A number of years ago, a weird cult leader took a hundred or so California followers to a jungle spot in the far away Continent of South America under the pretext of serving a cause that did not exist. One fateful day, he had them consume a drink that was popular among children called Kool Aid. What the followers did not know was that the drink was laced with poison, and so they all died upon drinking it – men, women and children.
The same has been happening to America but the culprit this time is AIPAC, a massive organization having a worldwide reach. The victims who are sent to die in far away battlefields for a cause that does not exist are the children of the hundred million families who constitute the American population. Those among them who survive the horrors of the battlefield return home with physical and/or psychological scars that no one cares about, and the youngsters end up in desperate straits both socially and financially. Many of them prefer to die than be forced to live this life, having consumed the AIPAC Kool Aid not knowing what it was – and so they commit suicide.
But how did AIPAC manage to reduce superpower America to this trivial state of being? Well, in the same way that confusion was the tool of the California cult leader, confusion has been the tool of AIPAC, a trick it uses adroitly by activating the best suited sleeper agents it has – be they Jewish or non-Jewish – to get on the available megaphone and spread the poison among the people who will be most advantageous at serving whatever cause the Jewish leaders of AIPAC may have; noting that they have at least one ongoing cause at every moment in time.
You see how this works when you analyze two articles that were written by two sleeper agents and published by different megaphones. The First has the title: “What is Egypt” and the subtitle: “As America's new secretary of state arrives in Cairo, it's still not clear the United States knows what it's dealing with.” It was written by Steven A. Cook and published in Foreign Policy on March 1, 2013. The second has the title: “How Iran Went Nuclear” and the subtitle: “Veteran weapons inspector Olli Heinonen on how the U.N.'s 'Stockholm Syndrome' has aided Tehran's drive for the bomb – and why an unsettling secret may be lurking in the Iranian desert.” It was written by David Feith, an assistant editor at the Wall Street Journal, and carried in that publication on March 2, 2013.
The first thing that happens when you start reading the Steven Cook article is that you feel like being hit in the face with a baseball bat. Brace yourself, my friend because here it comes – “an old talking point: The United States and Egypt … enjoy a 'strategic relationship.'” And you scream: America and Egypt were in a strategic relationship?” When did this happen? How is it that we never heard about it before? How come it was always that America had only one strategic ally in the Middle East: Israel, eeesrael and only eeeeesrael. Was it Egypt all along, and no one said so? How was eeeeesrael dragged into this? And why?
But then the writer has the gall to lament: “Yet for all the talk of common interest and close alignment, few can define what this actually means.” Well, there is only one thing you can do with a guy like this: Hey Steve, get this through your thick skull – the few who can define what that means are those who bother to read the sane publications that do not carry your articles. But the guy still disappoints you, my friend, because he goes on to do the insane things he has been doing all along; the things that define his career. Look at this passage: “President Barack Obama has worked hard to keep relations between Washington and Cairo on track … but where exactly is that track supposed to be leading?” You wouldn't know, Steve, even if it were knocked into your head with a hammer.
Still, he goes on: “It is not all clear that the President knows.” So you ask: Not clear to whom? To you, Steve? It would not be clear if it were poked directly into your eyes. But he goes on to explain why it is not clear to him: “When Hosni Mubarak visited Washington … Obama fell back on platitudes … three years later … Obama averred that Egypt was neither an ally nor an enemy.” Hey, Steve, they always fall back on platitudes when a dignitary comes to visit even if it's a dog from Tel Aviv who comes pissing on the White House rug then goes to the Congress where he gets 29 standing ovations. Relations fluctuate all the time because nothing remains static. It is called life; something that is alien to the brain dead and the intellectual zombies of this world. Are you one of them?
He goes on to argue: “If Egypt is not an ally and is not an enemy, then what is it? No one knows.” But he immediately admits that someone knows or at least believes they know. However, this being an assertion he does not like, he quickly attacks it. Here is how that went: “American officials have engaged in … circumlocution … journalists and think tankers asked an America official … what the United States wanted in Egypt. He replied, 'We want whatever Egyptians want' … Such a statement was disingenuous – what if Egyptians want to break the peace treaty with Israel?”
Here it is, right here in the view of this reanimated zombie, the only thing that the Egyptians are allowed to want or to reject are the things that pertain to Israel, only eeesrael and nothing but eeeeesrael. He wants Egypt to be a mirror image of that cesspool of horror they call the Congress of the United States of America.
Having described history the way that pleases the AIPAC people, he now does a “Fast forward to 2013” where he argues that “Americans are still groping when it comes to Egypt.” He puts in a thousand more words to basically say that as far as America is concerned there should be Israel, only eeesrael and nothing but eeeeesrael. But he does a Freudian slip somewhere along the line admitting that: “what didn't work out while President Dwight Eisenhower and Nasser were in power became reality under Richard Nixon and Anwar Sadat [who] had come to believe that only Washington could provide the resources Egypt needed in its ceaseless quest for modernization. The U.S.-Egypt strategic relationship was born.”
Kaboom! Here it is. He finally admits there was a strategic relationship between America and Egypt, one that resulted from Egypt's ceaseless (that's CEASELESS) quest for modernization. But Steven Cook, together with the journalists of his ilk, the think tankers of the Washington cesspool and all the barking dogs out there, chose to hide that fact because it would have revealed that Egypt was pursuing modernization. On the contrary, what the sickly dogs were barking was that Egypt and the nations of the Middle East were rejecting modernization to opt instead for a permanent state of backwardness. And this was the reason, according to them, why to America it should be Israel, only eeesrael and nothing but eeeeesrael.
In the meantime, they sought to “bomb those countries into the stone age,” something they tried to do on a few occasions. It is what they are trying to do again with Iran, a topic that brings us to the David Feith article.
Whereas the Steven Cook piece shows how the existing confusion worked in the past and how it is influencing the present, the David Feith piece shows how confusion is conceived and how it is put into action. As can be seen, the title alone is meant to convey the impression that Iran has gone nuclear in the sense that it now possesses nuclear weapons. The subtitle then reinforces that impression and goes beyond it to suggest that “an unsettling secret may be lurking in the Iranian desert.”
So then, what do you do if you are a David Feith and you want to convince your readers of something that has been discredited over and over again. Well, you find a veteran weapons inspector and you conduct an interview with him. You look for something in what he says that may sound mysterious; and you build on it to make it sound like the mystery continues. Meanwhile, you create a fantastic narrative around all that but make it sound like it is the narrative of the man himself. And voila, you have a piece of charlatanism that will sit well at least with the zombies of the American Congress, which is all you need for now.
Here is how the narrative begins: “President Obama revealed the existence of the secret Iranian nuclear facility at Fordo … Is the world due for another surprise? … If anyone has standing to speculate, it is Olli Heinonen, who says he first 'got a whiff' of Fordo six years before Mr. Obama acknowledged it.” This done, Feith sets aside the expert to tell his own narrative – telling it as if it were coming out the mouth of the man himself.
Here is how he does that: “A native of Finland , Mr. Heinonen ... message is a grim one for a grim time. In February alone, North Korea conducted its third and most successful nuclear test; Iran announced plans to install advanced centrifuges that could speed its uranium enrichment by 200%; satellite photos published in Britain's Telegraph newspaper suggested that some operations have begun at the Arak facility; multilateral talks with Iran mostly yielded plans for more talks (again); Iran rebuffed America's offer of direct talks (again); and the Senate confirmed as defense secretary a man who couldn't articulate whether the U.S. intends to prevent an Iranian bomb or live with it.”
The fact is that Heinonen said nothing about a grim message in a grim time. And he said nothing about North Korea, Iran, satellite photos, multilateral talks or the Senate confirmation of a defense secretary. Nor does Feith make that claim directly. However, the way that he juxtaposed the notions gives the reader the impression that he did. And when you get to the end of the article, those notions are reinforced once again.
Here is how the author does that: “An afternoon with Mr. Heinonen provides a sobering counterpoint to happy talk from the Obama administration about 'a world without nuclear weapons.' Mr. Heinonen, in his engineer's uniform of tie and short-sleeve button-down shirt, maintains a certain equanimity about world affairs. Yet the parade of horribles rolls on.”
Confusion about Egypt, confusion about Iran and confusion about the Middle East in general, they were all designed for one reason only; to keep America away from everyone else so as to depend on Israel alone which, in practical terms, means to depend on AIPAC and World Jewry.
This is not the dictatorship of a minority or that of a majority; it is the dictatorship of a cult of death embodied by the Jewish organizations that brought horror and destruction to mankind since the beginning of time.
Egypt and Iran are two of the founding nations that have launched the human race on the path to civilization. By contrast, those who call themselves Jews, and have made that claim for two thousand years, are the charlatans that mankind keeps unmasking for what they are; the characters that give each episode they launch a horrible ending then blame it all on mankind, accusing it of having a genetic defect called antisemitism.