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.