Understanding the past is one thing, living in it another

 An occurrence that is physical or philosophic becomes a cultural trait when enough people internalize it to the point of practicing it instinctively without necessarily thinking about it.

 

An example of cultural trait that is physical would be the use of sun-dried tomato in cooking. Absent a historical account of what started the habit of drying tomato in the sun, no one that uses the product today thinks how it all began. They just follow their instinct and do the cooking as they always did. The same goes for the appearance of a new sport, a new style of housing, a new mode of transportation, and so on.

 

As to the example of a cultural trait that would be philosophical (in the broad sense of the word,) it might be a new mode of entertainment such as the opera which came into existence when a number of Italian entertainers guessed, falsely or accurately, that the ancient Greek tragedies had a singing chorus. The Italians decided to do better by having everyone on the stage sing their part, not just the chorus. The audiences liked the idea so much, opera became a cultural trait not just in Italy but in other centers as well. The same goes for poetry, the writing of short and full-length novels, popular music and so on.

 

In the old days when instant communication at a distance did not exist, a culture that developed inside one tribe or one village, took time to spread to other tribes or other villages. And when they got there, they became colored by the local culture, thus formed a dialect that was slightly different from the original. But when communication became almost instantaneous everywhere on the planet, everybody began to melt into one and the same cultural pot. The trend annoys some people but it is inevitable.

 

Something similar happens inside institutions such as corporations, universities, hospitals and government departments where they develop internal mini-cultures. They do it because it is the best way to make individuals interact with each other as team players, thus be more efficient. But then social media came along and turned everything internal into something external. That is, nothing is sacred anymore because leaks happen everywhere and all the time. They allow anyone that wants it, to copy what they consider interesting in someone else's culture, and make it their own with or without permission.

 

The trouble is that such development created a problem for the national security community in America. Where the participants had their own lingo that meant something specific and clear to everyone, the words were leaked to the general public where they were understood differently, thus interpreted differently. Confusion reigned, and every such occurrence became a potential threat to the cause of peace and security.

 

You can get a sense of the conundrum that is created in this fashion when you read the article that was written by three stalwarts of the American security community. They are John Poindexter, Robert McFarlane and Richard Levine who penned, “How Biden can stop China from dominating the world,” an article that also came under the subtitle: “To defend against aggression and usurpation, US policies must cross administrations.” The article was published on January 26, 2021 in The Washington Times.

 

The three authors are no longer in the military or in government, which means they speak as private citizens. However, having spent their entire careers working in some fashion to ascertain the country's security, their words are as good as if they were in uniform, as if what they say was leaked out of the military. So, here is what they said their aim was for writing that article: “The Biden administration will demonstrate great sagacity if it builds upon the prior administration's policies in five areas.” Sagacity being synonymous to wisdom.

 

Contrast that sentiment with the title that was chosen for the article by the editors of the hawkish Washington Times, and you'll see the disconnect between the writers' intent and the editors' message who misunderstood the intent of the writers –– perhaps deliberately or perhaps not.

 

This is due to the fact that the lingo of the military has evolved to match the changing situation. The original aim being to stop the Nazis and the Japanese from “dominating the world,” it became the containment of the Soviet Union lest it spread Communism to other countries, then flipped to the current posture of the need to use wisdom when dealing with China. Whereas this is clearly the aim of the writers and that of the military at this time, the editors of the Washington Times remained stuck in the era of the Second World War, a time when the aim was to prevent the enemies from “dominating the world.” As can be seen, the culture of the writers, and that of the editors could not be more different from each other.

 

The contrast demonstrates why the mobilization that took place during World War II, aimed at producing more weapons and more munitions, whereas today’s mobilization, according to Poindexter, McFarlane and Levine, must be about the following:

 

“The American education system must be revamped, with emphasis on science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). Grades K––12 must expand online education. The Department of education must overhaul teaching methods. Technology exists to map each student's optimum mode of learning”.

 

And that's a far cry from the war mentality of the editors at the Washington Times; an observation that suggests the moment of the Times is a time that has come and gone.

 

The remedy would be for the publisher to catch up with the time or change the publication’s name.

Cannibals will not let sleeping Dogs lie

 A wise saying goes like this: “Let sleeping dogs lie.” It was forged in recognition of the fact that life is not perfect, and having gone over an issue enough times to expose its various aspects, you must let the dogs of war lie down and go to sleep.

 

But it looks like some people never learned this lesson because the part of their mind that's responsible for storing wisdom and putting it in practice, has been amputated by the sword of a defective religion.

 

These are the self-appointed leaders of the Jews who see dollar signs under every stone they will not leave unturned. They look for treasure troves of horror stories that were not yet told, or maybe told only partially, and they dream to strike it so rich, they’ll be singing and dancing: We're in the money … that sky is sunny.

 

When all is said and done, however, what stands out is the reality that those Jewish leaders are nothing more than grave diggers looking to rob cadavers that may have been buried with their gold teeth or with gold rings on their fingers. In this sense they are not much different from the night creatures that sniff for freshly buried cadavers on which to snack. Animated by the adage that says: “You stand on the high moral ground when you get something for nothing,” they look like cannibals having the time of their life.

 

You can get acquainted with the character of these bipedal creatures when you read the piece that came under the title: “Never forget: America's duty on Holocaust Remembrance Day,” an editorial that was published in the New York Daily News on January 27, 2021. The writers are the people who on several occasions in the recent past, exhibited their cannibalistic tendencies when they stood for the deportation of someone in his nineties. They wanted him out of a comfortable stay in America, and sent to a comfortable stay in Europe. They did this, not because they felt the deportation will fix something broken, but because it would appease their hunger for flesh, and will quench their thirst for blood––if not literally, at least figuratively.

 

The Jewish editors of the Post are making it clear that the stone they will not leave unturned this time, is an occurrence that fell into their lap like manna from the sky. It happened that Tony Blinken, whose stepfather was imprisoned at the Auschwitz concentration camp, was confirmed to be America's Secretary of State, during the week that was chosen to remember the Holocaust. It was also a time when angry Americans descended on the Capitol where they rampaged through America's seat of democracy, wearing attire that memorialized the Nazi era and glorified the Nazi ideology.

 

This gave the editors the opportunity to appease their cannibalistic hunger and quench their thirst, which they did by urging Tony Blinken to suspend his responsibilities as top diplomat working for America, and concentrate instead on re-investigating the State Department for what they call the catastrophic blocking of Jewish refugees from entering the United States a century ago, and for thwarting until recently, the efforts of the Justice Department from deporting a nonagenarian whose flesh was apparently too tough for them to munch on. It may also be that his blood had turned sour and not suited to satisfy their taste buds.

 

Seizing the opportunity that was opened to them by the rampage that took place on the Capitol, the editors of the Post repeated the demands that bore fruit for them in the past. In fact, the granting of those demands stood as the precedent that encouraged the Jews to continue practicing the habit of asking for the hand the moment that they receive a finger. Here, in condensed form, is how they made their new demand:

 

“The horrifying obscenity shows the need for far better education about intolerance in a nation where most young New Yorkers, never mind Alabamians, can't name one Nazi camp. It also means that virulent anti-Semitism, either the original Hitlerite strain or its vile rebranded neo version, must be faced unblinkingly”.

 

It is asinine to see the editors of the New York Post ask for the imposition of a “far better education” on the general public and young students, when they were the ones who started the conquest of America by educating the public on Jewish sensitivities, then proceeded to have a number of state legislatures mandate a Holocaust education on captive students who, by their own admission, grew up to develop a more “virulent” form of antisemitism and live by it.

 

Now apparently, the instruction came down from Jewish Central, urging the pundits of the mob to demand that the children of America be forced to memorize the names of 40,000 concentration camps and 6 million dead Jews. They want you to know that such move will stamp out antisemitism and save the world.

 

And while they are in the mode of making demands, they want Tony Blinken to not let sleeping dogs lie, and to hand them the files of the State Department so that they may go on a fishing expedition, where they will turn every stone they encounter, and look for gold underneath it that will make them sing: We're in the money … that sky is sunny.

When remembering gets uglier than what's remembered

 Life is full of the good, the bad and the ugly. We celebrate the good, and move on to face the realities of life. We mourn the effects of what's bad, and get them behind us as fast as we can. We take one look at the ugly and say, never again.

 

Until the prevailing paradigm has changed fundamentally, the human condition will continue to remind us that life is not a bed of roses. Thus, as much as we wish it, we do not live in a state of permanent happiness simply because we cannot. However, we do enjoy and celebrate the fleeting moments of happiness that happen to us randomly or by design, then accept the daily drudgery of life while longing for the day when happiness will come to visit again.

 

Scientists will tell you that nature exists because it remains in a balanced state, which means that everything good in it, is opposed by a bad something. And so, in the same way that we accept and celebrate the birth of a child, we accept but mourn the death of a loved one. In the span of time between one event and the other, we strive to acquire more of what's pleasant than what's unpleasant, and succeed half the time.

 

There are two ways for ugliness to happen. There is the natural way, which happens when nature strikes with a force we cannot overcome. An example would be the epidemic that gets out of control and kills many people. But once the ugliness passes and becomes history, we take the memory of it in our stride, though we do not forget it entirely because history is unforgettable.

 

Ugliness also comes to us artificially when we refuse to burn up the bad things as they happen in real time. Such refusal causes the bad things to bottle up till the pressure gets so high, it causes an explosion. This happens when the prevailing culture is of the kind that suppresses the free expression of unauthorized opinions, and favors that of the sovereign in control of the culture.

 

The Holocaust is one such example. Even though the term is used in the singular, it nevertheless refers to an occurrence that had a string of precedents. They were equally horrific but were done on a smaller scale, and were referred to as pogroms. Whereas the Holocaust with a capital H refers to the one that took place during World War Two, afflicting mainly Jews, there have been other holocausts afflicting other communities in other places around the globe.

 

The holocausts and pogroms that afflicted the non-Jews are treated as historical events with respect for those who perished, and compassion as well as dignity for their relatives. For a number of years after World War Two, the same applied to the Jews, but then things began to slide down the sewer of crass commercialism. It is that slowly but surely, the Jewish Holocaust took on the air of an extortionist tool in the hands of rapacious Jewish leaders, especially those in Israel.

 

That development was bad in itself, but what made it worse is described by the French saying that goes like this: “Appetite increases with the eating.” In fact, the more that the Jews forced the Americans to mortgage their country's honor by pressuring the European countries to pay the Jews compensation that was not due, the more the Jewish leaders felt hungrier for more extorted money.

 

But for that scheme to succeed, the Jewish propaganda machine had to be switched to the afterburner mode, spewing real and imagined stories about the Holocaust. The intent was to keep the memory alive, and be in a position to extort money for an indefinite period of time. You can see how the Jews continue to play this game when you study the article that came under the tile: “Holocaust remembrance is about the present and future, not just the past,” written by Greg Schneider and published on January 27, 2021 in the New York Daily News. It must be noted that Greg Schneider is a high executive at the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, the country from which another billion and a quarter in American dollars were recently extorted.

 

It must also be noted that for some time now, Holocaust education in America has been imposed on youngsters held captive in classrooms. Several studies, conducted by Jewish organizations and others, have concluded that the more you educate youngsters on the Holocaust, the more they exhibit antisemitic tendencies. And yet, despite all of this, Greg Schneider is repeating the call that was issued by Jewish Central, asking for more money to develop a new Holocaust curriculum, and repeat the failed experiment. Here are his words:

 

“Remembrance helps to develop empathy. But remembrance of the past represents only part of our responsibility. Promises ring empty without a commitment to educate future generations. Without such education, subsequent generations will not know what is they are supposed to remember … Our collective history and the memory of the 6 million depend on it, and so does our future”.

 

 But the truth of the matter is that history is never forgotten. It is always here, always remembered and always updated. Before the Jewish leaders' drive to milk stories of the Holocaust, what the Jews suffered in twentieth century Europe was treated with respect for those who perished, and compassion as well as dignity for their relatives.

 

And then the Jews turned the Holocaust into a business that people hate the more it is shoved down their throats. It is getting worse by the day because people like Greg Schneider monetize it by shoving it down the throats of those who cannot stand the ugliness of hypocrisy.

Yet another Attempt to overturn the Election

 If you are a new entrant into the world of punditry and looking for advice on how to become one of the best, I don't have much to say to you except to advise that you should keep practicing your craft. However, what I can do to help in a small way, is tell you––rather show you––how not to write an opinion piece.

 

Do not write anything that resembles Jason M. Brodsky's article which came under the title: “The folly of trying to empower Iran's moderates,” and the subtitle: “What Biden must understand as he reengages the Mullah-led nation.” The article was published on January 25, 2021 in the New York Daily News.

 

Whereas your style of writing is yours to develop, what I can divulge is that when I write, I imagine I am sitting across the table from an interlocutor representing an entire audience. By no means is he or she a silent listener to my lecture. On the contrary, different members of the audience are constantly interrupting me to ask questions and demand clarifications of what I'm saying … and why I’m saying it.

 

Brodsky's piece being advice to President Joe Biden, if I were Brodsky writing it, I would imagine myself siting across the table from the President and having a conversation that might go something like this:

 

PRESIDENT: What is it that you're saying is of utmost importance … I should know about so that I may do the right thing?

 

JASON: The collective advancing ages of the guardians of the Islamic Republic require Khamenei to groom new leaders who will choose his successor. The process disqualified Hassan Khomeini. Ayatollahs Ebrahim Amini, Mohammad Yazdi and Mohammad-Taqi Mesbah-Yazdi died.

 

PRESIDENT: Why should the story of faraway people being groomed, aging or dying, be of importance to us, a sovereign nation that’s already reeling under the weight of our own insoluble problems, and requiring my full attention?

 

JASON: Amini hailed from the Nezam once complained about Mojtaba in support of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. An ally of former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Amini lost the contest.

 

PRESIDENT: So, what? Things happen all the time to people everywhere. They support each other and then have a falling out, maybe even go on to kiss and make up. It does not mean that any of what they say or do is earthshaking ... or that it is of importance to us or to history. In any case, don't you have better things to talk about, rather than this drivel?

 

JASON: He served as deputy speaker of parliament. He abolished the Office of the Prosecutor and served as member of the Guardian Council. Archconservative Mesbah-Yazdi, nicknamed crocodile, was founder of the Haghani school.

 

PRESIDENT: Why should I be concerned about a school that teaches I don't know what, don't know to whom and don’t know where? Let me tell you something, Jason Brodsky, I’m getting the feeling you're wasting your time and mine. Don't you have something better to say or do?

 

JASON: Yazdi and Mesbah-Yazdi have been replaced by new leaders like Ebrahim Raisi, Ahmad Khatami and Alizera Arafi. Raisi replaced Yazdi as member of the Guardian Council. Arafi was appointed to the Guardian Council and chosen to chair Al-Mustafa International University.

 

PRESIDENT: That's it. We're done. This discussion is terminated. I have nothing more to say to you, and there is nothing more I want to hear from you.

 

JASON: He replaced Mohammad Momen. They joined Sadegh Larijani. Some may be contenders to succeed the nonagenarian Ahmad Jannati as chairman of the Assembly of Experts or secretary of the Guardian Council. Aren't you interested?

 

PRESIDENT: Go. Get out. Get out now, before I have you escorted to the exit door.

 

To you my dear reader, that scene represents the argument that Jason Brodsky has used to try convincing the Biden administration that, “the White House should prepare to defend against [Iranian] hardliners eager to stymie the US plans”.

 

The story is supposed to show that Iran has been depleted of its moderates. It is clear from this contention and from his mention that Iran has been severely weakened by the regime of sanctions, that Jason Brodsky’s ultimate aim is to dissuade the president from “rushing” to join the Iran Nuclear deal, and that he should stay on Donald Trump's agenda.

 

In other words, this is Brodsky's contribution to the effort exerted by saboteurs of America’s democracy to overturn the result of the election in which Joe Biden beat Donald Trump fair and square.

Beware the Power hungry and Control Freaks

 When and why does someone need a higher authority such as the government to protect them? Well, to answer this question falls under the rubric of human rights, and this is how the subject must be treated.

 

If someone is discriminated against for whatever reason by his peers or superiors, and he suffers material or moral losses as a result, he seeks legal remedy, and upon proving his claim, is granted remedies specified by the law. In fact, the current laws are adequate enough to deliver justice in this kind of cases thus, no new legislation is required because it would be redundant.

 

If in the discharge of his normal duties, someone is remunerated materially as well as his peers, but is discriminated against because he is perceived as being different by his peers or his superiors, two possibilities need to be investigated to determine if a law was violated:

 

First, someone is not invited to social gatherings because of something he cannot control such as the color of his skin, his baldness, for being too short or too tall or some such condition. In this case the peers cannot be held liable for the way they “feel,” about that person, and must be exonerated. As to the superiors, they can be reprimanded for failing to control their sentiment, especially in the cases where their behavior has the potential to cause the underling serious mental anguish.

 

Second, someone is not invited to social gatherings because of something he can control such as his table manners or the way he dresses. Here too, the peers cannot be held liable for the way they feel, and must be exonerated. As to the superiors, we must distinguish between two kinds of superiors. Whereas in a private enterprise, the owners can create a code of behavior that the underlings must accept or be terminated, having no recourse to try reversing the decision. But things are different when it comes to a public setting.

 

Two examples will help us parse that last point. In Canada, Sikhs joining the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were allowed to wear their traditional turban while on duty. In America both Muslims and Jews are allowed to wear their traditional headdress while participating in the deliberations of Congress. But then, something began to stir lately. Before we get to it, however, we need to acquire some background about the subject, to fully understand what's happening.

 

The Jews grow up inculcated with the notion that they will inherit the Earth by the grace of God. But this is not happening, and the consensus at this time is that it never will. The Jews have realized they were lied to, and are bitterly disappointed. They want to be compensated, and the way they see this happening, is for the human race to give them everything they ask for. Since the human race is not volunteering to do any of that, the Jews have devised a practical method by which they believe it can be done and will be done.

 

To explain how that works, the Jews have employed both sides of the mouth to describe the mechanics of the method. From one side of the mouth, they established rule number 1 by saying that when it comes to allocating rights, they––as Jews––must not be discriminated against. If they are, they would be singled out, and this violates the principle of equality under the law. From the other side of the mouth the Jews established rule number 2, saying it should be obvious to everyone that when it comes to allocating rights, the Jews are so different from the others, they must be singled out and given a different treatment.

 

Thus, when you combine rules 1 and 2 despite them being contradictory to each other, you realize that the Jews are demanding as much as everyone gets, in addition to what they say is owed to them for being the oddity that they are. A recent article demonstrates how the Jews play this game in real life. It came under the title: “A New Way to Help Jewish Students on Campus,” written by Masha Merkulova, and published on January 25, 2021 in Algemeiner. Here, in condensed form, is the relevant passage:

 

“In schools, Jewish students are forced to defend Zionism. Our children deserve the same protection and human dignity to freely express their Jewish identity as others. And yes, Zionism is integral to that identity. Our classrooms are inundated with anti-Zionism, a denial of the right to self-determination. Broad anti-hatred legislation cannot solve this problem. These attacks are unique to Jews. Lumping Jew-hatred together with other forms of hatred and racism will not help address the phenomenon of antisemitism. That is why the Jewish Students Bill of Rights is such an important development. Created in 2020, it is designed to tackle antisemitism in high school classrooms in a way that has never been done before”.

 

Masha Merkulova is not saying how the Jewish students are “forced” to defend Zionism. But this debate has been ongoing for a long time, and those who followed it, can tell that using the term “forced” has allowed Merkulova to pull a dishonest trick on the readers.

 

The reality is that ordinary students have been creating safe places for themselves to avoid the Jews who constantly disrupt them and impose on them impromptu lectures on the Holocaust, on Zionism and other Jewish-specific topics.

 

The ordinary students reject this kind of Nazi behavior, and the Jewish students go crying to the Jewish media, asking them to pressure the government to pass laws that will force the non-Jewish students to do the unthinkable.

 

In essence the Jewish media want the non-Jewish students to psyche themselves by law into believing they must love the Jews, and would interrupt their own business to serve the Jews the way that the congress of prostitutes disrupts America’s business to serve the Jews and Israel.

 

Now you know why Jews always end up in hot places.

The Cure that perpetuates the Disease

 Look at this headline: “It's time to stand up against the muzzling of America.” What's that, you ask? Is it a quote from half a century ago? No, it's not. It's a recent utterance by Josh Hawley who was born 10 years after it was time to stand up against the massive scheme designed by the Jews to silence everyone and make themselves America's official orators.

 

Actually, that headline is the title of the article that Josh Hawley wrote and had it published on January 24, 2021 in the New York Post. He was motivated to write because something serious happened to him, he says. In fact, He wrote to complain that his social credit score, “seems to have taken a nosedive,” where he defines social credit score as follows: “the latest corporate import where government and big business monitor every citizen's social views and statements”.

 

Totally unaware of the ways that the Jews have used to plant their dictatorial rule in North America, Josh Hawley went on to describe social credit scores as being, “the latest form of cancel culture, as corporate monopolies and the left team up to shut down speech they don't like and force their political agenda on America.” And it is this lack of historical perspective that prompted him to advise the following: “For those who still believe in free speech and the First Amendment this is the time to take a stand.” Poor Johnnie-come-lately does not realize he is half a century too late.

 

Without once mentioning Jewish organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Simon Wiesenthal Center and others that monitor every move we all make and every word we all say, Josh Hawley goes on to tell how under the cancel regime, you must comport yourself to earn the right to live without being harassed. Here is how he expressed this thought:

 

“If you want to get a good job, stay at hotels and be served at restaurants, you will need to do a few things. You will need to voice the right opinions. You will need to endorse the right ideas. You will need to conform. That's what the corporate chieftains tell us, anyway”.

 

Finally, Josh Hawley decided to tell what happened to him. He says he was canceled because he raised a challenge to the electors of his state. He goes on to advise that whether or not you agree he did the right thing, “corporate America's rush to cancel those it dislikes should trouble you.” To be specific as to how the events have unfolded for him, he went on to explain that it all started when someone demanded he resigns his job. This prompted a publishing house to cancel a book it had asked him to write. This, in turn, was followed by corporate America canceling all his political events, he went on to explain.

 

When I finished reading this part of the article, I exclaimed: Is that all he’s complaining about! What would he say, were he appraised of what happened to me beginning a decade before he was born, and continuing to this day? It happened that when I got tired of hearing the Jewish hate machine and its army of prostitutes in the print and audio-visual outlets, repeatedly tell their audiences that the Arabs were mad dogs and wounded animals, I wrote a letter to the editor saying that Egypt (where I had come from) was a civilized country. In the eyes of the Canadian Jewish Congress, this meant I committed a sin for which I was to be canceled for life. And that wasn't all, my friend. That wasn't all.

 

The Jews recruited the staff of the newspaper that used to see itself as the flagship of Canadian journalism, and had these people keep an eye on the other outlets to make sure that not one of them would violate the blacklist that was keeping me canceled. They also recruited the security apparatus of the country to make sure that no prominent person such as a politician or a “renegade” editor would break ranks and try to help me end the nightmare of Jewish tyranny suffocating my professional life. In fact, they canceled one editor who tried to help me by revealing that his son was a pedophile. And they canceled one politician by revealing that he fathered a child out of wedlock. After that, no one that had a skeleton in their closet or none at all, has wanted to associate with me or be seen talking to me.

 

Starting a new paragraph with the sentence: “It will get worse,” Josh Hawley went on to speculate what might happen that would further erode the freedoms Americans are used to. He painted a bleak picture but then said this: “Here's the good news. The cancel culture agenda will only succeed if we let it. We need live in fear only if we choose to say nothing,” which is a good and hopeful sentiment to express. But then guess what...

 

Like the chef that cooked a sumptuous meal then stood on the table and urinated in the soup, Josh Hawley pulled his political zipper down and politicized the whole thing like this: “In this time of testing, conservatives must not shrink back. We need to stand up for the right of every American to be heard”.

 

By turning the right to live and speak freely into a partisan political issue, Josh Hawley played in the hands of the Jews who will now stand on the congressional table and urinate on both sides of the isle in a true bipartisan spirit.

What has led to a nuclear North Korea could lead to a nuclear Iran

 It was the devious megalomaniac, Winston Churchill who schemed to change the course of history and serve his desire to remain in control of events, that got us to where we are today.

 

Here, in brief, is how events unfolded throughout the first half of the twentieth century. Early in that century, several European countries were involved in a war that came to be known as World War One. It was a brutal war that remained in a stalemated state for a long time, with Britain and its allies on one side, fighting Germany and its allies on the other side.

 

The United States of America that was a rising industrial power at the time, but not a distinguished military power, stayed neutral with regard to a war that raged far away from its shore. But America was populated by immigrants that had come from the warring countries, and they started to lobby the government, urging it to enter the war on one side or the other. There too, an internal debate that erupted as to which side America should help, became stalemated.

 

The American stalemate was broken when a passenger ship named Lusitania was sunk by the German navy, killing most of the passengers, many of whom were American. This gave a boost to the argument of the British lobby in Washington, motivating America to enter the war on the side of Britain and its allies. The Americans fought well, impressing Winston Churchill who, two decades later, personally lobbied the Americans to again fight on the side of Britain in what came to be known as World War Two. There too, America helped win the war for the British side.

 

Whereas this war had shown Britain to be a declining power, it established America as the economic and military power that will reign supreme for a long time to come. This made sophisticate Winston Churchill, drool over the prospect of influencing the politically naive Americans, and leading them to carry water for him while believing they are serving their own interests. And so, Churchill moved to take advantage of the situation. He told the Americans that the Soviet Union was a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma, but despite all of this, he knows with absolute certainty that the Soviet Union is a beast representing a great danger to America and the world.

 

This was the advice that prompted America to start the process of circling the Soviet Union with military bases to contain it. Behind it all was America’s fear of a Soviet military aggression as well as the Union’s activities for spreading a Communist ideology that could cascade to several countries via the domino process. This is what started the Cold War between the two powers, followed by numerous hot wars among the proxies that each side undertook to arm, train and finance with unlimited generosity.

 

Meanwhile the defeat of Japan on the Korean peninsula, and the latter’s occupation by the America-Soviet alliance, made it inevitable that Korea would become the first arena where the forces of America and the Communist world would clash as a result of the Churchill inspired falling out between the two powers. In fact, a war started and ended three years later with the partition of the peninsula into a Communist North and a Capitalist South. Each side feared being invaded by the other, prompting the Americans to maintain a military presence in the South whereas the North began a program to arm itself with increasingly more advanced weaponry that now includes almost every sort produced by the superpowers. Yes, tiny and impoverished North Korea now stands as tall as any superpower.

 

Because this situation is the direct result of American troops being in the South and making the North live in the constant fear of being invaded, you cannot fail seeing that America is repeating the same scenario in the Persian Gulf where its presence there is a constant threat to Iran. In fact, like North Korea, this is what prompted Iran to embark on a program to arm itself, relying on its own resources. The Iranians have not yet produced the nuclear weapons the Koreans have, but given that America's behavior continually threatens them, they will be forced to produce these weapons eventually.

 

Reading a recently published article on the subject, you can see how the forces of evil in America are working to bring about that calamitous outcome at a time when the forces of the good are trying to prevent it. The article is an editorial of the New York Post, and it came under the title: “Biden is ignoring all the signs that Iran can't be bribed out of its murderous ways,” published on January 23, 2021.

 

Already the title should remind you of the Churchill saying, “riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma,” whereas the rest of the article will convince you that this time, it is the Jews who are known to incite America, urging it to repeat the error that would force Iran to go nuclear.

 

That outcome was bound to happen with a certainty that was near absolute while Donald Trump, faithful servant of the Jewish lobby, was in power. He is not anymore, having been replaced by Joe Biden who promises that nothing like this will ever happen.

 

But as shown by the editorial of the New York Post, the fanaticism of the Jewish leaders is so revved up, Biden and his team will have to work hard to stay on course and not be derailed.

 

We can only hope they will prevail.

The poison failed; change the poison, they say

 When the Jews lost the argument about lineage being more important than religion in matters concerning inheritance, they played down the value of the poison pill they once used to torpedo the deal they had reached with the Palestinian through what was the Peace Process.

 

The poison pill the Jews had concocted for the Palestinians to swallow as a precondition to signing the deal and implementing it, was that the Palestinians must recognize Israel as being a Jewish state. The grand scheme behind this attempt was for the Jews to be in a position –– if it comes to the question of who owns Palestine –– to say that the Palestinians themselves have recognized the higher priority to inheritance that the Jewish religion has over the racial lineage the Palestinians have.

 

But the Palestinian negotiators at the peace talks, saw through this satanic trick and refused to swallow the Jewish poison pill. This prompted the Jews to do what they always do, which is to shelve the scheme for now, and work on brewing another poison pill for use in another scheme. However, realizing that they cannot avoid being seen for what they are––which is a horde of armed colonial marauders––the Jews approached the situation from a different angle. Call it, playing the numbers game.

 

In some sense, the Jews stumbled on this game because all the elements were there for it to coalesce into the kind of idea the Jews love to dabble in and tinker with. The most important element they grabbed onto and used it to work a new scheme, was the advent of Donald Trump into the White House. If you want to know who Donald Trump is, suffice it to say that he has as much remorse for killing 400,000 Americans by dereliction of duty, as a dog would have for eating a bird alive. Now you can imagine how much Donald Trump has ever worried about starving the Palestinian refugees, given the opportunity to feel Netanyahu's hand pat him on the back for committing the near-perfect crime.

 

As to the numbers game, it must be said that there have been two games. The Jews played the first but it blew in their faces. They continue trying to pick up the pieces and reconstitute the game, but are having a hard time formulating an argument that can defeat the notion of the “Palestinian Right of Return” having a higher priority than the “Jewish Right of Return” because the Palestinians have been separated from what is theirs for only 70 years, whereas the Jews have been separated from what they claim is theirs for a whopping 2,000 years ... and that 70 is a smaller number than 2,000. The Jews simply cannot be made to grasp the notion that 2,000 years is a longer time span than 70 years.

 

As to the second numbers game, which Trump inspired the Jews to play, it consisted of minimizing the number of Palestinians who can make a direct connection between the creation of Israel and the losses they suffered, thus build a legal case and sue for relief. And so, true to his style of leadership, Donald Trump suspended the business of America, and told the prostitutes at the State Department to do what's necessary to make the number of Palestinian refugees a small one, no matter how much such forgery will make America appear to sink further down the Jewish sewer.

 

By the time that Trump's hookers at State had worked out the fake studies and the demonic interpretations of those studies, a counterargument had surfaced to the effect that what's good for the goose is good for the gander, followed by the question: How many Jews can make a direct claim to the effect that the actions taken by the Roman legions in ancient Palestine are impacting today's Jews negatively? Upon this, the Jews had no choice but to drop this game.

 

That meant the Jews had to come up with another poison pill, and so they did. They came up with four deadly ingredients rolled into one poison pill for the Palestinians to swallow, which you can imagine they never did and never will. By the way, these were the ingredients that the Jews had told Donald Trump to tell the State Department to come up with after claiming they conducted an independent and impartial inquiry.

 

You can become familiar with that pill when reading the article that came under the title: “The Problem Isn't in Palestinian Numbers,” written by Shoshana Bryen and published on January 22, 2021 in the American Thinker. After going through a minefield of nonsense and bombs of absurdity, you finally get to read about the deadly ingredients of the new poison pill. They are as follows:

 

1.         Adopt the politico-economic system we call liberal democracy, so that you remain in our sphere of influence, and we continue to tell you how to live your lives.

 

2.         When the cannibals of the Israeli military feel hungry for Gazan flesh, and thirsty for Gazan blood, the people of Gaza must assemble in one place and wait for American-made warplanes to bomb them with American-made smart bombs, thus satisfy the hunger and thirst of the modern-day Shylocks in Israel.

 

3.         End the practice of telling the truth about Jewish savagery committed against the Palestinians because the truth causes the good citizens of the world to be disgusted when they hear the name, Israel.

 

4.         Whereas Israel, like everyone else in the world, rewards its combatants and their families with a living honorarium, the Jews want the Palestinians to end rewarding their own combatants so that they starve to death.

 

And the Jews want President Joe Biden to take these demands to the Palestinians as a way to honor the leadership style of the one and only Donald J. Trump.

The Tsunami of Lies that failed to embellish

 We lie to hide our failings or embellish our successes. This is the undeniable part of the human condition.

 

Many of the lies that we tell go undetected because most people do not bother fact-checking what they hear from others. That's because life is too complicated, and people opt to use their time doing something more useful such as work on the lie by which they hope to hide something objectionable they committed, or because they wish to embellish a small success they scored; one they had hoped was a bigger success.

 

Aside from the personal reasons why people lie, there are causes for which some people, known as fanatics, are willing to die. And as you can imagine, would be willing to lie for. In fact, if and when such people feel they must, they turn a lie into a dogma that their successor must believe-in like a religious absolute.

 

One of the oldest fanatic groups still operating today has adopted causes that never lend themselves to reaching a happy ending. The group, known as Jews, has been around trying to accomplish the unthinkable for thousands of years. It has gone to all the places around the globe, and has done what it calls “fighting” for one lost Jewish cause after another, never accomplishing anything that was not calamitous.

 

The Jews are now in America fighting anew the battles they have been losing since time immemorial. An example of what they do is illustrated in an article that came under the title: “Fighting Back for Israel on Campus,” written by Julian Michanie, and published on January 20, 2021 in the online Jewish publication, Algemeiner. Note that Israel has become the newest cause for which the Jews are fighting with a fanatic zeal never seen before.

 

Look at this portion of the opening sentence in the article: “anti-Israel advocates have not diminished their attacks on pro-Israel advocates and Jewish students on campus.” It is in keeping with the Jewish method of starting a discussion by pulling the wool over the readers' eyes. What Julian Michanie has done here, is pave the way for telling the readers that to oppose Israel's anti-Palestinian apartheid, is to attack and hurt the Jewish students in America.

 

Michanie says that despite the fact those opposing apartheid express themselves via the peaceful process of letting the American people know the reality of the situation, those advocating the boycott of such goods, are doing it to hurt the Jewish students on American campuses. He wants the readers to believe that those advocating the boycott do not care that Jewish bosses use Palestinian laborers, and work them inside the stolen Palestinian homeland. No, says Michanie, these people are anti-Semites that found an excuse to practice their antisemitic hobby … and that's all they are doing.

 

This is like home invaders invading your home, forcing you and your family to cook enough meals for them and for selling to customers outside the neighborhood, and then complaining that you are hurting them, not because of what they do, but because you are antisemitic and they are Jews. Here is how Julian Michanie put it: “These resolutions have one thing in common: They are a gateway for antisemitism disguised as a political movement to help Palestinians.” Now, my friend, imagine the gall it takes to say something like this.

 

At this point the writer shifted gears. Instead of attacking others, he decided to start defending Israel. He said that Israel is not a South Africa style apartheid state because Israel is a democratic state. The implication being that South Africa was not calling itself a democratic state. It is clear that Julian Michanie was not yet around, or not old enough when apartheid South Africa looked and behaved like today's Israel. The only difference is that White South Africa did not have a lobby in America protecting it when it misbehaved the way that Israel is protected even when it does what it does in-your-face, in the open and brags about it.

 

Had Michanie known about South Africa's claims, he would have understood why democracy did not become a dirty word in the era of apartheid South Africa, and became one in the era of colonial Israel. So, my advice to young Julian is that he needs to read up on the subjects he writes about, and not rely on what is echoed by the mob of pundits, which is more a lobby group than it is a group of journalists.

 

There too, I can say that had Julian Michanie been reading this blog, he would not have held the Farhud incident as an example of anti-Jewish pogrom. That debate ended by exposing the reality that Farhud, to which the Jews returned, was a shiny example of Arab magnanimity appreciated by the Iraqi Jews.

 

For Michanie to mistake that incident for something it is not, shows the bankruptcy of the Jewish method of repeating someone else's echo, thus mutilate history a little more with each iteration. And yet, this is the method used by the Jewish leaders to force-feed the young generations of Jewish activists with lies packaged as religious dogma from which they cannot deviate.

 

The young take it from there, and go on to make such a mess of the causes they advocate, the more they try to embellish their stories, the more their fabrications look ugly and repelling.

 

Normal human beings have been sensing the ugliness of that process, and have let the Jews know it. The latter never heeded the warning and pushed their luck to the breaking point. When this happened, the Jews called it proof that humanity is defective, and tried their luck again and again and again.

The two Ways to make a studied Assessment

 If you're in a room looking out the window, you can estimate the strength of the wind by looking at its effect on the branches of trees. Or you can step outside the room and experience the wind directly on you.

 

Likewise, astronomers that cannot directly observe a celestial body they wish to study, they study its effect on the surrounding objects, thus learn a great deal about that which they cannot see.

 

Believe it or not, these methods of operation have their analogue in the humanities. That is, you can study someone's behavior by observing them directly. Or you can study them by observing their effect on others, which means you observe the way they influence others. The important thing in this case, is to note that “others” is in the plural. It must be so for a reason.

 

It is that when a human being influences another human being, the character of both the influencer and the influenced play a role in the final outcome. Sorting out which is which is nearly impossible to do. But there is a way to get around this difficulty. It is to observe several situations where the influencer might be operating. If the same kind of influence is detected in all or most of the potential candidates, you conclude that a single influencer is the common factor affecting all of them.

 

How can this be useful when conducting a study in the humanities? The truth is that it is put to good use right now, except that those who use it, do not identify it as a tool helping them determine what's happening. In fact, any teacher can tell you that when they detect the sudden appearance of a behavior in several students at the same time, they conclude that the phenomenon has one and the same source. It is then easy for the teacher to determine which student––or some other source close to the students––is the influencer.

 

What happens in a school setting also happens throughout society because there too, popular culture is changed and disseminated at the hands of influencers, sometimes positively and sometimes negatively. And there too, the influencer is sometimes identified as an entertainer or a politician, for example. Or he (or she or it) might remain unidentified, thus leave society wondering what the source of the change might be.

 

We have a phenomenon of this kind here in North America, and the time has come to identify it so that all those who might be influenced by it, would know who or what is working on them subliminally to have them back a cause they might not approve of if they knew what it's all about. An example displaying that phenomenon came in the form of an article under the title: “Don't run to failure on Iran nuclear negotiations,” written by James Phillips, and published on January 20, 2021 in The Washington Times.

 

The first thing we need to establish is what ideas and themes in this article sound like the echoes we repeatedly heard from a variety of pundits throughout the years. Doing this, will bring us closer to pinpointing the source that's producing them. So, here we go with a condensed compilation of the talking points that fill the echo chamber of pundits these days:

 

“To revive the flawed 2015 Iran nuclear deal would reward a hostile dictatorship. Restrictions on uranium enrichment sunset after 10 years would let Tehran expand to an industrial scale, and pave the way for a nuclear breakout. The deal was built on a foundation of Iranian deception. It contained inadequate verification provisions. Tehran is resorting to nuclear extortion, insisting on the old deal or no deal. Iran once again will pocket billions of dollars in sanctions relief. A new and much more restrictive arrangement is needed to dismantle and end Iran's nuclear-weapons ambitions permanently. Iran's dictators are reeling. What is needed now is patience and firmness to get a better nuclear deal”.

 

The upside-down logic of the writer becomes apparent when you read the idea that to rehabilitate a deal that was trashed, means to reward those with whom you negotiated the deal in good faith. But why would that be a reward, you ask? It would be, says James Phillips, because they are not like us. They are a dictatorship and we are not. But were they not a dictatorship when you negotiated the deal with them in the first place? And will they not still be a dictatorship when you renegotiate the deal as you say must be done?

 

You seek answers to those questions from the delusional character that uttered those words, and all you get from him is silence, which you interpret to mean: “Ask me no questions and I shall tell you neither lies nor absurdities.” But despite his inability to answer questions raised by his assertions, James Phillips went ahead and predicted what the Iranians will do if America returned to the deal as suggested by Iran, and demanded by the other signatories to the deal, three of whom are America's closest allies.

 

So then, what does that tell you about the influencing source behind that screwed up logic? Well, there can only be one answer, which is that the echoes identify the influence as being unmistakably Jewish.

 

But because Jews are numerous, and they are not a monolithic blob, we can only assert that there exists a small group at the core of the Jewish movement, stirring up the pot.

 

Until it comes out and identifies itself, we shall call it Jewish Central.

How Iranian Stoicism humiliated the Trump Team

 You cannot wage war against someone and expect them to treat you nicely.

 

Try to explain that simple equation to a Jewish lawyer, and he'll not understand it any more than you can make him understand that when the Iranians toil to create wealth for their country, they enrich themselves. Failing to grasp this second equation, and saying that America enriches the Iranians by letting them enjoy the fruits of their toil, is to be a sick jerk, nothing better than that.

 

And because you cannot make the Jerk understand those two equations, you never can make him understand that America commits an act of war every time it tries to prevent the Iranians from enjoying the fruits of their labor. A Jewish lawyer that remains frozen at this low level of comprehension, is a moral and ethical basket case.

 

One such lost soul wrote an article under the title: “The many reasons Biden should not enrich Iran's rulers.” He is Clifford D. May that had the article published on January 19, 2021 in the Washington Times.

 

Look closely at that piece of work, and you'll realize that Clifford May is showing despair because Joe Biden is replacing Donald Trump as President of the United States of America. What saddens May is that the new reality promises an Obama-like moment of decency for America; one that will contrast sharply against the pornography of George W. Bush who let the Jewish propaganda machine operate his vocal cords for him, and the pornography of Donald Trump who let that machine operate his executive pen for him.

 

Thus, to counter the new winds of decency blowing over America, and convince Joe Biden he should be more like George and Donald than Barack, Clifford May reached into the Jewish toolbox, pulled out the old tool of deception, and used it to flood the landscape with half-truths, omitted facts, outright lies and misinterpretations. His purpose is to convince Joe Biden that Iran is so bad, when attacked, it defends itself which is why, relying on mangled Jewish logic, Biden must attack Iran to stop it from defending itself, says Clifford May. I kid you not; this is the highest form of Jewish logic you’ll ever encounter.

 

Disregarding the reality that the most famous of Western leaders made it clear they would team up with the devil when necessary to defeat a foe as tenacious as the Nazis, Clifford May went ahead and compiled a list of incidents he says prove that Iran teamed up with al-Qaeda to defeat tenacious America that would not leave Iran alone, and would not vacate the region where it has no business being. Worth mentioning is that most of what Clifford May has compiled had been debunked many times over. But even if it were not, it is so irrelevant, it must never be invoked in a discussion such as this.

 

In fact, what is of essence, is that America and its Western allies, most notably Britain, have been waging war on Iran since the 1950s, whereas Iran has been defending itself the best way it can. This is all that counts when it comes to comparing the behavior of Iran and America. Everything else is noise aimed at confusing the situation so as to ascertain outcomes that will perpetuate the current destructive paradigm; that which has been plaguing the world for decades.

 

Look what else Clifford May, the Jewish lawyer, wrote that's an affront to the kind of justice that’s based on the truth:

 

“The Obama administration ended up transferring billions of dollars to Iran in exchange for their promise to slow-walk their nuclear program. While Iran's rulers remained in the program along with our European allies, they have repeatedly violated their obligations, for example announcing that they were preparing to produce uranium metal, which they had agreed not to do for 15 years. France, Germany and Britain urged the theocrats to return to compliance with their commitments without further delay. A prediction: Iran's rulers will promise to do that if the price is right. But they won't keep their promise”.

 

As can be seen in that passage, Clifford May has neglected to tell the readers that the money transferred to Iran was Iranian money pirated by America and held back in an attempt to starve the Iranian people, and force them into a humiliating submission. The outcome was anything but that. What happened was that the Iranians braved America’s pressure, thus humiliated the Trump administration instead.

 

May also neglected to mention that the Iranians respected the agreement as long as everyone else did. But when America pulled out, and then added insult to injury by applying so-called maximum pressure, the Iranians warned that if the Europeans do not make up for the losses incurred by Iran as a result, they’ll feel compelled to violate the terms of an agreement that’s beginning to compound their misery.

 

To make the suggestion stick that this is an evil act on the part of the Iranians, Clifford May has predicted that the Iranians will agree to comply “for a price” but then renege on the promise.

 

Who does he take the Iranians for? Americans under the governance of a screwball administration?

The Way to fail is to see Failure as Success

 Charles Sam Faddis wrote a book under the title: “Beyond Repair: The Decline and Fall of the CIA” but never told the real reason why the CIA declined before today. He did so now by writing an article that shows why the CIA declined. It is that the institution was employing characters of Sam Faddis’s low caliber.

 

Faddis's new article came under the title: “Tired of winning, Biden opts for failure in the Middle East,” and the subtitle: “The president-elect walks away from a string of American foreign policy successes in the region.” It was published on January 18, 2021 in The Washington Times.

 

Sam Faddis begins the discussion by lamenting what he calls Joe Biden declared intention to steer a course in the Middle East that will be different from the one pursued by Donald Trump. He explains his displeasure as follows: “He [Biden] intends to walk away from what may be the longest string of foreign policy successes in American history and return to the abject failures of Barack Obama's tenure.” And this, my friend, is a very neoconish point of view.

 

Not only has Sam Faddis swallowed the neocon agenda hook, line and sinker, he also swallowed a Trump-size cup of delusional fantasy. Here is one that is easy to detect: “Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan and the United Arab Emirate have all exchanged embassies with Israel.” No such thing has happened yet because the Arab Initiative stipulates an equitable resolution concerning the rights of Palestinian before full recognition is granted to Israel. The Arabs are waiting, and the Jews in both Israel and New York are dragging their feet, hoping that by some freakish lining of the stars, they will have it both ways.

 

Not realizing the extent of his delusion, Sam Faddis asserts that the good things he envisions for the Middle East, will vanish when America, under Joe Biden, will lift the sanctions on Iran and return to the Barack Obama nuclear deal. Of course, the intellectually dishonest author does not mention that the Obama deal is the one negotiated with Iran by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany, a feat they accomplished on behalf of the entire human race.

 

That would be the multitudes composed of seven and a half billion people, all striving to develop Civilization in a manner that will serve every one of us. This being the opposite of the neocon desire to get bogged down in a futile Pax Americana attempt to eternally subjugate the human race, bending it if you will, to the whims of the control-freaks who populate the ranks of the Jews.

 

Seeing that the neocons' dream is fading, Sam Faddis lashed out at those he reckoned will make it disappear eventually. They are the team that was around Barack Obama when the nuclear deal was negotiated. Faddis found something he can attack in each member of the team, and did just that. The following is a compilation of such attacks. Please note that except for one occasion, every time that the pronoun “he” is used, it refers to a different person:

 

“In the runup to the signing of the Iran nuclear deal, he and a retired Iranian diplomat made 33 trips to the Obama White House to assist in drafting the document. He was a lead negotiator in the talks that led to the Iran nuclear deal. He was also a key architect of Mr. Obama's strategy under which the US surrendered the South China Sea to Beijing. He completely believes in the idea of negotiating with the ayatollahs and returning to the terms of the nuclear deal. He was the leader of an American team that began talking with the Iranians in March of 2013”.

 

Sam Faddis thought he was shocking the audience by revealing that an Iranian diplomat visited the White House during the nuclear negotiations. What he did not realize is that whether it is of the direct or indirect kind, a negotiation has to take place somewhere. And so, this raises the question: Would Faddis have preferred it took place in Tehran instead of Washington? If that’s how he feels, let him say so.

 

As to the accusation of the South China Sea being surrendered to the Chinese, Faddis will have a hard time telling on what Chinese destroyer, a defeated American General was summoned to sign the surrender of that watery piece of real estate. What kind of surrender is he talking about, anyway?

 

As to talking with the Iranians in March of 2013, two years before the formal negotiations began, Sam Faddis should be reminded of Winston Churchill's words that went something like this: It is better to jaw-jaw than to war-war.

 

To end the article on what he mistakenly believes has been a strong presentation, Sam Faddis lamented the content of a bill that was recently introduced in the Iranian parliament, instructing the government what it must do next. Here is what Faddis has whined about:

 

Retaliate against the assassination of Qasem Soleimani. Push back against US encroachment in the Middle East. Continue to oppose Israel's expansionist policy. Stand up to economic sanctions. Stand tall when conducting the nation's foreign policy.

 

To tell Iran to cease doing these things is to tell it to cease being a sovereign nation. No wonder the Iranians did not think that Sam Faddis was worth as much as a raised middle finger. They just ignored the little cipher.

To peddle the artificial as natural is to commit a criminal fraud

 When someone you know to be a Christian says he converted to Judaism, you say to him, that's your business. You may go on to say: But I don't know if I should congratulate you or feel sorry for you.

 

When someone you know to be of Caucasian descent says he is of African descent, you say to him: That's a fraudulent claim. If you cash in on this fraud, you'll commit a crime for which you can be prosecuted.

 

When someone says he was immersed in two or more cultures, and must in some circumstances choose to follow the wisdom of one culture or the other, you envy him because you see him as culturally richer than you, having more choices from which to pick what suits his undertakings.

 

When someone says he is glad his child––who did not serve in the military of his country of birth––has volunteered to serve in the military of a foreign country to which he did not emigrate, you know this is a family of dual loyalty if not a family of traitors.

 

Why do you need to mull over these hypothetical situations? You need to because Douglas J. Feith is trying to pull the wool over your eyes. To do so, he wrote an article under the title: “Why I'm a Zionist,” and the subtitle: “And how support for a Jewish state is eminently compatible with American patriotism.” It was published on January 18, 2021 in National Review Online.

 

When you strip the article of the fluffy garbage it contains about Israel being a democracy and blah, blah, blah, what remains that's useful for the purpose of this discussion, is the analogy that Feith has drawn about his own case and that of John Kennedy who was Catholic, yet got elected President of the United States.

 

What Douglas Feith is disregarding out of ignorance or malice, is that being of a given ethnic descent is not something you can get into or out of at will. Rather it is something as natural to you as the blood that runs in your veins. This is why to pretend you are what you're not is to commit a fraud that can earn you severe punishment. As to the idea of belonging to one religion or another; this is a choice you can make any number of times because a religious ideology is an artificial construct that's treated like a political ideology, or the ties you wear to suit your daily moods. How about socks? Do you choose them to suit the day of the week?

 

Kennedy was a Catholic of Irish descent and born in America. If he were a private citizen, he could be loyal to the pope or any foreign star but not to Ireland or any country because he was expected to be loyal to America. As President, which made him employee of the government, he could not be loyal to the Pope in any personal or political sense because he was supposed to be loyal to the Constitution. As to his Catholicism, the principle of separating Church and State, compelled John Kennedy to publicly declare he will adhere to that principle while keeping his religion to himself.

 

John Kennedy did exactly what he was supposed to do. But taking advantage of a complex situation, Douglas Feith says that because John Kennedy could do it, he too can do it. No, he cannot. Kennedy was loyal to America and its constitution, and loyal to no one else while practicing his religion in private.

 

Douglas Feith, on the other hand, is fusing religion which is an artificial construct with an ethnicity he plucked out of thin air, and says this is like Kennedy being faithful to Catholicism. This is sick. Still, Douglas Feith goes on to assert that it is okay to be Jewish and be so fanatically loyal to the foreign entity that is Israel, he can spend all his time defending and glorifying that entity while pretending to be American. It is what he says makes him a Zionist. He also wants everyone to believe it is morally acceptable for every Jewish American to dodge the American draft, serve in the military of Israel, return to America and use it like a cash-cow to live the highlife while spending his time deviously glorifying that disgraceful foreign entity.

 

When someone is morally screwed up to this degree, what else do you think he would do? Well, let him tell it in words he borrowed from Louis Brandeis. The latter was himself a Jew that uttered the words at a time when there was a Palestine full of Palestinians and only a handful of Jews. The words went like this: “Every American Jew who aids in advancing the Jewish settlement in Palestine, though he feels that neither he nor his descendants will ever live there, will be a better man and a better American for doing so”.

 

Here again Douglas Feith used words that applied to one situation, and made them sound like they strengthen the argument he is making in favor of different situation. In fact, Louis Brandeis was urging wealthy American Jews to send money to help poor Jews in Palestine. Brandeis even remarqued that wealthy Irishmen were sending money to help potato-starved Irish in Ireland. And nowhere did Brandeis justify anything like the situation which exists today in occupied Palestine.

 

Douglas Feith has proven, with every word he uttered in that article, to be a fraud and a traitor to an America that served him and his family well. He is a thankless disgrace to everything noble that the human species stands for.

The best Foreign Policy is, 'Live and let live'

 If you see fault in the cults that preach pessimistic philosophies and conclude that human beings are fundamentally evil therefore must continually fight for survival or perish, you'll see merit in the philosophies that preach, 'live and let live'.

 

It was the wrong interpretation of Charles Darwin's, “Survival to the fittest,” that gave rise to the pessimistic philosophies. In fact, Darwin did not mean to say anything like that literally, and certainly never said that fighting among the same species guaranteed its survival. It was people like Adolph Hitler that said war among humans was the highest form of civilized conduct, thus went on to destroy those he deemed were physically weak in society.

 

So then, what happens when you begin your philosophical quest with the notion that human beings are fundamentally good? What happens is that you do not undertake activities that can be interpreted by your neighbors as aggressive. When you have the opportunity to communicate with them, you let them know you have no intention to interfere in their affairs because you do not view kindly anyone interfering in yours.

 

Being neighbors, however, and having a common destiny despite the cultural differences that may keep you apart, you tell your neighbors you wish to expand on your interactions so that you get to understand each other, even voice in a friendly way, concerns you might have about practices you see in others; behavior that leaves you a little unsettled at times.

 

Whereas this kind of give-and-take repeats itself in real life among individuals, tribes and nations around the globe, there are those who continually try to poison the well by injecting their pessimistic views concerning the current state of affairs among the nations. And they recommend to governments, taking the kind of actions that would fulfill their prophesies.

 

Jed Babbin comes close to doing just that in his latest article. It came under the title: “Biden's first hundred days of foreign policy,” and the subtitle: “It's impossible to be optimistic about how Biden will deal with China and North Korea.” The article was published on January 16, 2021 in The Washington Times.

 

Look how Babbin started his presentation, shown here in condensed form: “Biden is about to begin his administration. The media will try to manufacture an [idyllic] image for him regardless of what happens.” This being the start of a 900-word article, I get hit with two culturally-based streams of thought concerning what I believe I'll encounter throughout the article.

 

Having lived 56 years in Canada and being very much a product of the Canadian culture, I think to myself, “do not judge this book by its cover.” However, born to Egyptian parents who steeped me in the Egyptian culture from birth, I still respond to the influence of that culture and think: “Judge the content of every missive by its sender.” The two sayings being somewhat at odds with each other, I ask myself: What shall I do with a coin that has Canada on one side and Egypt on the other? Shall I toss it in the air, and see which side will prevail?

 

Lucky for me, I don't have to do that, because I have 900 of Jed Babbin's words that tell what I should think of his article. Here is a montage of some excerpts you'll encounter when reading the article:

 

“The next 100 days won't be all rainbows and unicorns for Mr. Biden because it will be a period of danger and risk. Our enemies are lining up to challenge him and our allies are eager to see how soft he will be on ally and enemy alike. New presidents are tested by a foreign policy crisis in their first few months in office and Mr. Biden will be no exception. Iran's regime let our hostages go rather than risk what Ronald Reagan might do. Judging by his campaign promises, China and Russia expect Mr. Biden to take a weak approach to them. Iran won't start a war. It expects being relieved of the Trump sanctions that have rendered its economy a shambles. North Korea's economy is also suffering greatly from Mr. Trump's sanctions. Last year, its trade shrank by 80%. Kim Jong-un's only goal is sanctions relief”.

 

Bizarre logic isn't it? Jed Babbin starts by saying America's adversaries are evil, and they will test Joe Biden by doing something naughty in the first 100 days of his presidency. But by the time he gets to the end of his presentation, he admits that Iran will not start a war because all it wants is sanctions relief. As to North Korea's Kim Jong-un, Babbin says, he has only one goal; it is again sanctions relief. And this prompts you to yell: That's what makes them evil?

 

Still, this is not the only shocking thing you'll encounter in Babbin's article. Look what else he did. Even though he said America’s adversaries will be the ones to start something, he now claims that Iran let the hostages out because it feared that Ronald Reagan would be the one to start something naughty. Well, you’re not shocked because it is no more shocking than to say good people seeking sanction relief are evil. True, but that’s not the whole story. Here is the whole story:

 

Between his election in November 1980 and his inauguration in January 1981, Ronald Reagan contacted the government of Iran and asked them what they wanted in return for letting the hostages out on the day he'll be inaugurated, so as to add joy to the festivities. They said they wanted shoulder-held anti-air Stinger missiles. And Reagan said, you'll get them. Because he could not ship the missiles from America's stockpile, Reagan had them shipped to Iran from the stockpile in Israel.

 

Ever since that time, those who wrote about this incident, have perpetuated the myth that the Iranians were so astute, they guessed that Hollywood's actor of B movies, was made of steel, and would annihilate them if they did not release the hostages on the day of his inauguration. Nonsense.

 

Here is my friendly advice to the Americans: Stop lying to yourselves and the world, and adopt the adage that says: “Live and let live.” You got away with naughty things in the past because you were a rising power. You are no more. What happens now is that every time you lie, you show your naked ass, and people around the world feel disgusted by your behavior.