They Dream of Versailles Treaty Redux

David Ignatius wrote a column on the subject of Iran for the Washington Post under the title: “Iran – the next stage,” and it was published on November 27, 2013. The next day, the editors of the Post published their own piece on the same subject under the title: “Final Iran deal needs to balance out the concessions.”

What comes out these two pieces is that they show the two sides of America's character. First, they show the mindset that made the superpower the success it has been over a good part of the Twentieth Century. Second, they shown traces of the toxic elements that have eroded America's ability to maintain its dominant position during the last third of the century, even caused the superpower to degrade in relative terms as compared to the other ascending powers.

When in the first paragraph of the Ignatius article you read the three optimistic words: “won its breakthrough,” you know this is the same America that rose with confidence early on to tackle the challenges of the Twentieth Century. You are confident that things will work out with the “officials [who] are planning strategy for the second round that will seek a broader agreement.” But then, you learn that “negotiators will be fencing off brickbats from hard-liners in Israel and Congress.” And this is when you start to feel that the cancer which brought America to the sick bed of nations is still metastasizing and rotting the flesh of the enfeebled superpower from the inside.

The word “inside” used here means inside America, not inside the bargaining delegations for, like Ignatius says, what points remain “will have to be negotiated in the diplomatic equivalent of the circus ring, with hoots and catcalls from bystanders.” He already said who these outside bystanders are; they are the hard-liners in Israel and the Congress to which can be added the media and think-tank mouthpieces who will endlessly repeat the refrain: End the talks here cold turkey and give us the warm blood of the dying. Show us the color of young American blood; show us the color of Iranian blood at every age. Shock and Awe them, Barack, and send them to the Stone Age where they belong.

After listing what the negotiating agenda with Iran will most likely include, Ignatius comes back to the points of the sidebar that will be taken care of simultaneously. There are two points, the first being America's relation with the Sunni Arab world. To this end, President Obama already spoke with the Saudi King informing him that the U.S. “seeks an equilibrium in the Sunni-Shiite schism.” This is the normal sort of diplomacy; the sort that normal nations engage in all the time.

As to the second point, it has to do with the “wild card [that] is Israel.” To this end “Obama has asked Netanyahu to take a breather from his clamorous criticism,” and where possible from “the bombastic pressure campaign by Israeli advocates.” These would be American Jewish and non-Jewish mouthpieces – inside the US Congress and outside of it – who will repeat the propaganda points that will come from the New-York/Tel-Aviv axis of war and crimes against humanity. They are the characters who will endlessly repeat the refrain demanding the end of talks and the start war.

And so we get a taste of how this will unfold when we look at the piece that was authored by the editors of the Washington Post for, the first thing they do is criticize their country's administration: “The Fact sheet of the administration is notable for its omissions.” Of course it is as it should be; and that's because it is a summary. The Post had access to the full text, and this is how they knew the summary omitted a few things. So why the bitching now but to sing the Jewish refrain that clamors for war? You get no answer here from them.

They also know, as did we all, that the matter concerning the right to enrich uranium will be left “ambiguous” for now till the time when it will be negotiate towards the end. It will be done in light of the confidence that will have been built up between the two sides by then. So why is it that the editors of the Post delight at bitching about this moot point but to sing the Jewish refrain that clamors for war? You get no answer from them here either.

Finally, they tell what it is they are objecting to. It is what they say “amounts to a sunset clause [a time after] which Iran will be treated the same as any non-nuclear weapon state.” Well, why object to that? If Iran will have become officially a non-nuclear weapon state with all the safeguards that go with that, why bitch about it? Guess what my friend, actually there is an answer to this question, but you'll have to infer it yourself because they will not come out and tell it honestly.

It is that the Jews, who believe they have been humiliated throughout the four thousand years of their existence, wish to get back at humanity by humiliating anyone and everyone who gets hit by something and, in their view, becomes susceptible to being humiliated by them. This is why you always hear them call for the humiliation of this one here and that one there. In fact, what dances inside their heads at this time like sugar plum dances inside the head of a Christian child at Christmas, is the Treaty of Versailles.

This event was not only the apex of humiliation, it was the treaty that led to the bloodiest of all wars, the savage Second World War at which time blood sweeter than plum was flowing like a river. It all started when Germany lost the First World War, and was forced to sign a treaty according to which it made huge payments to the allies – not only to make reparation but to admit guilt. This was so humiliating; Germany started the second war to erase the vestiges of the first

To repeat that history, the New-York/Tel-Aviv axis of war and crimes against humanity wants Iran to admit guilt so that it will feel humiliated and be driven to start a war at a later date, thus try to wash away the humiliation. This is why the editors of the Washington Post – standing as a mouthpiece for the axis of war and crimes – are suggesting that Iran must never be viewed as a normal country even after it abides by all the requirements. “No automatic expiration date” they say.

Suckers Pay Slickers Who Fatten Their Wallets

Imagine you are in your house and suddenly, you hear noise and loud human voices outside. You and your family go out to see what is happening, and discover that a part of the neighbor's house is in flames, an occurrence caused by a car that caught fire in the street nearby. Your own house has been affected but to a much lesser extent.

You notice that the neighbors are wrangling loudly as to the best way to handle the situation without doing anything. In the meantime, you and your family quickly decide who will get the buckets of water, who will get the garden hose and who will call the fire department. But while you're doing this, the do-nothing neighbors scream at you that you're wasting time wrangling among yourselves instead of doing something to put out the fire. You shake your head in dismay, having just realized that your neighbors are a family of bozos.

Well, my friend, this is the closest analogy that would describe what comes to mind when American pundits who stand at one extreme of the political spectrum or the other, ignore their own house that's ablaze, and lecture to others – the Egyptians, for example – as to the way they ought to handle their own little fires. This is what the editors of the Wall Street Journal have done once again with the piece they published on November 30, 2013 under the title: “Egypt's Authoritarian Slide” and the subtitle: “The generals crack down on the secular liberal opposition.”

First, they say that the Egyptian authorities arrested one of the leaders of the uprising who, along with millions of Egyptians, forced out Mubarak nearly three years ago. This time, however, they acknowledge that he did not have those millions behind him because: “Many Egyptians are happy to settle for the restoration of some kind of order after nearly three years of chaos.”

So what's the problem? What are these editors bitching about? Well, they admit there is nothing tangible except for a feeling that they have. It's not something they can put their finger on; it's what things look like. Look like, they say? Yes, look like. Here it is in their own words: “The military looks like determined to ensure no repeat of the January 2011 upheavals that brought free elections and the Islamists to power in the first place.”

Does that mean the military fears the Islamists might return to power? Oh no, not that, they say; and they have a good reason not to believe so because: “The head of the Egyptian military remains the most popular figure in Egypt, and he can probably win if he runs for the presidency in elections due next year.” What then? Nothing. Just that; a feeling. Are you sure it's just a feeling? No further comment. Okay.

But you want to know: What does that feeling do to them? It gets them to speculate as to what the future holds. In fact, they are so certain of their speculation, they take it as prophecy. Here is how they see the scenario play itself out: Various political parties will start to press for a greater say in how Egypt is run. The Islamist are badly wounded, but not out. As memories fade, support for the Brotherhood will rise … One byproduct is terrorism.

Did they imagine all that alone based on a feeling? Well, not really. What they did is what they always do which is to find a restless local who went to live in America, and they took his advice. It's like Russian pundits building a case based on what Ed Snoden tells them ... but don't tell this to anyone; it can get embarrassing.

Knowing how to live at the expense of suckers, the restless Egyptian knew exactly what they wanted to hear, and that's what he told them. He said the military is building on pillars that are xenophobic ultranationalism, anti-Americanism and conspiracy theories about Fifth Columnists. And he predicted that this will again make Egypt prime recruiting ground for al Qaeda. Of course, what these Egyptians will do even before they are born is tell their parents to go breed them in Pakistan and Chechnya so that when they grow up, they will go blow up things in London and Boston – and no one will know they are Egyptian.

Since I know at least as much as that restless guy about what is being said and not said in Egypt, I conclude that he must be reading books written in America about conspiracy theories on the assassination of John Kennedy and Martin Luther King, books on the disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa, and books on the Americans who blew up their own World Trade Center. He must now be laughing his way to the bank and to the bookstore where he will grab more stories to adapt and sell to the suckers who will be too eager to pay him.

They Continue to Kneecap America

This discussion is about Clifford D. May's article that came under the title: “Iran after Geneva” and the subtitle: “America's wisdom and will are likely to be tested over the months ahead.” It was published on November 28, 2013 in National Review Online. But before I get to that, I need to go on a tangent so that I may illustrate a point that will help me explain a crucial matter.

Those of us who are old enough to have become familiar with Walter Cronkite's on-screen persona will remember that one of his traits was the ability to express his emotions while reading the news. He did so using facial expressions and a mannerism that was his own. In this regard, he once did something that may have been instrumental in introducing a Middle Eastern expression into the American culture. Known to treat the Arabs and the Israelis with an even hand – which he maintained most of the time – he nevertheless would indicate his displeasure at one side or the other if he became annoyed at something. And so, it happened one time that he made a face while quoting an Arab who had said something to the effect that “they try to break our will.”

Shortly after that, expressions such as “testing our will” and “breaking someone's will” came into vogue in America. Not long after that, the Israelis – who used to say they were able to execute the 1967 blitzkrieg in the Sinai because they had more telephones on a per capita basis than did the Egyptians – now started to say that they were able to pull off that blitz because the Jews had the will to fight more than did the Egyptians. It may be a coincidence or it may not be. Who knows?

Now, why is that point so crucial to this discussion? It is because you encounter the following passage in the Clifford May article: “In 1935, Hitler commissioned a film called 'Triumph of the Will.' Last week, Ali Khamenei addressed the Revolutionary Guard Corps. My colleague, Reuel Marc Gerecht noted that Khamenei spoke of a struggle of the wills. The Supreme Leader stressed that proud Muslims have the will to win.” The implication here is that Khamenei's Iran is the ghost of Hitler's Germany because the word “will” clearly stands as the nexus that links the two. Well, that's what they used to say about Saddam's Iraq; and that's what they later said about North Korea. But when the mushroom clouds didn't go kaboom like they predicted they will, the false prophets changed their tune to now predict that it will happen with Iran. And you can be certain there will be someone else in the future. This is not a prophecy; it is almost as scientific an observation as to see a stone you throw in the air come falling to the ground.

The question to ask is this: Does the Farsi culture contain a reference to the human will the way that the Arab culture does? Or is it that Khamenei picked up the word from Walter Cronkite? Or did he pick it from Hitler like Clifford May says Marc Gerecht is saying? Or maybe he picked it from the Israelis who had picked it from Walter Cronkite. Well, to tell you the truth, I'm not going to waste my time trying to untangle this mystery, but I put it out there for anyone who may wish to try their hand.

As for me, I get bored listening to people who see historical analogies where none exists. I get bored with these people as much as I do listening to conspiracy theories that swirl around assassinations which took place decades ago. And when the intent behind making this sort of analogies is to scare the world into believing that mushroom clouds are about to form in our skies, I see someone thirsting for blood. As it happens, only the Jews and their American lackeys see a Hitler in the people they start to hate; people about whom they motivate America to put its children in harm's way, and do what often turns out to be an illegitimate and ill-advised deed.

In making the current analogy, these people insinuate that the one they hate for the moment has expansion on his mind and the wherewithal to attempt it. But the truth is that in the modern era, no one has the wherewithal to expand by military force. Israel was taught this lesson several times, and there is proof it has learned it. The fact is that Israel no longer equips its army with tanks, the instruments by which to invade lands and occupy them. Yes, Israel still occupies the West Bank of the Jordan, but that's the legacy of a past it can no longer repeat.

Knowing this, Clifford May and people like him advance their point of view by making quick reference to the military situation in the 1930s, then switch to a safer ground. For example, speaking of Iran, they feel more at ease talking ideology than talking the number of tanks and soldiers it would take to occupy the Middle East or the whole world, for that matter. Here is an example: “The ideology of Nazism called for the creation of a racial aristocracy. The ideology Iran's rulers embrace calls for a religious aristocracy.” Wow, if that doesn't tell you Iran's rulers are about to invade Czechoslovakia, you know nossing about za history of za Nazi Chermany.

If not that, what can the Iranians do that will emulate Nazi Germany? To respond, Clifford May offers this scenario: “Sooner rather than later, the sanctions rope unravels … There will be calls to reestablish economic pressure but it may be too late. Iran's rulers will continue toward their near-term goal: a quicksilver nuclear-breakout capability.” Because this does not sound too scary, he tries to inject melodrama into the scenario. This is how he does it: “Their longer-term goals include hegemony over the Middle East, control of the region's petroleum resources and the Strait of Hormuz.” The problem is that he does not say how many tanks and how many soldiers it will take to achieve these goals, and whether or not Iran has that capacity.

Still, undeterred by the absurdity of what he is predicting, he continues his flight of fancy with this: “Non-proliferation will be dead – the Saudis and others will obtain the weapons they need to defend themselves.” But how and when will they do that? Before they have been occupied by Iran or during the occupation? May says nothing that would answer these questions; but he looks ahead, thus turns the pool of absurdities he has been filling into an ocean: “Over the decades ahead, the odds of a war in which nuclear weapons are used will rise.” Nuclear war between whom? The occupier and the occupied?

With people like these in charge of America's security, you know now how and why the superpower that was America turned into a joke in less than a generation under an administration that was headed by the Rove, Cheney and Rumsfeld triumvirate of clowns.

They kneecapped America before, and they insist on finishing the job.

NYT Editors Addicted to Self-Induced Ignorance

The editors of the New York Times (NYT) are demonstrating once again how much they are addicted to the regime of self-induced ignorance they long ago inflicted on themselves when pontificating on matters Egyptian. Ironically, they are doing it this time on Thanksgiving Day, November 28, 2013 in an editorial they titled: “Silencing Dissent in Egypt”. If that's all they can be thankful for, the time has come for America's literate crowd to weep about the fate that has befallen its Grey Lady.

In an effort to deliver a one-two punch on the nose of their readers right at the outset, thus hope to gain their attention, the editors begin their piece with a mix of an old cliché, and a more recent smart Alec utterance. Steeped in the era of the Vietnam War when “military” was a bad word, they employ the cliché “military-backed government” and mix it with the childish muttering “dictatorship of Mubarak without Mubarak” to give their readers a taste of the banality that is to follow.

They first assert that it was “in the name of crushing all resistance” that the Egyptian authorities moved to ban most public protests. Where the banality of their presentation begins is when they try to explain why they regard such move as being a bad thing. To this end, they make four points: (1) General Sisi owes his power to such protests; (2) Military leaders stood aside in 2011 when protests in Cairo forced Mubarak to resign; (3) Sisi cited large protests against Morsi to justify what they call the military coup; (4) Sisi summoned millions of Egyptians into the streets to approve his crackdown on Morsi supporters.

Well, if there is a reason on this Thanksgiving Day why Americans cannot be thankful for something, it is that they have a class of pundits in their midst such as the editors of the NY Times. And that's because these people still do not realize that what they utter will not affect Egypt one fraction of an iota but will do considerable damage to their own culture, to the reputation of America abroad and ultimately to its finances and military strength.

Just because America had a revolution and a civil war that made it a better country does not mean that America must continue to have revolutions and civil wars. By the same token, just because millions of Egyptians publicly protested to demand a change in the way that they were governed, does not mean that Egypt must continue to have public protests by every group that feels like having one, anytime, anywhere it wants to. And this is especially true since the millions of Egyptians who brought about the change in government, are the same ones who now call for a period of calm so that they may work on achieving the goals of their revolution.

And while that is the wish of the millions of Egyptians who continue to express what it is that they want for their country, the half-wit editors of the New York Times stack against them their own set of wishes for Egypt. And how do they do that? You won't believe it, my friend. They do it by quoting themselves. Yes, that's what they do. Just look at this piece of narcissistic rubbish: “As The Times reported on Monday, opposition from the secular left is growing.” But that's not all because they go on to lament: “Now, the real level of opposition to the present government will be increasingly hard to judge.” Judge, they say? They want to sit as judges, and determine what millions of Egyptians can and cannot want for themselves? Is there a mental hospital in America equipped to handle a case as severe as this?

Now that the editors of the Times have proven beyond the shadow of a doubt they belong squarely in a mental hospital, they tell what they think of the way that their own government is handling the Egyptian situation. They say it was good that America severed its military cooperation with that country but that it was bad Secretary of State John Kerry said the move was “not a punishment.”

Ah, if only those who sit at Foggy Bottom would look through the clear lens of AIPAC, they would see that Egypt's transition to democracy is not on track, and that punishment – yes, only punishment – will bring these people online and have them march toward democracy. That would be Jewish style democracy, of course, where you have the choice of praising Israel and the Jews, or be sent to spend the rest of your life in the Jewish Gulag of the blacklist.

And, when someone is as mental as these editors, it is not surprising that they should re-scramble the things they scrambled before, and chide the people who fail to see things as clearly as they do. This is what prompted the Times editors to end their presentation like this: “The administration has calculated it needs the Egyptian military for its regional security, just as it believed that it needed Mr. Mubarak ... Egypt may be doomed to repeat the mistakes of Mubarak, but American policy need not be.”

These are the people who professed their hatred for Mubarak when he was in power; praised him after he was ousted, and now damn him for being rehabilitated.

All of which says that when it comes to the editorial board of the New York Times, the saying that applies most aptly is this: Once a mental always a mental.

Happy Thanksgiving Day, America.

Valid and Fake Certainties and Skepticism

At all time, we go through life being certain about some things and skeptical about other things. Also, there are times when we change the mind, and go from being certain to being skeptical about some things, or go from being skeptical to being certain about other things. But the one thing that remains constant in all of this is the fact that our certainties and our skepticism can be valid or can be fake depending on our disposition, both cultural and personal. At he cultural level, we are heavily influenced by the framework in which we now live; at the personal level, we cannot escape the experiences through which we lived in the past.

That was a concept I formulated long ago, and kept buried in my memory ever since. Also, the launch of this website contributed to distancing me from the concept because I now had the opportunity to do the thing I like most which is to express myself on the issues of the day ... wrapped in the certainties and the skepticism that accompany the act of self expression.

If memory serves, the reason why I formulated that concept in the first place was that I had a “Picasso” view of the reality that powered the world of punditry. I knew enough about Picasso to understand that he was of the “Cubist” school of painting. I may be wrong about this, but to me at the time, this meant that Picasso could see things frontally, and see their backside also as if he could see through what's behind the cube. And this was the view I had of the world of punditry. Let me explain.

Over the years, I maintained contact at all time with the people that could have given me a break in “big time” journalism. I knew that a number of individuals (I consider them friends) wanted to give me the break they thought I deserve. I also knew what they did for this to happen but were overruled by those higher up because I was blacklisted and they wanted me kept there. The friends did not tell me the whole truth about the status of my blacklisting but invented all sorts of fake reasons as to why my piece was not published: things like not enough space, the theme I am tackling has been dealt with already ... and so on.

I also had another group of friends who were not of the trade, but were doing other things to earn a living such as practice law, teach in college or pursue a political career, for example. They were in touch with the people who made the decision to keep me on the blacklist, away from the public domain. And they were the ones who gave me the back view of what was happening behind the scenes. They told me of the debate that was ongoing between those who wanted to publish me and those who did not. The argument of the latter was to the effect that I had nothing to say that would interest the public so why bother publish me. The counterargument was to the effect that I should be given the chance, and I fail to maintain the interest of the public, I can always be dropped and forgotten about. No, said those who wanted to keep me out, it would be a waste of time.

That train of thoughts came to mind when I read Sohrab Ahmari's piece in the Wall Street Journal. It came under the title: “An Iranian Insider's View of the Geneva Deal” and the subtitle: “If the right to enrich is accepted, which it has been, then everything that we have wanted has been realized.” It was published in the Journal on November 27, 2013.

Like everyone else, I have been looking at the frontal view of the arguments as they unfolded here with regard to the interim deal between Iran and the P5+1. I saw the legitimate and fake certainties as well as the skepticism that come with the territory. And what Ahmari is giving us now is the back view of the cube.

While our skeptics here argue: Why give the Iranians a chance; they will not perform as well as expected? The skeptics over there say: Let's go along for now, and see if the other side will perform as well as expected.

Ours are fake dogmatic skeptics; theirs are authentic creative skeptics. Ours are useless; theirs are the sort of people that advance human civilization. We should try to catch up with them.

Who was it that badly needed the Deal?

Some pundits continue to try having it both ways. They say President Obama was under so much pressure at home, he has accepted the deal with the Iranians prematurely to divert attention from his domestic failures. At the same time, they say that the Iranians knuckled under, and came to the negotiating table at this time because the sanctions were inflicting great damage to their economy ... which is why the regime of sanctions must be strengthened rather than relaxed to make sure that the Iranians will negotiate in good faith. Are these pundits trying to have it both ways, or is it that their behavior is a curious oddity?

What's it really about? And why is it that you get this kind of punditry only in America? Well, you get it in America because that's where you have the greatest concentration of Jewish so-called pundits – whatever they are in reality. You see, built into any culture that develops naturally is a sense that everyone has his place under the sun. We may step over each other's territory inadvertently or even deliberately thus create conflict between us, but we end up resolving our differences through a process of give-and-take where you give some of what you have in order to receive some of what the other guy has.

And when this round of conflict-cum-resolution is done with, both parties go on with their lives as normally as possible till they find themselves mired once more in some other conflict with someone else. This compels them to go through the whole process once again which is why all cultures have come to recognize the process as being an integral part of life. In fact, some people view it as adding spice to life, and have come to accept it – but only as long as it does not degenerate into acts of violence.

This, however, is almost never the case with those who appoint themselves leaders of the Jews; and it's not what they imbue into their followers. That's because these people start life with the view that their stay on this planet is permanently under existential threat because they think that humanity does not now nor will it ever allow them to have a place of their own under the sun. Thus, having nothing that they can legitimately give away for what they want in return, they cannot resolve a difference they may have with someone by using the path of the give-and-take.

This being the case, what the Jews are taught at a young age, is that they can obtain what they want only by employing fear to force the side that has it to relinquish it. This means that if a Jew sees something he wants, he must first work on discovering a reason to blackmail the owner of the thing, then use the discovery to pressure the owner to hand it to him. And if it so happens that a so-called Jewish pundit sees two sides (such as the American and the Iranian) do the thing that humans normally do by going to the negotiating table because it is in their mutual interest to do so, the Jew will have a weird sort of interpretation. He will say that both sides have knuckled under because each must have feared something.

So you ask: How do the people who are equipped with this sort of mentality interpret history? As it happens, there is an example we can look at – courtesy of the Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens. His latest column comes under the title: “Worse Than Munich” and the subtitle: “In 1938, Chamberlain bought time to rearm. In 2013, Obama gives Iran time to go nuclear.” It was published in the Journal on November 26, 2013.

He says that in 1938 Britain and France took the option of capitulating to Nazi Germany, an act he characterizes as being a byword for ignominy, moral and diplomatic. He goes on to explain that the British and the French took this option because: “Neither had the military wherewithal to stand up to Hitler … appeasement bought the West a year to rearm.” So then: Why was this a shameful option? Stephens does not answer the question, and neither does he mention that the “West” won the war as a result of the lull that allowed it to rearm. Would the Brits and the French have been less shameful had they attacked a year earlier and lost the war? The answer to this question is buried inside the brain of Stephens, and I doubt that he'll ever reveal it.

But he goes on to give a second example. He says that the U.S. betrayed its South Vietnamese ally by abandoning the effort for which 58,000 American troops had given their lives. He then praises that decision with these words: “Yet it did end America's participation in a war that neither the Congress nor the public could indefinitely support.” But he goes on to lament the victims of Cambodia's Killing Fields.

Whoa! Whoa! Do you know what this means, my friend? It means that in their eagerness to extol the virtue and glory of war, some Jews – Bret Stephens included – are inching towards the saying that it was the American troops, not the Nazis, who set up the concentration camps, the gas chambers and the crematoriums of Europe where the Jews were exterminated. Yes, that's what they are inching towards.

People writing in the Wall Street Journal, the National Review Online and similar publications are mutilating history so badly in their attempt to “rehabilitate” the Vietnam War, they are using the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia to make their case. What these super ignoramuses of the Jewish kind cannot understand, precisely because they are mentally deficient to grasp history, is that the world begged – yes, begged – the Vietnamese to go into Cambodia and end the Holocaust that the Khmer Rouge of Pol Pot were inflicting on the people of Cambodia.

Vietnam did just that; an act akin to the Americans going into Europe and freeing the Jews who survived the Holocaust there. The truth is that the Vietnamese were not responsible for the killing fields of Cambodia; they ended that Holocaust. Get that into your heads, all of you ignorant Jews out there, and stop glorifying the Vietnam War.

Still, you see these characters turn history upside down, and you cannot help but ask yourself: How can someone allow them to continue mulling current issues by analogy with a history that their miniscule brains can never be brought to understand?

For now, you brush them aside, look at the work that the Permanent Five plus Germany have done together with their Iranian counterpart, and say to yourself: Thank God there are non-Jewish people on this planet keeping it sane and safe.

And you conclude: Mankind needed a good deal, and these people delivered it.

The Ultimate Test to Prove High Treason

The list of wars in which America got stabbed in the heart by American traitors is about to get longer. Like the Gulf of Tonkin resolution about Vietnam, and the WMD declaration about Iraq which resulted in thousands of American boys and girls being sent to die so as to kill innocent foreigners, a fake situation is being created at this time about Iran with the aim of crafting a congressional resolution upon which young Americans will again be sent to die so as to satisfy Netanyahu's insatiable thirst for blood – American blood and everyone else's blood.

The potential traitors this time have names and have recognizable faces because they already spoke about their plan to scuttle the effort that was mounted by the Obama administration in conjunction with European and Asian allies to fashion a peaceful resolution to the dispute that has pitted Iran against the alliance. The American traitors think they can get away with it this time because they have assurances that the Jewish Establishment in America with the backing of World Jewry will be there to protect them. And so, the thing to do now is to watch these potential traitors, and see who will take the test of proving they would commit high treason in response to a call from a foreign entity ordering them to kill their own people so as to kill innocent foreigners.

Even before the end of the Vietnam War, the Jews started to work on dragging America deeper into the Middle East, and have it stand there protecting Israel while the latter implemented the grand plan that the Jews had in mind for the region. They started with the Pearl Harbor style sneak attack of 1967, and carried on with numerous other adventures. After an initial success that gave them the euphoric high they craved, they ended up losing every one of the adventures, having paid dearly for each of them in the medium and long runs.

The trouble with the Jewish mentality, and the tragic result for America is that the Jews never think of the consequences of their actions because they adhere to the religious belief that God has given them the right to do anything they want without thinking of the consequences. Despite the many proofs to the contrary; proofs that came to them time and time again over the centuries, they continue to believe in the promise that God will fix things for them when something goes wrong. And where they are planning to drag America now is but a consequence of an adventure they launched decades ago.

It started when they instructed one of their agents in America to steal satellite photos about a civilian nuclear station that was being constructed in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. When they got them, they used American made jets and American made smart bombs to destroy that station. Being the feeble mind that he was, Saddam thought to himself that it pays to be friends with the Americans because they will let you commit any crime you want, and help you commit it. And so, to win their trust, he attacked their archenemy Iran. Sure enough, they became his friends with two tragic consequences to follow.

The first is that the Iranians determined they must become militarily so strong as to stand up to any aggression by a neighbor that America may again encourage. The second consequence is that Saddam thought he could now attack Kuwait and take it because, having America on his side, no one will move against him. He proved wrong in that the Arab League called on America to intervene, and many Arab nations participated in the military action that ousted Saddam from Kuwait – known as the first Gulf War. But with the Iraqi counterweight removed, Iran was able to build up its forces to the point where it's at now. It has become powerful enough militarily to defend itself against any aggression, and strong enough economically to become a superpower.

And so now, the Jews want America to play the role they thought God was going to play but never did. They want America to correct the situation by destroying Iran the way it destroyed Iraq in the second Gulf War based on the information they fabricated themselves to the effect that WMDs were produced there.

The trouble is that America is not a God. It is made of young men and women who get hurt and die. Also, the American treasury is not infinite; it gets depleted when abused. If the congressional traitors have it their way, and they involve America in another war, Netanyahu will get the high he craves but Americans will die.

Let those low life animals that run the congress come out, look directly into the camera and tell the American people: I want your child to go die in Iran so that Netanyahu may feel like the man he never was and never can be.

A Disguised Wolf and a Rabid Dog

Here is the first of two questions, what would worry you most: To encounter a wolf in sheep's clothing or a rabid dog? And here is the second question, what would insult you most: Being called a wolf in sheep's clothing or a rabid dog? Believe it or not these were the considerations which the bosses in Tel Aviv instructed their fifth column agents in America to make a part of the discussion that concerned the nuclear deal achieved between Iran and the Permanent Five plus Germany (P5+1).

I did not monitor all the print and audio-visual discussions on the subject because there was no way for me to do so alone. But from what I have seen, the mention of the Israeli who called the Iranian a wolf in sheep's clothing, and the mention of the Iranian who called the Israeli a rabid dog, occupied a prominent place in the debates. When something as trivial as this encroaches on a subject as serious as that, you can be sure it was no coincidence but that the instructions to do so must have come from a single source – usually traveling to America through the New-York/Tel-Aviv network of propaganda and war mongering.

This got me thinking about the importance that the Jewish organizations place on creating an image of the person or the people they seek to destroy ... however false that image may turn out to be. It also got me thinking about the fear that they experience when someone creates an image of them ... however close to reality that image may turn out to be.

It was in the summer of 1967 that I first became aware of this tendency of theirs. Israel had just launched a sneak attack on the Egyptian forces in the Sinai and won the battle hands down. Even then, the Jewish leaders felt so threatened that they organized the foot soldiers on this continent, and gave them a job to do. They got them to call on the editors of the audio-visual studios and print media to advise them of a few simple facts. These were to the effect that the Jews must be portrayed as saintly because that's what they are; and the Arabs must be portrayed as mad dogs, wounded animals, cockroaches and viruses because that's what they are.

After being subjected to a daily barrage of this kind of insults for a number of months, and seeing that no response was coming from the Arab side, I decided to respond myself. I wrote a letter to the editor of the Toronto Star under the title: “Don't listen to propaganda, Egypt is a civilized country” in which I mentioned no Jews, and said nothing that was noxious. I hand delivered the letter to the editor who asked me to sit down because he wanted to have a talk with an Arab, something he never had the opportunity to do before. In fact, there were only a handful of us in Toronto at the time that had the motivation and the ability to articulate our side of the story.

He told me of the deluge of letters and phone calls that he and the other editors were receiving day after day after day from Jews who threatened to cancel their subscriptions if the editors did not write more favorable stories about Israel and the Jews even though the media were literally soaked with nice stories about them. They were already portrayed as divine, so much so that some office hands feared God Himself might find it necessary to call and cry out: What about me? Have you forgotten me? I'm divine too!

And so you can imagine how surprised I was when a representative of the Canadian Jewish Congress decided to visit me in my home in the year 1968, and warn me that I should never again write to the editor of any publication because I just might get hurt. I did not heed their warning, and have been battling them ever since. I don't know if I managed to wound these animals in any way, and I don't know if they still believe the Arabs are wounded animals.

And so, I consider it very much in their animal nature that they should now cry foul because someone called them rabid dogs in response to them calling him a wolf in sheep's clothing.

These people (animals) never give up. They want to fire bullets in your direction, and want you to respond by blowing kisses to them. They are nuts.

Confused Self Destructive Bully Cannot Lead

Marco Rubio who is the senator from Florida gave a speech at the American Institute the other day, an adaptation of which appeared in print on November 22, 2013 in National Review Online under the title: “America Leading the Way” and the subtitle: “An American Foreign policy worthy of the American Dream.”

If you want a simple yet descriptive image of how the world perceives the scene of a young American politician giving the kind of speech that Rubio did – here is one: Imagine a dashing young man that is the image of his beloved father getting to the podium to give a speech of platitudes such as those his father used to give. After a short while, he does something that horrifies the audience in that he pulls a gun from his pocket, shoots himself in the foot and then blows his brains off in full view of the world.

And here is the part where Rubio kills his own credibility: “We must always remember that Iran's goal at the negotiating table has never been to maintain peace, but rather to win relief from sanctions without making irreversible concessions.” This is disgusting in that the gun is Jewish, the bullet is made in Israel, and the big loser beside Rubio is America herself; his now wounded and aggravated motherland.

What the world wants to see instead of that kind of never ending parade of pathologies, is a young American who will walk to the podium and do something different. Indeed what America needs to hear is a young American who will have mustered the courage to say: We must always remember that Israel's goal at the negotiating table has never been to seek peace, but rather to extort from us more money and more weapons to continue committing the war crimes it has been committing for too long already. It also seeks to secure continued diplomatic cover and protection from the consequences of its actions. This is why Palestine continues to be occupied despite the negotiations that have gone on for decades. And so, I pledge to you and to the world that I shall end America's participation in this ongoing criminal act against humanity.

Going over the adaptation of Rubio's speech, you see him mention America's legacy and the principles that made it great. He speaks of Germany, Japan and South Korea where he says the principles made a difference, and the legacy can be seen at work. Yes, he is correct in saying these things, but matters have changed as he acknowledges himself: “Unfortunately, our legacy is changing.” But where he goes wrong – thus shoots himself in the foot – is in laying the blame where it does not belong. This is what he says in that regard: “The current administration has failed to show leadership abroad.” No, that's not the source of the problem. The source is the takeover of America's foreign policy by the Jewish lobby, the very people who put in Rubio's mouth the remarks that he made about Iran.

He goes on to show how far away he is from understanding the world he wants America to lead again someday. He begins by describing his vision: “We must correct our course, guided by principles that reflect the realities of the world we live in.” To this end, he offers the following solution to what he said was the failure of the current administration: “In most cases, the decisive use of diplomacy, foreign assistance, and economic power is the most effective way to further our interests … our use of these methods should vastly outnumber our uses of force.” Hey, Marco! How is that different from what the current administration is doing?

Now happy with the sound of his own voice, and not realizing that he is singing the praises of the current administration – which he said a moment ago needed to be corrected – he tells of the “Latin American examples where [Obama's] support for our democratic allies in Columbia and Mexico has given us two examples of how patience and principles pay off.” Hey, Marco! Trying to get a job in the Obama administration? Maybe he does because look what else he says: “We need to build on this progress.” Maybe he is the best candidate to help President Obama build on that progress. Stay tuned.

Rubio goes on to talk some more about doing trade with the rest of the world, then makes the mistake of talking about human rights, having only a fragmented view as to what the subject entails. It is that he talks about the subject in general terms then adds this: “For all the progress we have made in promoting the dignity of every man, woman, and child there are still outrageous abuses occurring in … our own communities.” What he means by that are the individual cases in which young women are kidnapped and kept in chains in basements to serve as sex slaves; and older people whose social security checks are cashed by their abductors.

What Rubio failed to mention is the gargantuan system that the Jewish establishment has built in North America to shut people up who speak against Jewish abuses. The system gathers information about ordinary citizens exercising the right to speak freely, and sends that information to Israel where the manner of both the punishment and the banishment are determined. I know this is happening in America because it is happening here in Canada, and I have been targeted for half a century.

Rubio goes on to talk about liberty: “As we have seen in many places, the light of liberty can drive away the darkness of oppression and tyranny.” He is here talking about the Arab Spring. The thing he omitted, however, is the reality which he never understood. It is that he failed to mention the first thing that the people who fought and died for liberty did; it was to tell the Americans to take their mangled Jewish ideas about liberty and get the hell out of there. “Go, go, go,” they said, “and don't you ever show your faces here again.”

This is why you can only laugh and shed tears simultaneously when you hear him say: “Who will spread liberty if not America? There is no other nation that can.” I'll tell you who can do it, Marco. There is a guy in Zimbabwe called Mugabe that can do better than America. In fact, everyone else lesser than him can do it. Jewish America is an insult to liberty, Marco; just ask the Palestinians.

Wishing the Fantasies to Become Realities

After so much negativity that could only puzzle a neutral observer, the editors of the Wall Street Journal have finally decided to reveal how it all comes together. They do so in an editorial they wrote under the title: “Manias, Panics and ObamaCare Crashes” and the subtitle: “A reader's guide to the coming Affordable Care Act Traumas.” It was published in the Journal on November 23, 2013.

The editors say they are doing this “in the tradition of service journalism” because “President Obama says not to worry about the Affordable Care Act's botched rollout.” But they thought they'd “offer a reader's guide to the potential traumas to come” because they are troubled by the question: “What if the troubles are only beginning because they're built into the law?”

No doubt these are legitimate concerns, and they deserve both the attention and the respect of the readers. Now, given that the subject matter is a complex one, we seek help where we can find it. Usually a human issue of this complexity can be broken into small pieces, each of which can be compared to a situation taken from another discipline. If lucky, we might find the right analogy in the sciences because science is the most exact of the disciplines, and the comparison – if we can find it – will yield a result that will be as clear as it will ever get.

The concerns of the Journal editors fall into three categories. First and foremost, there is the overall cost of the plan: who will pay for it, and who will receive how much of the money that will be disbursed? Second, there is the question as to whether or not the game is worth the candle despite the fact that the system it is replacing has been declared unsustainable. Third, there is the question as to whether or not the technology will be ready in time to handle a plan of this magnitude and this complexity.

To tackle the first concern, we look at science where we find a perfect analogy. It often happens that in solving a complex physical problem, we have to work it in small pieces. A simple example would be to transport an object of known mass from point A to point E by going through points B, C and D. But after we do the math for each segment, we're not sure if we did each and every calculation correctly. We want to verify, so we do the ultimate test which is to compare the sum total of the “energy expended” with the energy that theory says would be needed to transport an object of that known mass directly from point A to point E. If the two numbers match, we know we did the math correctly. If there is a discrepancy, it means we made a mistake somewhere.

So, let's assume that the ideal theoretical amount that should be spent on healthcare in America is 3 trillion dollars which is close to what is spent now. Even though something like 50 million Americans are not covered by insurance, nobody is deliberately left to die because they lack coverage. This means that one way or the other; the 3 trillion dollars spent on healthcare cover the 320 million people who live in America today.

If as a result of the implementation of the new system, the cost will rise to a much higher level, it would indicate that someone is taking advantage of the difficulties to falsely enrich themselves. Thus, if it is true that the editors of the Journal are doing what they say they are doing “in the tradition of service journalism,” they would be looking in those areas. But this is not what they seem to be doing because all indications are to the effect that they are chasing wild geese in search of political reasons they can throw at the Obama administration. They are the ones playing the political game, not the administration.

As to the question whether or not the game is worth the candle, science has shown that if the Soviet Union could put a Sputnik into orbit around the Earth, America could put a man on the moon and bring him back. Likewise, if all the advanced nations can have a system that covers everyone, delivers better healthcare and does it at a lower cost, so can America. So why it is that America is not taking up this challenge?

Now to the website. Will it work well enough and be ready on time? Well, if the editors of the Journal continue to gloat about the difficulties that the builders are encountering, maybe those editors should pick up their marbles and go seek asylum in North Korea or something because they are no more patriotic than the fifth column which runs the American Congress at this time. Meanwhile, the website will be fixed one way or the other, if not on time, a little after that – but nobody will die as a result.

Between the fifth column and those editors, America is being taken to the level of the hermit nation where the fantasies of the sick are transforming into the realities of America despite the effort to halt them.

It Pays to Treat Them like They Treat Others

Ever since Marshall McLuhan studied seriously the impact of the media on cultures, much has been said and written about the subject by other authors whose works continue to appear in the print and the audio visual media. And the one thing we can take from this mountain of works is that perception creates its own reality because the media has the ability to make and shape the message – not only relay it from point A to point B.

And you know what, my friend? Someone else has known about this – at least instinctively – for hundreds if not thousands of years. They are the leaders who took the Jews from place to place; leading them into one adventure after the other across the continents and throughout time. At first, the Jewish leaders succeeded at creating false realities by using the medium at hand to shape the message thus be received with open arms everywhere they went. But being who they are, they overplayed their hand where they were allowed to, only to see themselves kicked out from where they used to be the honored guests.

The way it happens that the Jews manage to abuse the gift they have at falsifying the message, is that the generation which suffers the humiliation of being kicked out of one place, always fails to teach wisdom and humility to the next generation. By the time that three or four generations have passed, there would have risen Jewish leaders so grotesque as to look someone in the eye and say to them: “I am saying these awful things to scare you and force you to respect me. You should therefore take the cue from my posture, be scared and start respecting me.” And the answer invariably has come back in this form: “Go screw yourself, little stupid Jewboy. And when you're done, remove your pornographic sight out of my face.”

That scenario has been playing itself out in America until recently but with a twist that reflects the modern era; a time in which the message is magnified by megaphones, and transmitted in every direction to millions of receivers. This is also the era where communication travels not at the speed of sound anymore but the speed of light which is nine hundred thousand times faster. Thus, what we've been having till a few days ago were Jewish leaders who banged their pieces on the computer keyboards, and Jewish leaders who popped in from of cameras and microphones to tell the Iranians that they are standing up and speaking out to scare the hell out of them. They demanded that the Iranians be scared, and that they start respecting the mighty Jew.

When the Iranians told the Jewish leaders in no uncertain terms that they can go do it to themselves, the Jewish leaders got the message, and started singing a different tune. This goes to show that it pays to treat the Jews the way they try to treat others, and the way they demand that their American lackeys treat the world. You can see how much the Jews have changed, and how fast they did by reading two recent articles written by them.

The first appeared in the Washington Post on November 20, 2013 under the title: “U.S. should be wary of Iran's goal to dominate the Middle East.” It was authored by Joseph Lieberman and Vance Serchuck. The second appeared the next day, November 21, 2013 in National Review Online under the title: “The Iranian Rapprochement Fantasy” and the subtitle: “The foreign-policy establishment thinks Iran should concede nothing in negotiations.” It was authored by Clifford D. May.

After a long introduction in which Lieberman and Serchuck describe the history of negotiations with Iran the way they understand it, you see them refrain from saying the things that Jews used to say – things like: The way to get the Iranians to respect us is to force them to go down to their knees because they know they must fear us. No, the Jews don't talk like this anymore. Instead, Lieberman and Serchuck say this: “As with the Soviet Union, Washington should understand that it faces a determined and resourceful adversary.”

And if you want to know why this change of heart occurred, you'll find the answer in the last paragraph of the article: “This may be the irony of an Iranian agreement: Rather than pivot away from the Middle East, a breakthrough with Tehran would increase the need for U.S. [presence] across the region.” What's that about? Well, it's about America having it up to here with an Israel that is using it like a shield to spread terror and mayhem in the region then complain that the region has become a tough neighborhood. For this reason, America has realized the time had come to look after its own legitimate interests rather than the demonic interests of World Jewry. Now, it is the Jews who are so scared they beg America to stay in the Middle East.

As to the Clifford May article, it begins by quoting the Iranian foreign minister who said: “Any agreement that does not recognize the rights of the Iranian people and does not respect these rights, has no chance.” After that, May demonstrates what effect this Iranian stance has had on American Jews and the non-Jews who used to parrot them. He does that by quoting Leslie Gelb who is president of the Council on Foreign Relations. He also quotes an editorial in the New York Times, and Jen Psaki who is spokeswoman for the State department. And he mentions the New York Times columnist Tom Friedman, and the Washington Post columnist David Ignatius.

He then comes up with his own “modest proposal.” It is not idiotic bluster, it is not “let's scare them” and it is not “let's force them down to their knees.” Instead, it is something that John Kerry can say to the Iranians. Here it is: “Look, I'm a reasonable guy. But there's also Congress – those guys are cynical. In the U.S., we have the warmongers and don't have your freedom [from Jewish tyranny.] So help me, and all those warmongers – we'll prove them wrong.” And to that, I would say amen.

With this, history will record that America got a lesson on how to treat the Jews, something that will prevent them from going as far as they did in Europe. Thus, instead of pogroms and holocausts, they now stand a good chance to lead a normal life in America the way they did in Asia and North Africa where the locals showed them where the limits of tolerance stood, and they stayed within them.

Where the Dogma Dogs Usually Stray

Take any subject you can think of and you'll find people arguing about it from every point along the spectrum of positions. Usually we visualize the spectrum as extending from left to right, but that does not necessarily mean the political Left or the political Right. In fact, we may as well visualize the spectrum of debates in the same way that we do the spectrum of the electromagnetic wave which extends from top to bottom; from the super-energetic shortwave that is the gamma ray down to the long infrared heat wave.

It is interesting to note that around the mid-portion of the electromagnetic spectrum sits the part that is visible to the human eye; the part we call light which can be broken up and spread into the colors of the rainbow. Likewise, there is a mid-portion on the spectrum of positions we may call the enlightened part precisely because it comprises the moderate positions. These can be any number of positions serving each topic as they develop to offer a rainbow of insights and useful ideas.

But the fact that there is a useful middle says also that there can be an extreme at each end; one that may or may not be all that useful. In fact, we encounter people in everyday life that harbor extreme positions of one sort or another. We are exposed to their thoughts when they leave a paper trail, or we read about them when they become so notorious as to catch the attention of a historian. The interesting part is that some of these people start at one extreme when they are young, then mellow with age and move toward the middle. You can observe such people in real life situations, and you can read about them in the books.

But there are people who never mellow and never budge from an extreme position no matter how much they get on with age. We call these people dogmatic or doctrinaire; and I must reveal that they fascinated me so much; I made it a point to study them – something I have been doing for several decades. I am convinced that these people get to be what they become because they are incapable of producing ideas of their own. They cannot even modify the ideas they have absorbed at a young age; ideas to which they continue to hang on like a dog hangs around the territory it was trained to protect.

Throughout history, the ideas that lent themselves to big debates have varied from time to time and from society to society. But it seems at this time that the subject of economics is gaining so much interest, and spreading so widely that we must regard it as becoming the universal subject of conversation where the topics relating to the distribution of wealth are the most popular. Also, since governance is a subject that is closely related to economics, the two are discussed at the same time.

When you speak of governance you speak of the law, and speak of the legislative process by which the laws of the land are formulated. In fact, what is happening at this time throughout the planet is that the local thinkers, pundits and legislators are wrestling with ideas they hope will help create a legal system that will result in the fair distribution of the wealth that is produced by their societies. All sorts of ideas are developed, and all sorts of experiments are conducted but nothing that comes close to perfection has yet been devised.

One of those societies is Switzerland about which the American Wall Street Journal ran an editorial under the title: “Class Warfare in Switzerland” and the subtitle: “The politics of envy in one of the richest countries in the world.” It was published on November 19, 2013. It deals with the ratio between the highest paid and lowest paid workers in a given enterprise, a debate that is also taking place in Egypt at this time.

If the title and subtitle of the article did not convince you that the editors of the Journal are of the extreme dogmatic type, you will be by the time you're finished reading the first few words: “Switzerland's referendums have been used to advance a populist agenda that put the nation's prosperity at risk.” In other words, they are saying that the people of that society do not know what is good for them; those who exploit them do.

And the editors explain why they made that determination: “The country will vote on a measure that would cap the ratio of the highest-paid and lowest-paid employees of a firm at 12:1 ... based on the idea that no one should make more in a month than the lowest-paid makes in a year.” And they argue that this will lead to the outsourcing of jobs, the break-up of companies and the brain drain of the nation's talent. With that, they reject not the 12:1 ratio as did the Swiss and Egyptian debaters that asked for a higher ratio, but reject the very idea of placing a cap of any level on the highest-paid employees.

To support their stance, the editors of the Wall Street Journal explain that Switzerland has become one of the richest countries in the world on a per capita basis because it has a predictable legal regime, a good geographical location, neutrality and a relatively hands-off corporate-law regime. The mystery they do not explain relates to how the legal regime, the geographical location or the neutrality of the country will change if a cap is place on someone's earnings – or for that matter, to what relative extent the relative hands-off law regime will be turned upside down.

The Journal editors are dogmatic, after all, and so they should be allowed to keep the mystery to themselves. And they also maintain the right to herald to the world the good news that in Switzerland “the most recent polling shows 54% opposing the pay-equality measure.” They still have trepidation, however, as to how the vote will go when held in a few days. And for this reason, they remind the world of the dogma that powers their thinking: “No one got rich by making the rich poorer.”

Alas, I have news for the editors of the Journal in that regard. There was a time when I was relatively rich. I teamed up with a partner, and we started a business. He swindled me and got rich by making me poorer. I hired a lawyer who froze his account and got me the money back before we even got to court. And so, I became rich again and he became poorer. Thus, the principle (not the dogma) that powers my thinking is to the effect that in every zero-sum game, the poor get to be rich by making the rich poorer.

They Never Stop Beating the Drums of War

Here they are, the newest converts to a vile philosophy of life, repeating the history of calamities that brought horror to them and to those who got close to them. They are the ones who call themselves Jews but are neither Hebrews nor Semites; simply losers from every race who drink not from the Jim Jones Kool Aid (that had a finality to it) but from the Kool Aid that promises no end in sight. It is what the rabbis have brewed almost two thousand years ago with the view of making it last to eternity and beyond.

They are at this time mourning the possibility that they may again fail to push America into a war that (a) will kill its own children, (b) kill innocent people half way around the world, (c) continue to deplete America of its resources and (d) strip America of what it has left in terms of standing in the world. The Jews are mourning because their two thousand year old philosophy is based on a religion that goes further back another two thousand years – to a religion that came out the bowels of the Stone Age bearing the markings of a primitive and savage brutality.

You get a sense of their disappointment that a resolution may be at hand when you read two recent articles written by two icons of the Jewish quest to burn the world and refashion it in a way that will serve the exclusive interests of the Jews. The first article was written by John Bolton under the title: “Desperate for a deal – even if it helps Iran get a bomb” and was published on November 19, 2013 in the New York Post. The second article was written by Claudia Rosett under the title: “Iran Follows in North Korea's Nuclear Shoes” and the subtitle: “Over 24 years, Pyongyang has shown Tehran how to cheat its way to a nuclear bomb.” It was published on November 20, 2013 in the Wall Street Journal.

The two articles tackle the same subject, each from a different angle, yet both starting with the sense of a let down. The authors see the possibility that the world will avoid the catastrophe they consider to be manna from the sky; the stuff on which they feed like hyenas feasting on blood, gore and mutilated bodies. Look how Bolton starts: “Barack Obama seems poised to reach an agreement with Iran.” And look how Rosett starts: “Secretary John Kerry emerged … to say that negotiators are 'understanding what the remaining challenges are.'”

Well, what would you do if you were a John Bolton wishing to muddy the waters in the hope of causing the failure of the negotiations? The first thing you do is predict that the negotiations are doomed to fail because Obama is a fool and the Iranians are demons. In addition to that “the parties' objectives are utterly incompatible.” And this is because he [Obama] believes he can “deflect the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons” whereas they believe that the negotiations “ensure success for that very weapons program.”

Bolton now reveals what it is that he is mourning: “Tehran's objective is to eliminate the threat of military strikes.” He goes on: “No one believes he [Obama] will use force.” So how can Bolton turn around this trend? There is only one way that he can do it – he must make a conjecture, however unlikely it may be, then call on Israel's fifth column of traitors in the American Congress to start an inquiry. Here is the conjecture: “Who knows what private assurances Obama or Kerry have given the ayatollahs?” And here is the call to the traitors: “a fruitful area for Congressional inquiry.” It's as simple as that in America. Only six words written by a Jew will set ablaze an otherwise dormant Congress.

Still, the ultimate aim being to motivate the traitors enough to betray their country once again, and set the stage to send America's boys and girls to die for the glory of Israel, he must come up with a strong excuse. He finds one – none other than the same old argument. It is that the situation is an existential one for Israel, he says. There is one problem however; it is that Israel has been portrayed as the stud that can do anything. So how to reveal that he is actually impotent? Well, you blame Obama and Kerry. Here is how you do that: “Israel, which Obama is pressuring unmercifully, not just on Iran but also on the Palestinians.”

He goes on: “Kerry squeezed Netanyahu … implicitly green-lighting a third intifada and continuing European efforts to delegitimize Israel in their absence.” And these are the reasons why “Iran is very close to its goal of neutralizing Israel.” I mean, hey, if there is an American legislators who will not see red at this panoply of accusations, he will have to be treated like a prisoner of war, kept in a cage and paraded not in the streets of Hanoi but the streets of the District of Columbia or whatever district he or she comes from till they cry uncle or be obliterated politically. The situation may still be an existential one for Israel but will now be existential for the traitors who will betray Israel and Netanyahu instead of betraying America and Obama.

And this brings us to the Rosett article. She spends most of it discussing North Korea, devoting the last two paragraphs only to drawing the parallel with the Iranian situation. She says this: “Tehran and Pyongyang have a business partnership based on Iran's oil and North Korea's weapons programs, the two states have close diplomatic ties.”

She elaborates: “Iran's Ali Khamenei traveled to North Korea in 1989. There, he expressed his admiration that 'You have proved you have the power to confront America.' North Korea has provided a display of how that's done.” And believe it or not, it is based on that musing alone – something that was said 24 years ago – that Claudia Rosett concludes: “It does not bode well for the Iran nuclear talks in Geneva.”

This is her way of saying – like John Bolton – that the negotiations are doomed to fail when in reality she – like him – is terrified because she feels that a resolution to the problem is close at hand.

But that's okay with them because they write for one audience only; the imbeciles in the Congress.

Proof of Identity Falsification and Theft

The good news is that there is now proof the people who call themselves “Jews” are committing identity theft when they claim that they descended from the Hebrews who used to live in Palestine, or from any of the Semitic groups that now populate the Middle East. You'll find such proof in an article written by Robert Kagan under the title: “A changing world order?” and published in the Washington Post on November 15, 2013.

Kagan did not set out to make that case, but made it anyway. He made it despite himself while trying to articulate several unrelated points. He wrote like the Jewish American he says he is; but in doing so, demonstrated to which culture he does not belong. In fact, he is nowhere near being a Hebrew, and all he managed to show is that he and people like him fantasize about being of that ethnic group despite the evidence to the contrary which they keep supplying to the world.

These people have spent a long time and much effort trying to convince the world they belong in Palestine because they said they had the right type of blood or genes or chromosomes. When they failed to prove any of that, they came up with the idea that what counts is not what the sciences say who or what you are because, you only need to feel like a Jew to be a Jew. They went on to argue, that this is true regardless of the physical characteristics that would place you in one ethnic category or another. Thus, to them, the culture to which they adhered took on a great importance because they said it was the one thing that made them who they are – descendents of the Hebrew tribes that belong in Palestine.

And so, this development prompted the people who have a stake in the matter to ask: How does it all work out with that thing you call culture? And those who say they are Jews started to talk about rituals and observances; things that made no sense because to observe the rituals of Catholicism, for example, would not make you a Roman or an Irishman. And neither could you claim to be an Arab by observing the rituals of the Muslim religion. So why would you be a Hebrew by observing the rituals of the Jewish religion? And the debate ended there.

But then, talking about culture gave a few curious people the idea of standing back and observing those who call themselves Jews to see if they have the sense of an ancient culture which they would have if they were connected to Judaism at least at the spiritual level. Lucky for us, this is the kind of observation we can engage in by analyzing the Robert Kagan article where we shall get some useful results.

The one characteristic that a person must have to be considered connected to an ancient culture, is that they must have a long term vision of things. Thus, if you see someone habitually make quick judgments based on the flimsiest of signs that the existing order has just changed, you can tell that this person has no connection to any of the ancient cultures. Look now how Robert Kagan begins his article: “reports of America's declining power have proved premature. The U.S. economy seems to be on an upswing … The dollar seems destined to remain the world's reserve currency … American military power remains unmatched in quantity and quality.”

This astounds you because the lifespan of a nation is measured in centuries and millenniums. Thus, for him to judge what the status of American power will be decades or centuries from now based on an economy that only now “seems” to be on the upswing, and a dollars that only now “seems” destined to remain a reserve currency, forces you to draw your own conclusion. It is that this man has no connection – spiritual or otherwise – with the ancient Hebrew culture. He is an American Jew but not a Hebrew or a Semite of any kind.

As such, what is it that he is trying to accomplish with this article? Well, he is trying to put a plan in the public domain – the very plan which he admits has been strongly rejected by the American people. To articulate it, he first trashes the ideas “which Fareed Zakaria and the other declinists touted a few years ago.” He further admits that America has many problems, but counters by saying that everyone else has problems which are debilitating and “promise to grow more severe.” He doesn't explain any of that; another way by which he demonstrates he has no connection with the wisdom of the ancient cultures.

This done, he addresses the tendency of the American people to reject the plan that has failed in the past by blaming the whole thing on what he calls “a period of uncertainty and flux.” He goes on to say that “President Obama's policies have reflected and encouraged the desire [of Americans] for contraction and retrenchment.” To counter this, he gives a version of history that is typical of what the mutilators of history do. To sound convincing, he advances the notion that the American people may not understand this well enough. Not only that but “the president himself may not understand this.” So there you have it; everyone is dumb except the Jewish imposter.

This brings him to the point where he posits that the whole world is confused anyway about what should happen from here on: “How should international affairs be governed and regulated?” And this is something that will undoubtedly puzzle many in the world who know exactly what they want, are working hard to get it and in some cases, dying to bring it about. But he goes on to ask the next question: “And if not the United States, then who?”

With no one in sight to take up the role that America used to play: “global disorder seems a distinct possibility more than it has since the 1930s” he goes on to say. This date is significant because it was the time when the Europeans began to reject the view of World Jewry with regard to how the world should be governed. The result of that rejection has been the Holocaust that did away with many of the people who used to call themselves Jews at the time.

And so Kagan suggests the fashioning of an international order that accommodates both global and American wariness of US power. He adds that he is pessimistic of the outcome because – he now admits – change is coming one way or the other. But he adds that change is usually the result of catalytic upheaval; something he would say as a fake Jew but would not were he an authentic Semite of the Hebrew group or any other group.