He defines the classic half-baked intellectual

 Let us arbitrarily set up a three-level gradation for what constitutes an intellectual.

 

At the bottom level, you have the deprived of original thinking. An example would be the woman who is born with a gargantuan appetite to grab power and become President of the United States. She is told that power resides in kissing up to Jews, and so she does that.

 

One day she hears a Jew say that Israel and Jews are one and the same. Moments later, she meets another Jew who says that Israel and Jews are two different things. And so, she goes in front of the caucus that will pick someone to run for the presidency, and says the following to the attendees: You are antisemitic for saying that the Jews and Israel are one and the same. And you are antisemitic for saying that the Jews and Israel are two different things.

 

At the top level, you have those who are endowed with intellects that can see complex subjects from several angles, and possess the talent to propose a creative solution that can please all sides in a dispute. They mediate between the two sides with finesse, such that no side ever wants to reject their final recommendation offhand.

 

An example would be a Henry Kissinger who was berated by Golda Meier for seeing the Arab side of the dispute as well as he could the Israeli side. She wanted him to wear his Jewish hat, and see only the Israeli side. That’s when he told her he was an American working for America, and not for Israel. And he came up with creative solutions that were tested by time, and proven solid.

 

Between the top and the bottom levels, you have the half-baked intellectuals who would see one side of a controversy and defend it without realizing that the half they neglected will doom what they are defending. The result is that when push comes to shove, they will not know what hit them.

 

An example of that is Jed Babbin who demonstrated his ill-conceived ideas in an article he wrote under the title: “Biden’s ‘no first use’ strategy would dismantle nuclear deterrence,” published on November 29, 2021 in The Washington Times.

 

Here, in condensed form, is how Jed Babbin has painted the current landscape with regard to America’s nuclear posture, and what the near future may hold:

 

“President Biden may soon fold up the ‘nuclear umbrella’ under which we and our allies have been sheltered. Presidents issue a document called the nuclear posture review. It sets US policy on the use of nuclear weapons. Our posture has been a strategic ambiguity. The enemies could only guess when we would use nuclear weapons. It was an effective deterrent to aggression. The Pentagon and State are drafting a new nuclear posture. The decision for Mr. Biden is whether his posture will change our policy from ambiguity to ‘no first use.’ The latter would commit that under no circumstance of a non-nuclear attack against the US or our allies would we use nuclear weapons in response, promising not to respond to a conventional, biological, chemical or cyberattack”.

 

Given that during the Cold War and beyond, all the talk was about maintaining enough of a retaliatory force to respond to a first strike attack, the two sides knew that the use of nuclear weapons by one side will mean the destruction of the planet, a calamity that will affect both sides. But this did not deter either side from conducting what the other deemed to be aggression. For example, America was seen to throw bombs all over the global map, whereas the Soviet Union was seen invading Afghanistan. This is why Jed Babbin’s assertion that America’s posture of nuclear ambiguity, “was an effective deterrent to aggression,” raises some eyebrows.

 

But this alone does not make of Jed Babbin a half-baked intellectual. To establish whether or not he deserves to be so labeled, we’ll have to look into what he says about the policy of promising not to be first at using nuclear weapons, but doing so only in response to a nuclear attack by the enemy. Here, in condensed form, is what Babbin said in that regard:

 

“The problem with No First Use (NFU) is that under that policy, Russia, China and any other aggressor would be given carte blanche to launch any conventional attack on the US or our allies without fear of nuclear reprisal. Our ‘nuclear umbrella’ would be collapsed and tossed in the trash. Ambiguity is of enormous value. If an aggressor isn’t sure what we would do in response to a particular attack, no sane leader would risk a US nuclear response. Were we to adopt NFU, there would be no nuclear deterrent to any non-nuclear attack”.

 

Well, as shown above, ambiguity did not deter aggression by either side given that aggression has been the norm since the last World War. But what is dangerous about ambiguity is something that escapes the warmongers of the “Western World.” It is that whenever these people think up of something to do to the enemy, they neglect to consider that the other side might, and probably will, respond in kind.

 

So, imagine both America and China adopting the policy of ambiguity with no red telephone between the two leaders to communicate in the event that a missile was launched (1) by accident; or (2) no missile was launched but the radars picked up false signals; or (3) a small nuclear power launches a missile carrying no nuclear weapon but the missile veers off course and threatens either superpower; or (4) a terrorist group launches a missile carrying a weapon of mass destruction of any kind, precisely to provoke a nuclear war. Then what?

 

In fact, throughout the Cold War, the fear was not that either superpower will go crazy and start a nuclear war. The fear was that a war might start by accident. This is why a red telephone was established between the White House and the Kremlin.

 

Jed Babbin has displayed an intense inability to consider the reality that for every action taken by America, the other side will react one way or the other, thus change his calculation. And this makes him a classic half-baked intellectual.

A Congressional Crime in Progress that can potentially cost American Lives

There is no analogy I can begin with that will clarify the subject I’m about to discuss, than the clarity of the subject itself. For this reason, I shall delve directly into the particulars of the subject without leading the discussion with a preamble.

 

The crime syndicate that’s dedicated to the establishment of streams of cash running out of America and into Israel, came up with a scheme they call “Iron Dome.” Already more than a billion and a half dollars have moved to Israel under that rubric, and another billion has been allocated to fly out of America and land in Israel as soon as it will be feasible to do so.

 

To con the American public into believing that the Iron Dome is capable of intercepting and destroying incoming rockets, the Jewish propaganda machine launched a multi-year campaign to make the performance of the thing sound like a perfection only the deities can attain. And to make all of that believable, the Jewish leaders recruited their usual prostitutes in the Congress, and had them work on mandating the American military to buy and deploy what the military had already determined was a piece of unmitigated garbage whose deployment will cause the death of American soldiers.

 

Described by the Jews as the system that saved Israel several times by intercepting rockets coming from Gaza, the American military that tested the Iron Dome, gave it a performance rating of zero. Because this means the military believes that the claims about the Iron Dome are one big fat lie, the Jews responded: Well, never mind intercepting rockets, how about intercepting something bigger and much slower than rockets? Maybe, something like drones or cruise missiles?

 

To do that, said the Americans, we’ll have to integrate the Iron Dome into our multi-layered system. But this will be impossible because the communication protocol we have among our various units is not compatible with the Iron Dome’s. And so, the Israelis asked the American company Raytheon to adapt the Iron Dome’s protocol, and make it compatible with the one used by the American military.

 

When this was done, the question then became: How and for what purpose should the Iron Dome be tested? Because the system will not intercept rockets no matter what protocol it runs on, the only thing that can be done to save face, and give the Congressional prostitutes a fig leaf behind which to hide their naked treason of the country, the American military accepted to take the Iron Dome to the Island of Guam and pretend to “test” it there.

 

This was done, and the Jewish News Syndicate wrote the story under the headline: “US Army finds three-week test of Iron Dome at Guam airbase to be successful,” which it published on November 26, 2021. The publication says that the America army issued a report stating the following:

 

“Iron Dome deployed to Guam with a full complement of training missiles, but it hasn’t been doing live fire … We’ve been running multiple simulations between both units and the command-and-control element … The main thing we were trying to get after was to test the deployment of the system and the ability to operate with a low and upper-tier asset”.

 

Do you know what this means, my friend? It means there was no real test done. There was a simulation during which the array of radars and sensors that have been detecting incoming projectiles for decades in Guam, were programmed to indicate seeing a number of incoming projectiles. The system “decided” what was what, and informed the Patriot Defense system how many long-range missiles were coming from which direction. It also informed the anti-aircraft artillery and Surface to Air Missies (SAM) how many heavy bombers were coming from which direction. And it informed the so-called Iron Dome how many drones and/or cruise missiles were coming from which direction.

 

So, do you think the Iron Dome launched and brought down a drone or a cruise missile? Not on your life. The exercise was only a simulation to see if the adaptation of the communication protocol done by Raytheon, was working. It did. But why not test the Iron Dome’s ability to intercept a drone or a cruise missile? Because there was a near hundred percent probability that it will fail trying to do even that.

 

It would have been an embarrassment of biblical proportions. Do you know why, my friend? Because for several decades now, there have been shoulder-held missiles that can do this job effectively one hundred percent of the time. Every military has some of these missiles. Even terrorist organizations have them now, as they can be bought from arms dealers.

 

And there is more to this story.

 

Here is the full story: Israel had this kind of missiles in its arsenal for eons. They are the kind that Israel has transferred to Iran when pressured by Ronald Reagan who wanted to see the hostages in Iran freed on the day of his inauguration. To comply with that request, the Iranians asked for shoulder-held missiles in return, and Israel supplied them because American law prohibited this kind of transactions. Now Iran is so advanced technologically, it makes superior models of anti-aircraft missiles.

 

It remains to be seen if the Congress of prostitutes will continue to betray the people it was elected to serve, and remain on the path of infamy where it has been for half a century.

 

Will the Congress proceed to loot billions of dollars from the already stressed American taxpayers, and give that treasure to the bible-studying, trigger happy, lazy settlers and murderous robbers of Palestine?

 

Or will the Congress repent and start deliberating the business of America, not deliberate the best way to kiss a Jewish ass?

Fabricating the inescapable conditions for war

If you woke up one day during the last two decades or so, to the reality that there was talk of war everywhere you looked, you may have asked yourself: How did we get here?

 

Well, the talk of war has abated since, but that’s not because the warmongers have suddenly turned dovish. They are still around in their old skins, and still plotting to get America tangled in situations that can lead to what they call Kinetic War, which is a lot more hellish than a Cold War.

 

Two articles published recently show how those warmongers grab America by the nose, and drag it to a world where the reigning paradigm is nothing but war, war, war.

 

One article came under the title: “Why ‘Confrontation’ with China Cannot be avoided,’ and the subtitle: “A resolute policy of confrontation now is the United States’ best hope of eventually convincing Beijing to change course and put us on a path toward a genuinely competitive and cooperative future.” The article was coauthored by Matthew Kroenig and Dan Negrea, and was published on November 26, 2021 in the National Interest.

 

The other article came under the title: “Biden and Xi’s Scripted Summit Was More Talk than Action,” and the subtitle: “Given the consequences of miscommunication at a time when tensions are high already in Asia, it might have been better not to press for the virtual summit.” The article was written by Brent D. Sadler, and published on November 27, 2021 also in the National Interest.

 

As can be seen from the titles and subtitles of these two articles, the way that the warmongers drag America by the nose, and push it into perpetual wars, is to employ a two-pronged method. First, they advance the absurd theory that America must stop talking to potential foes because talking to them risks creating miscommunication. This leads to the inferred conclusion that silence is golden. Second, they advance the equally absurd theory that the absence of efficacious give-and-take with a potential foe, leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable. So, might as well love the bomb, and learn to live with it.

 

Here, in condensed form, is how Brent Sadler presented his views:

 

“Many weeks of planning went into the summit meeting between Joe Biden and Xi Jinping. The summit really didn’t help. It may well have hurt. Preparations for the summit started with the Chinese berating Antony Blinken. Subsequent interactions had little impact. These engagements did not ease tensions in the Taiwan Strait. Even though the bilateral summit was scripted, there was no discussion of Covid-19’s origin. Beijing responds best to action, not talk. Given the consequences of miscommunication, it might have been better not to press for the virtual summit. Beijing appreciates power not words. Follow-up and clarification could have been avoided if the focus had been on actions instead”.

 

There was a time when the warmongers had to dish out a great deal of verbiage to explain why America must mobilize and send its boys and girls, along with oodles of money, to perish in a foreign land, doing war to achieve God-knows-what. In time, that approach became stale, and ineffective.

 

But then, one day, a pundit among the warmongers, who realized they were operating with a useless idea, hit on a new one that could replace the old. He came up with the idea that Brent Sadler has used on two occasions in his article. Here is how Sadler used the idea: (1) “Beijing responds best to action, not talk.” (2) “Beijing appreciates power not words”.

 

Since that time, every warmonger and his disciple have tried to motivate America (to mobilize its boys and girls and send them to war) by telling it that the foe they want to see bombed into the Stone Age, does not budge by words alone, but responds to power and action. This meant, stop talking, America and start bombing.

 

This brings us to the Matthew Kroenig and Dan Negrea article. Here in condensed form, is what these two writers wrote:

 

“President Joe Biden held a high-profile summit with Xi Jinping. The meeting produced no new breakthroughs for Sino-US cooperation. Indeed, the inefficacious exchange raises a bigger question about the true nature of the US-China relationship. Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump both desired arms control talks with Beijing, but the CCP refused to even come to the table. It is doubtful that Biden will have better luck. The United States and its allies, therefore, should push back hard on China to defend themselves and to show China’s leaders that challenging the United States and its allies is too difficult and costly for Beijing, and ultimately not in China’s own self-interest. Achieving future cooperation with China will require confrontation now. Washington should augment its own deterrent, including with theater nuclear forces in the Indo-Pacific”.

 

What you see here, is yet another trick that was invented by the warmongers, and used by them as well as their disciples. Kroenig and Negrea used it as follows to make their point: “Achieving future cooperation with China will require confrontation now”.

 

It sounds like, “buy now, pay later” in reverse. It was what the warmongers had recommended when they told America to attack by cruise missiles, helicopters, or the full array of the military, the nations of Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

What America did was pay the price up front by attacking those nations. But then, America never got delivery of what it thought it was buying. It is that instead of making friends, America made enemies.

 

In addition, America got body bags by the thousands, filled with dead American bodies. It also got chests that were emptied of the wealth squandered by the elected criminals of the Beltway.

Two rising giants taming a confused old timer

Anatoly Antonov is the Russian ambassador to the United States. Qin Gang is the Chinese ambassador to the United States. They coauthored an article that sends a set of messages to the White House. They did so in an article that came under the title: “Respecting People’s Democratic Rights”.

 

Published in the National Interest on November 26, 2021, the ambassadors’ article also came under a subtitle that summarizes the essence of their messages. It is the following: The upcoming American-led online Summit for Democracy will stoke ideological confrontation. Faced with an array of global challenges, countries urgently need to strengthen coordination and cooperation for common progress”.

 

It is evident from the content of the article that the Russians and the Chinese do not view the upcoming summit as an end in itself, but a hammer with which America will want to batter other systems of governance. Worse still, they see America use the summit as a weapon with which to start engaging other systems of governance in a new cold war.

 

The two ambassadors did not formulate such views out of thin air, but did so based on their study of America’s behavior for many years. And so, as it turns out, their article is designed to expose what America has done that was inappropriate in their view, and rebut each item as a preemptive respond to what they expect will develop at the summit. Here is how the ambassadors started the conversation:

 

“The United States will be empowering itself to define who is a democratic country and who is not. This trend contradicts the development of the modern world. It could not prevent the shaping of a global polycentric architecture but could strain the process”.

 

And here are the areas where the ambassadors are rebutting America’s contentions:

 

1. Peace, Freedom, democracy and the like, are universal values that belong to everyone, thus are not the monopoly of one country or a bloc of them. And neither are these values developed by one system at the exclusion of others. On the contrary, each country is different, and has unique needs that can be provided for only by its people in accordance with the system of democracy they develop for themselves by themselves. Here is what the ambassadors said in that regard:

 

“Democracy can be realized in one of many ways, and no model can fit all countries. Ultimately, it relies on the support of the people and will be proven by its contribution to human progress. A basic criterion of democracy should be about the people: whether they have the right to govern their country, whether their needs are met, and whether they have a sense of fulfillment and happiness”.

 

2. Democracy is not an undertaking that can be performed through the automatic ritual of waking up periodically to cast a vote, then go back into political hibernation, and stay there till the next wake up period comes upon us, at which time we repeat the ritual. Here is what the ambassadors said in that regard:

 

“If the people are awakened to cast their votes, then sent back to hibernation after the voting, if they are served with slogans in campaigns but have no say after the election, if they are wooed during canvassing but left out in the cold after that, this is not a genuine democracy. By contrast, China has an extensive, whole-process democracy that reflects the people’s will, suits the country’s realities, and enjoys strong support from the people. In China, the people can get deeply involved in national governance, exercising their power through the People's Congresses at the national and other levels”.

 

3. The purpose of Democracy is not for one country to realize the benefits of this form of governance at the exclusion of the others. On the contrary, Democracy is the attempt to see the fruits of this system spread throughout the world. It is a mission that can be accomplished only by respecting the differences exhibited by the other systems. Here is what the ambassadors said in this regard:

 

“It has been proven that the process of democracy works well in China. It is why the country calls for building a community with a shared future for mankind. As residents of the same global village, we should handle international affairs through consultation. So believes Russia, which is a democratic, law-governed state where the development of democracy is related to culture and traditions. Like China, Russia’s Democracy is not just about domestic governance; it is also reflected in international relations. That’s because a truly democratic government will support democracy everywhere. It will not foster hegemony and division abroad while building democracy and unity at home. The path to the prosperity of nations goes through respectful cooperation with each other, despite the differences in views on particular issues”.

 

4. And so, instead of coercing others into one form of Democratic governance, China and Russia propose that America adhere to the established norms. They were developed over the decades, and have worked well for the human race ever since. Here is what the ambassadors said in this regard:

 

“International affairs should be handled in accordance with the principles of extensive consultation, joint contribution, and shared benefits, and should be decided in the spirit of true multilateralism. There is only one international system in the world with the United Nations at its core. There is only one international order that’s underpinned by international law. And there is only one set of rules based on the purposes and principles of the UN Charter”.

 

And so, the Summit for Democracy will come and go. Given that the world is in no mood to follow America into yet another harebrained venture, the summit will leave behind a short-lived legacy in terms of its effect on the world. But it will also leave a record that future students of history will view as a last-ditch American effort to make itself relevant … an effort that turned out to be worthless.

You cannot sell what you cannot define

With or perhaps without fanfare, the greatest circus on Earth since the now defunct Barnum and Bailey, will get underway in a few days. It will feature a handful of protection racketeers who will demonstrate how to play the farce known as Democracy in a vain effort to convince other dudes to join them.

 

Democracy has become a protection racket that practices the code of silence when its members commit evil acts, but sounds the horn of shock and dismay when others commit a fraction of what the racketeers commit. When looked at with suspicion by the good people of the Earth, the racketeers create a circus-like feel such as the one they are about to stage, to try changing the world’s perception of them.

 

Believe it or not, there was a time when Democracy was practiced by individual nations that adhered to stately principles, thus delivered good government to its subjects. But when competition from other forms of governance began to pressure the various Democracies, they banded together, believing in the saying: “united we stand, divided we fall”.

 

However, instead of helping them, the coming together of Democracies highlighted the deficiencies of a system whose planks proved to be so fragile, no Democracy could stand alone against a minimal pressure coming from the outside. This became apparent at a time when the so-called Autocracies were braving the pressure from the mightiest of Democracies and winning the battle for survival.

 

In fact, the theory in circulation at this time, is to the effect that the staging of the upcoming Democratic circus, was motivated by the realization that Democracy is losing to other forms of government. In reality, these are new forms in the experimental stage, but whatever they represent, they are straightforward and simple forms that appear less hypocritical than the Democracies, and more respectful of what the other nations decide for themselves.

 

And so, the circus will proceed even as people you might not expect are beginning to voice suspicion that it will not do any good. Two of these people are Katie LaRoque and Patrick W. Quirk who coauthored: “Is US Democracy Promotion Credible After Afghanistan?” an article that also came with the subtitle: “While the Summit for Democracy will issue a rallying cry for freedom and democracy defenders, actions—not rhetoric—are needed to rebuild trust and restore this administration’s credibility in the eyes of those who risk their lives for democratic progress.” It was published on November 25, 2021 in The National Interest.

 

Here, in condensed form, is how Katie LaRoque and Patrick Quick expressed their suspicion:

 

“The Biden administration is convening its Summit for Democracy. The event comes on the heels of America abandoning Afghanistan’s democracy advocates. What is evident is that leaving Afghanistan’s populations to the Taliban regime casts a dark shadow over the high-level gathering”.

 

As can be seen, LaRoque and Quirk are not suspicious that America will push hard to sell a discredited system of governance; they are suspicious of an America that lost the drive to make a strong case for Democracy. They see this happening as a result of the fiasco that took place during the Afghan pullout, and fear that the consequence of the whole chain of events, is that the people of Afghanistan will ultimately be left alone to defend themselves under the regime of the Taliban.

 

The two authors contend that America’s fundamental problem is that its leaders have lost credibility in the eyes of the world. And so, they recommend that the first thing America should do is address this problem. They suggest that restoration of credibility can be done when America will talk less about democracy—given that talk is cheap—and stand more firmly with those who risk their lives fighting for Democracy. To that end, they say there are a number of steps that America should take to bring about positive results.

 

The first thing that America must do, say LaRoque and Quirk, is to go all out and save Afghanistan’s freedom fighters, currently in the country. To motivate President Joe Biden to do just that, they remind him of the words he uttered when he said the following: “We will continue to work to help more people leave the country who are at risk. And we’re far from done”.

 

Next, the writers want to see the President of the United States do what they describe as backing his words with forceful action. To that end, they begin by saying that while economic sanctions should not be discarded, America must consider more forceful measures to punish the regimes “that make their people suffer”.

 

And then, our dear authors say they want America to invoke the “Right to Assist,” which is a self-serving principle according to which America and its racketeering comrades could and would empower themselves with the right to declare a regime that does not toe their line, as being non-democratic, therefore a regime that lost its sovereignty.

 

With that, the racketeers will open the door for themselves to proceed in any way they see fit, including the limited use of force (that presumably will not mission-creep,) the arrest of individuals they dislike (to do what with them, they don’t say), and the cyberattack of the country’s infrastructure, presumably to whip the population they try to save, and force-motivate it to rise up and topple the regime that refuses to join the Democratic racket.

 

Finally, reading the LaRoque and Quirk article with a critical eye, you’ll notice that the authors spoke of “freedom” and of “democracy” interchangeably as if they were synonymous without defining either or showing the nexus between them.

 

Had they done any of that, the authors might have convinced the readers they made a worthy contribution to the debate. But where things stand now, the readers will most certainly ask: Does Democracy mean voting to choose between a racket of the Left and one of the Right? Does Freedom mean kids organizing to smash and grab stores?

 

If none of that. What exactly is Democracy? What exactly is Freedom?

The so-called cure that aggravates the disease

You don’t have to have several PhDs in subjects like philosophy, math and science under your belt to look at two sets of statistics, and know that they represent two similar graphs, thus conclude that there is a close correlation between them.

 

If during a pandemic, one graph is labelled: “number of people who used medicine,” and the other graph is labelled: “number of people cured of disease,” you have good news to report. That’s because, translated into plain English, the correlation means that the medicine is doing what it’s supposed to do, which is to cure the sick.

 

If now, the maker of graphs walks into the office, takes the existing ones off the table and replaces them with new graphs, you get worried. You ask: what’s this about? and he says: The new graphs are about the current pandemic; the other graphs were about something else. You protest: But in these graphs, the number of people who used the medicine goes up, while the number of people who got cured goes down. And the maker of graphs says: Precisely; this is an inverse correlation between the supposed cure, and the actual result. It means that the medicine is making people sicker instead of curing them.

 

Let’s be clear about this, you’ll have to be a criminally insane sadistic savage to go out of that office and shout at the top of your lungs that the medicine is good because it cures people. Well, my friend, you must be asking: What the hell is this? Is it some kind of weird analogy? I’ll tell you what it is. It’s about the Jewish leaders compiling two sets of statistics that show an inverse correlation between them. But like the criminally insane sadistic savage, they continue to promote what they say is a cure when in reality, it kills Jews. And they never for a moment think of ending the practice.

 

Here is what’s been happening: Time after time after time, the Jewish leaders bragged about the number of American states and foreign countries that passed anti-BDS laws. Time after time after time, they bragged about the American states and foreign nations that adopted the Jewish definition of antisemitism. And time after time after time, they bragged about the people that recanted what they had said previously when pressured to apologize by the Jews. And the list goes on, displaying a graph that goes up and up with the passage of time.

 

And while doing all that bragging, the Jews also used to blow their entrails out of their bellies hollering their pain because the statistics they compiled as well as those of the FBI, were showing that acts of antisemitism in America and everywhere in the world were going up and up with the passage of time.

 

Anyone that has or has not a PhD in philosophy or math or science, will know that in this case, the two graphs are going in the same direction, showing a direct correlation between them. It means that the more the Jews get what they want from the various governments, the more they are resented by their respective publics. This should be bad news for the Jews, because to be good news, the graphs would have to show an inverse correlation between them. And they are not.

 

This being the case, why is it that the Jewish leaders continue to pressure the State governments in America and around the world to do more of what makes the masses of people resent the Jews?

 

It could not be that the political leaders are unaware of the reality that what they do, is administer a supposed cure that intensifies the supposed sickness. Also, it could not be that the political leaders are unaware of the reality that the resentment of the masses is interpreted by the Jews to be a manifestation of antisemitism. And it could not be that the political leaders are unaware of the reality that the perception of antisemitism causes the Jews to demand that more measures be taken to favor them. And it could not be that the political leaders are unaware of the reality this is how the vicious spiral starts a downward trajectory to end in tragedy.

 

You can see an example of how this sickly scenario has been playing out, when you read the article that came under the title: “Tackling the Disease of Anti-Semitism,” written by Michael Curtis, and published on November 24, 2021 in The American Thinker.

 

Michael Curtis is reporting that the European Commission announced it was presenting a strategy on combatting antisemitism. It proposes measures centered on three factors: preventing antisemitism, protecting Jewish life and promoting education about the Holocaust.

 

What’s wrong with those Jews, who stand on the proverbial railway track, see the train come at them, and refuse to budge? Here is a passage in Michael Curtis’s article that hints at a possible answer:

 

“At the county’s Independence Day, the ruler of Belarus remarked that no one today would dare to raise a voice and deny the Holocaust, because the Jews have succeeded in making the whole world bow down to them. The entire world is afraid to say a single word out of place”.

 

Whether the Jewish leaders believe this is true or not, seeing heads of states so terrified of their power, must be generating adrenaline in their systems without which they cannot live, having become addicted to it. And this explains the following sentence in the Curtis article:

 

“The European Commission recommends commemorating the Holocaust publicly, including participation in the national parliaments, and increasing education about the Holocaust”.

 

That prompts this question: What’s wrong with the commissioners of Europe and others like them, who first recognize that the Jewish leaders are addicted to power and privilege, then treat their withdrawal symptoms by giving them more of what they crave?

 

Here is the short answer: The commissioners mistakenly believe this is the way to get those addicts out of Europe’s hair.

False deterrence is a bluff that can be called

Near the end of the 1950s, and throughout the 1960s, the big debate—notwithstanding the Sputnik moment—was about the predicted collapse of the Soviet Union. The fear expressed by most everyone at the time, was that the military of that country will lash out at the world with an offensive that will start a nuclear war, thus end up destroying the Planet.

 

Well, it took a bit of time for the Soviet Union to collapse, but it did not lash out at the world as predicted. On the contrary, the Soviet leaders did the most civilized act you could imagine by acknowledging that they operated with a bad system for seventy years. And so, they humbly asked America—which had been their foe throughout the Cold War—to help them pull their Federation out of the disorder in which it found itself, and rebuild it to perform as well as America’s economic and political systems.

 

Fast forward to a time when America thoughtlessly elected George W. Bush (43) to be its first “Jewish President,” as derisively remarked by his own family. Regardless of what was said about him, Bush made it so that the Jewish entourage he brought around him, was given a free hand to formulate the doctrine he publicly stated as being to never allow any nation or a combination of them to become as strong as America, let alone surpass it militarily or economically.

 

This meant that America was going to adopt the Israeli method of operation, which was to try destroying the scientific and technological installations of its potential foes so as to prevent them from modernizing their countries or advance their societies. But while Israel counted on America to give it the most advanced weapons it has, while at the same time doing what it could to deny Israel’s neighbors procuring weapons of equal performance, who will America count on to help it when it’ll get into trouble? The answer is that there is nobody around that can do for America what America cannot do for itself.

 

Aside from that, when we compare the American acts of destroying the installations of its rivals out of fear and desperation, with the false predictions that were made about the Soviet Union lashing out at the world as it dissolved, we see some similarities but also see a difference that is disquieting. It is that the Soviet Union never stated such doctrine, and had no one telling it what to do, certainly not the Jews. In contrast, America has proven to be the trigger-happy doped soldier who is marching to the Jewish drumbeat of war, war and still more war.

 

Between the years 2013 and 2020, the call of the Jewish pundits had been an open incitement for America to dictate and impose Israel’s terms on Iran with regard to the latter’s nuclear program, or bomb that country into the Stone Age if it refused to comply. After seven years, the Jews finally realized that they were whistling Dixie, and were turning the American people against them as they endlessly repeated the call to war that no one wanted to hear. And so, the Jews changed their tune. What they do now is ask that America take the necessary measures to deter Iran. The big word these days is “deterrence”.

 

That being the new called-for Jewish doctrine, it has spilled over from the way to treat Iran, to the way that America is advised to treat all its foes including the two military superpowers Russia and China. You can see how this plays out in the article that came under the title: “Putin barks, Biden blinks,” written by Tom Rogan, and published on November 23, 2021 in The Washington Examiner.

 

Here, in condensed form is what Tom Rogan had to say about this matter:

 

“President Joe Biden has established a Russia policy centered on appeasement. Pentagon press secretary John Kirby evinces as much, saying that the directive is in keeping with our desire to see a de-escalation of tensions in the region and help create space for a diplomatic resolution. This is a truly delusional strategy. But especially misguided is the timing of the decision to leak this directive. It comes a few days after Putin warned that NATO air activities threatened to cross Russian red lines. The strategy is exactly the wrong US message to send and the wrong time to send it. The directive shows an absence of resolve. NATO has serious issues, but the worst thing the US could do would be to back away from deterrence activity. What if the Russians seize Ukraine, then masses forces against Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania? These are hypothetical scenarios. Once again, deterrence matters”.

 

Note that in keeping with the Jewish style of using the loaded tropes of the 1930s, Tom Rogan started his discussion by accusing Joe Biden of establishing a policy that’s centered on appeasement.

 

Yes, it is that word, “appeasement” which invokes the image of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain of Britain who returned to his country after meeting with Hitler, and assured the British people that the Munich Agreement which allowed Hitler to keep Czechoslovakia’s Sudetenland, was going to guarantee that peace will reign in Europe.

 

Thus, Tom Rogan’s message is that to refrain from deterring Russia and China at this time, risks engulfing Europe in something like the event which resulted from Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement. That would be a calamitous war.

 

The thing is that having seen how well the Nazis were fighting, it was the entire British government, not just Chamberlain, who knew that trying to deter Hitler would have been a useless undertaking. They judged that he was going to call their bluff and proceed with his plans no matter what.

 

So, this is the question for Tom Rogan and his fellow warmongers: What if America “deterred,” either Russia or China or both, and they called the bluff? Then what?

Tobin created a paradigm entirely of fantasies

People that were incarcerated in solitary confinement in some kind of gulag and are released, tell how they spent their time defeating boredom.

 

Each tells a different story but they all have one common element. It is that they imagined a complete paradigm in which they featured and played a leading role.

 

This raises an important question: What happens to a child that grows up in a virtual gulag that’s none other than the family home in which he is raised, surrounded by the society to which the family belongs?

 

As if living in a cocoon without walls, the child grows up seeing the world in which he exists; one that is different from the world out there; a world that is just as real to him. He interacts with both worlds by being himself when surrounded by the society to which he belongs, and pretending to be someone else when in the world that’s out there, requiring him to follow norms contradicting the realities of home.

 

This is what happens to the children of families that migrate from one culture to a markedly different culture. Fortunately, what happens most of the time—with rare exceptions—is that the parents quickly grasp the burden that’s placed on their children, and encourage them to blend with the society they have themselves adopted to be theirs and that of their descendants.

 

Because migration has been the norm throughout human history, a scenario of that sort must have played out millions of times on Planet Earth. But then, something curious happened to humans; one that added a new dimension to the reality of migration. It was a phenomenon that may be called “Religious Fanaticism.” With it came rituals and modes of living that were so rigid, they prevented some migrants from adapting to the culture in which they settled.

 

Whereas in most cases, the migrants either adapted to the ways of their adopted homes, or converted the locals to their own beliefs and way of life, one group of religious fanatics has resisted this trend. They are the Jews who, unlike what the Christians and the Muslims did, failed to convert whole nations to Judaism or fully assimilate in the cultures to which they migrated. Because of this, the Jews failed to escape persecution everywhere they went for being threateningly different from the locals.

 

What’s happening to the Jews nowadays throughout the Planet, is that they are reviled by the local populations because of two phenomena which are unfolding simultaneously. One phenomenon is that the Jews stole a country called Palestine, and are treating its unarmed local population with unprecedented savagery. The other phenomenon is that, having deployed their full bag of trickeries, the Jews managed to transform superpower America into a killer that’s ravaging the Planet like never before.

 

Whereas the leaders of America remain in their hypnotic state, mindlessly obeying the Jewish commands, the ordinary people of America are waking up to the reality that they have become a mere plantation in existence for the sole purpose of serving the Jews, as well as their pet project in Palestine which they now call Israel. The people of America are getting restless, they are shaking their own leaders, imploring them to wake up. And this is causing the Jewish leaders to run scared.

 

One of those Jewish leaders, is Jonathan S. Tobin who wrote an article in which he displays the difficulties that the Jews experience having to live in two worlds at the same time. Tobin’s article came under the title: “Biden’s ‘build back better’ message to Iran, Israel and the Arabs,” published in the online publication Jewish News Syndicate on November 22, 2021.

 

Those who were reading Jonathan Tobin over the years while also following the events of the real world, would have detected the extent of divergence between the Jewish world that Tobin was describing, and the real world he thought he knew but did not. Well, he is doing that same thing again in his current article, something we can study to understand where the Jews have taken America, and where they are heading with or without America.

 

The fantasies that make up the paradigm created by Jonathan Tobin are many, but one is noteworthy because it makes up a good part of his current article. It is the following:

 

Tobin is implying that because Israel, like Jews, does not do anything that’s not a paragon of absolute perfection, the work it has been doing to make life miserable for the Iranian people, is of such high quality, you must conclude that sooner or later, the people of Iran will start committing mass suicide, perhaps a million at a time, to be relieved of the pain that Israel is heaping on them. Here is a sampling of that:

 

“Note Israel’s highly successful efforts at sabotaging Tehran’s program and threatening to take military action with or without American help. Note also Israel’s successes inside Iran, including assassinations and explosions at facilities. Think how it would be if the Israelis hadn’t been playing havoc with Tehran’s facilities and putting the fear of God into those working there. The point about Israel’s efforts harassing the Iranians is that they’ve tied the regime up in knots searching for a set up inside the country that has resulted in epic intelligence coups and operations. The Iranians have no idea where or when the Israelis will strike next or how it will happen, and that means the regime cannot protect its assets or its equipment. What the Israelis have done is make it plain that no one person or facility in that country is safe from the long reach of Israeli intelligence operatives”.

 

But the truth is that neither America nor Israel knew about Iran’s nuclear project till some Shah loyalists left the country and spilled the beans. They formed several groups in exile, each dedicated to harass the current regime hoping to destabilize it, thus be able to bring back the Shah’s regime. They are doing most of the dirty work in Iran for which Israel takes credit.  

 

And while this is the reality of what’s happening to Iran, another reality concerns what Iran is doing to Israel. Aside from the cyberwar that’s bringing unto the internet many of Israel’s secrets, the Iranians have managed to plant a spy in the home of the Israeli Minister of Defense.

 

Talking about sleeping with the enemy! Let Israel plant a spy in the bedroom of the Chief Ayatollah before those like Jonathan Tobin can brag about Israel’s spying prowess.

America must stop trying to divide and conquer

When you consider the high standing that America enjoyed at the end of World War II, as seen by the world and by its own people, you wonder what it is that brought it down this low this fast.

 

You look for answers on the world stage, and discover that what used to be a beloved America which sought to unify peoples under the umbrella of the United Nations it helped create, has become the dreaded America; now seen as the driver of wedges between nations, and the campaigner to undermine the United Nations.

 

You turn your attention to the American scene, and search for the influences that might have inspired that trend to develop at home before it was exported abroad. And sure enough, you find the clue that says America has deteriorated internally, why so and how the deterioration was exported abroad. What you find is that the number one obsession of the population has become the word “leverage”.

 

The principle of leverage being the use of a small power to achieve big results, you surmise that the culprit experimenting with leverage, must be a weak thing powered by an oversized appetite for garnering big things. And that’s when the answer hits you: It can only be the Jews. You dig into this matter, and the deeper you burrow, the more you are surprised by how much the Jews were able to achieve politically by pitting people against people, caucus against caucus, and party against party.

 

In fact, the paralysis that is seen in America at the level of governance, is entirely due to the fact that those on each side of the political spectrum use the leverage they have to crush the other, and in so doing gain more leverage and more power. But when this is done by one side, the other reciprocates, causing a stalemate to develop. The net result is that the business of America becomes paralyzed while that of Israel moves on to the fast track, and gets done in a hurry.

 

During the Cold War that lasted from the end of the Second World War to about 30 years ago, America enjoyed the support of its NATO allies. Together, they confronted the Soviet Union that had the Eastern Europeans allied with it in the Warsaw Pact. The competition between the two alliances was based on each side trying to convince the rest of the world they had the best governance and economic systems. America won the Cold War, became sole superpower for a while but then China rose to the status of superpower while Russia that used to be the old Soviet Union, was reborn as a military superpower. Other powers such as India, a European Union of some sort, and perhaps Indonesia, will form the multipolar world of the near future.

 

We’re not there yet, but it seems that America is already getting the kind of bad advice that caused it to behave in such manner as to provoke the first Cold War. It’s the war that brought the world to the edge of catastrophe several times in the past. This time, America has adopted the threatening posture that has caused China and Russia to get together and stand up to it.

 

Instead of seeing that it is doing the wrong thing and back off, America seems to listen to the advice that’s telling it to work on driving a wedge between Russia and China. Needless to say that the latter two will have an appropriate response should America adopt that kind of behavior. In fact, they let the world know what it is. You can read all about it in the news item that came under the title: “China and Russia vow not to let West divide them,” written by Joel Gehrke, and published on November 19, 2021 in The Washington Examiner.

 

This is how Joel Gehrke started his article:

 

“Chinese and Russian nuclear-capable bombers conducted a joint patrol over the Sea of Japan in a military gesture that dramatized Russian President Vladimir Putin’s vow to remain unified with his communist neighbor”.

 

And the following is what Vladimir Putin has said to let the world know how serious he is about standing up to America:

 

“Some of our Western partners are openly trying to drive a wedge between Moscow and Beijing. We are well aware of this. Together, with our Chinese friends, we will continue responding to such attempts by expanding our political, economic, and other cooperation and coordinating steps in the world arena”.

 

And then, Gehrke drew attention to the fact that in a show of force, Russian and Chinese strategic bombers flew together close to Japan and South Korea during the same week that the two allies of America had a dispute serious enough to derail a trilateral meeting they were to have with America. The point being that the Russia-China alliance is solidifying while America’s is breaking up.

 

Joel Gehrke then topped it all off by quoting what a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman had said. Here is that quote:

 

“China and Russia are neighbors and true partners that can stand the test of anything. To develop a high-level strategic partnership of coordination is a long-term strategic choice made by both sides based on respective national realities. It is simply impossible to drive a wedge or sow discord between us”.

 

Looking at the way that these events have unfolded, you cannot escape the conclusion that America lives in a glass house, and being advised to throw stones at a house made of bricks and mortar.

 

Will America be so foolish as to listen to that advice, and sink deeper still into a swamp too infamous for any of the previous fallen empires to be buried there? Time will tell.

They made the bed, and now fret sleeping in it

For more than half a century, the Jewish leaders of America, structured themselves and their so-called people into dozens of organizations, each dedicated to ultimately accomplish one of two things or both.

 

One of the things was to motivate the institutions closely or remotely associated with foreign policy to hate the Palestinian people and those supporting them. In fact, hate was taken to such an extent that America condemned to death thousands of its own young men and women, and hundreds of thousands of foreigners — accomplishing nothing more useful than destroy cities. This in turn create millions of refugees who ended up seeking asylum in countries that could not afford to have them. America did all that at the cost of trillions of dollars, and the dropping of its name down the Jewish sewer.

 

The other thing was to motivate the institutions which are closely or remotely associated with the security of the homeland, to fear Americans of Arab and Muslim descent. This was done to such an extent, that the Congress mandated the profiling of these people, the media blacklisted them, and the entertainment industries shunned them. The net result has been that the security apparatus was able to entrap a handful of youngsters who foolishly went along and tried to please the undercover agents leading them, by saying something foolish. They were arrested on the spot and taken to court. That’s when the American public that looked at the matter seriously, asked: Is that all there is to it?

 

And then it happened that a mad man was elected to the presidency of the United States, and he tried to make and enforce laws that would have banned the entry into the United States of people from Arab and Muslim countries, as well make it so that those already in the country, would be treated as second class citizens. And that’s when the American public that looked into the matter, said that enough was enough. These Americans descended into the streets carrying banners that told the mad president he was a sick imbecile, not good enough to carry water for any of the people he had maligned.

 

Being in control of the media and the entertainment industries, the Jewish leaders went further than anything, and targeted the American people who refused to toe the Jewish line. They labelled antisemitic those who responded to trick questions by saying A instead of B, and those who responded by saying B instead of A. The Jewish leaders also pitted Americans against Americans for associating with those they designated as being members of antisemitic groups.

 

Distinguishing themselves by doing nothing more useful in life than earn a living by engaging in that kind of activities, the Jewish leaders made for themselves and their kind, the proverbial bed that even a dog would not want to sleep in. What also happened was that the rank-and-file saw itself painted with the same brush as the leaders. It paid a heavy price because the leaders had such a firm control over the means of communication, nothing was communicated that did not agree with their edicts. But then, the social media came along and began to alter the paradigm. This caused the rank-and-file to begin opposing their leaders.

 

So, how do you think the leaders responded to all of that? Well, you’ll find the answer to that question in the article that came under the title: “Do Democratic Socialists have a Jewish problem?” It was written by Zoltan Boka, and published on November 20, 2021 in The New York Daily News.

 

Zoltan Boka says he was a former volunteer for Ocasio-Cortez who quickly became a bright star not only inside the Democratic Party, but in the nation as a whole, for being the tough-talking member of the Squad advocating policies to serve the disadvantaged in America. Boka began the article by telling the story of what happened when he and his team put together their first town hall.

 

Here is an abridged version of what he said happened:

 

“As the forum got underway, the moderator set ground rules which according to her included a ban on racism, Islamophobia, and Zionism. A murmur of dissent rose at that inclusion. Then, an elderly gentleman rose, slowly made his way to the microphone, and informed [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez] AOC how glad he was that someone was willing to stand up to the people who control this county. I remember walking up to Ocasio-Cortez and other organizers and warning them, that what they allow will continue”.

 

Zoltan Boka went on to complain that the group with which AOC is associated, has done the following horrible things: Requesting that City Council candidates pledge not to travel to Israel if elected, refusing to say whether Israel has the right to exist at all, and opposing the normalization of relationships between the Israeli government and other governments.

 

As if to play out the full deck of cards, Zoltan Boka went on to guess the following: “Taking them at their word, I assume they seek to isolate not only the Israeli government but any government — like, say, Morocco’s — that wants bilateral relations with them”.

 

But what deck of cards is that? It is all that the Jews have done over the decades such as inciting America to destroy Arab and Muslim countries, inciting the security apparatus to entrap innocent Americans of Arab and Muslim descent, and pitting Americans against Americans for not hating each other and for not loving Israel.

 

To add to the irony about the Jews making their own bed and now fretting that they might have to sleep in it, look what Zoltan Boka has said to end his article:

 

“Solidarity with the dispossessed, with the refugees with the forgotten people, from homeless forced to sleep in parking lots during the pandemic to the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees in Syria to those suffering due to Israel’s settlement building policies on the West Bank, is a righteous cause. But that solidarity cannot be built on hatred of the other: Loving one solely as an instrument of crushing the other is no love at all”.

 

Zoltan Boka is preaching to the choir when he is supposed to preach that gospel to the Jews.

See the Opportunism that points to Weakness

A hyena in the land of the antelope is king because it finds itself at the top of the food chain, bothered only by the occasional scavenging vulture that would swoop down and steal a choice morsel of the prey that was taken down by the hyena.

 

But when the lion moves into the land of the antelope, it takes its place at the top of the food chain, pushing the hyena down to second place where it becomes a scavenger, now forced to compete on equal footing with the vulture for morsels of the prey that was now taken down by the lion.

 

This is what happens where the wildlife of Planet Earth roams in parts of Africa. But something similar also happens in the urban jungle where so-called civilized man roams in some places around the Planet. This is the place where the bequeathed and the scavenger dance around each other, the first trying to suppress the second while the second tries to distract the first, so as to pull a trick on him.

 

Nowhere do you see this drama play out more blatantly than in the story of an America that used to occupy the highest place in the food chain, now pushed down to a lower rank where it is taught to scavenge so as not to fall further down the totem pole of the food chain or the chain of command.

 

But how is opportunistic scavenging done in the urban jungle of civilized man? Good question. The answer is that the weak exploit the opportunities that open to them when they see a crack develop in what used to be a cohesive group. The weak get in there anyway they can, encourage the crack to widen even more and—like goes the “divide and rule” saying—the division makes it easier for the weak to climb a notch or two up the chain of command.

 

Two recent articles, published on the same day, November 19, 2021 in the same publication The National Interest, show how that game is played. One article came under the title: “Should the United States Support Chinese Separatism?” and the subtitle: “Supporting separatist movements in Tibet or East Turkestan could backfire, but Washington has other options.” It was written by Michael Rubin.

 

The other article came under the title: “If Turkey Wants the F-16, Ankara Must Act Against Iran,” and the subtitle: “In one move, President Joe Biden can stop Turkey’s spiral out of the Western orbit while strengthening US national security with a blow against Iran.” It was written by Daniel Roth.

 

Here, in condensed form, is what Michael Rubin has written:

 

“It is time for American policymakers to take off their gloves, and consider that China’s vulnerabilities enable new strategies. China depicts itself as a homogenous nation representing all Chinese. This is nonsense. Taiwan has been under China’s control for less than two decades over the past four hundred years. Hong Kong has developed a separate identity. The most distinct regions in China are East Turkestan (or Xinjiang) and Tibet. Here, a reconsideration of Chinese sovereignty could provide new opportunities. Xinjiang is today in the news as the site of a genocide against the Uyghur people. The Chinese leaders have accelerated the transfer of Han Chinese into the region and the subjugation of the Uyghur Muslim minority. Tibet is a starker example of Chinese colonial conquest. Han colonization continues to this day. Should the US support separatism among the Uyghur and Tibetans or seek to exploit other ethnic fault lines? At present, military and financial support for separatism would not succeed. There are other options. The State Department could revisit the question of sovereignty over Tibet. It could be time for an American Institute for Tibet in Dharamsala if the Indian government plays ball. The State Department might also envision an enhanced status for the World Uyghur Congress”.

 

This is typical of what the Jews do. In fact, they conquered America, and turned it into their colonial plantation by pitting Americans against Americans in all walks of life. When this was completed, the Jews started using America’s power and prestige to pit nations against nations, with one exception. What they did here was turn America into a Grand Old Pimp (GOP) that never tires going around the world, trying to sell Israel to anyone who would buy the unworthy.

 

And here, in condensed form, is what Daniel Roth has written:

 

“President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s domestic political support is cratering. Biden has an opportunity to accomplish goals that eluded his predecessors. He can stop Turkey’s spiral out of the Western orbit while strengthening US national security with a blow against Iran. For the US to approve sales of military equipment to Erdogan, Turkey should scale back its trade with Iran, cut off Iran’s pathways to Turkey’s banks, and designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. Turkey is Iran’s bridge to European goods. This must stop. Turkey should restrict Iran’s commercial access by shutting its land border with Iran, which it has done in the recent past. Turkey must ban Bank Audi from operating inside its borders. This is a Lebanese bank that supported Hezbollah. Biden should be prepared to impose a ban, too, on US banks having correspondent relations with suspect institutions. Turkey’s state-owned Halkbank played a role in the ‘gas-for-gold’ scheme which benefitted Iran. Turkey must help US efforts to address such deals”.

 

This is how the Jews use America’s financial and military powers to pit countries like Turkey against Israel’s chosen enemies, such as Iran.

 

And while the Jews succeed once in a while, America sinks further down into the Jewish swamp each and every time.