A chance to rediscipline the self-destructive

 To get a sense of how enormously idiotic the debate on the Middle East has unfolded over the decades and is being added to, now that an illusion seems to have changed something, we need to imagine a silly little scene that wouldn't even make it as a cartoon video clip for small children. But it comes close enough to illustrating how low into the well of absurdity America's democracy as sunk at the hands of Jews.

 

Imagine a malfunction of the time machine transporting twin brothers from the Stone Age into a library of the twenty-first century. It is night, there is no one else in the library, which is nevertheless lit with nightlight. Wondering what this place is, the brothers open some books and see pictures of people in them. One brother argues that these people are asleep in their beds and will wake up and walk out after a while. The other brother argues that these people are dead and buried in these catacombs forever.

 

Now tired, the twins fall asleep on the second floor of the library. They wake up hours later when people start coming into the library on the first floor. Looking down at them, one twin says he was right in believing they were asleep and would soon wake up. No, says the other twin, they were dead and were resurrected to lead a new existence in the afterlife.

 

This story demonstrates that people see life through the lens with which they are equipped, and a mentality that was shaped to interpret what they see in a manner that fits a predetermined point of view. Until they see the smallness of their confinement and break out of it to fly into the vastness of the real world outside, they can only go from one silly interpretation of the changes they observe to another silly interpretation. What they do, in effect, is jump out of one pool of ignorance into another pool of ignorance. This has been the pattern of American debate on the Middle East for several decades.

 

Something appears to have changed in the Middle Eastern situation, and the same twins that put out garbage in the past, are putting out garbage now, though garbage of a slightly different kind. But there is so much of that stuff, it would be a monumental waste of time and effort to pick each piece of garbage and discuss it. For this reason, it is better to just describe what the clean slate ought to look like, and let the readers determine for themselves how much garbage has been dumped on it.

 

Here is the clean slate. Less than a year after 9/11, Saudi Arabia unveiled an initiative to solve the problems of the Middle East according to what the Jews of America and Israel had said were their requirements to end the occupation of Palestine. The Jewish response to the Arab initiative was typically Jewish in that they played the waiting game to get all that the Arabs were offering without giving, in return, the end of the occupation they had promised. The Jews could wait, hoping to have it both ways because someone else, called America the sucker, was paying the price of Israel's insolence.

 

It then happened that Donald Trump was elected President of the United States. He is an individual whose upbringing and life experiences taught him that to survive as a real estate developer in New York, he must hone his skills so sharply as to out-Jew the Jews, or he'll be eaten alive by them. When he became President, he made a deal with them on the Palestinian issue according to which he gave them everything they wanted as long as it didn't cost America anything. That is, he blessed every robbery the Jews committed in the West Bank, Jerusalem and the Golan, which were in their position to begin with. But Trump also did something else; something that saved America some money. He cut off the aid that America was giving to the Palestinians to alleviate the savagery that American settlers, American money and American weapons were inflicting on the Palestinians. And he thought that compared to others, he was the smartest thing that ever lived for doing what he did –– it's not even close according to him.

 

Having done all of that for the Jews of America and Israel, Donald Trump told them to go ahead and write the scheme they wish to implement for solving the problems they created in the Middle East when they couldn't get along with anyone throughout the globe. The condition was that the scheme had to be acceptable to the Arabs whose initiative was still on the table and requiring a response. The Jews came up with a scheme that wasn't good enough to serve as toilet paper, and was immediately rejected by the Arabs.

 

To understand what happened next, we need to recall something about Trump's frame of mind before he became President. He was thinking that the Saudis had too much money and oil wealth they did not deserve to have. It was therefore the duty of Americans to go into Saudi Arabia and take the money and the oil by force of arms. After all, Israel was doing the same sort of thing in Palestine and getting away with it.

 

But when as president, Trump was told this cannot be done in any practical way, he changed from being belligerent toward Saudi Arabia to kissing up to its rulers, and seeking to sell them weapons for their cash.

 

This helped forge Trump's view on how to solve the Middle Eastern issues by cultivating the friendship of the Arabs rather than antagonize them. But what else was there that could be done to resolve the issues of the Middle East? This question lingered unanswered for a while until something earthshaking happened. It was a worldwide pandemic that was given the name COVID-19. And everything that was in favor of Trump getting reelected began to dissolve before his eyes, and he panicked.

 

With the Evangelical movement that used to be the backbone of his support now turning into a sick joke, Trump had only one thing he could count on to pull the October (or September) proverbial rabbit out of the hat. It was a foreign policy triumph that will look like a big accomplishment. And so, Trump called on the Bibi of Israel and gave him an ultimatum he could not ignore. He gave him 3 hours to accept the Arab initiative of 2002 or the Trumpian hell will break loose on him and Israel. The Bibi knuckled under but said that while it's okay with him having a big signing ceremony at the White House to elevate Trump's image, he wants everything else to be done quietly lest the settlers be turned into an active hornets' nest and spoil everything.

 

So, the question is this: What is the “everything,” that Bibi is afraid of? It is what's expected will be accomplished during the upcoming negotiations between the Arabs and the Jews. Stripped to its essence, the plan that’s negotiated aims for an exhausted America to hand the baton of keeping Israel afloat financially to the Gulf Arab states which are in full industrial ebullition paralleling the one that's ongoing in North Africa. This means the Jews will no longer have the moral prostitutes of a decaying democracy to play with as they do now. Instead, they will remain under the watchful eyes of those who see them as the little brats that need to be disciplined for their own good, and coached into the civilized way of life –– or the aid will be reduced if not cut off when they misbehave.

A Recipe so noxious it would fail as Dog Food

 How do you know that something is good? Well, the best way to know, is to assess what it represents and decide if on the whole, it stands for what's good more than it does for what's bad. If it does, you anoint it. If it doesn't, you say it leaves much to be desired.

 

But if you cannot make a full assessment, and you need to make a preliminary or expedient decision, you can state that indications exist which point to the goodness or naughtiness of the thing. And you spell out what that is, giving as much details as you have.

 

We find ourselves in this position, having to pass judgment on the effectiveness of the United Nations (UN). In reality, however, we have enough empirical observations of the UN's performance to pass judgment, one way or the other. But because there is enormous push-back to what we might say, we include into our assessment of the UN, the views we have developed of those who attack it.

 

To that end, there are two articles you may consult to make a just assessment of the UN’s performance. The latest came under the title: “The UN's Unhappy Birthday,” written by Richard N. Haass, and published on September 10, 2020 in Project Syndicate. The other article came under the title: “The United Nations Prepares for a Somber 75th Anniversary,” written by Stewart Patrick, and published on August 17, 2020 in World Politics Review.

 

As you read that article, you develop the view that the current dysfunction of the UN, emanates from the rivalry that has flared between America, the dominant Alpha world-leader which is now in decline, and China, the inevitably rising Alpha leader who may not openly challenge America, but is seen as a threat by the latter, causing it to behave strangely out of an irrational fear.

 

If you find this too primordial, and find that it makes humanity look like it is sliding back into the Stone Age, and you want to know why, you'll find the answer in the Richard Haass article. In fact, the answer comes as a conclusion summarizing what he believes went wrong over the decades, and what needs to be done to rectify the situation. The following is how it reads:

 

“The General Assembly, the most democratic and representative of the UN's structures, lacks teeth and is rendered ineffectual insofar as every country has one vote, regardless of its size, population, wealth, or military might. We face multiple global challenges for which there are no unilateral answers. Countries can create alternatives, such as the G-7 and G-20. Coalitions of the relevant, willing, and able can come together. The case for multilateralism and global governance is stronger than ever. But, for better or worse, it will have to take place outside the UN”.

 

So, there you have it, my friend. It is a neocon manifesto for the world, asking: Democracy? What democracy? It goes on to explain that this is the game we play to entertain ourselves when we're at home. But when we're on the global stage, the wisdom of an Ethiopian doctor cannot be considered equal to that of a New York real estate developer. It is the natural order of things that no matter how uninformed the American mogul may be, his word trumps that of the highly educated Ethiopian. This is a brand-new democracy for a “Brave New World”.

 

For this reason, says Richard Haass, a multilateral setup such as the United Nations must be dismantled or ignored. In its stead, Haass reiterates what the neocons have been advocating for decades. It is to create smaller groupings such as the G-7 and G-20, packed with handpicked members that will not speak their mind or speak for humanity, but speak the gospel of the self-styled gods that created them.

 

Since it all comes down to that, it would be a good idea to look back at how the G-7 and G-20 came to be, and decide if there is enough seriousness in the process to do what Haass and company want to do, which is to demolish the UN that kept the peace for seven and a half decades, and replace it with a process we could never trust once we know enough about it.

 

It was during the decade of the Seventies that 3 of the permanent 5 on the Security Council came together and talked about forming an alliance that will maintain the world economy in a healthy state. They were the US, Britain and France that deliberately kept Russia and China out of the group. By the time they finished discussing the plan, they had seen the need to add two more industrial giants to it. They chose Germany and Japan.

 

That is how the group of 3 became the group of 5 or G-5. Meanwhile, rebel at heart but always dreaming of playing in the big league with the big boys, Canada's then Prime Minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau demanded that Canada be included in the group since it had a GDP big enough to qualify. Maybe so, but there was a small problem. It turned out that Italy had a bigger GDP than Canada. This meant that instead of a G-6, they should invite Italy into the group, and have a G-7. That's what happened in fact, but then came the fiasco of adding Russia to make it a G-8, and then subtracting Russia, and then the talk to re-invite Russia.

 

As to the history of the G-20, its development was even more sullen than that. For a reason that can only be thought of as prophetic, the French President at the time had foreseen that Egypt was destined to become a great economic power. And so, he started to work on including Egypt into the G-7. This move so alarmed the Jews of North America, they looked around to see what they could do to derail the effort.

 

They found a way to do it at a time when election day was approaching in Canada, and two factions of the Liberal Party were vying to have their man win the race and become the next Prime Minister. The Jews approached one of the candidates and asked him to work on forming the G-20 that will derail the work done by the French, thus keep Egypt out of the G-7. In return, the Jews promised to get their man elected, which they did but was tossed out after a little more than two years in office.

 

Now I ask you this, my friend: Is this a process that is so kosher, Richard Haass is correct for wanting to demolish the UN and see that process decide the fate of humanity? Would you risk your well-being to give that screwy process a try?

The quest to make others look like the self

 Xinjiang is a region in China that's populated by people known as the Uyghurs, whose religion happens to be Islam. Because they are different from the rest of China, the habits of the Uyghurs clash at times with the way that China is transforming itself as it seeks to modernize and meet the challenges of a promising future, but one that is also fraught with enormous dangers.

 

Suppose now, for the sake of engaging in idle talk, that the Chinese government in Beijing becomes so irritated by the refusal of the Uyghurs to join the transformation the rest of China is embracing –– and decided to bomb the Uyghurs in an attempt to force them into accepting the way of life it is imposing on them.

 

If this happened in real life, you would consider it uncivilized behavior on the part of the Chinese, would you not? And you would reject Beijing's bombing of Hong Kong into submission, would you not? Of course, you wouldn’t accept any of that because these are the Chinese leaders' “own people,” and no one should treat its people this way. Is that not true?

 

Well then, in this case, let’s try another approach. We first observe that Bangladesh is inhabited by a majority Muslim people and that, contrary to the Uyghurs, they are not the Chinese leaders' own people. Will that make it more acceptable to you if the Chinese bombed the Bangladeshis who are someone else's people?

 

By now, you must have guessed what I'm trying to establish. It is that the narratives created to serve the various propaganda machines over the decades, have together produced a weird kind of paradigm whereby the bombing of one's “own people” is not acceptable, thus making it the duty of others to intervene. In contrast, bombing someone else's people is perfectly acceptable, and requiring no action on anyone's part.

 

This is why Syria's Assad who was falsely accused of bombing his own people, was labeled a bad guy, whereas the Israeli leaders who regularly bomb the people of Palestine are rewarded with amounts of cash that would make your head spin. That's not to ignore the Americans whose bombs have create more misery on the planet than all the natural pandemics that hit it since the beginning of time.

 

But how does it all begin, and how does it evolve and end? Good questions. Fortunately, we have an example of how it happens. The rise and evolution of that phenomenon is reflected in an article that came under the title: “The Chinese Communist Party's Dangerous Bid for the UN Human Rights Council,” and the subtitle: “The conditions that allow the Chinese delegation to run the table are structural.” It was written by Jimmy Quinn, and published on September 13, 2020 in National Review Online.

 

The following is a montage of excerpts from the article, showing how America brought itself to a point where it could no longer function in collaboration with other nations, including its old friends and allies, and was therefore upstaged by China:

 

“China is engaged in a campaign to wipe out ethnic identities within its borders and do away with democratic governance in Honk Kong. But that barely registers in the proceedings of the UN Human Rights Council. China isn't currently a member but will be a candidate this time around. International pressure has mounted as the human-rights situation in China deteriorates. The reason that China has been immune from criticism is that non-democracies have been allowed to run for election to the council, participate in debates, even draft and vote on resolutions. Autocracies that band together get their way. The Chinese convinced dozens of countries to back Beijing's actions in Xinjiang and Hong Kong. To this day, the UN Human Rights Council has never condemned China's violations of human rights. The council had time to consider North Korea's concerns about racism in the United States”.

 

We can see in that passage how, in complaining that the Chinese are having things done their way, Jimmy Quinn is actually alluding to a time when it was America that had things done its way. Indeed, there has been a reversal from a time when the world considered the American system of governance to be most ideal, loaded as it was with attractive features suitable for anyone that desired to emulate it.

 

But look what happened since that time. America disgraced itself so badly, it can do nothing better than bribe the poorest countries in the world to have them vote with it at the United Nations. And when it comes to the Human Rights Council, the issue that diminished America the most, has been its whorish adherence to the doctrine that made of crimes committed by Israel, a blessed category of crimes worthy of being venerated and not criticized.

 

Yes, America has been diminished, but it still has the means to punish the weakest of nations, which it often tries to do. And yet, despite all of this, the nations of the world are abandoning America one after the other because they eventually come to realize that when America fulfills the wishes of Israel's Jews, it causes more damage to the world than the economic sanctions it would impose on them, or the bombs it would drop on them if and when it comes to that.

 

The net result is the current situation. It is one in which the world is progressing at a rapid pace; one in which America is neither leading it nor following it. America is simply falling behind and looking neither like the old self, nor like the vision of a future that the rest of humanity aspires to realize brick by brick as time moves on.

Time to criminalize accusations of antisemitism

 A number of decades ago, I suggested that accusations of antisemitism should be criminalized because they were ruining many innocent lives. This happens because a Jew that's accusing someone of antisemitism is like a Jew that's carrying the AIDS virus and having sex with someone without telling them his condition.

 

When the victim dies and the Jew is caught, he is punished because the defense he might use to the effect that death by love cannot be a punishable offense, is not valid. In a similar fashion, character assassination of innocent people in the name of loving the Jews, must not be considered a valid defense. That's because whereas the accuser is not held to account, the word in vogue today for what happens to the accused is “canceled,” as in “eliminated” by the legal “perfect crime” that is the heinous accusation of antisemitism.

 

My suggestion was not taken seriously, and the accusation of antisemitism has spread to a pandemic level. But something else has been happening in the interim. Whereas the accusation has gradually lost some of its sting without completely disappearing, the ordinary people of North America are becoming better informed of the destruction that the fanatic Jewish organizations are inflicting on their institutions and their way of life.

 

This development has caused the people of America to ignore the threat of being labeled antisemitic, and started to publicly say and do the things which, in their judgment, will have the salutary effect of attenuating the Jewish destruction of their country, thus make America a better place to live in for themselves and the generations to come.

 

You can see an example of this as well as the desperate and futile Jewish response to it when you read the article that came under the title: “Biden Condemns Antisemitism While Ignoring Democrats Who Support It,” and the subtitle: “However commendable Biden's decision was to disavow an anti-Semite like Linda Sarsour, the Democratic Party nominee should clean up his own house.” The article was written by Benjamin Baird and published on September 12, 2020 in The Federalist.

 

What you'll become aware of as you read the article, is a political party representing an America in the process of shaking off the shackles that the Jews have slapped on it, and maintained them for decades. It is the story of a Democratic Party of America that is now gracefully maturing into adulthood, and doing an American style intifada, which is the Arabic word for shaking off.

 

You'll read the story of the Joe Biden campaign whose first impulse was to distance itself from a delegate named Linda Sarsour because she was accused by the fanatic Jews of being antisemitic. But after mulling over the matter, the campaign retracted its position and apologized for reacting impulsively to a non-event the way that the Jews had demonically trained the country to behave.

 

But what exactly was the reason why Linda Sarsour was put on the Jewish list of anti-Semites? It was the following according to Benjamin Baird:

 

“The Palestinian American activist said that Israel is built on the idea that Jews are supreme to everyone else. She has also stated that nothing is creepier than Zionism and refused to denounce Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, a notorious Jew-hater. Most significantly, Sarsour is an outspoken BDS adherent”.

 

In other words, speaking in the name of the Jewish High Command, Benjamin Baird is telling his readers that the American citizen, Linda Sarsour deserves to be canceled because she refuses to unconditionally love a foreign entity calling itself Israel, and refuses to unconditionally hate an outstanding American citizen named Louis Farrakhan, himself designated as anti-Semite, and put on the list where Linda Sarsour finds herself.

 

Intifading itself of the Jewish shackles, the Democratic Party of America began the process of healing itself and healing America of a disease that has kept the country's governing apparatus in a paralyzed condition, and sinking into irrelevance at home and abroad for decades. America is now coming out of its long hibernation, but this alone will not be enough because there remains the cause of the disease such as the organization to which Benjamin Baird belongs. It is The Middle East Forum that was founded and continues to be presided over by the notorious Daniel Pipes.

 

It is an organization that lives at the expense of the American taxpayers doing no work except that of telling Americans they must hate other Americans, and must love Israel, a foreign criminal organization whose foundation makes Hitler's Nazism look like a bunch of rowdy kids playing rough just to have a little fun.

 

This has to end, and the way to do so is to deny any form of tax exemption to organizations such as the Middle East Forum, and deny the tax deductions to the companies that donate to them.

 

It will also help when the accusation of antisemitism is criminalized. Just think about it, if I accuse someone of theft and cannot prove it, he sues me for defamation and I am ruined. But if I accuse someone of antisemitism, which is something that I can never prove, I get away with it and he is canceled.

 

This is such an absurd situation it puts the Jews above the law. Again: This must end, and the way to do it is to criminalize the accusation of antisemitism.

My Benjamins are holier than your Benjamins

 To be sure, Benjamin in the context of this article refers to the hundred-dollar banknote in American currency, adorned by the portrait of the multi-talented Benjamin Franklin. There was a time when a hundred dollars represented a purchasing power high enough to get the attention of a politician running for office. And so, the Benjamin as it was nicknamed, came to associate political campaigning with political donations.

 

For several decades, people spoke about that phenomenon in the American culture as readily as they spoke about aspiring politicians attending BBQ parties to meet their donors and prospective voters. But then one day, a polemical explosion was set off in America when the House Representative Ilhan Omar suggested that politicians are influenced by the Benjamins of the Jews.

 

Before you know it, big and small Jewish organizations reached out and commissioned their favorite pundits, and paid them (presumably enough Benjamins) to flood the public square with articles condemning Ilhan Omar for being so antisemitic as to suggest that politicians are influenced by Benjamins donated by Jews instead of saying that politicians vote in favor of Israel and the Jews because morality motivates them to empower the two who are solely talented to make the world a better place.

 

This left the public at large with the impression that when it comes to moral issues, money does not cause those who rely on donations to act according to the wishes of the donors. In other words, where the conscience plays a role, the Benjamin is stopped at the door of high ethics. But then, guess what happened my friend. Mitchell Bard who writes opinion pieces for the Jewish publication Algemeiner, wrote an article under the title: “Harvard Reaches a New Low,” and had it published on September 10, 2020.

 

Mitchell Bard began with a preamble that accuses academia of, “widespread abuses that include the substitution of propaganda for scholarship, the misuse of the classroom to promote personal agendas, and the normalization of antisemitism on campus.” In other words, Bard started damning both the institutions of higher learning and the individuals who run them before saying why he is doing it.

 

Now that he got this much vitriol off his chest, he decided to tell the readers what it is that's bugging him about academia. Are you ready for his revelation as to why he is steamed? Here it is: “Some people may believe universities are interested in education, but they are even more interested in money”.

 

Wow, did you get that? You must be baffled because you know what money means. It means the Benjamins, of course. So, there goes the notion that, where the conscience plays a role, the Benjamins are stopped at the door of high ethics. But what happened to those Jews? Are they pulling the old trick of running two contradictory discourses at the same time: One that applies to thee and one that applies to me? Maybe.

 

But what exactly did Harvard University do to merit being characterized as having reached a new low? Here is what the university did according to Mitchell Bard: “The sellout of academic values is exemplified by Harvard's acceptance of $1.6 million from the State of Palestine. Could it be a coincidence that, in a case study of the university's decline in standards, it hired Saeb Erekat, the Palestinians' chief negotiator?”

 

Do you know what the Harvard endowment is worth, my friend? It is worth $40 billion (that's a B.) And when you do the math, the result says this value is 25,000 times as large as the paltry $1.6 million donated by the State of Palestine. It is like having $25,000 in your pocket, and an income stream that keeps it replenished, and you sell your soul for one measly dollar? Yes, just one dollar. Would you do that? Can you imagine the honorable Harvard University doing something like that?

 

Moreover, given that nowadays, you can easily get 5 percent in dividend on your investment, do you know what 40 billion dollars would earn you? It would earn you $2 billion a year. Do you know what that says? It says that aside from the income stream Harvard gets from regular sources, it receives at least $1.6 million from its investments –– get this now –– every 7 hours throughout the day and the night, 365 days a year.

 

Unable to comprehend the enormity of the error he just committed; Mitchell Bard went on to blather the usual cowardly slander the Jews are known for. He attacked both Saeb Erekat and Nicholas Burns, the man that hired him. After spewing hate of the kind and volume that only a Jew would spew, Bard went on to suggest the following: “Perhaps Erekat can give a lecture on how to promote terror, which students can apply on the streets of the United States”.

 

Well, well, well. Given that terror is already on the streets of the United States without Saeb Erekat being there to promote it, a string of thoughts comes to mind. It goes like this: To maintain a firm grip on their colonies, the colonial masters of old used the “divide and rule” adage effectively. They pitted faction against faction by inciting and enabling each side to go after the other. This kept both sides in a weakened state and incapable of going after the colonial masters.

 

Considering that the Jews have done something similar in the political arena of America, pitting the two political parties against each other and becoming masters of the American ship of state, there is Mitchell Bard who now dreams of doing it on the streets of the nation. Given that there is already a police force; one that’s trained in Israel to kill American citizens by the “knee on the neck” method, all that's needed now, according to Bard, is to show the street gangs how to riot more destructively and kill members of that same police force.

 

But how to do that? Well, there is the Jewish method by which to pull off this kind of trick. It goes like this: You accuse someone of what you wish to accomplish. When everyone looks in that direction, you do what magicians do, and that is to play the sleight of hand when no one is looking at your hand. Bard got everyone looking at Saeb Erekat and Nicholas Burns, we should now expect that AIPAC will play the sleight of hand that will get blood running in the streets of America.

 

With this in mind, we should look out for the formation of Jewish groups who will pretend to help the street gangs leave the life of crime behind them, but in fact, incite and train them to do more serious crimes. And no one will be surprised to know that Mitchell Bard is directing this bloody operation. He just proved he has the talent for it.

How the early lie becomes the accepted truth

 At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Jews pulled their favorite disinformation trick by calling on their bimbos out there to start discussing the prediction that Israel will drag America with it, and together will develop the vaccine that will cure humanity of the pandemic. This should happen next week, they opined, but if not, it will most certainly happen in America and Israel before someone else gets there.

 

The idea is that regardless of what happens after the passage of time, the first impression that people get about a news event, is what sticks in their mind no matter how false the prediction proves to be in the future. In fact, this is why in the mind of many Americans, especially the political fruitcakes of the Washington Beltway, the belief persists that Israel is more than a Third World country even if it is sustained by donations and so-called compensation that pour into its bottomless coffers from around the world.

 

Well, the Jews have done it again. They got Timothy Kaldas to write a piece in that same vein for Bloomberg News under the title: “Why Egypt Didn't Profit From Peace With Israel As the UAE Will,” and the subtitle: “The Emirates are not burdened by the legacies of war that handicap Egyptians.” It was published on September 10, 2020 on the website of Bloomberg News.

 

As can be seen in the title where there is mention that the UAE will gain something, the potential that this may turn out to be a lie, is revealed immediately thereafter. You can see it in the first paragraph of the article where the writer began the discussion with these words: “The agreement between the UAE and Israel seems to have hit a snag.” Was Kaldas still thinking that Egypt could have gained something it did not pursue?

 

And when it comes to that word “profit,” what does it mean in this context? When you think about it, profit is one part of a binary system called zero-sum-game. So then, if Egypt and/or the UAE were slated to gain something, who was slated to lose so as to make the math work? Timothy Kaldas does not say it openly, but the suggestion in his article is that America would be the giver, therefore the willing loser … as in sucker.

 

In fact, true to form, the Jews are asking America to give to Israel in the mode of the “coming and going.” That is, when Israel is at odds with someone (that’s coming,) such as killing 2,100 Palestinians in Gaza, it gets rewarded with a billion dollars in cold cash from America. And when Israel comes up with a friendly agreement with someone (that’s going,) such as having an understanding with the UAE, it gets billions of dollars deposited into its interest-earning American account. This is money that's supposed to buy American weapons, but nobody is checking because if someone does, he's labeled an anti-Semite and canceled.

 

Looking at this evidence, no one can doubt that the Timothy Kaldas article is an authentic production of the Jewish propaganda machine. But despite this reality, is there a sign –– however faint it may be –– that in the name of historical accuracy the writer has tried to set the record straight concerning a lie that was put out long ago and picked up by the bums who incessantly repeated it in the echo chamber? No, there is no sign of an effort to set the record straight. Here is the passage in the article that tells this story:

 

“President Anwar Sadat's decision to make peace helped pave Egyptian access to American arms and military aid after he had downgraded ties with the Soviet Union and expelled Soviet military advisers”.

 

This version is different from what normally comes out the echo chamber of the Jewish propaganda machine. What comes out is that Henry Kissinger masterminded the ouster of the Soviets from Egypt and brought Sadat into the American camp. Well then, does that passage say Timothy Kaldas has set the record straight? No it does not. It simply says he skirted the issue so deftly, he neither fell into the trap of telling an outright lie, nor told the truth. He left the events as murky as they have always been, and moved on to complete what he was commissioned to do.

 

Here is the truth that Kaldas should have told but did not. Having warned the Jews and the Americans that Egypt was going to start mobilizing to liberate the Sinai, Anwar Sadat had in mind to inform the American President Richard Nixon that he will not cross the border into Israel because all he wants, is to retake what the Jews had taken by force of arms. And so, lest anyone believe that the Russians will be helping the Egyptians in the upcoming assault, Sadat told the Russian advisers to leave Egypt, and they left in June of 1972. It took the country a year and four months to mobilize, and when this was completed, Sadat asked Nixon not to come to Israel's aid because Egypt will not cross the border into Israel. He then ordered the Egyptian military to start the counterattack in October of 1973. That’s 16 months after the Soviets departed.

 

Up to the start of the Egyptian counterattack, Henry Kissinger had nothing to do with the Middle East, being too busy with the China and Vietnam situations. But when the Egyptian assault smashed through the Bar Lev line in hours, Kissinger was called upon to intervene and arrange a ceasefire.

 

Instead of doing that, Kissinger surprised everyone by coming up with an idea that was his own. He said, let them fight it out a little more so that they get exhausted and beg for a ceasefire. But since Israel was already on its knees with Golda Meir having prepared the poison she'll ingest when the Egyptians cross into Israel, and Moshe Dayan suffering a mental breakdown from which he never recovered, Kissinger decided to help Israel withstand the fight for a few more hours.

 

He ordered the NATO forces in Europe to use unmarked planes and supply Israel with weapons and munitions directly where the battles were ongoing. At the time, there came persistent reports that should be confirmed or denied by America, to the effect that the pilots flying those planes were American Jews calling themselves Israelis for the occasion. It was also said that they bombed their way through Egyptian defenses to get to the embattled Israeli military and deliver help.

 

If any of this is true, it will be a stain that will live forever on Henry Kissinger's record, having prolonged the war and added to the number of dead for no good reason. And when this happens, today's accepted truth may become tomorrow's newly uncovered lie.

Using America to coerce others loses Force

 Out of the jokers' factory that has ceased to be funny, comes yet another sickly set of ideas to use America as a world-reviled instrument of coercion, and make life miserable for Iran, Israel's chosen enemy of the day.

 

This would be accomplished by stinging America's longtime friends who would not join the assault on Iran. In fact, the former friends are beginning to think of America as the frivolous actor that is now motivated by a flimsy sense of self-worth and a broken moral compass.

 

Yes my friend, today's joker is Richard Goldberg of the laughable Foundation for Defense of Democracies, who wrote: “How Trump can enforce the snapback of UN sanctions on Iran,” an article that was published on September 9, 2020 in The Washington Examiner.

 

To get a sense of how destructive a thing like Goldberg can get, think of him not only as someone who publishes bad ideas once in a while, but one who also acts in the name of America, and does so in accordance with the rotten ideas which he generates. In fact, he brags that he has already acted on behalf of America while serving on Capitol Hill and on the US National Security Council, as well as being chief of staff for a State governor and Navy Reserve Intelligence Officer.

 

What happened that motivated him to speak now, is that the five permanent members of the Security Council (which includes America,) plus Germany, acting in the name of all of humanity, negotiated a deal with Iran whose purpose was to ascertain that Iran will not become the cause of nuclear proliferation in the future.

 

Upon this, the Jews of Israel and America, who do not think of themselves as part of the human race, waited for governance in America to change from sane to the insane. When this happened, they pressured the new political elites in the Washington Beltway to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal. This done, they imposed sanctions on Iran to the extent that America could do so by itself.

 

Still, the move has irritated the Iranian enough to cause them to violate the nuclear deal ever so slightly. But they made clear they did it only to publicly communicate to the other signatories that, like they promised they will do, they must now compensate Iran for losses it is incurring as a result of America's outlaw behavior.

 

Concurrent with this, and given that the original deal contains provision for a sunset clause that comes to term in a few weeks-time, the Jewish lobby in America went berserk and pulled a Jewish style legal thinking that persuaded the master clown of American diplomacy to run to the Security Council and try to convince its members that even if America is no longer in the deal, it can by Jewish logic, demand that the Security Council activate the snapback provision on Iran so as to increase the pressure on that country. But the Security Council wisely told the American clown to get lost.

 

So now comes the joker Richard Goldberg and tells America how it can go it alone and make life miserable for the Iranian people. But wait a minute, has this not been done before by every Jewish pundit; by all their cousins and all their sidekicks? What is there to add to a bag that's already overflowing with nonsense? Actually, Richard Goldberg is not adding anything this time. What he is doing is subtract from what the Jews had been barking and braying previously.

 

Whereas they used to imagine that when forced to choose, the Europeans will prefer doing business with America rather than Iran … but were proven wrong, here is what Goldberg is accusing the Europeans of doing now: “They are willing to undermine their own security interests in letting the arms embargo on Iran expire just to preserve a more politically expedient appeasement foreign policy.” This is to admit that the regime of American economic sanctions has started the process of dilution.

 

But being the Jew that he is, Richard Goldberg has tried to make it sound like he won whatever game he was playing … apparently playing it alone since no one else was playing with him. Whatever the case may be, Goldberg has seized on the opportunity that Donald Trump will soon speak at the yearly meeting of the United Nation, and gave him this advice:

 

“Announce an executive order threatening the full range of sanctions against any firm connected to the transfer of arms, ballistic and cruise missiles, drones, and related components to Iran. Transfers of air defense systems like the Russian S-400 should be included”.

 

But the reality is that the European countries are not now, and will not sell weapons to Iran because that's what they have determined was in their best interest long ago. As to Russia and China selling weapons to other countries, the exporting companies have always been under American sanctions, and will so remain perhaps for a million years after hell would have frozen over, if not longer.