Alan Dershowitz operating as an Alien Fifth Columnist in America

 Alan Dershowitz has contributed many dumb ideas to the public square, and it should not come as a surprise that he just contributed one more. To get a sense of the full dimension of his latest contribution, we need to dress up a short analogy. Here it is:

 

Imagine a friend of yours coming to you one day and saying that his neighbor is stark raving mad, and should be locked up in a mental institution. Okay, you say to yourself, maybe someday, someone close to your friend's neighbor will notice that the man is stark raving mad, and will have him committed.

 

A few days later, that same friends of yours comes to you and says that a coworker of his is stark raving mad, and should be locked up in a mental institution. It can happen, you say to yourself. Your friend is not the first person to have a neighbor and a coworker who are both crazy. Maybe someday, someone in management where your friend works will notice that their employee is stark raving mad, and will do something about it.

 

A few days after that, the same friend of yours comes to you and says he has a strong feeling you are stark raving mad, and should be locked up in a mental institution. Well, it was bound to happen, you say to yourself. You indulged your friend when he was calling others stark raving mad at a time it was clear he was the one that's stark raving mad. So, here he is now, calling you stark raving mad.

 

And that, my friend, is the story of Alan Dershowitz and those of his kind who pretend to speak in the name of the Jews as a collective. They call everyone they don't like a terrorist, accusing them of supporting or associating with real terrorists operating abroad. The phony Jewish leaders make this kind of false accusations, knowing that the only terrorist in the Middle East is Israel with which they associate; even enable to commit war crimes. America indulged these characters for too long, and here is Alan Dershowitz now calling terrorists, the peaceful American citizens who live normal lives in their own country.

 

In fact, that's what Dershowitz did in the article he wrote under the title: “AOC's Rejection of Yitzhak Rabin Memorial Crosses the Line From Extremism to Intolerance,” published on October 12, 2020 in the online Jewish publication, Algemeiner.

 

As you read the article, you cannot help but recall that invoking words such as “Holocaust” and “antisemitism” used to carry a sense of veneration and respect for the victims they affected. But the words were so exploited by those like Alan Dershowitz, they became diluted. The result is that the words now invoke the image of the Jew carrying a bagful of Benjamins and going home with it. Dilution is also what Dershowitz and company are doing to the word “terrorist”. Sooner or later the word will invoke nothing more than the image of an Israeli soldier pointing his gun at a Palestinian child.

 

Mindful of the fact that no Jewish leader had previously attacked Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) for her association with an American organization, but seeing the tsunami of hate that Dershowitz is now spewing at the House Representative because she did not attend the memorial of an Israeli, tells you that Dershowitz and those like him always felt they belong with Israel and World Jewry; never with America. These people do not have dual loyalty, they have singular loyalty to someone other than America. And that makes them Fifth Column residents who live in America but work for Israel and World Jewry.

 

Look how Alan Dershowitz begins his article: “AOC has crossed the line from radicalism to anti-Americanism and anti-decency. She now operates through an organization named after French revolutionaries who descended into barbarity and mass murder. Indeed, the word terrorism arises from the 'reign of terror' of which they were an important part”.

 

This is pure filth, and Alan Dershowitz keeps spewing it like a sewer pipe that discharges waste non-stop. He does it throughout the article till he comes near the end of it where he says what follows––here presented in a condensed form:

 

“She [AOC] has rebuffed all efforts to build bridges to the pro-Israel community. Although she has been vague about her position with regard to Israel, it now seems evidently clear that she does not recognize Israel's right to live as a nation state of [only] Jewish people. AOC is no longer a friend of Judaism. She is an enemy that must be confronted at every turn”.

 

This shows that Alan Dershowitz has been a lifelong enabler of the terrorist entity of Israel, and he will not change. As a Fifth Columnist, he is more lethal to America than agents who are put in the field by the country's enemies or rivals who work to benefit their countries by hurting America.

 

What makes Dershowitz more lethal than any of those, is that he is an insider with hands close to the levers of power. He is at times so close, he guides the hands of those who were elected to govern, but were trained to delegate their authority to the Jew that asks for it.

 

With friends like Israel and the Jewish leaders, America does not need enemies like Iran and North Korea, or rivals like China and Russia.

 

They got the Finger, now they want the Arm

 What's the difference between having a working definition for an activity on one hand, and writing into law that same definition on the other hand? The difference is that the law ascribes punishment for violating the definition. This would be punishment that ranges anywhere between a slap on the wrist, and the death penalty in the places where capital punishment is still practiced.

 

Let's take two examples to see what exactly we're talking about:

 

First example: You define killing someone as depriving them of their life. Killing being a physical act, it is easy to ascribe a penalty to it. In fact, because there are several categories of killing, such as premeditated, manslaughter, involuntary and so on, you can ascribe a specific punishment for each category.

 

Second example: You try to define not a physical act such as killing, beating, stealing and so on, but define the expression of a thought that is not an incitement to hurt a person or an identifiable group (which is prosecutable under current laws,) but an expression that describes your assessment of that person's character or that group's cultural habits which you find objectionable.

 

To begin with, how do you classify such assessment into categories so that you may ascribe an appropriate level of punishment for each category?

 

It is that, a thought you express about someone or a group, can range from a simple insult such as calling them “idiot,” to a serious accusation such as, “I saw this man shoot his wife dead.” The thing is that there are current laws which cover this kind of cases and there is no need for more laws. In addition, because calling someone an expletive does not hurt unless it is repeated over and over in a public setting, people do not seek legal remedy when so victimized. But to falsely accuse someone of a crime, is viewed as a serious offense that is usually prosecuted.

 

Because there is a wide gulf between the expletive you'll ignore, and the false accusation you'll want to prosecute, we must ask: What could be between those two extremes?

 

When you ponder on that question in search of an answer, you'll find that as individuals and as a group, most Jews sit on both sides of the fence. In fact, they repeatedly call someone they do not like, an anti-Semite, which has proven to destroy careers, even the lives of innocent people. Simultaneous to that, the Jews whine no end about innocuous expletives used by others to describe the character of a Jew or the cultural habits of Jews as a group.

 

The Jews have now intensified their attacks on others, doing it publicly and repeatedly by calling those they do not like anti-Semites. As well, they have intensified their whining about the rise of what they insist is antisemitism among the general public. They are doing it not just in one country or one continent, but throughout the world. And they have the gall to say that this is proof there is something wrong with humanity which, in their screwed-up way of thinking, means they are perfect.

 

As per habit, the Jews ran to a higher authority, hand pressed against their aching bellies, and called for the enactment of legislation that would give them relief from those who dare tell them that when they accuse all of humanity of being at fault, they look worse than the emperor with no clothes, they look like naked clowns.

 

One of those is Rhoda Smolow who is president of the women's Zionist Organization of America. She wrote an article in which she tells the American Congress, “Time for America to write the IHRA [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance] definition of anti-Semitism into law,” which happens to be the title of her article, published on October 7, 2020 in Jewish News Syndicate.

 

The article is the usual pile of garbage that's put together by the Jews to impress the mentally retarded of the Congress, coaxing them to ask no questions and do as told. In fact, the article is not worth parsing, but you need to read it in its entirety anyway, if only to satisfy yourself of the reality that nowhere in this piece of work, does the author point to an offense alluded to in the IHRA that's not now covered by existing laws.

 

Regardless of that silly definition, how could the Jews justify going after someone that tells them the following: You are asking too much as usual, and the general public is getting mad at you. Rather than let it get some steam off, you're forcing the public to bottle up the anger. And it's about to explode with rage.

 

In fact, the Jews know this cycle too well because it has been their history for thousands of years. So, why are they repeating it? They are repeating it, not because they believe that the moment America adopts their definition, the public will change their hearts and mind about the Jews, but because they expect to see something more profound than that.

 

You see, my friend, whether Moses lied to them or he was hallucinating when he told them he went up the mountain, met God who promised to make the Jew special, they feel they are owed the fulfillment of that promise. Since they are now convinced that no messiah will come and officially impose the Jews on humanity, they want the governments of the world to substitute for God and impose the Jews on their respective societies.

 

Enacting that definition into law would be one way to get there. And the Jews will work as hard as the dickens to make it happen … Holocaust or no Holocaust.

A most ironic Reversal ushering a new Era

 Thirty-one years ago, in the year 1989, there happened the Tiananmen Square shooting. It must have left scores of dead people who were demonstrating against their government, but no one knows the actual figure because it is the policy of the Chinese government not to give out information it considers internal matters that should concern no one else.

 

And it was fifty years ago––which would be nineteen years before Tiananmen––that the Kent State Massacre happened in America; a tragedy in which four students demonstrating against the Vietnam War, were shot dead by the Ohio National Guard, and a number of other students were wounded.

 

An aggrieved world talked about the two incidents when they happened in the usual tone of sadness while imploring both governments to be more careful how they handle peaceful demonstrations by their citizens.

 

Fast forward to ten months ago or thereabout when the world was hit by the Corona virus which, thanks to the ease of travel in the modern era, spread throughout the planet faster than any pandemic the world had ever experienced previously. There is very little doubt that the virus originated in China, and there lies the nature of the controversy that has erupted.

 

There are those in America who argue that the Chinese habit of considering such things to be internal matters that cannot be divulged to the world, has caused the spread of the pandemic. On the other hand, the Chinese have admitted, though reluctantly, that the virus may have originated with them, but they blame its rapid spread on the foreign governments that did not take it seriously enough to institute the necessary measures that would have slowed its spread.

 

It is not difficult to imagine that this kind of controversy will continue, and will be talked about for decades to come. And so, we leave it to future historians to pass the definitive judgment as to what really happened, and who might have been responsible for the misery that the pandemic has caused to the world. What should concern us at this point is the rise of a process of deterioration, the likes of which was never seen before.

 

You get a sense of how much things have deteriorated when you go over the piece that came under the title: “China's reputation takes a well-deserved global hit,” an editorial in the Washington Examiner that was published on October 9, 2020. Instead of seeing the usual grieving and the friendly advice that's meant to counsel the governments on how to deal with dissent, you get mugged by the editors of the Examiner who began their discussion by celebrating what they see as the “silver lining” to a pandemic they acknowledge has “killed more than a million people and crashed the global economy.” What a horrific mentality!

 

That's what it takes, you say to yourself––a million dead people and a crashed global economy––to bring joy to the hearts of America's elites nowadays. In fact, the editors of the Washington Examiner relish the fact that some of America's closest allies have increased their unfavorable rating of China from the low 60% of the population to the mid 70% of the population. Hallelujah!

 

If anything, to be so happy about “small mercies,” is an indication of how impotent the Americans now feel when they compare themselves to China, the rising power they can no longer influence. Whereas it used to be that to feel good about themselves, the Americans compared what they did well against what China could not do as well, they now rely on China making mistakes that diminish its accomplishments in the eyes of foreigners whose admiration America needs to assume the role of world leadership.

 

When you come down to it, the level of degradation that America has undergone, is forcing it to complain the same way that the Third World countries used to complain about the advanced economies exploiting them and then neglecting them. And when you consider that China was a Third World country not long ago, you cannot miss the irony you see in the reversal that has taken place and has progressed so rapidly. The following is a condensed version of the editors' complaint:

 

“The Chinese have responded with typical arrogance to the results. They declared that they don't want bad relations with Western countries, but will not exchange China's interests for the West’s goodwill which is not valuable to them. China's deteriorating reputation also reflects its broader disdain for the international community and its norms. It demands that foreign businesses sacrifice their secrets in exchange for access to its 1.4 billion-person market; introduces tariffs on foreign goods to retaliate against nations that draw attention to its human rights record; bullies poorer nations by offering investment in return for political deference. Beijing exploited the early shortages during the pandemic to sell billions of dollars-worth of flawed protective equipment. The Chinese also believe they can do no wrong”.

 

Whatever Charles Darwin meant when he said “survival to the fittest,” the accepted interpretation now is that nature grants survival to the adaptable more so than the fit.

 

In fact, Britain has survived and thrived after the Second World War because it adapted to the new situation by handing the baton of world leadership to America, and becoming its ally.

 

Had Britain armed itself and stayed on the path of trying to rule the waves, it would have bankrupted itself and suffered the fate of the Ottoman Empire.

 

Similarly, if America wants to survive and continue to have some influence in world affairs, it must accept and adapt to a situation in which China and a number of other powers will rival it, even surpass it.

He took a Detour to get to the same Place

 A few days ago, I saw the article that Clifford D. May had published about General H. R. McMaster, and I was tempted to respond then but decided not to do it right away.

 

I put off writing a response because in its ultimate aim, the content of May's article came so close to what happened to me, I could not have written a response that would be free of emotions so intense, they would have clouded my judgment. A few days have passed, and I am certain I can now tell it like it happened.

 

First, let me tell you my story before I show you how it relates to the Clifford May article. Having spent thirty-something years of my life trying to find a place for myself in a milieu that touted itself as the pinnacle of freedom, but failing to get my name off the blacklist, I decided to end the quest of searching for a publisher who would give me a break in journalism or the audio-visual arts.

 

I started a small weekly newspaper in a medium-sized town where I lasted a few months before switching to this blog on the internet. As soon as my first editorial went out, two things happened. First, the major newspapers of the big and medium cities surrounding us, came to town and offered deep discount on advertising to soak up the advertising dollars and deprive me of them. Second, those same publications contacted me –– sometimes the callers identifying themselves as to who they represented and sometimes not but –– all of them suggesting that I should apply for a job at the places that turned me down previously, promising that I would be meeting more sympathetic publishers this time around.

 

I pretended not to get the message because I found it disgusting that they believed I would close shop now and take their veiled offer, having spent nearly forty years of my life during which time they acted as if they owned freedom, and I could only beg to be given some of it. No, this was not my idea of freedom. I thought I was born with freedom being as much a part of me as the most intimate of my thoughts. I do not beg for freedom because even the most savage of beasts could not have snatched it from me.

 

And you know what my friend? This is how nations like Russia, China, North Korea and Iran think and feel about an America that is shackled with the chains of Jewish tyranny, doing what it can to deprive them of their freedom while pretending to impose on them the freedom it knows not. And so, in the same way that my subsequent actions have proven that the freedom I was born with, has allowed me to crush the proud buffoons of Jerkland, those nations are well on their way to proving that the freedom which runs in their bloodstreams will eventually crush the inflated buffoons of Zionland and Yankeeland.

 

So then, what could America do that it failed to do so far, in the hope of forging better relations with the four countries as well as the rest of the world? And how does that compare with what Clifford May says H.R. McMaser is proposing?

 

To begin with, America must understand that––intended or not––its current attitude conveys the following message: “Do as I tell you, and this will move you from the penalty box to the probation box where I'll watch you like a hawk and punish you if you break your probation conditions.” America must completely and publicly repudiated and reject this mentality. This done, America should sit with those countries, not to dialogue with them but to listen to the grievances each has against America. After that, America should work on removing the sources of those grievances as much as possible, as soon as possible.

 

This is different from what McMaster is proposing for the simple reason that he brought nothing new to the table. His goal is the same old neocon goal, except that he ended up proposing it by taking a line of reasoning that was not taken before. When you come down to it, McMaster wants America to arm itself and dictate to other nations what the Jews want those nations to do. If they disobey, America must bomb them. Here are a few examples of the new path of logic that McMaster has taken to arrive at the same old neocon-approved conclusions:

 

“It's comforting to believe that our adversaries want security, freedom and prosperity as much as we do; that they prefer compromise and cooperation to confrontation. But rarely is that the case”.

 

“As people have commercial incentive, whether it's in China or in other totalitarian countries, the move to democracy becomes inexorable. But it doesn't”.

 

“Putin's Russia has been pursuing a strategy to subvert the US and other democracies. Pushing a little button labeled 'reset' was never going to change that”.

 

“The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action [Iran Nuclear Deal] would produce an evolution in Iranian behavior. That was a pipe dream”.

 

“One administration after another has either ignored or addressed ineffectively the threat posed by the dynastic dictatorship in North Korea”.

 

McMaster's conclusion is that: we tried to be nice to our adversaries, and that turned out to be a mistake because these people are evil to the core and they will never change.

 

You know what, my friend? McMaster must have looked at his Jewish masters in the face, saw what was inexorably obnoxious about them, and attributed what he saw to the good people of Russia, China, North Korea and Iran.

 

To quote Jean-Baptist Alphonse Karr: The more things change, the more they stay the same.

This is Harassment that borders on Treason

 The French word for blackmail is “chantage.” Literally translated, it means “the chant.” In fact, the word also means chant in French. But it has acquired another meaning that's now commonly used by the French. That would be “blackmail”.

 

The word carrying that meaning came into existence at a time when blackmailing someone was not done “anonymously” through the mail. It was done face to face when the blackmailer stalked the victim and pretended to chant to himself words that the victim recognized as being a veiled threat aimed at him or her. In other words, blackmail was done verbally for the victim to hear but without it sounding like an open threat.

 

To do this, the blackmailer stalked the victim. In fact, it was later recognized in criminal law that to stalk someone, even without chanting a threat, was akin to blackmailing that someone. And because stalking was the manifestation of a larger form of misbehavior called harassment, every form of harassment, whether it is done physically or electronically, or done through the medium of print, is now considered a criminal act that’s punishable under the law.

 

What has not yet come to the level of consciousness in the North American society, is the criminal harassment that the Jews do hundreds of times every day under the guise of exercising their right to free speech. An example of that is an article that came under the title: “Jewish Groups Engage and Push Back on AOC,” written by Harry Onickel, and printed on October 8, 2020 in the Jewish online publication Algemeiner.

 

This kind of article, written by an individual could be viewed as legitimate self-expression. But when it is done as part of an organized effort to intimidate the victim or any other reason, it becomes organized criminal harassment. When it is done to intimidate a government legislator or executive so as to force them doing something they would not otherwise do, it becomes treasonous. When it is done to force a government official to serve the cause of a foreign entity, it becomes doubly treasonous.

 

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) is an elected representative serving a constituency in the State of New York. Harry Onickel is a Jewish freelance writer who resides in the State of Michigan. He has no business telling her how to be accountable to the people that elected her. In fact, he is not even telling her how to serve her constituents, he is telling her how to serve the interests of Israel and all the Jewish causes.

 

To that end, Onickel is calling on Jewish organizations everywhere to do what he is doing, which is––in his own words––“speak out forcefully and publicly if she won't do so.” Well, the fact is that the Jewish organizations are already treating AOC as described in Harry Onickel's article. And so are the many victims he points out as being unfriendly to Israel and the Jews.

 

Onickel’s doings put him and put those who listen to him in a situation that allows them to intimidate their victims, some of whom are government officials, others simply prominent figures. AOC being a legislator, what Onickel is doing to her must be considered treasonous. Because it is done to force her serving the cause of a foreign entity called Israel, it becomes doubly treasonous.

 

Onickel began his discussion by accusing AOC of refusing to engage with Jewish leaders. To punish her, he drew up a list of the things he says she said over time; things that do not line up with a pro-Israeli or pro-Jewish perspective. He also drew up a list of the people and organizations that AOC has associated with in the past. These are people you'll find on the blacklist of the Jewish High Command in charge of maintaining America in its place. In case you don't know what that place is, let me tell you: it is America being the eternally obedient moral colony of Israel and the Jews.

 

It is common knowledge that before the four members of the “Squad”; a foursome that includes AOC––were elected, every new member entering the Congress was first taken behind closed doors by Jewish “specialists” who indoctrinated them on the Jewish requirement to avoid being crushed by the operators of the Judeo-Israeli machine. These are the organizations that document everything a newcomer would say and do during their tenure so as to use the words and the deeds against the elected member if they become uncooperative when it comes to matters relating to the service of Israel or any other Jewish cause.

 

But then, America experienced a political intifada, and the people started to elect members who would stand up to the Jews, while tossing out members who were known to serve Israel and the Jews at the expense of America. The Squad to which AOC belongs proved to be the beginning of a trend that promises to purge the American political system of the parasitic symbiont that has been sapping America's strength as if it were inexhaustible.

 

This being such a dumbfounding situation, you can see that the day will come when Congress will enact legislation that will make it a crime to engage in the kind of activities that have become the hallmark of Jewish behavior.

 

That day cannot come soon enough.

Can an imaginary Iron Curtain be contained?

 At the end of the Second World War, a nation whose time to rise to greatness had come, stood clear-headed among the dizzied and disoriented other combatants. They welcomed clear-headed America giving them direction as it was willing to show them the way to reconstruction and national salvation. America even helped those nations materially so that they can take the first crucial steps in the right direction.

 

But given that by definition, a rising power is a novice power, America itself needed counseling on how to discharge its new responsibilities. Looking for guidance, it turned to Britain, the hegemon it was replacing on the world stage. But that turned out to be the mistake that changed America's procession from the upward direction on which it had been before the war and during it, to a downward direction after the war.

 

The most consequential mistake America made, was to take seriously the British advice, mouthed by the mouthy Winston Churchill, about the Soviet Union being at the same time “a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma,” and a well-known evil force that's bent on conquering the world, if left unchecked.

 

Thus, checking the Soviet Union in the sense of containing it, became America's obsession ever since that time. The Soviet Union responded to America's moves by developing the weapons it would need to defend itself, should America decide to attack it with what it had newly acquired. An arms race ensued, and this is how the Cold War raged in earnest. The result has been trillions of dollars wasted on developing ever more lethal weapons, much of which fell into the hands of those who were too happy to use them as best they knew how, thus killed more innocent civilians than soldiers.

 

Now that China has replaced the Soviet Union as America's potential rival, there are people in America who wish to replicate the Cold War. They do not see it as having been instrumental in fostering an arms race that brought the world to the brink of Armageddon on several occasions. On the contrary, they see it as having been instrumental in maintaining a balance of power that kept the peace.

 

This happened, say the lovers of the Cold War, because America responded the right way to the Soviet challenges. That is, in the same way they view America standing against the Soviet Union expanding its Iron Curtain and add more nations to its Warsaw Pact alliance, America had formed its own NATO alliance; one that brought the Warsaw Pact to its knees.

 

In a similar fashion, say the lovers of the Cold War –– including Mike Pompeo, the current Secretary of State, who wishes to see America enter into an alliance with three other nations in the Indo-Pacific region, and form a military quad –– China’s expansionary impulses can be contained.

 

You can see discussion of this possibility in two articles by two writers who do not share the views of Mike Pompeo. One article came under the title: “Quad Group challenges China's bullying of the Indo-Pacific neighbors,” written by Gary Anderson, and published on October 2, 2020 in The Washington Times. The other article came under the title: “An Asian NATO?” written by Jimmy Quinn, and published on October 7, 2020 in National Review Online.

Both writers show reluctance in sharing the view of the Secretary of State because they see that the Asian nations themselves are not sold on the idea. One reason they are not, is that they have issues with each other concerning border disputes and other matters. Another reason is that the Asian nations do not want to antagonize China that is, after all, the big kid on the bloc, and they have to live with him.

 

Thus, instead of a NATO-like alliance, Gary Anderson proposes, “an Indo-China version of the Monroe Doctrine strongly stating that any attempt to resolve a regional issue by force would cause American intervention against the party initiating the conflict”.

 

Of course, China will not be a signatory to that deal. Thus, if one of the signatories is bullied by China, we must recognize the following, says Anderson: “China's bullying of regional actors is as much economic as military, and the United States should be prepared to assist victim nations with economic aid and lucrative bilateral trade agreements”.

 

However, as military exercises will take place and grow in importance anyway, Gary Anderson proposes the following: “The United States can encourage regional partners to standardize ammunition, communications and air/sea defense.” And you can imagine who will benefit the most from selling this ammunition and equipment to the enthusiastic buyers.

 

As to Jimmy Quinn, he offered this opinion: “If the Quad is to be a fixture of the free world's defense against Chinese authoritarianism, it must take the form of network that suits the nature of this contest, not of the last century's Cold War”.

 

The reality is that Mike Pompeo and those in his corner, know China does not want war. Thus, if America does not start one, there will not be a war in the Indo-Pacific region. So then, what's their beef?

 

It is that they fear what they visualize as a virtual Iron Curtain carrying China's economic model, pushing outward to engulf the entire planet by trampling over America's Capitalism––and they don’t like it.

 

Well then, let’s see Mike Pompeo hold back the imaginary Iron Curtain he fears so much.

Chris Coons is Zion's Man in the US Senate

 The last time that Chris Coons did something on a bipartisan basis is when he teamed up with Ted Cruz and pushed a “bipartisan” bill in the US Senate to give Israel 12 million dollars under the pretense that the miserable entity was going to produce a vaccine that will cure humanity next week if not the next day.

 

This was not a random happening, but a manifestation of the new plan that was secretly drawn up in the boiler room at the Likud headquarters in Tel Aviv. It is the opposite of the plan it replaces in that it seeks to group the players rather than separate them; dominate them once they are grouped rather that conquer them once they are separated.

 

The old plan had gained momentum after the breakup of the Communist bloc. What the Jews could not do to influence the member states of the bloc, they could now do by approaching each country alone and working out a separate deal with it. Each success they scored added to their appetite for more of the same. They looked around and saw the European Union as a target that merited their attention.

 

Since it was difficult to find political reasons which they could use to drive the wedge between the European nations, the Jews deployed the ancient trick of having just discovered revelations in the scriptures that tell about the evil nature of the European Union. And so, they called on their Evangelical prostitutes to put on a show about that Union being a beast that will devour Israel and then come after America. Did they score? The truth is, there is no way to make such an assessment at this time. But maybe someday, someone will prove that Brexit was the result of that effort. If so, it will count as a success for them.

 

In any case, like the saying goes, they were saved by the bell. And the sound of the bell this time was that of two planes flying into the twin towers of New York City on September 11, 2001. That's when the hate-Europe mantra was turned into the hate-the-Arabs mantra. The Jews figured that the best way to take advantage of that event was to push America to attack Iraq, and then for the Jews to play it by ear as the events unfolded. And so, it happened that America attacked and the Jews played it by ear, and they managed to cause more Arab deaths than they ever dreamed they could. But they failed to have America break up any of the Arab countries: Not Iraq, not Libya, not Syria.

 

While all of this was happening on the international stage, the Jews were playing the same kind of game in America. They pitted party against party, ethnic group against ethnic group, religion against religion, one political persuasion against another and so on. Whereas they scored zero on the international stage, they succeeded gloriously on the American stage thanks to people like Chris Cons and Ted Cruz. These two and others like them helped the Jews paralyze America except when it came down to serving Israel.

 

And then, doing the very Jewish thing of pushing their luck past the limit, the Jews began to see the law of diminishing returns work against them. That's when they reversed the game-plan of trying to break up the world and fragment America. Instead of separating the players, the Jews began implementing a scheme to bring the players together as long as they could maintain them under Jewish wings. You can see how this game is unfolding at this time in two articles that were published recently.

 

One article came under the title: “A Bipartisan Foreign Policy Is Still Possible,” and the subtitle: “America Is Strongest When It Keeps the Home Front in Focus Abroad.” It was written by none other than Chris Coons, and published on October 7, 2020 in Foreign Policy. The other article came under the title: “3 Ways America Can Support Its New Model For Arab-Israeli Peace,” written by Bob Silverman who used to be an American diplomat, but now lives and works in Israel. His article was published on October 6, 2020 in The National Interest.

 

A great deal is revealed, and much can be learned by reading the complete article of Bob Silverman, which I recommend you do. But here is the subtitle of the article, disclosing some of what's in it: “The best way of containing anti-normalization backlash is through making support for projects under the Israel-UAE and Israel-Bahrain agreements a bipartisan top priority in the Middle East.” That is, Silverman is begging the Americans to come together at home for the sole purpose of supporting Israel's interests.

 

As to Chris Coons, he reinforces Bob Silverman's point as you can see in this passage: “Advocates of US international leadership must recognize that domestic and foreign policy are inextricably linked and that a successful and durably bipartisan foreign policy depends on the American people's appreciation of that link”.

 

In other words, Coons is saying, let’s get together in America, and conflate our work here with what's done in our name (by the Jews) overseas so that we may lead the world to where Zion will tell us to take it.