They made their bed and refuse to sleep in it

 How do myopic politicians and diplomats make a bed for themselves, and then brag as loudly as they can about their pointless accomplishment?

 

That would be the habit of the Jews. In case you didn't know the answer to that question, they go into someone's country, and call on their followers (other Jews and moral prostitutes of the Evangelical kind) to vote in the way that will make it clear to the locals––who would be Americans in this case––that Jews control their country, and there is nothing they can do about it.

 

The Jewish leaders used to opine verbally and in writing, that there was enough Jews in a number of States in the Union to punish the politician or the party that will neglect to pamper Israel. When told that their numbers were not sufficient to pull off a trick of this magnitude, the Jews constructed all kinds of scenarios to show that as little as one vote can sometimes make a difference. Nobody believed it but the Jews were anything but embarrassed. In fact, they continued to make the same point over and over.

 

As to the Jewish leaders who got involved in this kind of roguishness, they were not all of the “born in the USA” kind, or of the naturalized American kind. Hell, some of them did not even reside in America. Thanks to the Fox News Channel, they made their criminal threats while sitting in Israel, and the treasonous network carried their threats live for America's politicians to hear and to heed. This performance by Fox happened on several occasions during the time that Barack Obama was running for reelection.

 

After several decades of this kind of infamy, it looked like the Jews had succeeded to make a bed of roses for themselves, and they loved to sleep in it. They slept till one day, they discovered that the roses had morphed into quills. So now, the Jews refuse to sleep in their own bed, and don't know what else to do.

 

A description of what happened, as seen from the point of view of the Jewish leaders, was discussed by Barak M. Seener in an article that came under the title: “US Elections and the Dangerous Politicization of Antisemitism,” published on October 29, 2020 in the online Jewish publication, Algemeiner.

 

Here is how Barak Seener started the discussion: “Leveling the charge of racism and antisemitism at an opponent was traditionally a grave and loaded indictment. Not so today as the trivialization of antisemitism has led it to become a cudgel used to beat political opponents.” Note that Seener is only talking about politicians accusing each other of antisemitism, and the trivializing effect that such accusations are having on antisemitism.

 

Barak Seener deliberately omitted to mention that the accusation of antisemitism was also used like a cudgel on ordinary citizens that had no platform from which to defend themselves. It happened long before it was used on politicians that have a platform from which to defend themselves. Out of pure malice, the Jews ruined the lives and careers of thousands of people for no good reason at all. They did so because they were allowed to embark on a cannibalistic rampage by the politicians who could have stopped them but did not. So now, it is the politicians who are suffering from the effect of their own dereliction of duty, and so are the Jews who can no longer sleep in the bed they made for themselves.

 

Look what Seener says near the end of his article. The quoted paragraph was condensed for brevity:

 

“It was hard to imagine that the human rights consciousness fostered by the trials against the Nazis who perpetrated a Holocaust, would be wielded to target the Jewish state or to tarnish the reputation of Donald Trump. Indeed, it is those that politicize racism and antisemitism that are busy sowing the seeds of division”.

 

Perhaps Barak Seener will find it easy to imagine and also understand what's going on these days if he studied real history where he'll discover that the discourse to which he is opposed, seeped into the English language by the likes of Abba Eban when he was foreign minister of Israel. He accused a prominent Arab leader of being like Hitler, and was booed for it by the members of the Security Council where the shameless Eban leveled the ignorant accusation.

 

And then, it was half a century later that Jewish speechwriters stuffed the mouth of brainless George W. Bush, language that equated another Arab leader with Hitler. And this is not to forget the dozens of Jewish writers and talking heads who made hundreds of similar accusations overtly and covertly throughout the decades.

 

The Jews will have to stop complaining every time they see A instead of B, and they see B instead of A. In the same way that the bed they made for themselves has turned against them, so did the mirror on the wall turn against them. For too long, the mirror has accommodated the Jews by reflecting not the reality of who they are but the image they had of themselves in their mind’s eye.

 

Eventually, the mirror got tired of this nonsense, and is now reflecting to them the reality of who they are; the image that humanity has been seeing and trying to tell the Jews about it.

 

Young Jews heard the call, and are grooming themselves to really look like they want to be instead of fantasizing about it. They are telling the self-appointed leaders they have gotten rid of the bed of quills their elders handed to them, and are in the process of cleansing themselves instead of working to ethnic cleanse Palestine.

A valuable Lesson in search of an Audience

 Professor Yuen Yuen Ang has a solid lesson to give, but it is not apparent who the audience might be. You'll find her words in the article that came under the title: “The False Dichotomy of Autocracy and Democracy,” published on October 28, 2020 in Project Syndicate.

 

If you want democracy, she says, don't look up to Donald Trump's America because it has become a distorted example of a true democracy. But if you want autocracy, she goes on to say, don't look up to Xi Jinping's China either because it has become a distorted example of a true autocracy.

 

Yuen Ang explains that the true face of autocracy has been the one reflected by Mao Zedong who launched the Cultural Revolution that was followed by a “de facto” civil war. As to the true face of democracy, it is a system based on “bureaucratic autonomy, the separation of private interests and public office, and respect for peaceful protest,” all of which were violated by Donald Trump, she goes on to say.

 

Well then, if Mao Zedong's brand of autocracy was bad, what's wrong with Xi Jinping's brand of autocracy? After all, the man, “lifted 93 million rural residents out of poverty in seven years.” That's true on the face of it, says the professor, but it's not the full story. The truth, according to her, is that the Chinese economy grew rapidly because Deng Xiaoping before Xi Jinping, injected the bureaucracy with accountability, competition and limits on power. He also rejected personality cults. That's what did it for China, not Jinping, she insists.

 

Whatever the case, does this not show a virtuous continuity going from Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution that was centered on the farm to Deng Xiaoping to Xi Jinping who lifted 93 million farmers out of poverty in record time? How could Jinping have accomplished what he did without Xiaoping, she asks? And how could the latter have accomplished what he did without Mao Zedong?

 

The lesson to retain from this history is that in the same way it would be difficult to explain the Chinese economic miracle without tracing the history of the phenomenon to the Cultural Revolution, it would be impossible to explain Sputnik without tracing the history to the Bolshevik Revolution. It would also be impossible to explain the Fifth Republic without tracing the history to the French Revolution. And it would be impossible to explain the Federalist Papers without tracing the history to the Revolutionary War.

 

For similar reasons, it would be difficult to see how any developing country would try to copy China's march into modernity, riding a system of Chinese-style autocracy without taking into account the country's history that will make it impossible to duplicate China’s accomplishment. As well, it will be difficult to see how any county will want to recreate America's ascent to the pinnacle of achievement riding a system of laissez faire that's beginning to crack at the seams.

 

Yuen Ang is conscious of those difficulties, which is why she chose to end her discussion with a cautionary note. Here is her closing argument, presented in a condensed form:

 

“The idea that we can choose only between freedom in an American-style democracy and order in a Chinese-style autocracy is false. Countries everywhere must find their own path to this goal. We must also avoid the fallacy of rushing to emulate whichever national model is fashionable, whether that of Japan in the 1980s, post-Cold War America, or China today. When you consider buying a car, you want to know its pros and its cons. This is the kind of common sense we should apply in assessing a political system. It is also an essential intellectual skill for navigating today's new cold war climate”.

 

The evidence is that since the advent of globalization, most countries have been forced to experiment with new economic systems, which got them to also consider experimenting with new political systems. What's certain is that practically no one in the Third World will listen to an American professor telling them to be wary of strangers, something they knew all about since they were toddlers. Yuen Ang must also know how true this is, which begs the question: What was her purpose in writing that article to begin with?

 

It can only be that she was addressing the politicians inside the Washington Beltway. Her goal was not to dissuade leaders of the emerging nations from adopting a system that may not suit them. Her goal was to dissuade America's politicians from pressuring the emerging nations to adopt a system of governance and economics that will cause them more harm than good.

 

Given that every pundit who wrote something about foreign policy, has advised what America must do to other countries while stressing that this will serve the interests of America or Israel or both, the need is clearly shown for a lesson such as that of professor Yuen Ang, to be given to America's political elites.

 

Just look at the irony in America's posture, and you'll not fail to reach that same conclusion: You have an American system that's floundering at every level, and you see those running it going to other countries, telling them how to do the things that America cannot do for itself.

The Cure for the Ills of Journalism is more Journalism

 What exactly do the people have the right to know? I ask this question because journalists often say they should have access to all kinds of information to report them to the people that have the right to know.

 

Well, maybe the people have the right to know all there is about their public figures, but do they really want to know everything? If the answer is no, not everything ... well then, who decides what the people should be told and what they should not be?

 

The role of the news organizations in society has preoccupied Richard W. Rahm so much, he wrote an article about his concerns under the title: “Incompetence and ignorance run rampant through news organizations,” and the subtitle: “Media dumbed down and politicized.” The article was published on October 26, 2020 in The Washington Times.

 

To be sure, journalists have several sayings that govern their behavior.

 

One saying goes like this: “When dog bites man, that's not news. When man bites dog, that's news.” It means that news must inherently be outlier oddities. But this cannot always be true because the press is supposed to mimic ordinary life. And in real life, when people met before there was a telephone, they told each other news that was not always odd. And today, where social media is dominant, people don't just tweet the unusual things they experience; they pour their heart out with all kinds of little occurrences, and their friends cannot have too much of them. They want more, and they dish out more,

 

Another saying that governs the behavior of journalists goes like this: “If it bleeds, it leads.” In television, this means that calamities are considered so important, they must be the first item, treated at the start of the broadcast. In print journalism, it means that calamities make it on the front page, usually with a big picture that accompanies a big headline. But this is valid only to the people in whose community the calamity happened. The truth is that people in Buffalo, New York, for example, do not care about a building that collapsed in South Korea as much as they would if it had collapsed in Buffalo.

 

And then, there is the matter of responsibility the journalists have to make sure that what they report is accurate if it is news, or fair and balanced if it is opinion. Of course, nobody is perfect, thus errors are committed in this department all the time, but where injury to someone has resulted, the outlet that's responsible must rectify its error. However, is it enough for a news organization to just say it was wrong before, it is sorry now, and here is the truth as we now believe happened?

 

Yes, say the news organizations, which are motivated by yet another saying they explain by telling the following short story: “When we make a mistake, we make it in full view of the public. When medical doctors make a mistake, it is taken by the patient to his grave.” This is not always true, of course, because doctors are often caught for the mistakes they make and held responsible. Their mistakes are quantified, and the punishment they receive fits the malpractice they committed.

 

As to the journalists, it is almost always impossible to assess the damage that a false information has caused a person or a community. In addition, journalist have something they can hide behind that doctors do not have. It is protection under the freedom of speech law, stipulated in the First Amendment of the American Bill of Rights. They interpret it to mean that true or false, deliberate or inadvertent, they can say anything they want, and they will not be prosecuted.

 

Obviously, therefore, there are serious problems with the profession of journalism, and they need to be addressed. To do that, we must identify the underlying reasons for such problems to exist in the first place. Fortunately, Richard Rahm has done his homework, and here is what he said in this regard:

 

“News organizations have been politicized, meaning that political correctness became more important than competence. Publications used to fact check the stories submitted by their reporters –– including double checking quotes with the source. As cost pressures increased, fact checkers were dispensed with as an avoidable cost –– and so did accuracy. Broadcast media has always underinvested in original investigative reporting. Newsrooms are now filled with young, woke, know-nothings –– because they are cheap”.

 

What this suggests in the final analysis, is that news organizations must be deterred from making those kinds of mistakes. The way to do it is to paraphrase the saying: “The cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy,” and state that, “the cure for the ills of journalism is more journalism”.

 

To put this into practice is to pass a law that says, if a news outlet publishes information about someone, and it cannot prove its accuracy, in addition to a monetary compensation, the outlet will give equal space to the plaintiff who will correct the misinformation the outlet published about him or her in the first place.

 

Bear in mind that if a news organization is not bothered too much for being ordered to pay a monetary compensation to a plaintiff, it is horrified by the thought of being ordered to make space available to a plaintiff that will correct the mistakes made by its employees.

 

And that will force them to be careful not to make mistakes to the extent that they can avoid it.

They are setting up an Ambush for America

 If you are shocked by the morbidly pathetic sight of the pornographic stage-play that's now unfolding in the Washington Beltway, wait till you see what new ambush the Jews are preparing for America.

 

Those familiar with the way the Jews have been ambushing individual Americans, institutions and the government itself, must now be living in a constant state of nausea watching America being restrained with the laws that were passed by previous congresses, forbidding today's America from deciding whether or not it can sell weapons to Middle Eastern nations, leaving the decision for Israelis to make. The American colony is indeed governed by Israelis from Israel.

 

Thus, a world that's bursting with contempt is watching an incredible scene between the prime minister of Israel and his minister of defense, haggling over whether or not they should permit America to sell weapons to whom it wants this one time. And bear in mind that all this is happening while a scene is unfolding metaphorically, showing Uncle Sam standing outside the door of the bedroom, waiting for the John inside to have his orgasm and get dressed so that he too may go in and get at least a loving kiss from his wife. What can be more sickening than this?

 

Things have shifted in the Middle East, and the Jewish leaders immediately got to work setting up the new ambush that will snare and restrain tomorrow's elites in the Washington Beltway. The ambush will curtail the American ability to decide how it will deal with the nations of the Middle East and the rest of the world. It will also curtail America's ability to govern itself. In lieu of all that, the Jews are expected to allow America to do only what will benefit Israel and world Jewry.

 

You can begin to get a sense of how the Jews will try to accomplish this much by reading the article that came under the title: “The Middle East and the Next Administration,” and the subtitle: “Threats and opportunities, old and new.” The article was written by Hillel Fradkin and Lewis Libby,” and was published on October 25, 2020 in National Review Online.

 

What the two writers are basically saying is that there is a new reality in the Middle East even if the old realities have not disappeared. There are also new opportunities that were not there previously, they add. And there are new threats piling up on top of old ones; threats that must be guarded against, they warn. Iran and Turkey are the two old threats, say Hillel Fradkin and Lewis Libby. They are serious threats that can cause serious damage, they explain, and go on to give examples of what those two countries are doing.

 

Iran wants to complete its Shiite Crescent project which goes through Syria and Lebanon, they say. As to Turkey, it wants to create the neo-Ottoman hegemon as well as grab hydrocarbon resources that belong to others in the Eastern Mediterranean, they add. The writers go on to explain that these are not just threats to America's allies in the region; they are a threat to America as well. And so, they want America to maintain a military presence in the region. This is how they put it:

 

“America's underlying air and naval strength has played and will continue to play an important part in allowing the region's energy resources to be put to good use … In facing the choices that lie ahead, the next US administration would do well to weigh the opinions of our Middle Eastern allies (read Israel,) precisely because they share our interests in countering mutual threats”.

 

First of all, it is difficult to see how local shenanigan, half a world away can be a threat to America. Second of all, Israel has been bragging for years that it has kept Iran's Shiite Crescent ambition under check by conducting thousands of air raids on Iranian installations in Syria. As to the Turkish threat, a recent pronouncement by Tayyip Erdogan praising the capabilities of the Egyptian military, tells you that the Turkish President will not try anything foolish in the Eastern Mediterranean. This being the case with those two so-called “threats,” there is no need for an American military presence in the region.

 

But the fact that the Jews are asking for it, indicates that Israel has secret plans for the region. What could they be? You get an idea what they might be from the following passage you'll find in the Fradkin and Libby article: “The pragmatic Arab states' weariness with Palestinians' corrupt leaders”.

 

The reality is that the Palestinians are under occupation, which means there is not a Palestinian that can fart without Israel knowing about it. In fact, the Israelis have been trying for decades to expose Palestinian corruption without succeeding because there is none.

 

All that the Israelis could do, was accuse workers of UNRWA and UNESCO of engaging in unethical activities that the world dismissed as inconsequential. But when you contrast these findings with the reality that almost every president and prime minister of Israel were caught stealing money that was destined to go to Holocaust survivors, you know that these people have the moral rectitude of snakes. They look at themselves in the mirror, and attribute to others the repugnance they see in themselves.

 

The bottom line is that America need not worry about Iran or Turkey. Those in the region can handle them hands down. Instead, America must worry about the Fifth Column within its borders; the Jews who are eroding its institutions and debasing its culture.

Neither the Paradigm nor the false Image

 When you wear glasses that distort your vision, you think you see a paradigm that’s not there, and you build your case on a shaky foundation. When you see something move, you believe that the non-existent paradigm has shifted, and rebuild your case on a shakier foundation.

 

This is what's happening to those who never understood what was going on in the Middle East before the recent moves were undertaken in the region. They still do not understand what’s going on there now, and continue to demonstrate that they'll never understand what's unfolding in that part of the world.

 

One of those who fits this description is Mark Leonard who is Director of the European Council on Foreign Relations. He wrote an article under the title: “The Middle Eastern Past Is Never Dead,” published on October 23, 2020 in the online magazine Project Syndicate.

 

The paragraph that follows is Leonard's description of the false paradigm that reigned for decades. It was created by the Jewish propaganda machine to ascertain continued financial support from an American Congress that didn't know the difference between a real economy and an operation that's run by a criminal syndicate; one that’s kept afloat by donated money and by extortion:

 

“In the Arab world, the displacement of the Palestinians and the Israeli occupation, were a perpetual rallying cry for successive regimes, most of which capitalized on Palestinian suffering to divert attention from their own failures at home. In recent years, Arab elites' threat perceptions have changed. If their primary enemy in the past was Israel, today it is Iran, followed by Turkey. As the United States has pulled back from the region, many Gulf leaders have come to believe that a regional axis with Israel will be crucial to safeguarding their interests. And on the Arab street, public opinion has followed suit”.

 

There was a time––for a reason that remains obscure to this day––when it dawned on the American mob of Jewish pundits that Israel had to be described as being an important player in world affairs. To that end, each member of the mob came up with a way to inflate Israel’s importance. For example, Bret Stephens who was then with the Wall Street Journal, spoke of Israel as being a giant in the region. Victor Davis Hanson spoke of Israel's establishment as an important event in world history.

 

As to Thomas Friedman who seems to be well versed in reverse psychology, he came up with the argument that the Arab leaders were in such trouble, they blamed their failures on a bright object called Israel, thus confused their people. While this may or may not have turned Israel into an important player in the mind of the readers, every know-nothing idiot that wanted to impress his readers but had no good idea to impress with, has used the friedmanite piece of garbage to make waves which, unfortunately, smelled like a stink.

 

This is what Mark Leonard has repeated in his article. The reality is that the Arab governments, which came up with the Initiative of 2002, just after the 9/11 event, always wanted to put the troubles of the region behind them so as to devote their full attention to the development of their respective countries. It was the masses, some of them motivated by extreme views, that wanted the governments to reverse their priorities. This meant hit Israel in the deep, and cripple its military so that commandos from around the world may come in and finish off the Jews. But this was a responsibility that no Arab government was going to assume.

 

With this in the background, it should be easy for the reader to see why someone who lived with a paradigm that's a bag of friedmanite garbage, would hang on to an obsolete idea; one that the American government has tried to realize recently but failed. It was to organize the Arabs into a NATO kind of grouping that will be associated with the Americans. Forget it, said the Arabs, we don't operate in this fashion. But despite this rejection, you see Mark Leonard say this: “Gulf leaders have come to believe that a regional axis with Israel will be crucial to safeguarding their interests.” The Arabs said no to the Americans, but Mark Leonard believes they will eagerly say yes to Israel. Nothing can be more primitive thinking than this.

 

So, the obvious questions to ask are these: What was it that the Arabs tried to accomplish with their 2002 initiative? Can they accomplish it now, in view of the latest developments?

 

Well, the Egyptian argument from early on was that the best way to secure the rights of Palestinians, was to adopt the “constructive engagement” approach with Israel. This brought Jordan to the idea, but many Arabs were skeptic, maintaining that as long as America will diminish itself to augment Israel, nothing good will come out of being nice to Israel because it will not budge.

 

After 9/11, Saudi Arabia saw the situation as did the Egyptians and the Jordanians, thus spearheaded the movement that produced the Arab League Initiative. But guess what, my friend, the Arab skeptics proved to be correct.

 

As long as America was burning its candle at both ends to help Israel remain obstinate, that's what Israel remained. But then it happened that the American President Donald Trump got himself into deep trouble, and wanted to score a visible success before the election that will determine his political fate and legacy.

 

He called Netanyahu and told him that he must accept the Arab Initiative or it will be hell for him and for Israel. Netanyahu knuckled under, the Arabs were so informed, and the negotiations started with the goal of working out a comprehensive settlement that will address the rights of Palestinians.

The Plague is really the never-ending Delusion

 A movement of white supremacy is rising in America, and the Jews who are terrified by it, have responded in their usual way. It was to come up with all kinds of false interpretations for what happened, intending to blame the phenomenon on others, without attributing even the tiniest of blame to their own provocative comportment.

 

The reality is that the Jewish struggle with the whiteness of the skin has roots that go back nearly two millenniums, a time when the Jews fled Palestine, which they had occupied for a short period of time, and went to settle throughout Europe, which they tried to occupy but failed and paid a high price for trying.

 

Even though they were rejected in Europe for their obnoxious behavior more than their physical appearance, the Jews attributed their rejection to the color of their skin, their diminished height, their hooked nose and the like. And so, they set out to do something about it. From kidnapping street children, raising them as Jews in the ghetto, and crossbreeding with them when they grew up, to adopting children whose parents were too poor to raise them, to intermarrying with gentiles that did not find them offensive, the Jews have managed to change their appearance, thus mingled with the indigenous Europeans without being physically conspicuous.

 

Some of the Jews that fled Palestine, settled in Africa and Asia and kept to themselves, thus maintained their Semitic appearance. On the rare occasions when they intermarried with indigenous sub-Saharan Africans, they produced black offspring. And so, the overall global scene was that of Jews scattered everywhere with skin color that ranged from Lithuanian white to Ethiopian black.

 

Despite the whiteness of the European Jews, however, they were detested by the locals because of their behavior, something the Europeans never knew how to deal with unlike the Africans and the Asians who made it clear to the Jews that to live among them, they must behave correctly or they will not be tolerated. The Jews understood the warning, rarely went out of line, behaved correctly most of the time, and were never pogrommed or holocausted on the two continents like they were in Europe.

 

And then Israel happened, schemed for by Jews from Western and Central Europe. To ethnic cleanse Palestine, these Jews realized there was not enough of them to populate the entire territory with their kind. And so, they schemed to bring in Jews from the old Soviet Union as well as Ethiopia. But they soon discovered that to avoid being overrun by the newcomers, they needed to remind them that the Europeans were the ones who established Israel, therefore must remain bosses. To enforce this view, they invented a new category of Jews they called “European Jews” and put themselves in it. They made certain that everyone understood they were white-skinned Jews, founders of Israel and its perpetual leaders.

 

What the European Jews of Israel did not take into consideration, however, was that Jews of every skin color had migrated to America where they behaved in the same obnoxious manner as did their ancestors in Europe. It was the kind of behavior that provoked the wrath of the locals who pogrommed them and holocausted them repeatedly. And so, it happened that in a manner similar to that of Europe, a white supremacist movement began to rear its head in America, and the Jews are now terrified by it.

 

Instead of seeing themselves as having contributed to this happening, and doing something to curb their obnoxious behavior, you see Jews like Jack Kliger, who is President of the Museum of Jewish Heritage, write articles in which he blames others, as he did in: “Holocaust denial is a plague,” an article that also came under the subtitle: “Social media is finally trying to inoculate itself.” It was published on October 24, 2020 in The New York Daily News. What follows is how Kliger sees anti-Semitism––as he calls it––spread throughout America; and how he suggests the phenomenon must be curbed:

 

“Under pressure from organizations like the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, Twitter and Facebook announced that they would prohibit any content that denies or distorts the Holocaust. But it will not be enough to suppress efforts to distort history. 63% of all Millennials did not know that 6 million Jews were murdered in the Holocaust, and at least one out of every 10 thought that the Jews were responsible. In New York alone, 19% of respondents thought the Jews were responsible. Our institution was borne out of our commitment to commemorate, educate and inspire people to action”.

 

First of all, there were no social media between the 1920s and 1940s when the Nazis got organized, came to power and committed their crimes. Thus, it is a canard to blame social media for the rise of antisemitism.

 

Second of all, every major ethnic group in America came to be “roasted” by the public at one time or another. In the end, the Irish were not pogrommed or holocausted, and neither were the Poles, the Italians, the Pakis, the Asian Yellow Bellies or the Muslims. In fact, being attacked and taking it in their stride, has acted as a safety valve that diffused the situation and brought it back to normal after it had run its course.

 

This is not happening with the Jews because they will not let it happen. So, the question is this: Why won't they let it happen? The answer is that Jews will take the chance of provoking an explosion by causing the people to bottle up the anger, rather than let them cut the Jews down to size with silly jokes before welcoming them as new members of the American tribe.

 

It is that the Jewish leaders will never give up the hope that Moses was telling the truth when he said that God promised to send his messiah and give the Jews the entire planet and everything in it. The leaders reckon that the Jews will not get it if they allow themselves to be cut down to size. They must, therefore, remain above everyone and above the law.

 

It is this delusion that has been the plague of the Jews, not the societies they have been provoking since they came into existence as a tribe separate from all other tribes.

Apples and Oranges, Raisins and Pumpkins

 It often happens that in the North American culture, people are metaphorically reminded not to mix “apples and oranges,” which means they should not draw false equivalences between two things that do not resemble each other enough––any more than they would tolerate confusing apples and oranges.

 

Well, if this is so bad as to merit a saying dedicated to warn people, imagine what it would be like if the one who is warning you not to mix apples and oranges, mixes the more unequal raisins and pumpkins. He or she would do it trying to convince you of their point of view, using an argument that is, on its face, as absurd as to suggest that to entertain themselves, angels in heaven spend time dancing on the head of a pin.

 

A controversy having to do with the equating of various events, erupted more than half a century ago when the Jews mounted a massive and relentless effort to use that warning –– not in the way it was meant to be used but –– to establish a strange concept that was too evil to grasp and too subtle to unmask.

 

It happened that the rabbis and the other Jewish leaders got into the business of looking out for any statement that was uttered by a gentile who might be drawing an equivalence between something ordinary and something Jewish. When they spotted one, the Jewish leaders and the rabbis brayed in a voice similar to that of a sick jackass –– these memorable words: you can't compare! You can't compare. But coming out of their mouths, the braying sounded like this: You can't compaaaare! You can't compaaaare!

 

Criticized for singling themselves to stand out as a special group at the same time that they howled their pain for being singled out by society because of their habit to accuse others of antisemitism, the Jews curtailed the habit of saying they were special, but started doing something else. You can see what that is when you read the article that came under the title: “Administering 'Truth' in our schools,” an article that was written by Janet Levy, and published on October 24, 2020 in the American Thinker.

 

The article tells the story of two educators. One story is that of a school principal who said basically that regardless of what he believes, he will not impose on the students the view that the Holocaust did or did not happen. He was suspended for saying that, but was reinstated when he appealed his case. The other story is that of a teacher that accused everyone participating in the Black Lives Matter movement of being a terrorist. He was fired from his job and never reinstated. And so, Janet Levy points to these cases and says there is no justice for Jews in this world.

 

The fact that Janet Levy has equated someone's refusal to vouch for a historical event, with the accusation that a group identified by skin color, is a terrorist organization, must have blown your mind, and caused you to ask: how can a thought like that be arrived at by a writer who wants the world to believe she is sane? You look for an answer in her article and discover that she may not be the only insane actor in this abomination.

 

Here is the destructive time bomb which comes in the form of a harmless political interference in education but that inevitably leads to that kind of insanity: “The Florida Legislature passed the Holocaust Education Bill, mandating lessons of the Holocaust to be part of the curriculum. It said the Holocaust must be taught as a uniquely important event”.

 

It is not surprising, therefore, to see minds such as that of Janet Levy, mangled into that kind of hideousness as if attacked by a thousand gremlins of drivel, when you mandate by law that the suffering of European Jews a century ago in a faraway place, can only be superior to the suffering of Black Americans in America, even if you know nothing about the first, whereas you see Black Americans––some of them your acquaintances––being deliberately chocked to death or shot in the back every day with your own eyes in your own neighborhood. It is a display of horrific banality like only the Jews are capable of.

 

To reinforce her imbecilic argument, Levy cited other cases of lesser importance, all of which were adjudicated at one legal level or another in a way that displeased her. Being straightforward civil cases, Levy found herself unable to attack them in her article based on the facts or the law, and so she switched to the race and religious argument. The following is what she had to say in this regard:

 

“Anti-Semitism, anti-Christianity, and anti-white statements are tolerated. Statements criticizing a black movement are labeled racist, and objections to a curriculum on Islam are labeled racist. We have truly entered an alternative reality where our freedom to hold non-approved versions of the truth is severely threatened. We need to speak out louder – and boldly – before it is too late. Or else, we will have to swallow what the 'Ministry of Truth' force-feeds us”.

 

The poor thing, she does not realize that there is a big difference between politicians making idiotic laws under the pressure and the Benjamins of lobbyists on one hand, and judges as well as jurors adjudicating cases without outside interference on the other hand.

 

The Jews lost every time their arguments came under the scrutiny of sober judges, and the ears of jurors that cannot be corrupted … and that's what counts.

What did not kill them made them stronger

 Here is why America needs to constantly import foreigners into the country: Left to themselves, American-born dudes cannot learn a lesson even when hit in the face with a bowl of Asian rice instead of an American apple pie topped with whipped cream. Look what these Americans did.

 

They attacked North Korea, and failing to destroy it, turned it into a nuclear colossus. They attacked Vietnam, and failing to shred it into a North piece and a South piece, turned it into an economic juggernaut. They attacked Afghanistan, and failing to kill it, turned it into a massive field of narcotics.

 

The Americans also encircled the old Soviet Union with military bases, and failing to bring it to its knees, turned it into a military superpower. They maligned mainland China with the “Red China” label, and failing to isolate it, turned it into a magnet for a plethora of nations seeking its grace, and open commerce with it.

 

What this demonstrates is that for every action, there is a reaction. But unlike Newtonian physics where the reaction is equal to the action, it happens that in human affairs most reactions prove to be an escalation from the reaction. This prompts the other side to respond with a counter-reaction, thus starts an escalation; one that usually comes in the form of an arms race whose impact cannot be projected at the start.

 

So now, you see this born-in-the-USA fellow telling America how to repeat the mistakes of the past, only do them ten times worse than before. His name is Brandon J. Weichert, and he wrote an article under the title: “Only Star Wars can beat North Korea's nukes,” and the subtitle: “North Korea's intercontinental ballistic missile and Kim Jong-un's outburst should unsettle everyone.” The article was published on October 19, 2020 in The Washington Times.

 

What Brandon Weichert says is that there is a job which needs to be done in Asia, and America must be the one to do it. He adds that the job relates to North Korea which, seven decades after the first encounter with it, America must confront the monster it has inadvertently created. In fact, that was a time when America believed it was making the world safer by keeping in check those who did not see things from the point of view of its own system of values.

 

The way to do the job, says Brandon Weichert, is for America to prepare itself by building a Star Wars kind of defense system because North Korea cannot be trusted. It also has the wherewithal to attack America and/or its Asian allies with the nuclear weapons it did not have before. But Weichert has omitted saying that North Korea has those weapons now thanks to America's incomprehensible behavior which regrettably, he wants to see repeated.

 

In fact, this is where Weichert's line of thinking ends, a clue that shows the nature of the deficiency which is the cause of America’s disability to reason logically. Had he gone beyond that point and asked if the other side will respond, and what kind of response it would be, Weichert would have done the mental work that newcomers to America are capable of doing hands down.

 

In fact, had he asked, Weichert would have known that if America were to build a defense system reputed to be the most advanced in the world––whether or not it proves to be true––North Korea will respond by building the systems that aim to defeat it. This will be in keeping with the tit for tat escalations that the arms race has undergone throughout the centuries and throughout the planet.

 

However, unable to reason like a normal human being, such as those America imports to do the thinking for it, Weichert went on to offer the following improvised-to-suit the moment basket of absurdities:

 

“Meanwhile, North Korea continues to be China's cat's-paw against the West –– thereby rendering moot any meaningful diplomacy with America. In fact, North Korean nukes will likely compel the Kim regime to attempt to forcibly reunite the Korean peninsula. The only way out of this quandary, is for Washington to push through a space-based defense system. Without it, the United States will be attacked with nuclear weapons”.

 

Weichert says that North Korea is China's cat's-paw, then goes on to say that North Korea acts as independently as a sovereign nation; one that’s determined to reunite the Korean peninsula alone if it must.

 

So, you ask: why did the pundit say that North Korea was China's cat's-paw? He said it to justify making the following point: “...rendering moot any meaningful diplomacy with America.” As can be seen, Weichert’s intent all along, had been to cut off all communications between America and North Korea; the reason why he painted the cat's-paw image which, in reality, has no place in this discussion.

 

Nevertheless, this was a witch's brew he called a quandary. Still, however, he used it to conclude that Washington must build the Star Wars system because without it, he predicted –– without providing additional information –– that America will most certainly be attacked with nuclear weapons.

 

Come to think of it, there is only one thing left to say to all that: Quick America, get in a few foreign thinkers to straighten things out before you find yourself drowning in a locally produced swamp of absurdities.

He laments Pax Sina replacing Pax Americana

 An old saying goes like this: “If you can't beat them, join them.” Because culture constantly changes by adding values to existing wisdom –– values that can be positive or negative –– the old saying does change at times to sound something like this: “If you can't beat them or join them, question their intentions”.

 

This is what Clifford D. May is doing in his latest piece of writing. It came under the title: “Chinese Communist Party seeks nothing less than global domination,” and the subtitle: “China's new world order.” It was published on October 20, 2020 in The Washington Times.

 

The problem, as far as the Jews are concerned, is that the existing world order, fashioned by America after World War II, is now threatened. It suits them just fine as it is because it has given them the pause which they needed to reinvent the world in a way that will make it safe for them to live anywhere and be honored.

 

In fact, to that end, the Jews came up with a new structure that should serve their long-term scheme of dominating the world in fulfillment of what they believe is a divine promise that they will someday own the planet and all that's in it. The Jews had already made considerable progress in this direction under a scheme they once called Pax Americana. But they now see China spoil that scheme, and they are furious.

 

Here is how the story has unfolded so far. Pretending to be Americans by the fact that they were born in America or they immigrated into it, Jews of the Clifford May kind, grow up feeling that their hearts belong in Israel. They are so rendered by parental early education or by later-in-life rabbinical indoctrination, done in the synagogues and the private and public schools.

 

And so, the Jews use their privileged position as American citizens, protected as they are by guarantees enshrined in the Constitution, to dismantle America itself and send the severed parts to Israel where they are used to build what the Jews consider their eternal home away from their temporary home.

 

But now that their Pax Americana has been pulverized by the dominance of the Chinese, the Jews feel impotent when it comes to joining or beating them who are on a roll. And so, Jews of the Clifford May variety have decided to deploy the trick of questioning the Chinese intentions. What this does essentially, is accuse the Chinese of trying to establish a Pax Sina that would replace the Pax Americana of old, even replace America the policeman of the world. And that, in the Jewish view, will definitely put an end to their dream of ever owning the world. So then, what was their response?

 

Clifford May has given a typical Jewish response. To understand what he is saying and doing, is to understand what the Jewish leaders think as a group. So, here is a taste of how Clifford May has started to deal with the subject matter: “For decades, American leaders were confident that outreach would transform China into a solid stakeholder in the international order. Slowly but surely, however, evidence to the contrary has been accumulating”.

 

He went on to attack China for collaborating with the nations of the world, leveraging the considerable advantages it has in the fields of finance, science and technology to help others. Bear in mind, this is something America used to do when it could, and would do again if it could. Unfortunately, however, it cannot do it at this time till it gets its own house in order, and starts running its own affairs instead of delegating its powers and decision-making abilities to the know little and know nothing Jews.

 

But sensing this is not something that will happen soon, Clifford May thought that America's allies should join the fight against China, and work together to deny that country more success. Germany being the most powerful of America's European allies, Clifford May singled out that country for a special attack, in an attempt to nudge it doing what America is incapable of doing.

 

The trouble with this idea is that Germany, like the rest of the Europeans––indeed the whole world––does not see China doing anything that's out of the ordinary, let alone something scary that needs to be pushed back against. But Clifford May is not giving up; he warns of the following consequences: “If left unchecked, China's strategy will undermine, and produce a world hostile to the prosperity, security and values of Germany, the United States, and their liberal democratic allies”.

 

And that's the trope that gave away Clifford May. He reminds humanity of an era during which time the colonial powers used to justify keeping their colonies from progressing. They used to say they do it because letting the colonies advance, would give them a chance to get ahead of the masters. It won’t be long after that before they would turn the masters into coolies, and show no mercy in their treatment of them.

 

And that's what the colonial powers of a bygone era are so ashamed of, they now recoil at the thought of what they did to others. They recoil in the same way that do the Jews at the thought of what was done to them during the Holocaust.

 

In reality, the Europeans just cannot stomach the idea that it is Israel and the Jews who try to revive the colonial era. In fact, the Jews do it by talking and acting like colonial masters; and by attacking Israel's neighbors when the latter make progress in science and technology. The Jews also incite America to attack those whom Israel cannot reach.

 

Clifford May should worry more about Israel’s comportment on the world stage than China’s.

Mike Pompeo says the Founding Fathers were Mafia Figures

 Under the title: “Every generation responsible for securing America's freedom,” Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo wrote an article in which he says he is part of a team that's governing America according to the ideas fleshed out by the Founding Fathers in the Federalist Papers. The article was published on October 20, 2020 in The Washington Times.

 

The poor man seems to think he honored Team Trump to which he belongs, by equating its work with the ideas that were transcribed in the Federalist Papers. But what he did in reality, is dishonor the ideas of the Founding Fathers by suggesting they resemble the Mafia-like operation that's run by the Trump Team.

 

We know that the team is running a Mafia-like operation because it brags about the feats it scores by making deals with other members of the protection racket to which it belongs. And this prompts us to ask the question: How exactly does a protection racket operate?

 

It all begins when a group starts an operation that may be slightly shady. It draws the attention of another group that may operate like a street gang. The gang roughs up the shady operators, demanding a ransom. Unwilling to seek the protection of the police lest they be seen for who they are, the shady operators pay up. Eventually, the two groups come to an understanding whereby the street gang protects the shady business which, in turn, pays for the service with a regular cut of its winnings. That's how a protection racket operates.

 

When you skip the small details of the Trump operation involving America and the Jews of Israel, you get the impression it is a perfectly normal relationship. But when you look deep into the transactions which are regularly effectuated, you discover two anomalies. The first is that Donald Trump is terrified of the Jews, thus pays them not out of love, but to keep them from attacking his operation. The second anomaly is that Trump is downright as avaricious as the Jews, people he grew up admiring and learning from. And this part of his character plays a major role in how he deals with Israel.

 

Like the operator of a shady business that hates the street gang which milks him, Donald Trump hates the Jews but pretends to pay them out of love to keep them quiet and at bay, as stated. However, being as stingy as he is, he also hates paying ransom out of America's treasury, given that he now considers America to be his possession. So then, what does he do? Well, he came up with an ingenious idea. He pays the Jews with what belongs to others. He did so this time by giving them what belongs to the Palestinians and the Syrians.

 

That makes no sense unless it can be shown that Donald Trump really hates the Jews. Is there a way to verify this assertion? Yes, there is. The way to do it is to refer to the article which came under the title: “On election day, Jews must reject white supremacy,” written by Mel Levine, and published on October 21, 2020 in The New York Daily News. Bear in mind that the one thing Jews do with passion, is catalog what they see as acts of hate committed by others. And that's what Levine did regarding the Trump assertions over the years. Here is some of what Levine cataloged:

 

“He muttered that Jews are only in it for themselves. He told the white supremacist Proud Boys to stand by. He refused to condemn QAnon. He alleged that Democrats are controlled by a cult of child abusers, in a resuscitation of anti-Semitic blood libel and Protocols of the Elders of Zion myths. He failed the test of office, insisting there were fine people on both sides. He referred to Israel as your country. When he slanders globalists, we know who he has in mind. When he calls us disloyal and says he doesn't want our money, we know how harmful that can be”.

 

So then, what does Pompeo have to say about that? Here is what he actually said:

 

“The day I arrived at West Point as a cadet, I was issued a copy of the 85 essays penned by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay. I realized then that The Federalist Papers were relevant for everyone interested in America's experiment. They remain a crucial source of wisdom for the Trump administration's policies which are well-grounded in America's founding principles. The Federalist's arguments won the day and the Constitution became the supreme law of the land. It was a privilege to put our Founders' vision into action as America's 70th secretary of state”.

 

What Michael Pompeo is not afraid to divulge, is that the Federalist Papers, which led America to become the experiment that it is today, are the source of wisdom guiding Donald Trump on how to run America's business the way that he does.

 

Inspired by the ideas of the Founders, says Pompeo, the Trump Team is running a Mafia-like enterprise where Donald Trump plays the role of the shady operator, and the Judeo-Israeli syndicate plays the role of street gang, always demanding more and always getting what it wants.

 

Pompeo says he is proud of what he has accomplished, and thanks the Founding Fathers for showing him the way.

 

They must be having a collective heart attack in their graves. But there has been no reaction so far from Donald Trump himself.

They look for lost glory where there is none

 Here is a chain of logical links that needs to be fed to every American with their mothers' milk: When you say the United Nations (UN), you mean all of humanity. When you denigrate the UN, you denigrate humanity. When you denigrate the UN because it does not protect human rights, you denigrate humanity for not protecting itself. But protecting itself from who? From those, like the Americans who denigrate it.

 

And that's an invitation for humanity to spit in America's face, the self-designated slanderer of humanity, falsely pretending to protect human rights from humanity itself.

 

But why would the Americans want to place themselves in a situation as horrendous as this? Looking for an answer to this question, we delve into the article that came under the title: “China's accession to human rights body shows how much of a disgrace the UN really is,” written by Zachary Faria, and published on October 14, 2020 in The Washington Examiner.

 

If you think that the title of that article shows how the writer was incensed––calling humanity a disgrace the way that he did––when he sat to write the article, wait till you see what he says in the first paragraph. Actually, the paragraph is made of two sentences that go like this: “In case it hasn't been clear for years now, the United Nations wanted to be sure everyone knows that it is a catastrophic joke. So it just placed China on the Human Rights Council.” Now, Zachary Faria calls humanity a catastrophic joke.

 

But why would he say that? Well, he is not shy about telling why he would. Here is his explanation: “The US pays dues to the UN to the tune of $674 million in 2019. In return, the UN dedicates its time and resources to attacking Israel while turning a blind eye to the abuses of countries like China, Russia, and Iran.” In other words, Faria is saying that the UN is so incorruptible, America could not buy it for $674 million and have it protect the war criminal that is Israel in lieu of what it's doing now, which is to work with the nations that matter, and whose overriding interest is to improve the human condition.

 

In short and as a bottom line, what is it that Zachary Faria wants America to do? Well, here is the closing argument in which he tells what he wants: “The UN is not going to change no matter how much the US tries to change it from the inside. Joe Biden's promise to rejoin the World Health Organization and the UN Human Rights Council will make taxpayers fund a bureaucracy that opposes American values. It is past time for the US to focus on other global efforts to promote American interests”.

 

But what exactly are American interests in the world, and how to serve them? Whereas Zachary Faria, did not spell out what that is, Ilan Berman made an attempt at explaining how to approach the matter. To that end, he wrote: “Charting China's plummeting popularity around the world,” an article that also came under the subtitle: “Can Washington parlay increasing negative views of China into a competitive strategy?” The article was published on October 13, 2020 in The Washington Times.

 

As can be seen from the title and subtitle of the article, Ilan Berman is hinting that because America may have a hard time walking the walk, it should play the role of the opportunist and take advantage of the fact that China has flinched –– and talk the talk selling itself to a world that has had it below China for a time now. Here is how Berman blared what he thinks is the good news: “There's no denying that Beijing has an image problem. Traditional views of China as a constructive global actor have plummeted around the world, while suspicions about China's strategic intentions are on the rise”.

 

Even with a development that injected a shot in America's arm, Ilan Berman still believes that America's success will not come as easily as a cakewalk. And so, after explaining the situation as he sees it, laying out the statistics to prove every point he made, he offered the following conclusion:

 

“That debunks the notion that Beijing enjoys the upper hand in its unfolding 'great power competition' with the West. The question is whether Washington can parlay the negative views of China that predominate in a growing number of capitals into a competitive strategy by which to contain Beijing on the world stage. On that score, at least, the jury is still out”.

 

Whether it is Zachary Faria or Ilan Berman, the two men do not seem to accept the painful thought that the glory days of America being the sole superpower on the planet, are gone forever. But they also know that this is the inescapable reality that America may never be able to turn around.

 

Nevertheless, Faria chose to deal with his pain by throwing insults at the UN, using it as proxy for a humanity that made the current condition possible. As to Berman, he chose to hang his hopes on America being able to rally other nations, and together get ahead of China while at the same time, seeing China damage its own standing in the world.

 

There can only be one thing to say to all that: Someday, those two dudes will wake up and realize that this can be anything but glorious.

The political Class imperils American Security

 The image of America as a beehive of inventors, makers and doers is fading away, and those who worry about the trend, are beginning to sound the alarm.

 

The people who support the idea that America is an exceptional nation, explain that the country stays ahead because it constantly replenishes itself with newcomers who are the best and brightest in the world. But how do you spot the best and brightest in any field, and how do you measure the level of their brilliance?

 

The answer to those questions is that you can do it in some fields easier than others. For example, a general kind of IQ test given to college students might indicate who is smarter than whom, but will not tell who will be productive in their field after graduation and who will not. Thus, if you check the background of a random sample of people in society, you'll find that the level of success they enjoy today, does not necessarily correlate with how well they were doing in school. But there is an exception to this rule.

 

In general, you'll find that those who do well in the sciences when at school, will become productive in their field after graduation. That's because unlike social norms, politics, commerce, philosophy of life and what have you––which constantly change as they go in cycles––science does not change. What was true at the time of Isaac Newton is true today, even if it has been updated by Albert Einstein's theory.

 

This is why an industrial company in America would want to recruit the bright foreign students in the last year of their studies so as to remain at the leading edge of its field. But what about the offspring of the foreign geniuses who grow up as Americans? What happens to them? They go into society as ordinary citizens who are neither more productive than the rest of society nor less.

 

But how do you account for a Zbigniew Brzezinski or a Henry Kissinger who are naturalized Americans and yet were proven to be geniuses that served America well in politico-diplomatic positions? These people may or may not have been regarded as talented by their professors while in school, but they found themselves in the right place at the right time later in life. America “discovered” them and took them in to serve.

 

Well then, we can see why it will be difficult for America to stumble on another Brzezinski or another Kissinger at this time, and take them in to fix the sorry state of America's current political malaise at home, as well as its low standing abroad. But the puzzling part is that the same malaise exists in the scientific and technological labs of America, when this should not be the case. Why is it happening?

 

We begin to get a sense of what the answer to that question may be when we read the article that came under the title: “Semiconductor Shortfall: America Is Willingly Ceding The Technology Race To Asia,” written by Alan Tonelson, and published on October 18, 2020 in The national Interest. This is a long article, but a key paragraph sums up Intel's problem. Condensed, the paragraph reads as follows:

 

“Intel announced that it has bungled its effort to mass manufacture a new family of chips incorporating the latest generation of performance-improving technology. It raised the prospect of exiting semiconductor manufacturing altogether. This was Intel's second failure to introduce such next-generation processors. In an industry where product cycles keep getting shorter, such a setback can magnify the cost of a company lagging behind technologically”.

 

What happened to the Intel Corporation? Well, those who are familiar with the moniker “Intel Inside,” must know the story of when it was decided to figuratively turn the moniker into “Israel Inside.” At first, it was political pressure that forced Intel to establish a close relationship with Israel. Once a manufacturing plant was opened there, and Israeli as well as American Jews got a foot inside the Intel door, the pervasive Jewish game of purging the existing professionals and replacing them with Jewish know-nothings began.

 

And like the “Midas Touch” that was transformed into the “Touch of the Jinx,” the quality of the Intel microprocessors went from world class excellent to useless junk. Look now what Alan Tonelson says Intel has shared with its shareholders regarding the effect on America of Intel's demise:

 

“Semiconductor manufacturer Intel's latest quarterly corporate report ominously noted some serious potential technological vulnerabilities capable of undermining America's prosperity as well as its national security”.

 

Yes, my friend, what's at stake are America's prosperity and national security. The country was put in this position because its political class kept dismantling the structure that gave it the exceptional quality it used to enjoy, and handed the parts to the Jews who used them to build a place for themselves and their offspring they call Israel.

 

Hungry for more of this kind of success, the Netanyahu gang called on their long serving asset in the American Navy, the one named Admiral James Stavridis, and instructed him to stand ready to help.

 

They want him to use America's influence and goodwill to do what he can at convincing the Arab countries to take the Israelis into their super-advanced hi-tech program and facilities so that the Jews can do to them what they did to the Intel Corporation.

 

And the American Admiral, once the treasonous head of NATO, said to his Israeli handler: Yes, master Jew. Report to Netanyahu that I hear and I obey.

Transfer of the Masada Complex to America

 When you think about it and be honest with yourself, you'll see there are only two ways by which a serious war can erupt on this planet, thus threaten to extinguish life on Earth or set it back several centuries.

 

One way is that war will happen by an accident that no one could have expected. The other is that a suicidal third party will engineer a deliberate misunderstanding between the various powers, and have them go against each other in a fight to their deaths, and perhaps to that of the planet.

 

As far as today's life on Earth is concerned, whereas the surface area of the planet is not getting any larger, the biomass that lives on it––at the top of which is us, humans––is increasing in weight at an exponential rate. Lucky for our species, we are endowed with a brain that makes it possible for us to care for this biomass, as well as keep it healthy and productive. But this is contingent on us putting our minds to it, and working relentlessly towards achieving those noble goals.

 

The problem with us, however, is that we are such complex creations, the ingenuity we possess that can lead us to do good, often leads us to do bad things as well. One of the latter being the possibility of an evil third party engineering a misunderstanding that would cause other powers to fight each other. The evil one would exploit the situation and benefit from it regardless of the consequences to the planet in both the short and long terms. In fact, we are living one such moment at this time.

 

You can get a sense of what's happening on Planet Earth by reading the article that came under the title: “Iran's 'breakout' ability more dangerous than ever,” and the subtitle: “As US election day approaches, tensions between Washington and Tehran are rising, with implications for Israel's security.” It was written by Brig. Gen. Yossi Kuperwasser, a former military intelligence officer in the Israeli army. The article was published on October 18, 2020 in the Jewish News Syndicate.

 

You know what the core of the problem is when you read the first sentence of the first paragraph, which is a false accusation that goes like this: “Iran keeps seeking ways to secure the capability to produce a sufficient quantity [of weapon grade enriched uranium] for two nuclear devices within a short time, in defiance of growing American economic pressure”.

 

Thus, from the title, subtitle and the first sentence of the article, you can tell that at the bottom of the story, there exists a conflict between Iran and Israel. America was dragged into the feud by the Israelis whose Jewish allies in America have recruited the government, and convinced it to use its economic clout to force Iran not to seek what it does not have, and said it does not intend to have. Iran even negotiated a deal with a previous American administration and other world powers, that ascertains this will be the case.

 

But there happened an election in America, at which time the administration was replaced. It pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal, and instituted a program of maximum pressure at the behest of the local Jews who form a lobby that works on behalf of Israel. It is now four years later, and once again election time has arrived in America. It is a moment of anxiety for the Jews who fear that if the previous administration is put back in power, it will return to the deal it signed with Iran and the other powers, and will end the sanctions on Iran.

 

But what exactly are the Jews trying to accomplish? After all, they were the ones who created dozens of political pieces of theater, as they tried to make the world believe that Israel had an arsenal of nuclear weapons big enough to blow up the entire planet if it wanted to. The Jews also recruited dozens of moral prostitutes around the world, and had them play the not so funny theatrics … and nobody laughed.

 

To know what the Jews want, we need to know where they came from. They were an ancient tribe that roamed the desert, going from empire to empire where they infiltrated the ruling class, and tried to take over the empire from the inside. They failed every time and got punished severely for their treacherous ways. Thus, being the first terrorists to disgrace the planet, the Jews developed the habit we see exhibited by modern terrorists. That is, they fight to the death, and if the enemy does not kill them, they commit suicide.

 

Unable to fight Iran, the Jews of Israel called on America to do the fighting for them. But having seen its nose rubbed in the mud dozens of times since the Second World War, America has turned cautious when it comes to initiating a hot war against Iran. It preferred to make a deal with that country, as happened during the previous administration. It chose to apply economic pressure as did the current administration.

 

If as a result of the soon to be held election, the previous administration is put back in power, it will be game over for Israel, at least for the next four years. But if the current administration wins reelection, the Jews will push America to start a war which, for all practical purposes, will put into practice the suicidal habit that the Jews have transferred to the greatest sucker of all time. And historians of the future will want to name the aftermath, The Masada on the Potomac Event.

Secondary and tertiary effects of reverse logic

 Instead of imagining a parallel universe that mirrors ours in the sense that what happens here happens there in reverse, we imagine a group of people that live in a bubble of reverse logic right here in our own universe.

 

If this were to happen, what kind of consequences would result outside the bubble from actions they take inside the bubble? To be honest with ourselves, we must admit that it is difficult to imagine a set of causes happening in one place, resulting in a set of effects happening in another place.

 

But if we are lucky––or unlucky depending on how you see things––fate has created such a situation; one that's ready for us to study. In fact, the situation now exists which yields the information we seek to answer all of our questions.

 

Let's study what's happening with the Zion bubble of existence where reverse logic is the order of the day. But first, how do we know they practice reverse logic in that bubble? We know because they say that when there is a home invasion, such as the Jews coming from abroad and invading the Palestinian homeland, the aggressor is the Palestinian homeowner whereas the victim is the Jewish invader. And so it goes with everything else where judgments are made in reverse of what you'd see in the normal universe.

 

Okay, we can see that they practice reverse logic inside the bubble. But how does that translate into effects outside the bubble that mimic the causes inside the bubble? Good question. But before we answer it, let's first note that the question is asked precisely because the link between the cause and the effect is not readily observable. And the reason why this is so, is because the effect is usually of the second or third order effect. Here is an example:

 

It is a news item that was written by Molly Boigo under the headline: “Neo-Nazis who vandalized a synagogue are recruiting in plain sight,” published on October 15, 2020 in The Forward. The article describes the activities of, “The Base [that's] made up of small terror cells around the United States.” What? Was that word, Base? Did these people call themselves The Base? From where did they get that name?

 

Here is that story. When a falling-out happened between America and Usama Bin Laden (UBL,) the latter decided to punish America for double-crossing him. And so, he founded a terror group to do just that. But what to call that group? UBL reasoned that he was badly treated by the Americans because of the influence that the Jews have in that country.

 

He also reasoned that the Jews were able to get in that position because they created Israel as the “Base” out of which to influence America, and implement their terror agenda against the Islamic world. And so, UBL decided to call his own group al-Qaeda, which is Arabic for The Base. And that's where the group in America went looking for a name to christen their own creation. As can be seen, the name went from Israel to al-Qaeda to The Base … all synonyms that mean terrorism.

 

And so, we can see how the logic of the original home invasion that resulted in calling the aggressor a victim, and the victim an aggressor, has served as a secondary effect for engendering the creation of The Base that’s now operating in America, apparently with impunity.

 

As to the tertiary effect, we see it in the process that's rising at this time when we study the article that came under the title: “ Resisting the Normalization of Antisemitism in High Schools,” written by Yael Lerman of the Israeli StandWithUs organization, known as the foreign octopus with tentacles in America's schools indoctrinating the next generation of lackeys whom the Jewish leaders hope will grow up feeling at home inside the bubble of reverse logic.

 

You may think of that setup as the chicken and the egg paradox, but the reality is that both the foreign indoctrination of American kids and The Base of terror are here in the same place at the same time, each existing because the other exists. And as it happened repeatedly throughout space and time wherever and whenever the Jews went, the young disciples they indoctrinate today will someday realize they were psychologically abused by their Jewish instructors, and will rebel.

 

An indication of the gravity of the abuse to which America's youngsters are subjected at this moment, is seen in the following example from the Yael Lerman article:

 

“At a school assembly, as part of a presentation on racism, the speaker encouraged students to emulate Linda Sarsour and Tamika Mallory. Jewish students were shocked to hear [such] figures promoted as role models.”

 

That is, children are taught to grow up hating outstanding Americans of the Sarsour and Mallory caliber because they do not subscribe to the Israeli StandWithUs core belief that there is no such a thing as Palestine. It is a satanic method of teaching, invented in Israel and deployed in America to force the children into concluding that the territory from the River to the Sea must be ethnically cleansed of Palestinians to make room for imported Jews.

 

In fact, this is one more reason why students of StandWithUs, will eventually turn against all Jews and fight them indiscriminately. They'll fight them by joining groups like The Base, and seek revenge for the torment they suffered as children; afflicted as they were with emotional distress that left them scarred for life.

 

These people will want accountability from those who robbed them of the learning experience to think for themselves during their formative years. Now, free of the Jewish grip around their necks, and able to think for themselves, they know who their enemy is, has been and will always be. And they'll never forgive. Never. Never again.