several related things. They are that Simes has done his analysis looking through the lens of existing paradigms. He is not allowing for the possibility that most of these paradigms will shift or vanish altogether as time passes.

Not only is it obvious that those paradigms are on their way out, but the intent of world leaders shaping the future that Simes is talking about — is to turn those paradigms on their heads. Thus, it makes little sense to speak of someone changing the status quo, yet speak of the effects of that status remaining static. That's what will strike you when you go over the article which came under the title: “Dangerous Liaisons,” written by Dimitri Simes and published on December 16, 2018 in The National Interest.

Dimitri Simes begins the discussion by criticizing what he calls “Washington's conventional wisdom,” and more specifically, Defense Secretary James Mattis, for not taking seriously the possibility of China and Russia coming together to form an alliance that will militate against the United States. This is something that's already in the works, says Simes, giving a detailed account of the pros and cons of what he sees as an alliance that's growing stronger and more menacing. He then concludes that, “Ignoring possible Sino-Russian cooperation against the United States, and the factors that can exacerbates it, could be very costly”.

What is missing here? Well, the writer might have developed a different point of view, and might have written a different article had he addressed what the late George H. W. Bush (41) called “the vision thing.” No; that would not be Bush's vision of a thousand points of light, but the vision of the leaders who reside in Moscow and Beijing. In fact, it would also be the vision of most leaders in the 200 or so jurisdictions that form the human family.

To understand what that means, it will help to paraphrase an old saying ... this one: it was easier to take the world out of the Cold War, than it is to take the Cold War out of those who experienced it firsthand. These people still think in terms of: “They see a partnership directed against the West and the United States. Should such an alignment come to pass, the dynamics of global geopolitics and economics would change to America's and the West's disadvantage.” How archaic!

This is not the direction where the world is going. The spirit of the Cold War was created by Winston Churchill. It almost died two decades later, except that the Jews revived it and sustained it for another half century because it yielded large dividends for them. But the Cold War is practically dead now, and there is no reason to believe that it can be revived again. That's because Churchill has been fully discredited, and the Jews fully neutralized.

What we have now is a burgeoning mentality that harks back to the age of a precolonial era when international commerce in goods and services, as well as the exchange of cultural presentations were in vogue. Instead of those that have the power — seeking to exploit those that don't have it — the current trend is to help those that lag behind, catch up with those that are ahead. This way, everybody gets to contribute to the enlargement of the pie rather than everyone fighting to grab the largest piece in what used to be a zero-sum game.

The Russians, Chinese, Indians and Japanese are getting together with the Europeans, and working to develop the paradigms that will be used to build a magnificent city for all of humanity. The city will be flooded with millions of lights and will stand as a monument to what is good about the human species ... that which will triumph over the evil created by Winston Churchill and by the Jews who rushed to claim his mantle.

Standing in the shadow of Ronald Reagan who was a prodigious user of the witty one-liners, Bush 41 thought it wise to refrain from developing shibboleths proper to him that could turn out to be duds. When he was criticized for his shortcoming, he first complained about “that vision thing” but then asked his speechwriters to come up with something, and they came up with the thousand points of light … and it worked for him.

America is now standing in the shadow of tomorrow's giants who will be known for snatching the world form the jaws of Judeo-Churchillian darkness, and bathe it in the floodlight of a new chapter highlighting the human effort to further develop a Civilization that befits our talent as a unique species; one that may have no rival in the entire universe. Will America pull a Bush 41, and come up with a way to join those developing a city for all humanity?

We may be alone, having an entire universe all to ourselves. What are we squabbling about?