Seeing fire where there’s none and lighting one

 Except for the one that bragged he could shoot to kill someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it, no mad leader has ever displayed a joyful state of mind, describing the real or hypothetical possibility of engaging in a violent act — especially one involving the termination of a human life — and getting away with it.

 

What those who start a war against an enemy usually do, is accuse the enemy of committing aggressions that require a military response. To prepare their own people for what is about to take place, they would give a speech replete with terms that conjure up incendiary images of the hell they are about to inflict on the enemy as well as their own people who will be subjected to retaliatory strikes.

 

Whereas this is the pattern of behavior you’d see among the leaders that have the power to decide on matters of war and peace for their country, something vaguely similar to that, is adopted by those who wish they had the authority to start the wars they continually fantasize about, but can do no more than talk about them, thus do no more than describe the state of their own desires.

 

What these people do in effect, is purvey false narratives about nearby and farther away neighbors, accusing them of using covert methods by which they engage in incendiary activities that harm the beloved country. And so, they who have no authority to start a war, engage in speculation to the effect that the country will respond militarily to an aggression they assert will take place sooner or later.

 

At other times, these people would skip the speculation and go as far as recommend that the country must respond to an aggression that never took place. They’ll do all this with a straight face while promising the public that regardless of the hardships that lay ahead, the country will in the end, triumph over the enemy, and go on to celebrate a sweet victory.

 

You can see one such example when you go over a recent article that came under the title, “More Iranian Missiles to Syria: A Problem that a ‘Working Group’ Cannot Solve,” and the subtitle: “Russia protects the shipment of precision guided missiles to Iranian proxies.” It was written by Elliott Abrams and published on April 28, 2021 on the website of the Council on Foreign Relations.

 

The first thing that Elliott Abrams did was to express annoyance at the officials in America and Israel who engaged in a kind of “anodyne” conversation, talking about a situation that, in his view, requires a fire and brimstone kind of language. He then went on to talk about an agreement they concluded between them, according to which they’ll establish a working group which, in his opinion, will be as useless as a dog that will bark but not bite.

 

Elliott Abrams makes it clear that he felt better reading the website of a defense publication reporting on news that should warn America about things getting serious in Israel’s neighborhood. This is the part of the world where Israel engages in aggression and expects no response from those on the other side. He admits that when the latter respond to Israeli aggression, they do it to protect themselves, but this is enough to make his blood boil. It is so because he apparently believes that when someone blocks a Jewish punch that’s coming to his face, that someone commits the lamentable act of anti-Semitism. The right thing to do, according to Abrams and those like him, is to absorb the punch, and thank the Jew for being so considerate as to have noticed him.

 

So now, you want to know what Abrams saw in that defense publication that heightened his curiosity. Well then, here is what he saw. He saw an article entitled “Russian Fleet Protects Iranian Ships Smuggling Arms, Israelis say.” But was anything discovered independently by the staff of the publication concerning those allegations, and revealed in the article? Not a thing … as you might have expected.

 

It is clear that the entire narrative turned out to be a fabrication of the Israeli propaganda machine in which Elliott Abrams is a significant component. They planted a false story in a respected defense publication to give it credibility. When this was done, Elliott Abrams took it from there, and built on the lie to achieve a subtle goal you’ll be able to detect in the following paragraph:

 

“The shift is occurring, Israeli sources told the defense publication, because of the success of the massive Israeli campaign against the shipments of weapon systems from Iran to the Hezbollah in Lebanon. Israel performed hundreds of attacks on convoys on their way to Lebanon, as well on locations where the Iranian made systems are stored before being transferred to Lebanon”.

 

Do you see what Abrams is trying to accomplish? He is preparing the Jewish rank-and-file and the Fifth Columnists in both the Congress and the regular media for what is to come. He is doing this while promising a glorious victory if they would all support Israel now and after the conflagration, which he asserts will come sooner or later.

He wrote a eulogy and went on a tangent

 It was 38 years ago that Clifford D. May was in the African nation of Chad as a reporter covering the events there for an American publication. He came to know Idriss Deby, a young officer of the Chadian military who, in later years rose in stature to eventually become President of the country.

 

A few days ago, Idriss Deby was visiting an area in the country held by rebel groups where he was shot and killed. This prompted Clifford May to write what amounts to a eulogy of the man he knew, if only casually, a long time ago. The Clifford May piece came in the form of an article under the title: “The death of an African warrior,” and the subtitle: “With a bit of history, a few memories and some lessons.” It was published on April 27, 2021 in The Washington Times.

 

The history behind the Clifford May account is obvious, the memories are clear, but what lessons is he talking about? Well, you won’t be surprised to know that the lessons are not drawn from his observation of life, but are a reiteration of the philosophy of life he has been expounding for years. Once again, instead of observing and then drawing conclusions from the observation, Clifford May began with the conclusion he had adopted long ago through indoctrination, and went on a tangent looking for a justification to support his long-held conclusion. Here is that conclusion, expressed in his own words as you’ll probably recognize it:

 

“Chad has been embroiled in conflicts, on and off, since the mid-1960s. That too, should be food for thought. While it’s comforting to believe that peace is the natural state of mankind, and that wars — especially those that appear ‘endless’ — are aberrant, the evidence contradicts that conclusion”.

 

And that’s where I take issue with Clifford May. Whereas he sees that the evidence (of war) is the natural state of mankind, I look at the same evidence and see that war has nothing to do with our natural state. The difference in our points of view, stems from the fact that he sees war as an end in itself, whereas I see war as an effect of causes that are yet to be identified and fleshed out.

 

So then, where do I go looking for our naturalness? I look for it in the heritage that evolution has bestowed on us. As one of the species that populate the Earth, we continue to exist because we are endowed with a mechanism that ensures a balance between the demands of a selfish gene that’s pushing us to engage in risky adventures on one hand, and the instinct for the survival of the self and the species that forces us to be cautious on the other hand.

 

That balance, which is common to all the species, has kept life on Earth in a stable state for about half a billion years. To break away from this “stagnant” and perhaps “boring” stability, even if it is desirable, and to strive achieving a higher level of existence, evolution has invented the human brain. It is an organ whose task is to amplify the two elements of our stability. Thus, the brain has rendered more aggressive the selfishness of our gene, but has also heightened the sense of survival that we harbor for the self and for the species.

 

The outcome of all this, has been the human invention of an organized system of education for the masses that’s allowing us to dare taking our species beyond our natural capabilities, on the one hand … as well as the invention of a system of justice that restrains us from embarking on dangerous excesses, on the other hand. The aim here is to mimic nature by providing us with the balance that will hopefully continue to guarantee our existence as a viable species.

 

This part is the gift of the brain we recognize as being the good side of our nature. The trouble, however, is that none of us has complete control over our circumstances. Because of this, fortune happens to some people while misfortune happens to other people. In the face of this inequity, we violate the rules of a balanced existence by refusing to toil quietly, based solely on the desire to advance the common good. What we do instead is engage the brain and have it work on getting as much as we can for the self from the existing circumstances. This triggers a fierce competition among individuals, as it does among organizations and nations. When the competition becomes excessively fierce, the result can be fights, skirmishes, even wars. But this cannot be called the “natural state of mankind”.

 

Considering that the two points of view (Clifford May’s and mine) cannot be reconciled, we must conclude that in the continued evolution of the human race, one point of view will prevail and become the norm in the future, whereas the other point of view will at best coexist as a minority position, or at worst go underground and carry on with a low-level resistance against the new status quo.

 

And that, my friend, may or may not be considered stagnant or boring by those who will look for new and challenging adventures.

 

The future will tell.

Once again, Harsanyi puts Israel above America

 The slow Summer days seem to have come early this year because here is a non-story that’s given the status of major story by extreme rightwing dudes shouting their message in right-of-center publications, both in the print and electronic outlets.

 

Relegating the need for secrecy in the affairs of nations down to the mercy of the document shredding machine, Israel did away with the games that had previously allowed it to con the Western intelligence agencies, feeding them as it did with false information. This was of the deadly kind that has led to such horrors as the invasion of Iraq and other adventures of high-tech mass murder.

 

The newer trend started shortly thereafter, and has become the norm in the Middle Eastern political arena where different versions of the game are played solo by Israel to provoke responses that almost never come as hoped for. To wit, it happened that every time Israel did in fact, or wanted to do something outrageous, it gave out the excuse that the settlers occupying the land, would not accept the thing done otherwise. Or that the extremists who are sitting on the right side of the government, would defeat it and force a new election if they did not have it their way. But nobody believed a word, and nobody cared.

 

The trend then mutated when Israel’s needs escalated and went beyond the commission of outrageous acts. To accommodate themselves, the Israelis developed the habit of openly blackmailing the United States. This happened when negotiations started that eventually culminated in the signing of the Iran nuclear deal. Spying on America while immersed in those talks, employing deep-state traitors of the Pollard variety, Israel used the information it received to fashion threats about starting a war with Iran. The aim was to drag America into such wars, or at least sabotage the nuclear talks between the (P5+1) and Iran. None of that has worked to the chagrin of the schemers both in America and Israel.

 

When keeping secrets from each other became a joke; when throwing false information into the public domain to deceive friends and foes alike, became the main preoccupation of the Jewish propaganda machine, even the mad president of the United States saw fit to tell the ambassador of Russia that the Israelis tried to con him into believing they knew of a terror attack that was going to take place in Syria. Nothing of the sort happened, of course, because the attempt was a Jewish ruse aimed at getting America involved in yet another adventure of mass murder that would benefit Israel.

 

This being the sordid history that the Jewish propaganda machine can no longer duplicate due to a fundamental change in the way that America chooses to do business under a new administration, the extreme rightwing dudes jumped on a non-story, and tried to make a big deal out of it even before the onset of the Summer season. One of those joining the crowd is David Harsanyi who fired his first salvo with an article that came under the title: “John Kerry, Enemy of Israel,” and had it published on April 26, 2021 in National Review Online.

 

Reading the first sentence in the article, tells you that Harsanyi intends to accomplish two things. The first is to use a non-story and make a mountain out of the molehill. The second is to make Israel look like the giant donor that’s dwarfing the American supplicant. Here is that first sentence, which also happens to be the first paragraph of the article: “Let’s pause to reflect on how monumentally stunning it is that the former US secretary of state allegedly tattled on Israel to Iran”.

 

As you can see, David Harsanyi says he is stunned by an allegation, and wants his readers to be equally stunned by his second-hand reporting of the non-story. But what’s the allegation about, anyway? Well, whereas the Jewish propaganda machine, using the regular mob of pundits in America, was joined this time by Israeli ministers and ambassadors to claim that Israel carried out thousands of attacks against Iranian targets in Syria, here comes John Kerry who, according to the allegation, seems to have reduced that figure to only hundreds of attacks. This revelation, as you can imagine, came like the blow that took the hot air out of the Jewish propaganda for self-aggrandizement in America. So, let it be said that if you’re not stunned by such development, you cannot be Jewish.

 

As if this were not enough, Harsanyi started to set the stage for a repeat of that same game at some point in the future. To that end, here is how he tried to make Israel look superior to America: “It wouldn’t be surprising if Israel was more reluctant to share intel with the United States.” Poor Americans, they’ll have to get down on their knees from now on, and beg the Netanyahus of Israel to throw a bone in their direction.

 

And here is how Harsanyi is already making public the information that will be mentioned as the secret that some American official will be accused in the future to have given to the Iranians:

 

“Israel reportedly blew up Iran’s nuclear facility’s electrical substation, damaging thousands of centrifuges. This is likely the second time that the Israelis have been able to smuggle explosives into the facility and detonate them remotely”.

 

So, the word to you, my dear friends, is that you should begin training yourself to hear dudes of the David Harsanyi variety, accuse a US government official, of revealing that information to the Iranians … and you’re supposed to act surprised, indignant and apoplectic.

When the words become a weighty albatross

 No one gets to be more liberal than a European member of a green party. Certainly, Joschka Fischer who was the leader of the German Green Party for 20 years, qualifies to be considered a liberals’ liberal.

 

But look what Joschka Fischer just did. He wrote an article under the title: “Darkness over Kabul,” and the subtitle: “Now that President Joe Biden has formally declared an end to the US troop presence in Afghanistan, conflict and chaos are all but certain to follow. The Afghan people will be the first to suffer, but they are unlikely to be the last”.

 

What’s the significance of that, you ask? The significance is that the words which Joschka Fischer has used to express his sentiments, are not those of a liberal at heart, which he undeniably is. They are the words of a rightwing colonial master who is steeped in the literature of nostalgic neocolonial reveries, which Fischer is not. So, the question: How did this happen to a nice guy like Joschka Fischer? Well, it happened, not because the man harbors hidden rightwing tendencies, but because he is bound by the “Western” languages in which he was raised: German, possibly Hungarian too, and certainly English.

 

There is nothing unusual about that because a close relationship exists between the language and the thought process in all the cultures and all the languages. Whereas in the twenty-first century, “Darkness Over Kabul,” may invoke a specific vision to a Westerner, it invokes a different vision to an Oriental, especially the people of Afghanistan and those living in the region. This does not mean things will remain static forever. On the contrary, things will most certainly have changed a century or two from now, as will the languages, the cultures and most importantly, the perception of how daily life is unfolding.

 

Whereas Joschka Fischer worries that the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan will create a power vacuum that will trigger a fierce competition among the regional powers who will seek to fill the vacuum — thus cause hardship he characterizes as “dark” — the people of the region react differently upon hearing that word. To them, dark were the days during which the Western troops, led by America, occupied a piece of land in their region. To them, the departure of American troops and their allies, will be the day when the sun will rise again over their region after the long decades of darkness that the Western powers imposed on them.

 

And so, for Joschka Fischer to lament the departure of the American troops and those of the coalition from Afghanistan, is nothing more and nothing less than the display of chagrin similar to what the colonial soldiers of old used to feel when kicked out of the countries they were occupying. And what this says in the final analysis, is that words alone mean little when viewed out of a cultural context in which they acquire their significance. In fact, knowing about the influence of language on the process of thinking, we begin to understand why a liberal such as Joschka Fischer, would go on to write the following:

 

“Radical Islamist terrorism has not been defeated, either militarily or ideologically. Regional stability will probably be more fragile after the Western withdrawal than it is today. We should harbor no illusions; the West’s troop drawdown amounts to a defeat, the humanitarian consequences of which will be dramatic. For the Afghan people, the war will continue. Legions of Afghans will try to flee to the West. Those who remain will face a dismal fate. Militarily, the withdrawal makes sense. Yet in humanitarian and moral terms, it is flirting with a foreseeable disaster. How will Islamist extremist groups interpret the West’s acceptance of defeat? Will Afghanistan really not become a terrorist safe haven again? Might not Russia

and China respond to the West’s perceived weakness with increased aggression toward Ukraine and Taiwan, respectively?”

 

Thus, instead of restricting his thoughts to the right of the Afghani people finally being left alone to shape their own destiny, Joschka Fischer has analyzed the situation in that country in Western terms. This is why he was incapable of thinking about Afghanistan potentially becoming another Vietnamese economic tiger or a thriving Bangladeshi society: peoples that started from scratch, having won their independence, and building a nation to make humanity proud of its children and its heritage.

 

Instead of letting his thinking process go along that line, Joschka Fischer has allowed the words he used to weigh like an albatross and his thought process. He thus wrote about Afghanistan becoming the center of its neighbors’ attention, and the danger that each of Pakistan, China, Iran, India and the various Islamist groups will bring to Afghanistan. He thus ended the article with the following thought, which is a purely colonial speculation unbefitting a liberal in any language:

“There is no stable alternative to a Western military presence in Afghanistan. The Western withdrawal will inevitably result in a humanitarian catastrophe. The Afghan people will be the first but not the last to suffer”.

Lacking bad options, America picks a good one

 It is a rare occasion when we try something and succeed the first time. Indeed, success is built on a hill of failures from which we learn what to do and what to avoid.

 

Each attempt during which we try doing something, is called an experiment whether it ends in success or in failure. America being the work of those who build it, has been called an experiment; one that had its share of failures as well as successes. What is becoming painfully clear, however, is that in the realm of social interactions, be that at the domestic or foreign stages, America is a slow learner. At times, it seems to have learned nothing, considering the number of mistakes it tends to repeat over and over again.

 

Whomever said that America will do the right thing after trying all the other things, may have a point. But this is not something to cheer about because most of the time, there is only one way to doing the right thing, and an infinite number of ways to doing the wrong thing. In short, you may have to wait as long as an eternity before seeing America finally come around and do the right thing.

 

An effective way to guide someone and make them do the right thing, is to close the easy options at doing the wrong thing. When they realize that doing the wrong thing has become as difficult as doing the right thing, the chances improve that they’ll choose to do the right thing. Fortunately (if you can see this as fortune,) America is currently facing this tough a situation. The circumstances did not happen by design, but happened naturally because America abused all the easy options over the decades, and was left with only hard choices from which to pick — one option being the right choice.

 

What America is forced to do now, is choose between paying a high price for maintaining the status quo, or paying a high price for scaling down its tendency to intrude in the affairs of other nations around the globe. In either case the ramifications are enormous, and the debate about them is endless. A taste of that can be gathered from reading two recently published articles.

 

One article came under the title: “Sorry, General McKenzie, it’s no to an endless war on terror,” written by Dan DePetris, and published on April 24, 2021 in The Washington Examiner. The other article came under the tittle: “Why America Should Focus on Domestic, Not Foreign, Problems,” and the subtitle: “America’s strategic distraction has favored addressing foreign threats and those domestically with a foreign aspect, leaving a wide space for domestic extremism to go unchecked.” It was written by David V. Gioe, and published also on April 24, 2021 in the National Interest.

 

In his article, Dan DePetris is demonstrating how the power of inertia plays a role in maintaining the status quo. The story he tells is that of the combatant branch of the American military asking for, and receiving more money year after year; a habit that has allowed the military branch to perpetuate, even expand on whatever war it happens to be in at the time. Here is how DePetris expressed that thought:

 

“General Kenneth McKenzie said, ‘The war on terror is probably not going to end.’ Here is the most senior US commander in the Middle East, admitting openly that the United States is in a war with no expiration date. It is war with no clear metrics of success, no limits, and apparently, no hesitation on the part of those leading the effort. If what McKenzie is saying is true, US foreign policymakers have committed US troops and taxpayers to unending conflicts across the world”.

 

As to David Gioe, his article shows how history has conspired to thrust upon America a role that suited her well at some point in the past, but has turned into a burden the country can no longer shoulder alone. Here, in condensed form, is how Gioe has expressed that thought:

 

“In 1838, Abraham Lincoln observed that any existential danger to America would not come from military threats abroad. Unfortunately, Lincoln’s wisdom was forgotten across the political establishment. America’s focus on real and perceived threats overseas has led to an oversight of domestic threats. After WW II, America found itself in a new strategic context on the world stage, with perceived security responsibilities for the global commonweal. While the Cold War was resolved without violence between the superpowers, domestic extremism was on the rise. However, the 9/11 attacks caused American politicians and military leaders to chastise themselves for cutting military budgets after the fall of the USSR. Reversing course, prompted a rapid expansion of the empire. The story is the tale of how America’s conception of itself, its purpose, and its history shape its choices and priorities”.

 

The war hawks, the advocates of Pax Americana, the neocons, the Fifth Columnists, the syndicate, and all those who benefit from a thriving military industrial complex, are still there and they are rooting for America to remain on the war path where it has been for half a century — and make their day.

 

It appears that these groups have lost the battle for now. Consequently, the best thing for the newly elected Joe Biden administration to do now, is to show the public what a peace dividend looks like; an inducement that will cause it to immediately mobilize and oppose any attempt by the warmongers to take America back to the dark days of forever wars.

Time to sever the Umbilical Cord of Shame

 They incubated the creature that had come from the deep, and when it was born, they saw that it was a monster. Not only did it look and behave like a monster, it also came with a scheme for keeping itself tethered to the surrogate mother that bore it during 50 long years; not just the usual 9 months.

 

The creature is the syndicate that’s made of World Jewry, of Israel and the Jewish lobby in America. The surrogate mother is an America that went into a state of induced coma shortly after the monster was settled in her womb. The creature possessed her like a demon possesses an innocent maiden. It proceeded to pilot her for half a century, making her commit misadventures, mischief and the occasional crime against humanity.

 

In real life, ever since the syndicate established itself as a force that cannot be ignored when it comes to the governance of America … it saw its influence steadily grow in that country till the moment when a madman came into the White House. He instantly turned America into a plantation, and offered it to a syndicate that was now pursuing the sole purpose of siphoning America’s wealth, and borrowing America’s good name to serve the interests of Israel and no one else’s.

 

This being too much for the American public to stomach, the people voted to toss the madman out of the White House, choosing to elect Joe Biden to the helm of the ship of state. Having promised during the election campaign to restore sanity to a country that had gone too far into the realm of the insane, and having promised to turn right-side-up what was turned upside-down, President Joe Biden wasted no time fulfilling his promises.

 

A consequential promise made by Joe Biden, was to restore the trust between America and the people who never lifted a finger to harm her unless they were provoked by an America that was piloted by the monster possessing her. It commanded her to be aggressive toward the other countries for no apparent reason but that the commands related to the religious beliefs of the monster.

 

When it came to the damage that was caused to the relations between America and Iran, the nuclear deal between the two countries and 5 other countries became central. It was abrogated by the madman in the White House on the advice of the syndicate whose only interest was to keep the Middle East in a permanent state of turmoil. The idea behind this strategy was that maintaining America in a forever war in the region, serves the interests of Israel at perpetuity. And that’s what makes exploding bombs sound like music to the ears of the syndicate.

 

Keenly aware of the syndicate’s diabolic scheme, the Biden administration signaled its desire to return the relations between America and Iran to what they were before the Trump era. Informal negotiations through intermediaries began, and the early indications are that Iran and America are on their way to restoring their relations to where they were before the madness disrupted them.

 

This news so enraged the syndicate, the artificially bubbled-up buffoons running Israel’s security apparatus decided to go to America where they intend to lecture to the Biden administration on the foolishness of doing what’s good for America and the world by neglecting the ambitions of Israel’s thieves and war criminals who are masquerading as political leaders and statesmen.

 

Simon Henderson that has been following the situation in the Middle East for a while now, wrote about these developments in an article that came under the title: “Iran moves closer to a diplomatic breakthrough that may upset Israel,” published on April 22, 2021 in The Hill. Here, in condensed form, is what Henderson has reported:

 

“A diplomatic deal with Iran is increasingly likely. Running in parallel, a diplomatic row with Israel is taking shape. The Russian negotiator at the talks in Vienna was quoted as saying a deal could be achieved by late May. Hence the significance of the Israeli officials due to turn up in the US next week: the national security adviser, the chief of staff of the army, the head of military intelligence, and the director of the Mossad spy agency. So, what happened? One possibility is that Saudi Arabia blinked. The Financial Times broke the news that Tehran and Riyadh have been in diplomatic contact via the good offices of the Iraqi government”.

 

Is it wise for the Israelis to go to Washington at this time, and try to dissuade the Biden administration from fulfilling a promise made to the American people during the election campaign? I don’t think so.

 

I believe that by the time they are done with the visit, the Israelis will have come to regret they made that decision in the first place. The reason has to do with something called momentum. It is that when you are on a winning streak, the more you agitate and play, the more the momentum carries you forward. Most people understand that.

 

But what many people fail to understand is that they only know half the theory. The truth is that for every forward momentum, there is the possibility of a backward momentum. It comes about when you’re on a losing streak and you agitate to play. The result is that you compound your losses.

 

This is what I see happening to the Israeli delegation; and it’s about time it did. In fact, the time has come to sever the cord that’s tying Israel to America through which the goodness of the latter is turned into the evil that’s used to maintain the world a step away from the entrance door to Satan’s hell.

A disgraceful mouth bites the hand that feeds it

 The Jews can inflate their importance all they want and make themselves look like a blimp that’s full of heated cow farts. They can also make Israel look, not like the little fart that it is, but the cyclone they fantasize it can be. The Jews will not, however, change the reality that it is America which keeps Israel afloat, and not the other way around.

 

The Jews can keep abusing the generosity of America all they want, believing there will not be an end to America’s patience with their obnoxious insolence. They can also try to attribute the repugnance they generate by their behavior — to the Americans who refuse to continue pampering Israel. They will not, however, change the reality that it is America which has the power to crush Israel if and when push will come to shove, and not the other way around.

 

A clown the small size of David Harsanyi can try to intimidate a towering figure that’s as tall as Senator Elizabeth Warren all he wants. What he’ll manage to accomplish will only be to show the world how small the self-appointed chosen characters of the delusional mob, appear to be when they come out their hiding places and try to poke the giants who are too busy to play with them. These would be constructing a better world for those who will appreciate it today and well into the future.

 

You can see the effect of Harsanyi’s latest excursion out of his hiding place when you read the column he wrote under the title: “Senator Warren’s Disgraceful Meddling in Israeli Politics,” and the subtitle: “Imagine Warren’s reaction if a foreign political leader openly offered the GOP advice on how to win back the presidency.” The column was published on April 20, 2021 in National Review Online.

 

What you’ll come away with as you read the column, is the story of Senator Elizabeth Warren having decided that pity or no pity for the real or imagined plight of the Jews, the time has come to weigh what the people of Palestine are suffering, what the people of America are losing, and what the people of the world are enduring — against the benefit of maintaining a ruffian named Benjamin Netanyahu at the helm of the Israeli government. And she decided that the fossilized dinosaur that is the current status quo, must be brought to an end now rather than later.

 

However, realizing that the tapestry of Israel’s governance is intricately woven around the intimate relationships that have existed for decades between the leaders of Israel, the Jewish lobby in America, both political parties in the country, the bureaucracy of the foreign service and a substantial portion of the American media — Senator Elizabeth Warren reasoned that nothing will change on the ground until the ossified dinosaur is dismantled bone by bone, and done away with.

 

She saw that the way to do this, was to meet with and talk to the Jews in America who are so horrified by the status quo, they organized themselves under the name of J Street to work on convincing both political parties in America, the bureaucracy of the foreign service and the media, to reverse their support for the snake pit of criminality that has dominated the existing paradigm for decades.

 

What the Senator has said to the J Streeters in essence, was that to continue supporting the Netanyahu gang, robs the Palestinians of their properties and their dignity. It robs the American people of the respect they earned for all the good that America has done before the advent of the charlatans who now control its foreign policy. And it robs the world of what it can achieve if only the destructive pattern that’s heaped on it by the Jewish leaders, is neutralized and rendered harmless.

 

All of that can be done, she went on to say, if the political parties in Israel got together and pushed Netanyahu out of the way, replacing him with someone sane who will govern Israel in accordance with the international laws that were crafted by America and others, and in accordance with the civilized norms of conduct which are practiced on a daily basis by the rest of humanity.

 

And this, my friend, is what got David Harsanyi apoplectic. Pretending to be an American when in reality, he is an Israeli down to every chromosome in his body, and a Netanyahu supporter down to every molecule in his chromosomes — he attacked Senator Warren for defending America, the Palestinians and the World against the antics of the Netanyahu gang.

 

And Harsanyi did not stop here. While criticizing the American Senator for meddling in Israeli politics, he stood as the American imposter that he is, and flagrantly displayed a preference when it came down to making a choice from among the political trends in Israel. David Harsanyi chose to stand with and defend the rightwing party of Benjamin Netanyahu.

 

And this goes to show that if Senator Warren had told the J Streeters that Netanyahu was good for Israel and America, Harsanyi would have written a different column. He would have praised the Senator for her good judgment.

 

And that, in fact, is what he has been doing when the well-known madman was in the White House serving the crooks of Israel instead of serving the good people of America. It is that the hypocrisy of charlatans has no limit.

The usual lies and those stirring visceral hate

 Did you ever ask yourself why there seems to be two kinds of hatreds in this world? The usual hate that’s reserved for everyone, and the visceral hate that’s reserved for the Jews.

 

Did you ever consider that of all the reasons which stir up hatred in humans, the most effective is the lie that’s generated by the “bait and switch” method? It is the one that makes you believe the liar that’s addressing you is talking about angels when in reality he would be talking about the devil.

 

Did you ever postulate that Jews are unique in their ability to stir up the bait-and-switch kind of visceral hatred which leads normal humans to wish they could be exterminated from the face of the Earth, never to be heard from or heard about ever again?

 

If you haven’t considered this kind of topic previously because you didn’t think you’ll get to the bottom of the case or reach a satisfactory conclusion concerning the truth of the matter, you can change all that now. You can do it by letting members of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) take you by the hand, and show you why the Jews stir up the hatred that has led normal human beings to pogrom them and holocaust them throughout space and time.

 

Morton A. Klein and Susan B. Tuchman are members of ZOA. They teamed up to write an article that will answer all your questions, and leave you with a solid knowledge about the reasons why the Jews have been singled out and reviled wherever they went and whenever the mask of innocence fell off their faces to reveal the reality of what they stand for.

 

The article that Klein and Tuchman wrote came under the title: “The many anti-Israel falsehoods in Obama’s memoir must be fixed,” published on April 22, 2021 in The Washington Examiner. The purpose of the article is to inform the readers what ZOA did with regard to Obama’s book. Here are their words:

 

“The Zionist Organization of America recently urged the publisher, Penguin Random House, to recall all printed books and correct them — or at least correct the book’s digital version and future print editions. Since this book is the first of two volumes, we also urged that volume two begin with a chapter correcting volume one’s many errors”.

 

The Jewish mentality comes out clearly in that passage. You may or may not be familiar with what it has produced over the decades, but even if you never heard of the attempts that the Jews mounted to alter or cancel passages in publications ranging from Shakespeare’s plays to Walter Cronkite’s broadcasts, as well as UNRWA’s textbooks, Palestinian opinion pieces, and books written by American Presidents such as Jimmy Carter and now Barack Obama — your bile will be stirred by what Klein and Tuchman are trying to accomplish with their latest piece.

 

Here, in their words, is why it will happen: “ZOA’s letter to Penguin Random House identifies 15 separate material falsehoods, followed by the facts,” which they want President Obama and Random House to correct. Let’s take a close look at one of those instances, expressed here in condensed form:

 

“Obama describes Mahmoud Abbas as the preferred Palestinian Arab leader ‘in large part due to his unequivocal recognition of Israel and his long-standing renunciation of violence.’ But Abbas never recognized Israel as a Jewish state. Also, Abbas has never renounced violence. In fact, he glorifies and incentivizes it, naming streets, schools, and sports teams after Arab [combatants] rewarding their families with pensions. Abbas is a longtime Holocaust denier and a racist, having made it clear that if there is a Palestinian Arab state, it will be cleansed of Jews. Under Abbas’s leadership, selling [West Bank Palestinian land] to Israeli Jewish settlers, is treasonous. Abbas is not committed to peace with Israel”.

 

You see here the repeated use of the Jewish style “bait and switch” sleight of hand. For example, President Obama wrote that Mahmoud Abbas recognized Israel, which is a fact. Because it makes Abbas look good, something that Klein and Tuchman wanted to rob him of, they did not do what a normal human would have done.

 

That is, they could have minimized the importance of Abbas’s act by saying something like, “so what!  In time, other Arabs have recognized Israel too. Big deal!” This would have been lying about their true feeling, an occurrence that’s common to normal human beings when they wish to minimize the value of the debt they owe someone that handed them a valuable favor.

 

But Klein and Tuchman are Jews. They could not tell a usual lie because they can only tell the lies that stir up visceral hatred. What they did instead, is to say that Abbas never recognized Israel “as a Jewish state,” which is a whole other kettle of fish. In fact, by recognizing Israel, Abbas recognized Israel’s right to exist. Had he recognized Israel as a Jewish state, he would have given the Jews the legal right to cleanse Palestine of every non-Jew that lives in it. By baiting and switching in the Jewish style, the two authors covered the fact spoken by Abbas, and replaced it with their own intent … while making you believe they were talking about the same thing.

 

And so, having told that Jewish lie, Klein and Tuchman proceeded to build on it. They falsely accused Abbas of encouraging terrorism, of being a Holocaust denier and a racist; one who wants to cleanse Palestine of Jews, when it is exactly what the Jews are doing to the Palestinians.

 

Now you know how they generate the visceral hatred that sends them to the gas chamber and the incinerator. Plagued as they are by their acquired handicap, you can only pity them.

Defeat is in the Eye of the Beholder

 How do you take down a superpower when it suits your purpose to do so? Well, that’s easy to explain.

 

You present yourself as a friend. You infiltrate the thing. You make yourself sound like a wise man. You turn reality upside-down. You give the suckers in charge of the superpower, the wrong advice. You watch the superpower decay, and like magots, you and yours feed on the corpse.

 

Clifford D. May and those like him did all of that to America during the last half century, and they are now beginning to feed on America’s dying corpse. If you must hear it from the horse’s mouth before you’ll believe it; you’ll find the answer in Clifford May’s latest column. It came under the title: “US chooses defeat in Afghanistan,” and the subtitle: “America’s many enemies will be encouraged and emboldened.” It was published on April 20, 2021 in The Washington Times.

 

Reading the piece, you get the sense that you’re watching two undercurrents move the Clifford May narrative towards a single goal. One undercurrent says to America, never stop fighting those who refuse to submit to your will such as the Taliban of Afghanistan because if you do, you’ll look like you have accepted defeat such as you did with the Vietnam War. The other undercurrent says, whether you win the war such as you did in Europe and the Pacific, or you lose it such as you seem to accept has happened in Afghanistan, it is always good to keep residual troops where your soldiers’ boots have dwelt before.

 

Clifford May goes on to explain that because America is maintaining troops in Germany, Japan and South Korea with the apparent intention of keeping them in there forever, it makes sense to also keep troops in Afghanistan forever despite the scheduled withdrawal. May’s justification is that the presence of American troops has kept the peace in Europe and East Asia for three quarters of a century, and they can do the same for the Afghan region. But that’s where the Clifford May analogy fails.

 

A more accurate explanation goes like this: America won the shooting war against Germany and Japan. This has allowed it to station troops in those countries without facing a popular resistance because the civilian populations were exhausted, thus welcomed the end of the war at the cost of occupation. As time passed, the younger generations of those countries grew up seeing the American troops nearby, and did not think of them as an odd sight. In fact, they considered the troops as foreign mercenaries who get paid by their government to be there.

 

As to South Korea, America did not win that war. But if it did not lose it either, all that can be said is that it was able to secure a stalemate. Whichever way you categorize the outcome of the Korean War, the result has been anything but the securing of the peace on the Korean Peninsula. Whereas there hasn’t been a shooting war, there has been the rise of a nuclear juggernaut in the North; one that can cause serious trouble in the region. All of that worry has resulted from America’s military presence in the region.

 

The best end-of-war outcome came about when America lost decisively in Vietnam. No residual troops were stationed in there, and there was no need for the Vietnamese to develop a nuclear arsenal to defend against an erratic America that takes orders from the eternal losers of the planet; those who call themselves Jews. Instead, what happened in Vietnam was that a unified country became an economic tiger in Asia, and a very good friend to America as well as a friend to the rest of the word.

 

This is undoubtedly the history that the Biden administration studied when it decided to pull out of Afghanistan after trying the Jewish forever-war for 20 years, and deciding that enough was enough.

 

Also, this is undoubtedly why Clifford May is reciting the dire predictions that were manufactured at Jewish Central about the world coming to an end if America were to pull out of Afghanistan. Still, bringing the soldiers home is the promise made to the nation by President Joe Biden, and he intends to keep it. With this, he signals his refusal to be a stooge for the magots that smell the decomposing corpse of a dying superpower, and are developing a very wet appetite. Here is a taste of what Clifford May is spewing in an effort to hypnotize the President and get him to follow, not his own judgment, but that of Jewish Central:

 

“By choosing defeat, the United states confirms the Islamist faith that the global jihad enjoys divine endorsement. Islamists will redouble their efforts wherever they can. As for Iran’s rulers, they can now be confident that Mr. Biden represents no threat and will give them the deal they want, a deal that paves the way for a nuclear-armed Islamic state”.

 

These people have been wrong for something like 4,000 years with every decision they took pertaining to their own security, and with a straight face, are now trying to convince the world, they can protect it better than it can itself, from the pogroms and holocausts with which the Jews have become eternally associated.

 

Who is the sucker they hope will believe them and hand them the store?

Layers of lies to make a fraudulent narrative

 Just to engage in idle musings, think of a supremacist of some kind, coming up with a muttering that goes like this: Those natives we keep in the reservations are given privileges they do not deserve. We first gave them land that’s not theirs. We supported them financially for several centuries. And now that they are dying by COVID-19, they want us to give them free vaccine too. What’s the world coming to?

 

You start a conversation with that guy to find out what he thinks. So, you ask if he sees merit in the argument that says the natives owned this land before we stole it from them. He responds with a vehement denial, saying that this land is called America; it has been around for five centuries, and there never was a place called First Nation or Nunavut or Apache Land or whatever until we allowed it to happen. No, this land is ours because it was never theirs.

 

You continue probing him by asking: So then, what do you think should be done with them? And he responds, kick them out of the continent. Don’t give them vaccine or any financial help. Let them starve to death. Astonished at this reply, you follow up: So, you want them to go live in Asia or Africa or Europe like hungry and dying refugees … which, by the way, is close to what many of them are enduring right now? Is that what you want?

 

So what? He cries out, explaining: I am a refugee too and have been since my parents left the old country and brought me here before I was even born. Did they come as refugees? You ask. Of course, he says. He adds they were refugees because they left a house in the old country to come here and own a house and a car. That certainly makes them refugees. After a moment of reflection, he adds: So am I.

 

What a crazy story, you must be thinking, my dear reader. You are correct in saying it is crazy, but you’d be wrong to think it is a fictitious story that’s not based on any real-life incident. But if you want to read what will convince you this is as real as they come among the metaphoric cannibals of the chosen fanatics, all you need to do is read the article that came under the title: “Biden’s funding of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency harms Palestinians,” written by Cliff Smith and published on April 17, 2021 in The Washington Examiner.

 

Here, in condensed form, is how Cliff Smith described the situation in the mid to late 1940s when armed Jews from around the world were beckoned to descend on Palestine where they terrorized the Palestinians and fought the Brits who were occupying the land before them:

 

“The Biden administration’s decision to provide $150 million in funding to UNRWA cites concerns with how the COVID-19 pandemic is affecting Palestinians. The message is clear: The best way to end Palestinian suffering and aid in legitimate aspirations is to fund the agency. This message is false, Funding the agency exacerbates Palestinian suffering. Rather than ending human agony, the agency harms Palestinians. The agency was founded in the aftermath of Israel’s war to help deal with all refugees from that conflict, including Jewish refugees. As refugees located in Israel were resettled and granted citizenship, Palestinian refugees are those not accepted by Arab states as citizens”.

 

As can be seen, Cliff Smith begins by saying that whatever the aspirations of the Palestinians, America must let them die by COVID-19 or whatever. Why is that? Because they are agonizing, he says. He goes on to explain that UNRWA was founded when the two Jewish terrorist organizations, “Irgun and Hagenah” unleashed on the Palestinians the first ever terror campaign in the Middle East, creating the massive refugee problem that the Jews want to solve by exterminating what’s left of the Palestinians, through wars or by letting them die of hunger and disease.

 

To justify their actions and convince madmen like Donald Trump to join the fun of beating up on those who cannot defend themselves, Jews of the Cliff Smith variety are coming up with layers upon layers of lies. You can see some of that in Smith’s article. For example, what he calls Jewish refugees, were actually the armed thugs who responded to the call that beckoned them to come kill a Palestinian family, and grab their property.

 

As to the Palestinians that survived the Jewish onslaught, many of them migrated to the countries that take in immigrants such as the Americas, Australia and New Zealand. Others found jobs in Europe and the Middle East where they were subjected to the citizenship policy of each country.

 

And then there were the Palestinians who wanted to stay as close as possible to the homeland, waiting for a humane resolution of the conflict, to be imposed by the international community on the savages who run Israel by the force of American arms and money.

Two insane groups of dudes and one sane editor

 Finally, after a long wait, the world is about to celebrate the end of a nightmare that should have started and ended in a few days, twenty years ago.

 

It is the Afghan War that was necessitated by the tragedy of 9/11, and the refusal of Afghanistan’s Taliban to hand the culprit that caused it, Usama Bin Laden (UBL) to America for trial. The Americans responded by retaliating militarily against Afghanistan, a job that was completed in a week or so. And this is when the Americans should have gone home but did not. Why not?

 

It seems that the Americans got into the habit of playing cops to a world they gradually came to view as robbers. Well, they turned out to be very bad cops, even if they were correct in thinking that the world was full of crooks. But even then, the Americans made the mistake of identifying the wrong people as crooks, while listening to, and taking advice from the real crooks who masqueraded as paragons of virtue.

 

And there lies the jinx of America’s constant demise at the hands of her so-called friends and allies. The most terrible being the neocons who thirst to use America’s power and prestige to conquer the world under a plan they call Pax Americana. To that end, the neocons have been telling America it is threatened by an existential danger emanating from an Arab and Muslim world; a world that happens to form the neighborhood where Israel is situated. It is also a neighborhood that represents a buffer zone, which keeps Israel’s appetite for expansion under check.

 

To the Jews of America and Israel, America used to represent their best hope to break up the large neighboring countries into smaller rumps that Israel can overrun, and charge through the buffer zone that keeps it contained. To convince America to play the role they designed for it, the Jews came up with several narratives that seemed to work for a while, but were eventually debunked.

 

Undaunted, the Jewish neocons came up with a new narrative that seems to work for them at this time. But something else has happened as well that’s worrying them. It is that the new Biden administration has decided to end America’s twenty-year involvement in Afghanistan. This is pitting the rationale behind the American pullout against the new Jewish narrative. Here is how that narrative begins:

 

“Afghanistan is not an ‘endless war.’ Our presence there more closely resembles our continued involvement in Germany, Japan or Korea”.

 

You’ll find this quotation in the article that came under the title: “Biden, the marshmallow in chief, has learned nothing about Iran and Afghanistan,” written by Gary Anderson, and published on April 17, 2021 in The Washington Times.

 

This is as close as the neocon leaders came to admitting that the rhetoric they were spewing all along about America coming near to completing its mission in Afghanistan and going home, was nothing more than throwing dust in the eyes of the beholders. The real intent of the neocons has always been to keep America pinned down in the Afghan quagmire in fulfillment of the Pax Americana scheme they envisage serving the interests of Israel like never before.

 

That fake narrative was seconded by the contrived analysis of the editors at National Review Online who wrote the following in a piece they published on April 16, 2021 under the title, Biden’s risky Afghan Exit:

 

“It’s just not true that, as Biden put it, our reasons for remaining in Afghanistan are becoming increasingly unclear … The mission requires a continued US presence”.

 

The trouble with this narrative is that countries such as Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and others, are not in the same category as Germany, Japan or Korea. The latter had regular armies that were defeated on the battlefield, and with that came the occupation, which the exhausted civilian population could not fight against. Thus, the occupation went on without popular resistance, and in time, came to be accepted as part of the landscape.

 

The same cannot be said about populations that view an American occupation as the foreigners who come to change the way they live because someone believes they are primitive barbarians who need to be whipped into a civilized state. Nothing can be more insulting than this … it’s a humiliation that calls for the defense of the national honor, and almost everyone responds to such calls.

 

Aware of the neocons’ narrative, Jacob Heilbrunn who is the editor of The National Interest, preempted their publication of it a few days earlier by publishing the reality of the situation in an article of his own. It came under the title: “Joe Biden Ends the Afghan Nightmare,” printed on April 13, 2021 in the National Interest. Here is how Heilbrunn expressed his ideas:

 

“In announcing a complete exit from Afghanistan, President Joe Biden has dispensed with the fiction that America can somehow not only defeat the Taliban but also remake Afghanistan. It never could”.

 

The truth can be unpleasant at times, which is why some people avoid it like the plague. But the truth is the medicine that heals the festering wounds, maybe not so much those of the body, but the wounds of the spirit and the mind.

 

America needs large doses of that medicine to snap out its moribund descent into mass madness. The Evangelicals need to be pulled out their state of hypnotic trance to see for themselves that there is no Jerusalem in the sky waiting to be plucked by them. Selling America to the Jews in return for a lie that’s as obvious as the one about green men from Mars, will only earn them the contempt of future generations; their own embarrassed offspring.

A good debate in danger of being derailed

 Quin Hillyer has joined the debate with an article that came under the title: “Why does Biden let the UN ambassador tell the world the US is racist?” published on April 17, 2021 in The Washington Examiner.

 

Hillyer embarked on a debate that America needs to have. The trouble is that of those who already joined, and those who will eventually join, a good number will spoil the debate, even sabotage it intentionally or inadvertently. Hillyer has come close to being one of those, which is why it is important to set aside the merit of his argument for now, and concentrate on parsing the mentality that's powering that argument.

 

Hillyer began his presentation, powered by the Jewish mentality of pointing out the close relationship that exists between America's ambassador to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield and the Rev. Al Sharpton whom he described as having a history of helping foment riots, fostering anti-Semitism and evading taxes. Insult of this kind being the starting point where the Jewish haggling begins its journey to end up in the Judeo-Yiddish sewer, you immediately realize that Quin Hillyer's article will not advance the debate one inch. But if he is not doing that, what is he trying to do?

 

Well, instead of acknowledging the reality that there is a certain amount of insidious racism in America, and offering ideas on how to eradicate it (with the same fervor that he argues about combating anti-Semitism) Hillyer went on a rant that brought to light several points, each of which demonstrates, despite his denials, that racism has existed and continues to exist in America. Furthermore, these points show that people of goodwill have tried to combat racism, but have not succeeding as yet. Perhaps they are not succeeding because characters like Quin Hillyer are sabotaging their effort.

 

For example, he mentions Jefferson's inclusion of the sentence, “all men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence, without demonstrating that it means “individuals are equal” and not “states are equal,” which was Jefferson's declared intention. But even if we assume that Jefferson meant otherwise, Hillyer would still have to explain how considering a Black person as worth 3/5 a White person, makes it so that racism never existed in America or that it is now less serious a problem than anti-Semitism.

 

Hillyer goes on to say that, “White supremacy was not woven into our founding principles. Instead, our principles undermined the practice of white supremacy.” This is his way of saying there may be white supremacists in America, but no institution was ever tainted by that horrible principle. You like this idea so much, you want to say to him: “I want to believe you Quin, I hope you are right,” but before you're finished saying it, he mugs you with the following:

 

“This is a society that bled a half-million lives to eradicate slavery, which 57 years ago passed the Civil Rights Act, which has practiced affirmative action for half a century, and which aggressively promotes anti-racism in public life [to counter] the racist views of some benighted individuals”.

 

It is obvious that Quin Hillyer does not realize that because half a million people were killed in a civil war, he must accept the reality that half the nation wanted to abolish slavery against the will of the other half. The good half won the war, but then what happened? The bad half was not kicked out of the country. On the contrary, it was absorbed by the good half that nevertheless neglected to “De-confederalize” the South. And this is what prompted the woke crowd of the twenty first century to start working on fixing the problem; which it did in its own peculiar way.

 

And that must be the reason why, like Hillyer says, 57 years ago, America felt compelled to pass the Civil Rights Act, practice affirmative action for half a century, and aggressively promote anti-racism. But did that work? It is obvious that it did not. It did not because those who are affected by it –– and there are millions of them, from the downtrodden to the highly accomplished executives –– say that all those efforts have not worked as well as hoped for. It is that when push comes to shove, the color of their skin, and not the content of their character, determines how they are treated by others.

 

Still, many of them agree that progress has been made, but one of two things must have also happened simultaneously. Either progress has stalled, or there has been a regression. This is not too difficult to see, given that physical aggression against Asians has picked up dramatically from the days when they were only referred to as Pakis and Yellow Bellies, but not beaten up. And if we are to believe the Jewish organizations that constantly complain about the rise of anti-Semitism, there has been an increase there too. And so, given that this is the current trend in America, only someone that’s deeply, deeply foolish would venture to say that anti-Black racism has not increased in some ways, in some places.

 

This brings us to the Quin Hillyer article and those of the criminally insane that were hypnotically programmed to jump the gun and make all kinds of insane accusations when someone that's not a Jew says they are badly treated and wish to be treated better. It’s all they want; nothing more than that.