The disruptive Force of ignorant Fanaticism

 The marriage of ignorance and fanaticism can be at once exacerbating and amusing. We have an example of that, thanks to Laurie Cardoza-Moore (LCM) who wrote an article to let the world know just how ignorant and how fanatic she is.

 

LCM is having a quarrel with the Reverend Raphael Warnock, but that is none of our concern. What she says about world affairs and about historical realities, reveal her to be lacking knowledge in her skull while suffering from an abundance of Jewish fire of indoctrination in her belly. And that's what is of interest to us.

 

The article that LCM wrote came under the title: “No, Raphael Warnock, Jesus was not a Palestinian,” and the subtitle: “Warnock's teachings are a fusion of anti-Semitic doctrines that have led to the murder of countless Jews.” It was published on December 29, 2020 in The Washington Times.

 

The proof that Laurie Cardoza-Moore was indoctrinated in the Jewish logic of the sewer, is revealed by the fact that what she says stinks from here to high heaven. Here is an example: “The word Palestine does not appear one time throughout the New Testament and the Philistines referenced in the Old Testament became extinct during biblical times”.

 

What she is doing here is use an irrelevance to give credence to a lie. In fact, the irrelevance in her statement is that the word Palestine does not appear in the New Testament. The lie is that the Palestinians are not indigenous to Palestine. I'll explain this in detail in a moment, but first, I must do something LCM neglected to do. It is to explain the relationship between Philistines and Palestinians.

 

In all the languages of the region, be they modern or ancient, Palestine is pronounced “Falasteen” even in Hebrew, which is written as such “פלאסטין". This means the two words are one and the same. According to LCM, Falasteen appears in the Old Testament but not the New. By that, she is suggesting that the Palestinians were recognized as being indigenous to Palestine from the beginning of time till about 2000 years ago, and that by some magic, they ceased to be so recognized.

 

What happened there? Well, there can only be one explanation. Those who wrote the New Testament were not writing history; they were writing about their new religion. It is one they considered to be so universal, they took it to the four corners of the world, leaving Falasteen behind and talking about Jesus.

 

Another distortion LCM injected into her article without explaining a thing about it, is that she said Yasser Arafat was Egyptian, a clear attempt to negate his Palestinian identity. Those who do this, base their lie on the fact that Arafat was born in Egypt to Palestinian parents who found themselves in a foreign country when the time came for delivery. This is a situation that happens even more often these days, causing a great deal of controversy in America but nowhere else, as to which nationality the child belongs.

 

LCM made the choice for Yasser Arafat, and said he was Egyptian because he was born in Egypt, thus denied him the Palestinian identity. What the poor woman did not realize, however, is that in so doing, she dug herself a trap and fell into it. Here is what she did:

 

Immaculately conceived, Jesus had no human father. Thus, he could only take the nationality of the place where he was born or that of his mother. According to LCM and the Old Testament, the land where Jesus was born, belonged to the Philistines (meaning Palestine) and so remained at least till the advent of Christianity and the New Testament, which did not happen till after Jesus was crucified. Thus, LCM must admit that Jesus was born a Palestinian –– like said Yasser Arafat and the Reverend Raphael Warnock.

 

Not knowing that she was talking from the bottom of the trap in which she fell, LCM made the following falsehood:

 

“The life of Jesus stood in direct contradiction to Arafat's narrative, making it difficult to recruit Christians to his cause. So, he rewrote the Bible and rebranded Jesus as a Palestinian. Institutions were established in Bethlehem where Palestinian activists cloaked in Christianity peddled their own newer testament”.

 

But now that it was proven Jesus was indeed a Palestinian, and that Yasser Arafat was correct, all that Laurie Cardoza-Moore is accusing him of is false accusation. And since LCM's stance is the opposite of Arafat's, it must be that she stands accused of cloaking herself in Christianity and peddling her own newer testament.

 

But why would she do that? We don't have to go far to find the answer; it is right there in the title she gave to herself. It reads as follows:

 

“Laurie Cardoza-Moore is the founder of an Evangelical Christian organization that educates Christians about their Biblical responsibility to stand with Israel and the Jewish people against the rise of global anti-Semitism”.

 

Translated into honest English, this says that by committing deliberate or inadvertent mistakes, LCM spreads anti-Semitism while pretending to fight it. And this has been her lifelong passion.

Order, you say? What kind of Order?

 To speak of a politico-diplomatic order is to think in terms of a set of rules that roll up the unfolding of events according to a predetermined sequence. In this sense, order means a protocol that is conceived in the abstract and recorded in the manner of an algorithm. But whereas an algorithm is used to guide the performance of a computer or a robot, a politico-diplomatic order is used to guide the behavior of human beings.

 

But there are differences. For example, to a teacher in a classroom, order means one thing, whereas it means another thing to a Speaker of the British Parliament. That is, to make sure that a rowdy situation is not repeated, a teacher may recommend to the school principal that the student or two who caused the breakdown in discipline should be punished. Not so in the British Parliament. Why the difference?

 

The reason is that children who go to school, do so to acquire something they don't have, which is knowledge. When a student or two disrupt the orderly unfolding of the lesson, they deprive the other students of what is owed to them. In legal terms, they damage the interests of others. Thus, punishing the students who caused the damage, would be the taking of a step towards ascertaining that justice is done.

 

As to the case of rowdy parliamentarians, they have a code of behavior they must follow. The code defines what they cannot do, such as calling another member an SOB, for example. Whereas in this case, the offending member is punished or even expelled, the eruption of a general rowdiness is almost never punished even if it can be traced to one or two individuals.

 

That is because, unlike the students, the parliamentarians are not there to acquire something; they are there to do battle on behave of their constituents. They get rough with each other at times, but as long as they do not exceed certain limits, judged by the Speaker of the House to have gone beyond the pale, the rowdy members are only asked, at times forcefully, to restore order to the chamber.

 

These are only two examples of how order is observed in real life. But the state of being orderly, falls on a spectrum that ranges from the perfectly acceptable at one extreme, to the absolutely detestable at the opposite extreme, and there are all kinds of shades between the two. And of course, what is acceptable or detestable to one person, may not be so to another person.

 

This makes it difficult to determine how much someone has broken an existing code of behavior even if it is done within the same culture. Now imagine how difficult it would be for a dispute to erupt in a different culture, and you are asked to determine who is at fault, and by how much they are at fault. Yet, this is what professor Joseph S. Nye has tried to do in the article he wrote under the title: “Does the International Liberal Order Have a Future?” It was published on December 28, 2020 in The National Interest.

 

No dispute to speak of has erupted at this time, but it is expected that when this happens, the newly elected President of the United States, Joe Biden, will be called upon to intervene one way or the other. This is not something new to America; it has been happening for at least a century.

 

It happened during World War One that when Britain and Germany were fighting in Europe, American citizens of both origins lobbied their American government to intervene and help “their side” in the conflict. Before America could take that decision––based on the arguments of the lobbyists––the sinking of the Lusitania off the coast of Ireland, compelled America to intervene on the side of Britain.

 

In other circumstances, people that fled their country of origin and became American citizens, lobbied their adopted government to oppose the “old country” in every way possible so as to help it overcome the tyrannical rule of the existing regime. This is the situation in countries like Cuba and Iran, according to the expatriates from these places.

 

And then there is the case of Jews gathering from around the world and going to occupy Palestine, pretending to be indigenous to the Land of Milk and Honey as the Dutch Afrikaners pretended to be indigenous to South Africa. With this kind of confusion hitting everyone in the face, how does the President of the United States decide whether or not to intervene? And if yes, how and when to intervene?

 

There is only one way to do this. It is called the process of elimination. You watch those that have an ax to grind. If you see them take newly elected representatives to the Congress behind closed doors, and “educate” them on Jewish sensitivities, or take them to a European concentration camp, or take them to Israel, you know they are criminally-minded blackmailing hypnotists who intend to abuse America by corrupting its leaders. You eliminate them, or to use a modern term, you cancel them.

 

This done, you tell the others to make their case public so that it can be fully debated according to the norms of civilized democracy. When they do, you make your decision, based on the outcome of the debate.

The Donut-shaped Logic of Foreign Policy

 Since antiquity, people of the Stone Age considered the sphere to be the most perfect shape in existence. Thousands of years later, at the end of the Dark Ages, science and astronomy had so advanced, people understood that the moon, the earth, the sun, the stars and the wanderers (planets) were spheres, and this confirmed to them that the sphere was indeed the most perfect shape in existence.

 

Officially, there was no runner-up to the sphere but when the wheel was invented, it certainly qualified to be second to the sphere in the beauty contest of attractive shapes. After all, the wheel contributed so much to the advancement of science and technology, we could not have a ball today were it not for the cars having wheels to move us around at a faster speed than the horse.

 

But to the people of Holland in Europe, the shape of the wheel pointed to something else. Made of wheat and sugar, it was something yummy to have for breakfast, and for snacks throughout the day by those who did not worry about their weight. We're talking about the donut. As it happens, donuts come in different shapes, but the one that takes the prize is the wheel-shaped donut with a whole in the middle.

 

But let's not get carried away talking about the qualities of the donut. In fact, an edible donut with a hole in the middle may be something tasty that pleases the palate, but the shape is not appreciated when it is duplicated in other places. For example, there was a time when a debate erupted about a health insurance plan that looked like a donut with a hole in the middle, and some people did not like it. Something similar is beginning to shape today, and the guess is that some people will not like it when a full debate will have become the order of the day.

 

You can see what that is when you read the article that came under the title: “To Balance China, Joe Biden Should Build Upon Trump's India Strategy,” written by Patrick Mendis and Antonina Luszczykiewicz, and published on December 27, 2020 in The National Interest.

 

As suggested by the title, the debate just started concerns America's relationship with at least two Asian nations: China and India. The point the authors of the article are making, is that China has become a belligerent country, threatening not only America but the Southeast Asian countries as well. The writers inform the readers that while aware of this reality, a number of Asian countries and the United States have come together to stand up to the illegitimate aspiration that China has with regard to the region.

 

Patrick Mendis and Antonina Luszczykiewicz point to the fact that in addition to that burgeoning multilateral relationship, America is deepening its bilateral relationship with India to unprecedented levels. They welcome the move, and offer an idea as to what else can be done in this area of foreign policy. Simply put, they say that America should play India against China, thus contain China's expansion and check what it tries to accomplish. And this is where you see the hole of doom in the donut of tasteless foreign policy.

 

Look how Mendis and Luszczykiewicz began discussing that last point: “With its new US military alliance, India has finally removed the mask of 'non-aligned' foreign policy which it has nominally employed since independence in 1947.” To utter these words with such assertiveness indicates that the writers have no idea what enormous mistake they just committed. What they and America need to know is the following:

 

When during the Cold War, there were two superpowers: The United States and the Soviet Union, each worked to attract as many nations to their side as possible. They were to be allies, but also subordinate satellites orbiting one or the other dominant power. A number of nations, including India, said they were too proud to go into someone's orbit, thus formed the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM,) guaranteeing to themselves the freedom to act in the best interest of their people without someone pulling their strings. Note that this happened at a time when India and its friends in the Movement were backward Third World Nations.

 

Today, India views itself as a superpower that may or may not welcome satellites in orbit around it. But to speak of it as a subordinate that'll be happy to enter into orbit around America, is to be blind to the progress that India has accomplished so far. Worse, it is to insult its current status as a superpower in waiting, one that will soon stand shoulder to shoulder with China, and be ahead of the United States, Russia, Japan and everyone else. If anything, it will be the United States that will petition to go into orbit around India.

 

But that game will cease to be played in the future because a worldwide new regime will replace it. You can see the new order take shape right now as Asia and Africa are coming together with Europe to make it happen. You can also see it progress with China and Russia coming together to protect it from America's declared intention to disrupt it.

 

Sooner or later, the world will cease to look like a schoolyard with adolescent boys competing for the title of most disruptive bully.

 

The world will mature, and will be governed like a well-run corporation with 200 or so independent divisions working in harmony with each other in the service of all humankind.

To Square One again like the bad old Days

 If you're puzzled as to how time after time, the Jews ended up at square one following each ordeal they suffered by the metaphoric gas chamber and incinerator, a just published piece that can serve as case study, will show you how the Jews have managed to accomplish this feat everywhere they went around the world, century after century.

 

Unsurprisingly, the piece came in the form of an editorial published by the Washington Examiner. It was given the Title: “The Arab world has moved on from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” and the subtitle: “The rest of the world should join them.” It was printed on December 27, 2020.

 

Expressed simply, the lesson that’s taken away from this work, is the following: When in the process of unfolding, things happen that touch on a Jewish cause, the Jews create a narrative that describes not what they see but what they wish they were seeing. They can go on for decades expressing a false narrative that has nothing to do with reality, even build on it, layers upon layers of falsehoods. When something positive or negative, changes on the ground and renders the narrative moot, the Jews look at the new situation and again describe it not as it is, but as they wish it were. In this sense, they find themselves back at square one, talking gibberish and facing yet another metaphoric punishment.

 

What follows is an elaboration as to what was real and what was Jewish fantasy before the signing of the Abraham Accord. This is then compared with what became reality and what became Jewish fantasy after the Accord. Here is the first part:

 

Given the savage behavior of the Jews in Palestine, the Arab populations resented the activities of what came to be known as Israel. They let it be known they were prepared to make the necessary sacrifices to see to it that Israel is confronted. But given the pity and sympathy that the Jews had garnered after the Holocaust, the Arab leaders understood what their populations did not. It was that confronting Israel was to confront its enablers that included the NATO alliance. Thus, the Arab leaders preferred to ignore the existence of Israel as well as the pleas of their own populations to confront it and confront its enablers.

 

Then 9/11 happened, and the Arab leaders realized that they must act to dampen the anger of populations that were beginning to turn against the leaders' ineffectiveness at resolving a situation fast becoming unacceptable. Having punished Egypt for Sadat's initiative to end the state of war with Israel, the Arab League reversed itself and accepted the view that having won the Six-Year War, and having put Israel in its place in 1973, it was time to end the state of undeclared conflict with Israel's enablers. And so, shortly after 9/11, the Arabs produced what came to be known as the Arab League Initiative.

 

Despite the fact that all of the Arab countries offered to establish full diplomatic relations with Israel in return for Israel obeying the international law known as UN Security Council Resolution 242, and the laws pertaining to occupation, Israel ignored the Arab League Initiative because the Jews wanted the Arab recognition as well as the Land of Palestine minus its owners, the Palestinian people. True to their nature, the Jews wanted to have their cake and eat it too.

 

While this was the reality on the ground, the Jews unleashed their propaganda machine to do what used to infuriate an old Jewish friend who lived in Europe during the Nazi era. He would throw his hand up in the air and yell: “Light up the oven,” to indicate that the beastly Jewish propaganda has been the reason why people of every race in every era, wanted to gas and incinerate the Jews. In fact, what the Jewish lie machine continued to do even after the announcement of the Arab Initiative, was to say that the Arab leaders were inciting their populations to hate Israel because they did not know how to govern. This was not an ordinary lie; it was of the kind that reversed the truth, the kind that begs to be punished by poison gas and fire, according to the old Jewish friend.

 

That was then. Now that the Abraham Accord is upon us –– inadvertently brought on by an angry Donald Trump who threatened to open the gates of hell on Netanyahu for not accommodating the Arabs –– the situation on the ground has changed. But instead of telling the story of the Arabs rejecting an attempt to sell them a plan that would give Palestine to the Jews, the latter turned on the propaganda machine full throttle, and had it purvey a whole new fantasy.

 

This is what the editorial of the Washington Examiner is doing. As can be seen, the editors have concentrated their attention on the fantasy that the Palestinians have been abandoned by the Arabs and by the whole world. Now, the Jews dream of walking all over a people that were disarmed and dispossessed of everything they owned except the dignity with which they stoically stand up to a shameless culture of thieves, and the moral prostitutes who enable them.

 

And so, while Jews of the Washington Examiner variety are back to square one fantasizing about a situation that does not exist, the Arabs are reassuring the Palestinians that the restoration of their full rights, is the number one priority of every Arab citizen and Arab leader … and shall so remain till justice is done.

To engage or to confront, that is the question

 Two articles published on the same day: December 25, 2020, in the same publication: The National Interest, shed a great deal of light as to why America finds itself confused when it comes to pursuing a coherent and rational foreign policy.

 

One article was written by Kishore Mahbubani under the title: “Why Joe Biden Must Engage China,” the other article was written by Gideon Rachman under the title: “Why Biden should confront China”.

 

Here is the blurb that accompanies the Mahbubani article: “If the Biden administration were to attempt a complete reboot of American strategy toward China, it could chart a new path while picking up concrete benefits for the American economy and chipping away at Trump's political base”.

 

And here is the blurb that accompanies the Rachman article: “Washington's concern is about Beijing's efforts to expand its global influence through illegitimate means––in particular, by threatening to use military force or economic coercion to intimidate neighbors”.

 

The point that Kishore Mahbubani is making, is that Joe Biden needs to cultivate and maintain good relations with China because of several reasons, among them the reality that America has a surplus of farm products which China wants to buy and pay for with top dollars. But given the damage that Donald Trump has caused to that relationship during his short tenure, it will be difficult for Joe Biden to reverse course overnight, especially that Trump has rallied a good part of the American population to his point of view.

 

But there is a way to mitigate the difficulties, says Mahbubani, if not eliminate them. He explains how this can be done in the way that he ends his article. Here is a condensed version of that passage:

 

“If the Biden administration were to attempt a reboot of American strategy towards China, it could demonstrate public toughness and firmness where necessary, while picking up concrete benefits for the American economy and chipping away at Trump's political base. In the process, it will find a more intelligent strategy towards China that would bring back many of America's allies and friends. As the former Indonesian ambassador to the United States, said, 'Today, Southeast Asians want to get along with the US and China, but they also want the US and China to get along, at least in their region. We don't want to be duped into an anti-China campaign’”.

 

As to the point that Gideon Rachman is making, it is that China is a bad character, he says at the outset, because it is an illiberal power. Having instructed the Biden administration to wear glasses of prejudice and view China through them no matter what else is said, Rachman went on to spew the very thing that the Indonesian ambassador warned against. Here, in condensed form, is how Rachman put it:

 

“The challenge lies in the growing economic and military strength of an illiberal China, now clearly threatening American influence in the Asia-Pacific region. That darkens the horizons for liberal democracies in a region where China is the dominant power, and where the feel will be different from one in which America is the most influential country. And because the Asia-Pacific region is now the core of the global economy, what happens there affects the whole world”.

 

So, here you have it: On the one hand, there is the Asian Kishore Mahbubani from Singapore quoting the Indonesian ambassador (also Asian) as saying that all Asians want to get along with China, and do not want to be duped into an anti-China campaign. And here is, on the other hand, Gideon Rachman the British Jew who says no, no, no, the Asians feel differently from that. He goes on to spew the fantasy that Asians want America's influence in their region rather than China's, because they believe, like everyone else, that what happens in Asia has a bearing on what happens everywhere in the world.

 

And then, in the typical fashion that Jews deploy the two sides of their forked tongue, Gideon Rachman went on to advise the Biden administration how to carry on with two parallel and contradictory discourses at the same time. Here, in condensed form, is how he put it:

 

“This is not an effort to block the rise of China. The Chinese people have a right to development and a richer and more powerful China. A Biden speech on China could emphasize the positive contributions that China can make to the world in science, technology, and culture. Nor is this an effort to force regime change on China. The United States will always be sympathetic to those who push for democratic freedoms and will continue to speak out in support of the Uighurs, citizens of Hong Kong, and others. America can support Chinese liberals and minorities without directly threatening the Communist Party or its leadership”.

 

This is one example of what America faces every day when it comes to making decisions labeled, “liberal and democratic.” The argument in favor of maintaining such a regime, is that the more opinions are expressed, the greater the pool from which the President can choose to chart a course of action.

 

This is true, but it is not the whole truth. The fact is that thanks to the Jews, things have evolved in America whereby everyone expressing an opinion would have cultivated a constituency backing him or her. These constituents sit in high positions and wield a great deal of power. They often use that power to scrap what the President chooses to do.

 

The net result is that every opinion expressed in America is not a gift that the President can grab and deploy as he wishes. It is instead an authoritarian threat that he must take into consideration as he navigates a minefield of political perils.

Painting a dim Legacy with the Colors of Success

 Using the trick of calling everyone that disagreed with them an anti-Semite who is trying to recreate the Holocaust and do away with the Jews for good this time around, the Jews shut out every opposition to them, from the English-speaking square of public debates.

 

This done, the Jews created a narrative about events in the Middle East that related to reality on the ground in the way that Shangri-La relates to the murderous city of Chicago. For starter, there has never been an iota of resemblance between the image of the Arabs that the Jewish propaganda used to paint, and the real character of the Arabic people. And so, every event that unfolded in the region, was savagely distorted to conform with the false image of the Arabs.

 

Wise enough not to spend intellectual energy or money to rectify the distortions created by the Jews –– which they reckoned were designed to sucker the dumb legislators and executives of the English-speaking world –– the Arabs let events take their natural course. They had an inkling what that would be, given that the Jews always ended up biting the hands that fed them, and those hands ended up crushing the Jews.

 

Thus, true to the character they are most famous for, the Arabs relied on patience to deliver the rectification that was due to them. Well, my friend, that day has finally come. Not only was justice rendered insofar as the image of the Arabs was concerned, but the Jews are showing –– with their current state of uncontrolled exhilaration –– just how much they secretly valued the friendship of the Arabs while demonically painting a distorted image of them. And having chewed on the hands that fed them, the Jews are beginning to lose standing and credibility in the English-speaking world the same way that they lost them among their former bosom buddies in Turkey and Iran.

 

And then things happened that threw the Jewish propaganda machine into a tizzy. At first, things seemed to go well when President Trump told his son-in-law to put into words what Netanyahu wants to do with regard to the occupation of Palestine. When this was done and was presented to the Arabs, they told the kid that bought the message, to go fly a kite.

 

Meanwhile, Donald Trump who was counting on a success in this area to rescue his faltering run for a second term as President of the United States, panicked at the thought that the Arabs had made the right offer nearly two decades ago, but the Israelis who want to have their cake and eat it too, did not respond. And so, Trump got on the phone and told Netanyahu to indicate acceptance of the offer, known as the Arab Initiative, or see Jerusalem given back to the Palestinians, its rightful owners … or see worse than that.

 

The Israelis responded the way they always do, which is to play the democracy card. That is, the factions of the ruling elites got together and told the world they are at such a loggerhead, they must freeze everything and do nothing for the next few months till Trump gets kicked off the scene and explode alone in the swamp of his making. What Netanyahu is doing, in effect, is keep things from getting far out of hand, fearing that Trump might explode and open the gates of hell to let it shower fire and brimstone on Israel for contributing to his electoral loss.

 

And while Trump is doing navel gazing and playing golf, the rats that did not jump ship, are trying to salvage as much as possible of his phony legacy. They hope to maintain the regime's spirit alive till Trump himself or a worthy successor will come and resume implementation of the demonic work. One of the loyal rats is Con Coughlin who wrote: “Biden Meddles with Donald Trump's Middle East Legacy at his Peril,” an article that was published on December 25, 2020 on the website of the Gatestone Institute. Here, in condensed form, is how Coughlin described Trump's achievement in the Middles East:

 

“Mr. Trump's greatest achievement in the Middle East has been the success he has enjoyed in breaking the impasse in the Israeli-Arab peace process, with a clutch of Arab regimes establishing diplomatic relations with Israel under the so-called Abraham Accords, with other Arab governments said to be giving serious consideration to following suit”.

 

You'll notice that Coughlin did not mention the Arab Initiative which, long ago, offered recognition of Israel by all the Arab states and not just a “clutch of Arab Regimes.” In addition, a number of those that signed the Abraham Accord this time, were bribed by America to declare that they were prepared to grant Israel full recognition, but only when Israel would have restored to the Palestinians their full rights.

 

This is what got the Israelis to fake yet another crisis –– the fourth by some count. It allowed them to freeze everything and wait for the departure from the scene of Donald Trump.

 

This is why the Trump administration is currently scurrying around like an angry cat to warn Netanyahu that Donald Trump may soon be out, but he'll still command the gates of hell, which he'll unleash on Israel and Netanyahu personally if the matter is not resolved and the Arabs are not fully satisfied before Joe Biden’s inauguration on January 20, 2021.

They replaced the organic Paradigm with an artificial Paradigm

 When there exists an order of things that has not been altered by human hands, it is said to be natural. When the order is a fauna or flora that changes because it goes through a cycle of life that's proper to it, we see in the transformation, a process we call organic. Whatever the final setup of an existing order, and whichever we way we look at it, we call it a paradigm. Considering the organic evolution of this setup, we think of it as an organic paradigm.

 

Can there be a setup that is designed by human hands, and be considered an artificial paradigm without thinking of those terms as forming an oxymoron? The answer is “probably,” but only as long as the component parts are designed by human hands, whereas the final assembly comes together naturally. But if humans act to influence the final assembly, the resulting construct becomes an illegitimate make-believe artificial paradigm.

 

Humans are the end product of a natural, organic paradigm that has been in the making for billions of years. It is only during the last moments of this process that we came along, and made it so that we can now do more than alter the natural order to ensure our continued survival within it. What we do is create a so-called artificial paradigm and impose it on nature's organic paradigm.

 

We see this reality in everything that we do in science and technology which allows us to impose our will on nature. The pros and cons of this outcome will be with us to debate for as long as we exist. But there is something else that we do not easily perceive. It is that some people mimic the making of an organic paradigm by fabricating component parts well ahead of time. They add them to the assembly, one piece at a time, whenever possible without being detected. The final product begins to look, not like a smooth picture, but a mosaic that's made of separate parts. Eventually, the whole assembly serves the purpose of its makers, something that can only happen at the expense of everything and everyone else.

 

The people who do that, do it for the higher purpose of protecting their tribe from what they believe is an existential threat. They are the Jews that have been busy for half a century, producing the component parts for a design they believe was handed to them by God. It orders them to take over the superpower that is America, and go from there to conquer the world. And so, they started to work on a new paradigm that will offer them the right climate during which they believe that America will let itself be taken over by them.

 

You can see how that paradigm is shaping when you read the article that came under the title: “Why America Needs a Foreign Policy Reset,” and the subtitle which reads in part as follows: “World affairs are rarely black and white. Alliances should serve as instruments of US policy rather than ends in themselves. History as we knew it has returned.” It was written by Dimitri K. Simes, and published on December 20, 2020 in The National Interest. Here is the pertinent passage, reproduced in condensed form:

 

“What passes for policy analysis today, I feel like I've been whisked back to Brezhnev's Soviet Union, where one had to use obligatory terms and demonstrate devotion to political orthodoxy to be taken seriously. Terms like 'democracy,' 'liberal international order,' 'alliances,' 'aggression,' and 'disinformation' are deployed not as analytical tools that help interpret the world but as buzzwords intended to show that whoever is using them is playing by the rules. This lack of analytical rigor is evident in dialogue on NATO”.

 

This shows the kind of groupthink that has allowed the Jews to turn the term “bipartisan” into a code word that means, “To serve the interests of Jews and Israel only.” There was a time when the term was used as an expression of pride by politicians who wanted to say they accomplished something despite their differences. Now, this is never heard when the business is America’s. Instead, the term is used by the Jews to brag about the control they exercise on America's governing elites, and have them serve Israel while neglecting the business of America.

 

One of the issues that the Jews have been adamant about, is getting America to stay involved in a state of perpetual war. It has cost America a tremendous amount already in terms dead soldiers, wasted wealth and standing in a world that does not appreciate America’s stance on this matter.

 

You can feel the agony expressed by non-Jewish America when you read the article that came under the title: “We owe Americans an end to perpetual wars,” written by Rep. Chip Roy & Jason Pye, and published on December 21, 2020 in The Washington Examiner. The following is the most pertinent passage concerning that issue:

 

“The fiscal cost is astounding. According to the Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs, the post-Sept. 11 approach to foreign policy has cost nearly $2 trillion. Added to that are the $437 billion for medical and disability care for veterans who have served in these wars. Including interest costs and anti-terrorism spending, the cost of post-Sept. 11 wars now exceeds $6.4 trillion”.

 

The more that the Jews manage to add parts to their mosaic, the more they feel proud of what they have accomplished, and the more they brag about it.

 

But something else happens as well. It is that the more they come close to completing the picture, the more that ordinary people see the horror that awaits America, and the more they want to end the Jewish experiment.

 

This is what happened to the Jews everywhere they went, and is happening in America now. These people never learn from their mistakes.

 

What can be learned from the lumpish?

 How far must schizo-paranoia go to be considered advanced enough and capable enough to commit acts of criminal insanity?

 

This is the question we must ask, and for which we must try to find an answer because things are murky now and promise to become even murkier.

 

Suppose you live in a fairly quiet neighborhood, but there is this one neighbor who occasionally disturbs the place with outbursts that can be described as paranoid in nature. He goes around warning the neighbors that bad people are eyeing the neighborhood, intending to rampage it, beat the residents and rob them.

 

His outbursts become more frequent with the passage of time, and the paranoia now seems to have mutated into a case of schizo-paranoia. It is that he dresses like a soldier of an earlier era, wields a sword, and claims to be the only one capable of slaying the gang that's threatening the neighborhood. You and everyone else begin to fear that he will soon commit an act of criminal insanity.

 

Do you live in a neighborhood such as that? You may think you're not, but if you live anywhere in America, you live in that neighborhood because America is it. You see, my friend, America is the only one going around the world and getting involved in fights while claiming that the world is full of quarreling dictators who wish to harm America without being provoked. And the only way to be safe, say these Americans, is to buy safety, security and peace by increasing America's military strength. And so, they want America to arm itself more than it does now. Do you know what this is? It is schizo-paranoia that's serious enough to be viewed as bordering on criminal insanity.

 

What's adding to America's troubles is that it has a split personality. In addition to being schizo-paranoid, its ruling class is not sure whether it is patriotic nativist American or dual-loyalty Jewish American. These people have enough pride in what America has accomplished in science and technology, and at least during the Second World War, to sacrifice all they have and serve America's interests. But as if hypnotized by a force they do not understand, they also feel driven to trample all over the American flag and Constitution when such acts serve the interests of the foreign entity known as Israel.

 

Like a window that has opened on this epic tale, Clifford D. May offered himself to be probed as to his sentiments with regard to the performance of Donald Trump who served one-term as President of the United States, and was rejected by the voters when he ran for a second term. To that end, Clifford May wrote: “Will Biden learn from Trump and keep making America secure again,” an article that also came under the subtitle: “Trump recognized threats, and at least began to address them.” The article was published on December 22, 2020 in The Washington Times. Here is the most pertinent passage in that article:

 

“Mr. Trump came into office with limited knowledge of international relations, and the complex mechanisms by which policy is formulated and implemented. He did know a thing or two about deal-making, and he intuitively grasped the logic of 'peace through strength.' On that basis, he increased defense spending”.

 

Even though May has said that Trump instinctively grasped what role the military should play in foreign policy, he proceeded to give credit to Gen. H.R. McMaster for bringing into the White House the process that engendered the 2017 National Security Strategy. As to how or why Trump brought the general into his team remains a mystery even to Clifford May. In fact, this is how he described the event: “He [Trump] was either smart or lucky to appoint McMaster...”

 

This revelation is of enormous importance because it shows that Donald Trump relies on his instinct as it speaks to him this minute, subject to change the next. He has no analytical capability, which causes him to hire and fire people, not based on their ability to perform, but on the strength of loyalty that would make them put up with his foibles and pretend to like it.

 

In time, history will look at the decisions that Trump has taken while in office, and attribute to each the method by which it was taken. The estimate at this point is that a third of the decisions were taken accidentally, a third incidentally, and a third were calculated to serve his own personal purposes.

 

Well, Donald Trump came and went like a flash in the pan. And like they say, “you get the government that you deserve.” So, this may have been all that America deserved at that time. True or false, there is no reason for someone like Clifford May to come along and recommend that the agony be prolonged the way it is suggested in the title of his article: “Will Biden learn from Trump and keep making America secure again.”

 

No country deserves to suffer this much punishment.

The etched in Stone and the Living Document

 Why are some things so unassailable, they are said to be etched in stone, and other things are meant to be adjusted if and when it is necessary, thus are said to be a living document?

 

Commands that are etched in stone, such as those which God supposedly gave to Moses, as well as the Hammurabi Code of Laws, are meant to be permanent. Whatever else future legislators may come up with, must conform with the commands etched on the stone tablet.

 

The reason why the constitution of a country is treated as if it were etched in stone, is that it is made coherent in all of its parts. Because of this, everything that's legislated later on, are made compatible with the constitution so as to be coherent with each other. This is necessary even though the laws which are meant to work for their time, deal with circumstances which are markedly different from when the constitution was framed.

 

Like it or not, there are three levels of accomplishment in the endeavors we undertake as human beings. Such levels would be detected, for example, in a report that was written by a single author, or one that was written by a committee. You'll find that the first is coherent and that it flows smoothly. And you'll find that the second looks like a quilt made of parts stitched together when they match and when they do not.

 

But there is also a third way, which is referred to as team work. The image here is borrowed from the sports where a team is well rehearsed, and the many players work so coherently together, they perform like one and the same operator. Thus, to sum up, the three levels of human performance boil down to the single operator, the team players and the committee of operators.

 

Anything that is accomplished in life, is done by human beings operating at one or the other of these levels. It is detected in every field of human exercise, especially in international diplomacy where the foreign policy of a country ends up looking coherent, semi-coherent or totally incoherent.

 

Observers who specialize in tracking the performance of countries in the field of foreign affairs, easily detect the defects in a country's work when its team of diplomats performs below par. This has been the case with the United States of America for several years now; a case in which you could not see the difference between America's team of diplomats and teenagers pulling pranks on each other in the schoolyard.

 

This is what upset Daniel Davis so much, he wrote about it in an article that came under the title: “End decades of foreign policy disasters with principles that stand the test of time.” It was published on December 19, 2020 in The Washington Examiner. What follows is a condensed version of what Daniel Davis said about the subject:

 

“America's foreign policy since September 11, 2001 has been one of perpetual conflict abroad. Our military-first policies have failed to make our country more secure. A better way to do foreign policy was used in the past. Three presidents produced a booming economy and a secure nation. In 1965, the Soviet Union sent tanks into Hungary, and Eisenhower kept America out. In 1962, Kennedy was faced with an existential threat when the USSR deployed nuclear missiles to Cuba. Kennedy negotiated an end to the crisis. Reagan sent a contingent of Marines to Lebanon in 1983 where a terrorist blew up the Marine barracks. Reagan pulled the troops out of Lebanon. We need a policy based on three principles: Reduce or eliminate engaging in small wars. End all our current unnecessary forever-wars. Strengthen our national security by focusing on the adversaries who may someday pose an existential threat”.

 

The main point here is that the current situation is one of those rare moments in life when the right thing to do is having your cake and eating it too. Three presidents have shown that you can produce a booming economy and a secure nation, says Daniel Davis. All you have to do, is mind your business unless there is a clear existential threat to America, in which case you respond militarily where necessary and when it is appropriate.

 

This is how America behaved in the past, says Daniel Davis, but then America adopted the foolish policy of forever-wars. The change happened because the team that used to play the foreign policy game coherently, was pushed out and replaced by high school level bunch of amateurs.

 

Unfortunately, this group cannot change because it is a fundamental precept of their system of beliefs that they must never change what was promulgated for them and their descendants since the Stone Age of biblical time. They are Jews, and the tablets in the hands of Moses will wear out long before they'll learn to interact diplomatically with their counterparts around the world.

 

And while they remain in charge of America’s foreign policy, the country pays the price and suffers enormously in the way that it is perceived around the world.

 

Not only that, but the fact that America’s military is spread out thinly, as it fights small wars around the world, it is kept from preparing to fight a big war if and when it will come knocking at its door.

 

A new administration is about to take over the governance of America. It should know by now what needs to be done in terms of personnel change and policy change to become respected again around the world.

Monica Showalter wants to tell the World who she really is

 Monica Showalter wrote an article that seems to serve more than one purpose.

 

The article came under the title: “Georgia's Senate candidates campaign with Farrakhan's man in Atlanta,” and was published on December 20, 2020 in the American Thinker.

 

Showalter's first paragraph is a single sentence that goes like this: “When people tell you who they are, believe them.” So, you go through the article to see who she’s talking about that she wants you to believe. You find not just one, but two people. They are Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff, both of whom are running to fill the State of Georgia's vacant seats in the Federal Senate.

 

So, you have these two gentlemen who, in her words, are talking about themselves. And so, the question that comes to mind is this: What does Monica Showalter say they are saying about themselves? In fact, she answered that question as follows: “[They] claim to be Democrat Party 'moderates.'” Okay, we take Showalter's earlier directive seriously, and believe the two men saying that they are moderates. But because we do this, Showalter is forcing us to believe that she too is telling the truth.

 

Great! We're having such a harmonious time with everyone agreeing with everyone else, is it time to throw a party and celebrate? No, not yet because we seem to have hit a snag. A snag, you say? What kind of a snag? It is that Monica Showalter is talking about herself throughout the article. But why is that a snag? It's a long story but it has to do with the Zeno paradox. Zeno paradox? What the hell are you talking about?

 

Do you know about the fellow that says he is a liar? I heard of him. Well, if you believe he lied, then it must be that you believe he told the truth about having told a lie … which is absurd because he cannot be telling both the truth and a lie at the same time. But if you do not believe he lied, then it must be that you believe he told a lie about having told the truth … which is also absurd because he cannot be telling both a lie and the truth at the same time. Okay, okay, I get the paradox. But what has that got to do with Monica Showalter?

 

It has a great deal to do with her because she now seems to be saying she is a liar, just like the fellow in the Zeno example. And she causes us to wonder if we should believe her or not. But whatever we believe, we hit an absurdity, which is the snag I told you about earlier. Come now, you're going over my head. Explain this to me in plain English because I'm getting confused.

 

As you wish. Here is the thing. Monica Showalter says that Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff are bad people because they are campaigning with a guy named Marion who is Louis Farrakhan's man in Atlanta. And she says that Louis Farrakhan is bad because he says bad things about other people. These people happen to be Jewish but that's beside the point because what matters is that Farrakhan is badmouthing people.

 

So then, do we take it that in her philosophy of life, badmouthing people is considered to be a bad thing? That's exactly what it means. Well, you said that she is talking about herself excessively in the article. What is she saying? She says she is disgusted, and she finds it repugnant that Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff will participate in a forum with Derrick Johnson who is CEO of the NAACP and Dr. David A. Marion who, as chairman of the Howard University's National Pan-Hellenic Council of Presidents, initiated Louis Farrakhan, into his fraternity; Farrakhan being the bad guy that's badmouthing people.

 

Does that mean she badmouthed Derrick Johnson and Dr. David Marion, both of whom happen to be Black and non-Jewish? That's exactly what it means. But did she not say she was disgusted, and she finds it repugnant that some people are badmouthing other people? Yes, she did. Well then, does that not mean she is saying she lied about her being believable? That's exactly what it means. Yes, of course. Now I see how the Zeno paradox factors into the equation. But is there not another explanation that might solve the paradox instead of accusing her of being paradoxical?

 

The only other possibility is to think that Monica Showalter is a mental case. What? Are you saying she might be a psycho? That's exactly what I'm saying. Well then tell me this: You've been referring to David Marion as a Doctor. Is he not the one that's interested in mental health issues? Yes, he is. Well then, do you think he might want to help her with some good advice? If asked, he probably will, but I would not advise it. Why not? Because she might get cured. You're against that? You see, my friend, she is such an embarrassment to her kind the way she is, I want her to remain that way because she reflects the true nature of her kinfolks, and that's a good thing for the survival of the human species. What's needed is that everyone on Earth be aware of what these people are like so as to keep humanity in a constant state of safety and security.

The old Ostrich and the aging Democracy

 The ostrich is a big bird that has been around for millions of years. It developed habits that made it appear to bury its head in the sand. This prompted humans to weave a false story about the ostrich. In turn the false story spawned an erroneous metaphor about human beings.

 

The false story about the ostrich is that it buries its head in the sand so as not to see a predator that’s coming at it. The ostrich does that, says the story, because it believes that when it does not see the predator, the predator disappears and ceases to threaten it. But the truth is that the ostrich does not bury its head in the sand in the first place. It is that human beings think it does because it satisfies their imagination.

 

Despite the story being false, however, it has spawned the metaphor about people “burying their heads in the sand” to ignore a danger they are too lazy or too helpless to do something about. Well, my friend, take this as a preamble to the review that follows about an article that came under the title: “Heads in the Sand,” and the subtitle: “Why We Fail to Foresee and Contain Catastrophe.” It was written by Elke U. Weber, and published in the November/December issue of Foreign Affairs. It must be noted for reference that the author of that article, is a professor of psychology.

 

When you start reading Elke Weber's long essay, you get the impression that he will eventually tell you how people in power make good or bad decisions. These would be the kahunas who come together, think collectively and decide on a range of issues in the “boardrooms” of big corporations, the “situation rooms” of the political elites, and the “war rooms” of the generals. Unfortunately, however, the writer disappoints you.

 

What Elke Weber does past the first two paragraphs, is that he quickly switches to discussing how ordinary people respond to events in their mundane daily lives. It is only after writing something like two dozen paragraphs that he makes a feeble attempt to connect what he said in 2,700 words to the way that the political elite ought to make decisions and be correct most of the time, as has been the case during the tenure of Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany.

 

This is a shame when you consider that the writer is an American living in America where the current preoccupation is that “China is eating our lunch,” and that Russia has cyber-invaded the most secretive of America's institutions at a time when it was thought that America was light years ahead of Russia in cyberattacks and cybersecurity. You would think, therefore, that Weber would have tried to show the difference between the way that political decisions are made in the American democracy, and the way they are made in what is called the autocracies.

 

The fact is that the areas of the globe that used to be called First World, are the ones still hanging on to the system of governance known as democracy. They do so without differentiating between the old democracy and the new democracy. As to what was the Second World –– once liberated from the clutches of Communism –– they adopted the way of the First World, but found it wanting, began to discard it and looked for a better way to govern themselves. They are now experimenting with other systems. As to the Third World, each country is trying to invent the system that suits it best.

 

So, the question is this: Aside from the psychological considerations enumerated and discussed in detail by professor Elke Weber –– as they apply to ordinary people in the course of their mundane lives –– what is there that has allowed the Chinese and Russian systems to prevail over the American democracy? You know what, my friend! You should get ready to be surprised by the answer.

 

The answer is that they have adopted the style that was developed for and has been successful in the boardrooms of corporate America. The Chinese, the Russians and a few others have adapted that system, and made it work in their boardrooms as well as their situation rooms and their war rooms.

 

The main difference between what they have and what America has, is that they brought into their political situation rooms throughout the government the kind of protection that has guaranteed the survival of America's corporations, whereas the American government never duplicated that level of protection in its political rooms.

 

So, let it be known that popular democracy no longer works in the political rooms whereas the hierarchical chain of command has become the protective shield that works as well as it does for China and Russia.

 

Still, America did well in the past because it never came under a serious attack. Things have changed, however, and the American system proved incapable of defending itself against the new attacks.

 

Furthermore, America's democracy has been altered not simply by the foreign attacks on it, but also the tinkering that's done to it internally by a Fifth Column that’s trying to turn America into a weapon in the hands of a worldwide Zionist regime which seeks to use America to dominate the world. The old democracy has been strangled, and the new democracy is a Zionist monster that devours the hands that feed it.

 

It is now obvious that America’s salvation does not rest on purging the State Department of its Arabists, but purging it of its disloyal Jews whether they claim dual loyalty or singular loyalty to Israel and World Jewry.

 

Burying heads in the sand regarding the Zionist menace has become America’s one-way ticket to oblivion. Let’s hope those heads will come out soon to breathe the fresh air of freedom once again … or it will be game over for America.

Meet the Banana Plantation's new Vice-Regent

 His name is Daniel N. Hoffman, a veritable Jewish name. Handpicked by the high council of the Jewish establishment 30 years ago to serve as junior, he rose through the ranks from petty officer to chief of station to other high-level positions at the CIA.

 

He was then appointed in the banana plantation that is America to serve as vice-regent, and to speak in the name of King Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. Now, Hoffman communicates the royal proclamations using the print outlet known as The Washington Times, and the audio-visual outlet known as Fox News.

 

His latest proclamation came under the title: “Not so fast on rejoining a badly flawed Iran deal, Mr. Biden,” which can only be thought of as a stern command from the Regent to the presidential commoner who was elected by the plebeian masses to be the King's sword hanging over their heads. An explanation, at times referred to as subtitle, also came with the proclamation. It said this: “The new administration must take into account what has transpired since the deal was first signed.” It was published on December 17, 2020 in The Washington Times.

 

It must be said that America did not become a colony of the Jewish Empire overnight. The event happened over several decades of Jewish scheming, the pulling of intrigues, bribing and blackmailing throughout the land but especially inside the Washington Beltway. It is the game that Jews have played for centuries throughout the planet, and were ultimately punished for their demonic deeds by everyone. And then, the Jews sailed to America.

 

That's where the Jews found a situation like nowhere else in the world. Whereas they were quickly unmasked everywhere they went as to what they were like, and what they wanted, the American masses, but not the elites, took much time before they finally realized what a danger the Jews represented being in their midst. As to the elites, they remain in a lethargic state, waiting for a catastrophe to wake them up.

 

Meanwhile the Americans had allowed the Jews to inch their way into every venue where an important lever of American power sat untouched, waiting for a hand, any hand at all, to come and take command. One by one, such posts were occupied by Jews who reconfigured America's trajectory from aiming to become the shiny city upon a hill to becoming the prized plantation in the Jewish imperial swamp.

 

This is the history that paved the way for Daniel Hoffman to come around, be what he is, and issue the proclamations that he does. He operates in the knowledge that the proclamations he puts out still command weight in the Washington Beltway despite the fact that grumbling is beginning to rise throughout the land. It is grumbling about the intolerable new tyranny that is messing the lives of the common people by messing the heads of their leaders in the federal and state capitals.

 

The aim of the Jews being to prepare America for the ultimate confrontation with Iran, Hoffman wasted no time telling Joe Biden that reconciling with Iran was out of the question. Shown below in condensed form, is how Daniel Hoffman transmitted the royal command that came from Israel to his presidential servant in the American colony:

 

“Shortly after Mr. Biden's victory, Israel's Netanyahu laid down a marker, insisting that there must be no return to the previous nuclear agreement. Iran's leaders would be less motivated to return to the 2015 deal if the incoming Biden administration is unable to restrain Israel from future attacks on Tehran's infrastructure and scientists. Mr. Netanyahu's government therefore might have eliminated any chance for Mr. Biden to make the same bad nuclear deal twice over”.

 

As can be seen, Hoffman the regent could not have been more categorical as to the wishes of Netanyahu the Israeli royal, than to say he “laid down a marker,” insisting that “there must be no return to the nuclear agreement.” And because the commands of a barbarous monarch always come with a threat, Hoffman did so in a not-so-subtle manner by reminding the American elites and the plebeian masses that no one will restrain Israel from launching terrorist attacks on Iran's scientists. This is meant to say that Israel will drag America into a war that nobody wants except for the Jewish leaders and their Evangelical moral prostitutes.

 

To make all of this sound logical and feasible even if it can never be, Daniel Hoffman has once again invoked the discredited notion that if maximum pressure is maintained on Iran, it will eventually come begging to renegotiate the nuclear deal. The astounding part is that he is also citing the evidence which proves that instead of softening in the face of harsher sanctions, Iran is hardening its stance. Here is how Hoffman repeated the false claim:

 

“Mr. Biden's intention to eliminate the Trump maximum pressure sanctions risks removing the incentive for Iran to negotiate course correction to the 2015 deal”.

 

And here is how he cited the evidence that proves the absurdity of the claim:

 

“Iran now enriches uranium and stockpiles low-enriched uranium in violation of its commitment. Earlier this month, Iran's parliament approved a bill to suspend UN inspections and resume enriching uranium to 20%”.

 

What remains to be said is that the two realities about which history has been consistent, are that an end will come to this story, and the common people rather than the elites on both sides, will suffer the most when this will happen.

Washington Examiner Editors inciting Americans to hate Americans

 Most people are familiar with the law of supply and demand. It is the one that says if the supply of a commodity is greater than the demand, the price of the commodity goes down. On the other hand, if the supply is smaller than the demand, the price of the commodity goes up.

 

But that's only half the story because it assumes that the amount of the commodity on the market remains above the critical level even if deemed to be in short supply. But when that supply goes below the critical level, another kind of mysterious law kicks in.

 

This happens in commerce when the commodity that's traded is a tangible product, usually referred to as goods. But services are also traded in the marketplace of an economy, and the law of supply and demand applies there too in the same way that it does for tangible goods.

 

Now, remember this, my friend: Whenever we talk about goods or services, we talk about the human need for something that's vital to us, such as food or medical care. But there is another kind of human need that can also come in abundant or short supply, and mean a great deal to some people. It too can go below the critical level and kick in the mysterious law. We may call this human need: the goodwill of other people.

 

You have an opportunity to study an example of how a goodwill that's in a critically short supply to people that hunger for it, forces them to act. The example is a The Washington Examiner editorial that came under the title: “Raphael Warnock's embrace of anti-Semite Farrakhan is disqualifying for Senate service.” It was published on December 17, 2020.

 

The editors of the Examiner are Jews and their obedient lackeys. Raphael Warnock is a Christian pastor that happens to be African American. Louis Farrakhan, who is mentioned in the title of the editorial, is a Black Muslim minister and a well-known leader to both the Christian and Muslim communities in both Black America and White America. Not mentioned in the editorial, but having played a role in the story yet to be told, is a wealthy Jewish bootlegger with family ties in America and Canada. He was once the leader of a Jewish world organization of some kind.

 

For a reason that is yet to be revealed, a feud exploded in the open between Farrakhan and the Jewish bootlegger a long time ago. As usual, the Jews who hunger for goodwill and never seem to get it, expected Farrakhan to knuckle under and kiss the ring of the Jew. When this did not happen, the entire attack machine was put on full throttle by the Jews, and made to go after Farrakhan, aiming to destroy him, thus send a “cleeeeear” message to Blacks everywhere that Jews will not tolerate their disobedience. Farrakhan gave the Jews his middle finger, and they have been boiling made about him ever since.

 

Not only have the Jews been attacking Farrakhan personally, they repeated their cowardly habit of calling on others to avoid him the way they have themselves been avoided like the plague or was it, leprosy? In any case, that's what the Washington Examiner editorial is about. This time the editors are calling on the voters of Georgia not to vote for Raphael Warnock in the upcoming senatorial race, because he refuses to hate Louis Farrakhan who gets them boiling mad by his steadfastness and stalwart intellectual honesty. It is the thing they could never match even when they piled a thousand Jews on top of each other.

 

In fact, there was a time when the Jews were discriminated against in America as they started coming into the country in droves. Stereotypes that were thrown at them elsewhere in the world since the beginning of time, were now thrown at them in America. One specific stereotype was to the effect that when you give the Jew a finger, he goes on to ask for the arm and more.

 

The only people that tolerated the Jews and comforted them in America were the Blacks. And guess what the Jews did to thank them. They threw at Blacks the stereotypes that were thrown at them, and did so in a most cowardly fashion behind the backs of Blacks. Thus, despite the fact that it is the Jews who continually cry out: “Gimme compensation, gimme compensation,” they vehemently oppose the right of Blacks to get any kind of relief for being so badly treated today as they were in the past. And despite all of this, the editors of the Examiner have the gall to write the following:

 

“Warnock praised Farrakhan's Nation of Islam at a public forum in 2013, declaring that 'we've needed the witness of the Nation of Islam' to put a fire under us and keep us honest about the meaning of the proclamation coming from our pulpits. At the time Warnock was praising Farrakhan, the latter was spreading lies about what he called 'Jewish, anti-black behavior.' Warnock has nice things to say about Farrakhan; he is an embarrassment. His willing attachment to Farrakhan should be disgusting to anyone. Georgians should not let him in the US Senate”.

 

Seeing Christians and Muslims get together to heal the world at a time when they are trying to get the Christians to join them in the oxymoronic compact of Judeo-Christianity to start wars and conquer the world, the Jews are going crazy full throttle. And they will not stop till something gets smashed pretty bad the way it happened to them time after time since the beginning of written history.

Indoctrinated to holler the same old bark

 There can only be one truth about the occurrence of one and the same event. There can never be a scintilla of truth about the repeated occurrence of one and the same opinion.

 

What this means is that if one or more witnesses describe the same event differently, then it can be said that at best, only one of the witnesses is telling the truth and everyone else is lying. That's because an event can occur in only one version –– there can never be alternative truths.

 

As to the opinion, if one or more pundits express the same opinion the same way, then it can be said that at best, only one of the pundits is the author of the opinion. That's because an opinion can never occur to a multitude in one and the same version. Therefore, it must be that one pundit has created the opinion whereas the others are parroting the creative author.

 

It is crucial to remember those maxims because we live in an age where the culture has been shocked by communication waves it has not yet absorbed, let alone demarcated into what is opinion and what is fact. We can see how this is playing out in the propaganda war that the Jewish distortion machine has unleashed on the American public and the governing elites inside the Washington Beltway and in State Capitals.

 

A good example to study would be the article that came under the title: “Expectations regarding US re-implementing Iran nuclear deal should be tempered,” and the subtitle: “Knowing what's at stake, Western governments cannot return to status quo ante with Iran.” The article was written by Tom Ridge –– who was America's first Homeland Security secretary and governor of Pennsylvania –– and was published on December 16, 2020 in The Washington Times.

 

What is notable about Tom Ridge's article is that it uses a new trick to parrot an opinion that was put out long ago by the Jewish propaganda machine, and has been in circulation ever since. Ridge seems to argue that the opinion may be old, but its renewal is based on new facts, which makes it his own. Here is how he presented his case:

 

“The European parties to the Iran Nuclear Deal are hoping that Joe Biden will return to the deal upon assuming office. They should temper their expectations. Re-implementing the deal would be a tall order even if the status quo remains unchanged in other areas of Iran policy. Iran's rulers have injected complications into the process by their belligerent stance. That posture became visible in June 2018, when Tehran attempted to carry out a terrorist attack in France. The terror plot began to take shape after a nationwide uprising in January 2018, revealing that the regime is in a vulnerable position. The perpetrators of the June 2018 terror plot went on trial in Belgium over the past several weeks”.

 

Thus, Tom Ridge says that the attempted terror which took place more than two years ago in France, attesting to the vulnerability of the Iranian regime, has gone to trial in Belgium a few weeks ago, and this is proof that what was said then about the vulnerability of the Iranian regime is valid today. And this is why it sounds like he is parroting the Jewish propaganda machine of yesteryear when in reality he is not. But what's the utility in doing so, anyway? It is to caution Joe Biden not to return to the Iran nuclear deal, and to ask the Europeans, who don't believe in anything peddled by the Jewish propaganda machine, to nevertheless temper their expectations.

 

But the truth is that the 2015 Iran nuclear deal was opposed by the mob of Jewish pundits, the neocons the warmongers and every Israeli diplomat that addressed the subject, even while it was negotiated. And it has been rejected by them after it was signed. Its abrogation by Donald Trump was cheered, and its expected re-implementation by the upcoming Biden administration, has been dreaded by the usual suspects.

 

Having claimed ownership of the opinion that was created long before he thought of it, Tom Ridge proceeded to build on it. Having learned from the Jews how to play the game, his first order of business was to scare the public, which he did as follows: “Had the [terror] operation been carried out [which it never was,] the casualties would have been significant.” Next was to attribute the horror that did not happen to his primary target: the Iranian regime and Western complacency.

 

Thus, even though nothing happened, Tom Ridge spoke as if something did, and he connected that nothing-something to the cause he is articulating. It was the necessity to continue abrogating the Iran nuclear deal by the incoming Biden administration. This is how he put it: “The 2015 nuclear deal reflects a longstanding Western tendency toward conciliation or even appeasement”.

 

Finally, like the cry of a dying cause, the last wish of the pleadings delivered by Tom Ridge, sounded like the relentlessly repeated AIPAC list of demands. It went like this: “Western governments can place Tehran in a position that it will make concessions on terrorism, missile development, interventionism and human rights. Tehran is in no position to make the calls. The US and Europe collectively are”.

 

It seems that Tom Ridge forgot this has been the bark that got no one's attention, least of all the Europeans who got so tired of Jewish America's incessant barks, they decided to block the sound whenever someone like Tom Ridge let it out.