The Jewish/Israeli Circle of self-Deception

Benjamin Netanyahu went before the General Assembly of the United Nations and told the world it is wrong from one end to the other, and that Israel is in the right because it is made of Jews who are never wrong about anything. The proof, he says, is that militant Islam thinks of itself as being so much in the right, it wants to dominate the world … and the Jews, presumably, do not think that way.

However, the world was right about half of one thing, he went on to say, while being wrong about the other half of the same thing. It was right when it “applauded President Obama for leading the effort to confront ISIS,” and wrong when “the same countries opposed Israel for confronting Hamas,” he explained. That's because these people “don't understand that ISIS and Hamas are branches of the same poisonous tree,” he further explained.

To document that idea, he quoted the leader of ISIS as saying the Muslim will walk everywhere as a master. And he quoted the leader of Hamas as saying that his nation will sit on the throne of the world. The fact remains, however, that whatever it is those two characters said – if indeed they said anything at all – the world did not bristle when they said it.

By contrast, in Netanyahu's own words during that same speech, he reported that “we hear mobs in Europe call for the gassing of Jews. National leaders compare Israel to the Nazis.” And before you ask why that is, he tells you why. He says “this is not a function of Israel's policies. It's a function of diseased minds … anti-Semitism. It is spreading in polite society masquerading as legitimate criticism of Israel.”

Well, if this is happening in Europe, imagine what the rest of the world thinks of Israel and the Jews. And like he said it himself, anti-Semitism is something that kept happening throughout time and throughout the planet. Thus, according to him, all of humanity has been diseased since the beginning of time, and only the Jews have remained sane. This being the case, Hamas must be wrong, according to that same logic, and must be destroyed in the same way that the world wishes to destroy ISIS.

So much for Hamas. Now to someone else that is also in the cross-hairs of Netanyahu. It is Iran which calls itself the Islamic State of Iran. This is like ISIS which stands for the Islamic State (IS) of one thing or another but is not the same as the Jewish State (JS), he wants you to believe. The difference between them is that those other ones are happy to call themselves what they wish to call themselves, whereas Israel wants the Palestinians, including Hamas, to call it by that name. See why the Jews are always sane and in the right, whereas everyone else is wrong and insane?

Okay, we hear you, Bibi the Netanyahu. Now tell us, what's with Iran? And boy, does he have a story to tell. He says the President of Iran “stood here last week and shed crocodile tears.” But the truth, he goes on to say, is that Iran wants to build a nuclear bomb. That's bad, he says, because unlike Israel that is coy and ambiguous about having or not having the bomb, Iran says clearly it does not have the bomb and does not plan to have one.

Did Netanyahu use these exact words? Not really. But what he said was not much different. Here it is: “Don't be fooled by Iran's manipulative charm offensive. It's designed to lift the sanctions and remove the obstacles to Iran's path to the bomb. This would effectively cement Iran's place as a threshold military nuclear power.” And he does not wait for you to ask what's wrong with that; he tells you. He does so by asking questions: “Would you let ISIS enrich uranium? Would you let ISIS build a heavy water reactor? Would you let ISIS develop intercontinental ballistic missiles?”

And that's not all because, being a Jew, Netanyahu now plays the role of prophet. So sit back, watch and marvel at his predictive prowess: “Here's what will happen. Once Iran produces atomic bombs, all the charms and all the smiles will suddenly disappear. And it is then that the ayatollahs will show their true face and unleash their aggressive fanaticism on the entire world.” Scary stuff!

He does not say why he is pessimistic about Iran when there was a time it was considered the Shiite darling of the Jews. At the same time, no Sunni Arab cares to know why he has suddenly become optimistic about them, having been the boogeyman of the Jews for so long. Thus, you must think of Netanyahu as dreaming idle dreams when you see him express: “I believe that with a fresh approach from our neighbors, we can advance peace despite the difficulties we face.”

Whoa! Wait a minute. This man still has the gall to speak of a fresh approach from the neighbors. The truth is that the Jews said the same thing decades ago, and the neighbors gave them the “Arab Initiative” which had in it everything they wanted. And what did they do with it? They pocketed the thing, but the peace they promised in return was not one peace; it was the many pieces of Palestine they kept stealing ever since.

Still, not only does he want the Arabs to legitimize the looting that the Jews have been doing in Palestine; he wants the Arabs to open the door for the Jews to loot at a faster rate. Look at the thing that will make the Arabs and all of humanity bristle and run in the streets of Europe and elsewhere yet again, asking for the gassing of Jews. Look and marvel at the ability of the Jews to do it to themselves: “The old template for peace must be updated. It must take into account new realities and new roles and responsibilities for our Arab neighbors.” And no contribution for peace from Israel? Not one iota?

This guy is shameless and there is a reason why. It is that he is a Jew, and that's why Jews are hated everywhere, and have been since the beginning of time. They are hated not because of race, religion, creed or what have you. They are hated because they are driven by an ideology that makes them behave like insatiable beasts. Every once in a while, someone decides to challenge them and all of humanity pays the price of the confrontation that follows.

But the Jews have come full circle, and no one is allowing them to start the cycle one more time. They either understand this or they will pay a final price that may well be terminal.

All these Words to say what?

Here is an example of useless verbiage that would command a place of honor in the hall of infamy. It is a New York Times editorial that came under the title: “Dismal Lessons From Libya and Yemen,” and was published on September 28, 2014. Call it the journalistic gray mountain that went into labor and delivered a mousy editorial.

Written in 600 words, the editorial begins with what looks like a promise to deliver great new revelations that will be used to draw magnificent lessons so as to avoid repeating the dismal performances in Libya and Yemen. But the thing goes on to say nothing till the end where it whimpers this seedy advice: “The administration and most lawmakers … would do well to dissect the lessons from other American military interventions … The dismal state of Yemen and Libya. So far, officials seem content to focus on dropping bombs on targets.”

And here is the implied promise at the start of the editorial: “...it has been easy to overlook the unraveling of Libya and Yemen. For complex reasons, both countries appear to be on a path toward becoming failed states … the dissolution of order in both nations offers sobering lessons. American airstrikes can deliver swift and decisive results. But without a morning-after plan shifting the dynamics on the battlefield often makes things worse … The military action against the Islamic State has been impressive. But there have been insufficient answers to the question: What happens next?”

This is where you expect the editors of the New York Times to start giving, or at least start hinting at some answers. But this is not what they do. Instead they warn that “the deadly and chaotic aftermath of America's intervention in Libya is rife with cautionary signals.” Well, call it redundant given that it is a repetition of what they said before, but you still look for the promised answers. Sadly, however, no answers are given. And why is that? Because the editors of the New York Times are incapable of looking at a situation anywhere in the world through the lens of those places. Instead, they look at every foreign situation through Judeo-American lenses. Worse, those lenses bear the colors of local American politics.

Look how they describe the matter at hand: “In 2011 President Obama and allied governments intervene[d]. Much like Iraq and Syria, the mission in Libya was billed as a humanitarian response … Mr. Obama decided that he did not need permission from Congress. Some lawmakers protested but not strenuously enough. That paved the way for Mr. Obama to launch the new campaign in Syria.” But you want to know: What has that got to do with the situation on the ground in those places? Apparently, the editors at the New York Times have no clue.

In fact, they continue in that same vein with the following: “Qaddafi's swift ouster look[ed] like a foreign policy victory for Obama. But fighting among rival militias plunged the nation into a new civil war. The United States abandoned the embassy in Tripoli two years after [four] Americans were slain in an attack in Benghazi.”

They go on to lament: “The fate of that country has been largely absent from discussions about the new war.” And so you wonder who do they believe has the responsibility to start and maintain a debate on any topic? If the lawmakers do not take up the subject on the floor of their “greatest deliberative body,” the so-called free press of America has the duty to interview the bums, and see what they have to say about any subject; including war and peace. But the editors are not doing that, and the question is why?

The answer is this: America is littered with temples of ignorance and darkness calling themselves think tanks. This is where they have what they call a working group on this foreign country or that one. They come up with all kinds of ideas as to how they can use what is left of America's power and prestige to make things work for Israel and for world Jewry.

Doing this, they care about one thing only: the immediate return profiting Israel and the Jews. What happens after that is none of their concern. And this is why they don't care to have what the editors call a “morning-after plan” or an exit strategy to save America from a potential quagmire, let alone save the countries they incited America to bomb to full and complete destruction.

And the editors of the New York Times have become a cog in the evil machine that is undermining humanity's effort to build a better world.

The Jewish Rape of American Democracy

Lee Smith writes for the Weekly Standard, and he published two short articles lately. The first came under the title: “New Biden National Security Adviser OK with Iranian Nukes,” and was posted on the publication's website on September 26, 2014. Two days later, on September 28, the same Lee Smith posted on the same website an article under the title: “Biden's New National Security Adviser Removed Jerusalem from Dem Platform.”

What this says immediately to the alert reader is that on September 26, Lee Smith did not know what the new Biden National Security Adviser had done with regard to Jerusalem, or had forgotten. By the time two days had passed, he must have received information from correspondents to the effect that the man in question – Colin Kahl – was not only OK with Iranian nukes, but also responsible for removing Jerusalem from the Democratic platform. And this is when he wrote and posted the second article.

Let's leave out the debate concerning the Iran nuclear issue for now because what must be the focus of our attention at this time is the rape of American democracy by a Jewish publication and those who write for it. In the article of September 28, Smith writes about the Jerusalem issue as follows: “Kahl was helping out in the drafting of parts of the 2012 Democratic Party platform, [he] and Congressman Robert Wexler were responsible for altering the platform so that it omitted mention of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.”

People who attended the writing of a party platform at one time or another would not be surprised by any of that because this is how things proceed normally. The surprise comes with what Smith has written next. He says this: “As one source told [Standard contributor Josh] Rogin at the time: 'Colin Kahl and Bob Wexler … led a secretive, exclusionary process, rather than an inclusive one, and then attempted to cover their tracks by misleading stakeholder about what they had done and with whom they had consulted.'”

And this is where the Jewish rape of the readers – and through them the rape of the entire nation – explodes on the computer screen like heavy duty pornography presented in full color. The fact is that a party platform is written or altered when an idea comes to one person or maybe two. The idea is then taken to the floor of the Party Convention where it is voted on up or down. There is no room for something to be done secretively, no room for an exclusionary process; and there is no reason to cover tracks that do not exist. As to the stakeholders in the Smith story, they were the people at the Democratic Convention which he did not mention for a reason.

The reason is that he not only raped his readers through the quackery that is cited above, he raped them a second time by not mentioning the Democratic Party Convention where the Jewish mass rape of America happened in full view of America and full view of the world. The attendees were the stakeholders before whom the alteration of the platform was put on the table, and they voted on it. The vote by acclamation came in favor of accepting the omission of Jerusalem.

And this is where a woman, no less, participated in the mass rape of the convention attendees in full view of a worldwide audience. She did it by whispering something in the ear of the male MC. He reluctantly asked the attendees to shout their yeas and nays again whereupon the vote came even more in favor of the omission. He looked at the woman and looked at the audience in dismay, and asked the latter to shout their vote one more time. The result was again in favor of the omission.

So now, guess what the MC did. He said that in his opinion the omission had been turned down by the attendees. Upon that, the boos and hisses rose from the convention floor … anger in the face of this flagrant display of a mass rape inflicted upon both the convention attendees and the American public – all done on television for the world to judge the quality of American Democracy under Jewish autocracy. In fact, it looked like the public ejaculation of Jewish moral syphilis into the head, heart and soul of the nation.

What does Smith do after that? Despite all that ejaculation, he still has the strength to do a bit of Jewish style intellectual masturbation. Here it is: “It's hardly surprising that foreign policy experts are scratching their heads with Kahl's appointment,” he says. He goes on to quote what he calls a senior official at a pro-Israel organization who said: “Colin Kahl left the administration under a cloud of failure … He tried to insert an anti-Israel plank into the Democratic Party's platform and failed to the point where the president had personally intervened to repair the damage.”

No. Nobody tried to insert anything in the Party's platform, let alone insert an anti-Israel something. In fact, the attempt was to omit a plank from the platform, not add to it.

But the way that the pro-Israel official portrayed what happened goes to the nature of the Jewish moral syphilis that is being ejaculated into America day in and day out. It is this: If you do not express your absolute, undivided and eternal love for Israel and the Jews, you are anti-Israel and anti-Semitic.

Furthermore, to say that the president intervened to repair the damage is to hide the fact that the damage was done to the image of America's democracy – something that no one can repair. It is a stain on the country's image, a growing disrespect for a has-been that is no more.

Why America gets shafted all the Time

When you do something that is wrong you should always expect that you'll pay the price sooner or later. The weaker you are, the sooner you'll pay the price ... the stronger you are, the later you'll pay it. You can play tricks if you know how, and you may be able to postpone the day of reckoning but in the end, you'll pay the price because no one evades a punishment he earned.

The severity of the punishment you receive will depend on how bad your act has been, and the degree of malice with which you carried it out. At the opposite end of malice there is naivety; and many wrongful acts are committed by individuals, institutions or nations which are manipulated by bad characters. This describes America's situation well because America has always been shafted not because it set out to do bad things but because groups that begged for help often led it astray while receiving the help.

This made the affected people angry at America, and they responded by lashing out at the superpower. The most manipulative of the groups leading America astray have been the Jews whose antics invited the biggest punishment. It is that the Jews got the superpower to step on may toes believing it was helping the Jews when in fact, they did not need help but had an evil agenda to implement. The result has been that America paid the price for listening to them and worse, it got insulted by them as a thank you for not being vicious enough on others while helping them implement their agenda.

So the question: How does America get to be led astray by others in the first place? The answer is that the evil ones take advantage of the cultural principles that made America strong, turning these principles into weapons, and using them against America itself. Whereas there is recognition of the fact that democracy has ills in the saying: the ills of democracy are cured by more democracy, it must also be recognized that the ills of democracy can be aggravated by more democracy. And this was the big discovery that the self-appointed leaders of the Jews made; the one they used to score the successes that they did.

In fact, for more than half a century, the Jews have been using America's democracy to insidiously inject into the culture the notion that there are those who deserve to enjoy the fruits of democracy and those who don't. Little by little, they made it so that only the Jews had unlimited rights to the privileges of democracy whereas everyone else had the right to only one choice: either praise the Jews and everything they do, or shut up. The Jewish leaders achieved this level of success by threatening to sue anyone that made them feel “uncomfortable” saying slanderous things they construed to be antisemitic.

The idea was never to “educate” the public as to the sensitivities of the Jews – which is what they have been claiming – but to intimidate everyone that might be inclined to take up a subject touching on Jewish matters. One of the most notorious tricks used by them to achieve that end has come to light lately when an example erupted as to what constitutes something slanderous and antisemitic in their view. It was to say Jewish lobby instead of Israeli lobby, or to say Israeli lobby instead of Jewish lobby. No matter which way you said it, you were called slanderous because you should have said it the other way.

To someone who said it one way or the other expecting nothing, a resulting violent reaction coming out of nowhere and exploding on the scene, is enough to intimidate them. Pulling a trick of this nature for half a century, the Jews managed to make everyone who is not Jewish grovel while raising a generation of Jewish brats so spoiled, your dog would not bite them if they came to rob your property, for fear of being poisoned.

You can see an example of one such brat; one who was raised entirely in that climate, and growing to be a veritable daddy's boy. He is John Podhoretz whose latest expression came under the title: “A sign of promise from Obama on terror,” published on September 24, 2014 in the New York Post.

He ends the article by asking the question: “Can you win a war when the commander-in-chief is a political coward?” And this is the sort of attitude that will motivate the American people to start asking the kind of questions which people have asked about Jews throughout the planet and throughout time before deciding to take matters in their own hand and ridding themselves of a scourge they allowed to grow in their midst like a cancer that never stops metastasizing.

Wolves as Monks and Mothers Theresa

Here is a group of blood thirsty, flesh eating savages calling itself “The Working Group on Egypt” doing its thing again with one purpose and one purpose only, that of adding Egyptian blood to the flow of blood now running in the cities and fields of Libya, Iraq, Syria and occupied Palestine where Jewish ideology and American weaponry have married to spawn horror on a scale that would satisfy the fantasies expressed in the Old Jewish Testament.

Standing under an umbrella with the lofty name of “Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,” members of the group wrote a letter to President Obama, and had it posted on the website of that institution on September 25, 2014. Pretending to be as saintly as monks, and compassionate as Mother Theresa, they said the things that tell any intelligent observer a different reality. It is that these people hunger for Arab and Muslim flesh, and they thirst for Arab and Muslim blood.

Everywhere they went: Libya, Iraq, Syria and Palestine, endless horrors have piled up … which are still ongoing, and showing no promise for an end in sight. And everywhere they were kept out: Algeria, Tunisia and Egypt, the transformation of society has produced an outcome that was infinitely more benign than the pains produced in other places where similar transformations have taken place.

Despite these historical facts, which are known to Jews and to Americans more than anyone else – the first because they were slaughtered like sheep throughout history and throughout the planet; the second because they experienced the bloodiest revolution and civil war ever known to man – the group of ten that signed the letter of horror have expressed not a wish that the American President offer Egypt the assistance it may need to help stabilize the situation in neighboring Libya, but expressed their dismay that the two presidents will meet.

Yes, that's what they did. In fact, this is how they start the letter: “We are dismayed that during your brief stay in New York for the United Nations General Assembly you will include Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi on the short list of foreign leaders with whom you will meet one-on-one.” And get this, my friend; they go on to say the following: “This meeting will be understood around the world, and in Egypt, as...” This is so surprising an assertion; it has the effect of your dog suddenly talking to you for the first time to say what the neighborhood will think of you. How the hell would a dog know that? How the hell would a group of ten idiots know what the world will understand or what Egypt will understand?

It is not that they don't know what Egypt is doing in the fight against extremism; it is that they are spinning the good work done there to make it look like a bad thing. To this end, they are accusing al-Sisi of cultivating radicalism and instability in Egypt at a time when the whole world is knocking at Egypt's door with investment proposals due to the stability that Sisi has brought to the country. All economic indicators that matter have doubled or almost doubled in that country: the growth rate, foreign direct investment, the stock market, tourism and what have you.

Despite all that, the most ignorant of all ignoramuses on this planet are trying to tell the President of the United States it is more joyful, more uplifting and more satisfying to see spectacles such as those unfolding in Libya, Gaza, Iraq and Syria than to see projects such as the twinning of the Suez Canal, the building of half a million housing units, the reclamation and irrigation of a hundred thousand new acres of desert land, the addition of 600 million cubic feet of natural gas into the network of pipelines, and the myriad other projects which are started in Egypt each and every day.

Perhaps the imbeciles of that group view all of that as instability because earth movers, tractors, bulldozers, cranes, drilling rigs and machines running at full capacity – create the kind of movement and noise they cannot cope with.

If this is the case, they should ask to be sent into orbit – not exactly into the International Space Station where some work is done – but into a private capsule where nothing will be done, and where they will enjoy the absolute quiet of outer space.

As to the rest of us, we'll say in one voice: good riddance.

Moral Peasants of the Jewish Plantation

If you want to know how the peasants of a newly conquered plantation think and behave, there are two pieces in the September 27, 2014 issue of the New York Times (NYT) that you can study. The first was written by the Israeli Mairav Zonszein under the title: “How Israel Silences Dissent,” and the other was written by the editors of the NYT under the title: “A Bad Antiterrorism Bill” which has nothing to do with Israel, or the plantation that is America, but has everything to do with preaching to others – this time the French – what America desperately needs to have at home.

The first thing you need to know is that colonialism is an adaptable beast, it changes both in tactics and strategy in such a way as to secure the most effective grip it can have on its colonies. You can see how the tactics worked when you study how the colonial powers treated each colony in Africa and Asia. But when faced with large chunks of land such as the Levant or the Indian sub-continent, a more comprehensive strategy is used.

There is much of the latter that is being discussed these days, given what is unfolding in the Middle East and Southeast Asia. But what is neglected in all of this, is the way that World Jewry has adapted that strategy and used it to turn America-Palestine into a Jewish plantation. To be sure, the Palestinian part of the equation is resisting the occupation whereas the American part remains confused about what is going on even if the ground is beginning to swell with a seething anger that promises to grow and someday become a factor important enough to be reckoned with.

Look at this passage in the Zonszein article: “This has allowed the us-versus-them mentality to bleed into Israeli Jewish society. 'Us' no longer refers to any Jewish citizen, and 'them' to any Palestinian. Now, 'us' means all those who defend the status quo of occupation and settlement expansion, including many Christian evangelicals and Republicans in America. And 'them' means anyone who tries to challenge that status quo, whether a rabbi, a dissenting Israeli soldier or the president of the United States.”

How did it get to the point where a fanatic Jew of the settlers variety can stand as master and pass judgment as to the worth of a Palestinian that is engaged in civil disobedience, or an American President that is engaged in running a superpower? Well, it happened because the Jewish strategy is to view America not as a single nation – though it does not get in the way of that image – but as a conglomeration of institutions; some more strategic than others. The grand strategy is to infiltrate and “own” the most important institutions, and add them to the portfolio of the governing cabinet that is under the control of World Jewry.

At this point in time, the American institutions most valuable to the Jews would be the Evangelicals, the US Congress, the Republican Party, the financial institutions, the portion of the military they still control, the media and, of course, the intelligence gathering institutions that spy on American citizens and give the information to Israel. These, along with the Palestinian institutions that Israel has in its grip, make up the plantation that “status quo” Israelis control as colonial masters.

And this situation has developed because the status quo Jews were able to silence dissent in America before turning on those who live in occupied Palestine – what is called Israel proper and what is called the territories. They did it by accusing those who dissented of being antisemitic, and by ruining their lives and their careers. They did it not only in full view of cowardly editors and publishers who did not lift a finger to defend free speech in America but in cooperation with them. Yes, my friend, the most powerful weapon used by Jews to kill free speech in America have been the guardians of free speech themselves. The same sordid history applies in Canada, and I know it because I lived the experience for nearly half a century.

And given that all civil liberties are connected with the principle of free speech, the violation of one leads to the violation of all the others. Thus, having turned free speech into a privilege enjoyed by Jews only, all other civil liberties in America are enjoyed by Jews only. And this is why when you see the editors of the New York Times write a piece in which they tell the French that their “bill … will increase the potential for abusive ethnic profiling...” you feel like saying to the editors of the New York Times: Oh! Shut up, and go hide your heads in shame inside the pool of mud that the Jews have made of your culture.

Hysteria makes the Difference between them

Let's accept – for the purpose of this discussion – the notion that there are three nations on this planet wearing the mantle of superpower. They are (1) the United States of America that has been one and remains one, (2) Russia that has been one, and is trying to become one again, and (3) China that is unmistakably a nation on its way to becoming a superpower.

You might say that these three nations have a problem with what has come to be called radical Islam. The difference between the three, as seen by a detached observer, is that only one, the United States of America, is running around like a hysterical psycho, armed with a number of guns and loaded with ammunition, shooting in every direction at ghosts that he sees in his mind's eye.

And while most of the town folks are indifferent to what he is doing as they go about their daily business while trying to doge his bullets, a small mob is cheering him on, even shouting at the rest of the town folks that the ghosts he sees are real, that they will soon materialize and will devour the town, one family after the other. And in the midst of this melee rises one lone voice, a man who knows what he is talking about, telling the town folks not to get hysterical because there is neither a reason nor room for hysteria.

That man is retired Marine Lieutenant general Bernard E. Trainor who wrote an article under the title: “The battle against the Islamic State is not ours to fight or win,” published on September 24, 2014 in the Washington Post. The first paragraph of Trainor's article establishes the reality of the situation in which America finds itself, and hints at the differences between this superpower and the other two.

He says this: “Islamic State zealots received international attention … but the United States should know better than to respond with a clarion call to battle. We have been burned trying to resolve the Rubik's cube of the Middle East. U.S. actions in the region should remain calculating, patient – and detached.” With this, he establishes the fact that he is himself detached from the Middle East as should America be, given that it has no business being there.

And that view is what hints at the difference between America and the other two superpowers; the reality being that the problem of radical Islam came knocking at their doors while America – cheered by a small mob of half-baked right wing intellectuals – went knocking at the doors of the problem. Free from the Jewish fuel which powers the mob in America, Russia and China devote no more attention to their troubles with radical Islam than they do to a small nuisance. By contrast, the problem has become so large for America that Trainor concludes his article with this advice: “After more than a decade of frustration and humiliation, the United States should have learned that the Middle East is no place for Wilsonianism on steroids.”

In reaching that conclusion, the cold eye of the detached observer that Trainor is, makes the following points: “Much of what the Islamic State occupies in Syria and Iraq is useless desert … Its blitzkrieg can be seen as a struggle for ascendency but at the core it is a local matter … The president's attempt to form an international posse makes sense, and the results have been encouraging. But it is a stalemate in the making. Meanwhile the Islamic State could draw U.S. troops into the Syrian maelstrom. The idea of destroying it is nonsense … The situation in Mesopotamia is a violent game of mistrust and self-interest. The double-dealing is almost endless. It doesn't make sense to us, but it does to the players.”

Thus, the American problem is not really America; it is Israel that wants to be a player in the region but cannot without America's muscle and superpower status. It is relying on World Jewry and its agents in America to orchestrate the cheering that is done by the mob of dummies. But after a decade of frustration and humiliation – as observed by Trainor, the man who knows what he is talking about – America should now mind its own business the way that Russia and China mind theirs.

They remain respected in the world not because they flex their muscles to make the world fear them; they remain respected because they don't run around like a hysterical psycho, armed with guns and loaded with ammunition, shooting in every direction at ghosts that do not exist.

They are superpowers on the rise. America is one on the decline, flushed down the tube of Jewish eternal misery.

Boxing themselves inside the Box

The expression “think outside the box” was coined because someone noticed that whenever a line of thinking had gained traction in the world of political punditry, everyone seemed to jump on the same bandwagon whereby they all echoed the same refrain without thinking about its content, let alone attempting to modify it so as to suit the changing circumstances.

Thus, the imperative “think outside the box” was given to an interlocutor as a friendly advice to let them know that he or she was adding nothing new to a debate that was growing stale. Those that had the intellectual wherewithal to do what was necessary, responded by going outside the old box; and they started thinking along new lines. They often enlarged the discussion, and thus gave the other participants the chance to contribute fresh thoughts to the debate.

The box, therefore, can be viewed as an abstract construct inside of which a collection of thoughts, ideas and concepts incubate, grow and mature to reach what has come to be called a logical conclusion. In the world of the arts, they can become a movement that will last a long time. In the world of logic and aesthetics, they can acquire the chance to become a philosophy that will last for a while. But the chances of this happening in the arts or the world of thoughts are small because most such boxes grow stale and wither away before their content comes out the incubation period.

The problem with being inside such a box and having a difficult time getting out of it, is manifested by the tendency to look at all matters through the same colored glasses – whatever the color of the glass – and interpreting everything from the same angle. This would be a handicap, and you can see how it works and does not work in the editorial written by the New York Times, published under the title: “A New Focus on Foreign Fighters,” on September 25, 2014.

At first blush, this looks like an editorial about an initiative launched by President Obama to rally the world against the phenomenon of foreign fighters joining ISIS, al Qaeda and other foreign terrorist fighters. This is where the editors of the NY Times see difficulty given that the world has not settled on a definition of terrorism, and how to differentiate it from fighting for freedom. But this is not how the editors of the Times framed the difficulty. Instead, they stayed within the confines of the box where the Jewish Propaganda machine put them. They specifically named Hamas which is considered as a group of terrorists by a handful, and a group of freedom fighters by most of the world.

Also, the initiative itself as taken by Mr. Obama had nothing to do with his analysis of the situation. Instead, it was an on-the-cuff political impulse that hit Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain who saw an opportunity to get America to do the job that his Parliament forbade him from doing. Thanks to the likes of Fox News, the Wall Street Journal and other right wing fanatic publications, he reckoned that the world of punditry in America was ready to deify him if he came up with words that will tickle their fancy without committing his country to anything that his Parliament would not approve of. Thus, the apparent Obama initiative.

With the editors of the Times unable to see their way outside the box, with Obama jumping into it simply because it was there, and with every pundit and his cousin having clamored for it, the die was cast for creating the useless instrument that now stands in the way of creating a useful one – an instrument that can solve many problems of our times.

To get there, Cameron, the pundits, Obama and the NY Times could have pointed out that foreign fighters have always joined wars that were not theirs. Some as young as their mid-teens lied about their age to join a war. Also, “volunteer” fighters from Canada joined South American groups. When caught, our government interceded to have them released. Worse than all of that from the aesthetics and logical points of view, Jews who joined the Israeli military of biblical savagery to go butcher civilian men, women and children in their bedrooms in the middle of the night were portrayed in the American media as saints doing God's work.

Had Cameron, the pundits, Obama and the NY Times started from one step outside the box, we would be having a different discussion now. And the Security Council of the UN would have passed a resolution that made sense, and could have worked. But they are all caught in the same box, and will not come out for a while.

The Chess Game Obama has not mastered

In the same way that beggars are not choosers, evil is not finicky. It commits the wicked deeds it knows will pay off in the end, and waits for the unintended consequences to mature into a full fledged horror story before cashing in on it. The wickedness that evil commits can take the form of throwing sand in the gears of society's machinery, or it can be the throwing of a monkey wrench into its civic workings. It can also be the planting of booby traps or poison pills into its everyday operations.

One example of that is the address given in good faith by the well meaning American President Barack Obama to the General Assembly of the United Nations on September 24, 2014. He spoke to humanity in the name of humanity, but did so not knowing that the speechwriters who helped him write the speech, planted in it the poison pills, the booby traps, the sands and the monkey wrenches that made it a potential time bomb.

The most telling example is the deadliest of poison pills which is hidden in the following passage: “Leadership will be necessary to address the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis. The situation in Iraq, Syria and Libya should cure anyone of the illusion that this conflict is the main source of problems in the region; for far too long, it has been used in part as a way to distract people from problems at home.”

Let's begin with Libya. It is one of four North African countries – Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt and Libya – that had their moment with destiny. That is, the time had come for them to go through the difficulties of rebirth as it happened to most countries in Europe, Asia, Latin America and even the United States of America. Two of those four, Tunisia and Egypt were not interfered with, and made it past the transition period with less violence than any other jurisdiction; especially when compared to the American civil war – the most savage of them all.

Looking at Algeria, it is a country that had a more difficult time with its transition perhaps because of historical reasons, but also because there was an attempt to interfere with it from the outside. France was the culprit, and the Algerian side that the French stood against told France loudly and clearly that if it did not end its interference, they will do to France what France is doing to Algeria. France ignored them, and they launched a bombing campaign on French soil. Things settled down eventually.

As to Libya, the outside interference was so massive, the country descended into chaos. The link between the outside interference and the current state of chaos being unmistakable, it prompts the question: How did that interference come about, and why? The answer is that it was the work of Jews because this is how evil operates, and has operated since the dawn of recorded history. This time the Jews agitated in France and the United States with the ultimate aim of helping Israel dominate the region. Their dupes have been mostly the American suckers who paid for attacking Libya, and got blamed for the catastrophic failure that resulted.

We now come to the Levant. The mess in which this region finds itself at this time began when an American Jew stole satellite photos about Iraq's civilian nuclear power station and gave them to Israel. Using American weapons, Israel bombed the Iraqi civilian station; an act that set off the chain of events (all unintended consequences) that led to the chaos plaguing the region today. There too, evil began to work with the intent of making Israel the dominant power in the region but the unintended consequences took over, and the result turned out to be something else altogether.

This firmly establishes that Israel itself – and not only its conflict with the Palestinians – is the cause of the horrors that the Middle East has witnessed during the past few decades, and continues to suffer to this day. But why did the Jewish propaganda machine come up with the notion that “for far too long, it [the conflict] has been used in part as a way to distract people from problems at home”? And why did the speechwriters insert that canard in Obama's speech?

The reason is that the Jews play a kind of social chess game with those they intend to exploit. Having more than three thousand years of experience playing it, they have become so good at it, they think as much as ten moves ahead of their victims. Thus, when they get an American President to assert that the Arab leaders distract their people from problems at home – never mind that those leaders don't even admit there are problems at home – the Jews pocket the presidential utterance and sit on it for months or even years.

They wait, knowing that the day will come when they will slap the President's face with it should he dare telling Netanyahu that the Arabs are being reasonable and that he is not being helpful to the peace process.

Bingo! The Jews now have one more way with which to veto the part of the American foreign policy they don't like … and it all happened because the President handed it to them on a silver platter.

Time for the NYT to learn making Sense

The New York Times (NYT) came up with two editorials on September 24, 2014. One had the title: “Wrong Turn on Syria: No Convincing Plan.” The other had the title: “Wrong Turn on Syria: Helping Assad?” Considering both to be one long editorial, it is easy to see why America finds itself in such a mess intellectually and culturally.

The editors begin by chiding President Obama for putting America “at the center of a widening war.” They go on to make their case, starting with this: “His assertions have not been tested or examined by the people's representatives in Congress.” They continue by complain that Mr. Obama has not explained how the bombing campaign will degrade the extremist group “without unleashing unforeseen consequences in a violent and volatile region.”

So far so good because what they said up to now seems coherent. But look now how this whole edifice of theirs comes crashing down as if shocked and awed by a cruise missile of their own making. They say of Obama: “He has given Congress notification of the military action in Iraq and Syria.” And yet, they complain that he “failed to ask for or receive congressional authorization for such military action.” They say so even though “Congress has utterly failed in its constitutional responsibilities.” And how do they say this happened? Well, having received notification, the Congress “has left Washington and gone fund raising, shamelessly ducking a vote on this critical issue,” they explain.

So you ask: What did they expect? Inaction on the part of the Executive Branch till the Congress returns after the mid-term elections? And now that they have shown logic this screwed up, you go back to a point where you gave them the benefit of the doubt, and reconsider. When they said they would have wanted an explanation as to how a bombing campaign can degrade a group without unleashing unforeseen consequences, you thought they only wanted an acknowledgment that there may be unforeseen consequences. But now, it sounds like they wanted a full and detailed account of what the unforeseen was going to be. The popular saying goes like this: “You don't know what you don't know.” In their small minds, it goes like this: “You should know what you don't know before you get to know it.”

And there is more that should trouble the reader because what the editors actually said was this: “unforeseen consequences in a violent and volatile region.” If this is how they see things, why is it that they failed to mention the very disease that brought violence and volatility to the region, and continues to do so more than ever before. To wit, on the day that the allied air campaign began, the me-too crowd of cockroaches in occupied Jerusalem shot down a Syrian plane, and murdered two Palestinians in the occupied West Bank to muddy the situation and further confuse the birdbrains of America who preside over the editorial boards of its publications.

Once you grasp this set of facts about the level to which America's intellectual and cultural state has been reduced by the Judeo-Israeli influence on it, you do not get shocked anymore when you see its editors lament: “It is puzzling that Mr. Obama would … not mention Khorasan so the group would not know it was being tracked.” And why they would recommend: “Mr. Obama needs to get Congress's approval and prove that he has fully accounted for the consequences of his foray into Syria.”

And you do not get shocked when you see them worry about Assad of Syria possibly benefiting from what the allies are doing when the mess in which the Levant finds itself at this time began with the American Jew who stole satellite photos about Iraq's civilian nuclear power station and gave them to Israel which bombed the station and set off the chain of events that led to this point.

What was unforeseen consequences at the time is now on full display, and rather than ask their President to foresee the as yet unforeseen, they should concentrate their attention on extracting lessons from the events that have come to pass – events that the biblical cavemen now occupying Palestine are bent on repeating using advanced weapon systems coming to them from America.

If there is anything the editors can recommend and be logical about it, it is the bombing of Israel's command and control centers as well as its weapons and munitions depots. This is how the Levant will cease to be violent and volatile, and how it will get back to being the Arab Garden of Eden it had been for hundreds of years.

Real Life Example of a Classroom Headache

One of the headaches that a teacher encounters in the classroom is the kind of student who almost always asks: Is it always like that? The teacher could just have finished saying it can happen this way or that way, or it can happen myriad of ways, but the student will still ask: Is it always like that?

When you get to understand this student, you find that he is intellectually lazy to the point that he wants to narrow each and everything he encounters to one simple criterion he can remember for ever, and not have to study anymore. The worst part is that you get to meet people like that in real life who might have already chosen a criterion by which to judge the validity and worthiness of everything they encounter.

One such person is Bret Stephens who writes a weekly column for the Wall Street Journal. He has only one criterion by which to judge the validity and worthiness of every thing that happens in the world. It is the answer to this question: How good are these people to Israel? And you can see his habit at work in the column he wrote under the title: “What Obama Knows” and the subtitle: “Every president gets things wrong. What sets Obama apart is his ideological rigidity and fathomless ignorance.” It was published on September 23, 2014 in the Wall Street Journal.

Not only does he judge President Obama by that criterion, he gets the opportunity to judge much of the world by it too. He exposes himself by making the mistake of thinking aloud: “I've been thinking about this as it becomes clear that ... Mr. Obama often doesn't know what he is talking about.” He goes on to say that Obama's analysis of global events is wrong because the foundation of knowledge on which the analysis is built, is problematic. This means that the criteria by which Obama judges worldly events are bad in his view.

To elaborate, he mentions an interview during which Mr. Obama expressed optimism about the world, in response to a question whose premise was that the world is in total disorder. The first thing that the President did was to warn that: “You can't generalize across the globe.” What he was required to do after that to show that the premise of the question was false, was to give one example that ran contrary to the premise of the question. This is what Mr. Obama did and more. He said: “there are places where good news keeps coming. Asia continues to grow … and you're starting to see democracies in places like Indonesia solidifying … The trend lines in Latin America are good … Overall, there's still cause for optimism.”

Bret Stephens took umbrage with that and responded with a number of examples that do not amount to a hill of beans. He says that the economy in Japan is contracting. The truth is that all economies go in cycles and Japan is no exception. What would make this bad news would be the collapse of the economy, and this is not happening. Stephens also says that the real estate market in China is a bubble waiting to burst. Well, some people have been predicting that for at least 5 years, and they bet a great deal that it will happen. The result is that they lost not only their shirts but their underwear too. It may still happen, but the burst will be a managed one and not explosive.

On the political side, Stephens says that “Indonesia's democracy may be solidifying, but so is Islamism and the persecution of religious minorities.” Well, the mere fact that he admits democracy is solidifying proves that the premise of the question about the world being in total disorder is false. But there is more to it than that because the quote proves that Stephens is biased against Islam and not just its extreme form. Worse, he is embracing a trend that will boomerang and hit his kind very hard. This is because every Jew that knows how to put pen to paper nowadays uses the word persecution. There will come a time in America when every act of discrimination by one individual against another will be called persecution, not to mention Israel where criminal apartheid is the official policy of the state.

He goes on to say that things are not in perfect form in Thailand, Burma, India or Pakistan before moving on to Latin America where he says that “Argentina just defaulted for the second time in 13 years. Brazil is in recession. Venezuela is a brutal dictatorship. Ecuador is on it way to becoming one.” Well, there are more than 4 countries in Asia, and more than 4 countries in Latin America. But the fact that he mentions these 4 and these other 4, says that everyone else is okay. And this alone proves that the premise of the question to which President Obama was responding was false.

Moreover, the fact that India may not now look like it will become the superpower of tomorrow does not mean the world is in disorder. The fact that Thailand and Burma are going through a transition period does not mean that the world is in disorder. The fact that Pakistan looks to some people as being permanently on the verge of collapse but never collapsing does not mean that the world is in disorder. The fact that Argentina is having a dispute with its creditors and withholding paying back the loans it took does not mean it has defaulted for the second time. But even if it did, it would not mean that the world is in disorder.

After that, Stephens blows his entire theory by admitting: “I begin with these examples not because there aren't bright spots in Asia.” Talking about the Big Bang Theory, here is one, courtesy of Bret Stephens and the Wall Street Journal. Now guess what our esteemed author does next. He accuses Mr. Obama of the following: “Warn against generalization – and then generalize. Cite an example – but one that isn't representative. Talk about a trend line – but get the direction of the trend wrong.”

The fact is that Mr. Obama did none of that. He was simply responding to a question that came with a false premise, as comprehensively as he could. What this says about him is that at the basis of his view of the world is what is good for America and what is good for the world. What also comes out of the column, however, is the restricted view that Bret Stephens has of the world. What is apparent is that he does not care about America or the world; he only cares about what is good for Israel and for the Jews. This is apparent in what he does next.

Brushing aside all the praises that the Jews and the Israelis had been heaping on Turkey when it was friendly toward Israel, and forgetting the declarations to the effect that “we are so much alike and so different from our neighbors,” Stephens now blasts Turkey for supporting Hamas, for being anti-Semitic and for imprisoning journalists.

With that, he gets to the Middle East proper where he sprinkles his presentation with the standard Jewish and Israeli talking points. To further buttress his point of view, he quotes such temple of clowning ignorance as the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. And he ends by asking the question: “What does the president know?” to which he answers: “Not a lot.”

Apparently these guys believe that the lot contains Israel, only Israel and no one but Israel. If you deviate from that trend line you are worth nothing in their eyes.

The Tragedy that is Israel

Two Jews are having an argument about Israel, and I am not going to settle it for them. Instead, I shall draw lessons that might be useful when dealing with the subject of the Middle East.

The article I am looking at is that of David Harsanyi; it came under the title: “Is Israel good for the Jews?” It was published on September 21, 2014 in the New York Post. This was Harsanyi's response to a piece that Richard Cohen had written in the Washington Post some time ago which then became a book. Harsanyi begins with the question that is the title of his own article, and responds by saying that the answer is no-brainer. But he says that things are not as simple to those on the “left.”

He explains that Richard Cohen wrote an op-ed in 2006 in which he said that the greatest mistake Israel could make was to forget it was a mistake, and he was stunned by the reaction. What troubled Cohen most, says Harsanyi, “were the congratulations he heard from his friends, colleagues and acquaintances.” Intrigued by that, Cohen wrote a book around the question … something that Harsanyi finds problematic. It is that Cohen never answers the question, he says – not even close.

Before proceeding with a critique of the book, Harsanyi drops a little secret. He says the book was going to be titled “Can Israel Survive?” But there too, Cohen does not answer the question, says our author. And this is where he throws his first barb at Cohen. He says the title of the book could just as well have been “Random thoughts Richard Cohen has recently had regarding Israel and the Jews.” And this is because the book has nothing to do with Israel's current predicament or the pitfalls that Zionism poses for Jewry, he asserts.

He now tells what the actual title of Cohen's book is: “Israel: Is It Good For the Jews?” He says there is plenty of history in it which he seems happy with, but it lacks context, he goes on to say. He explains that Cohen makes “crude assertions” about Theodor Herzel and Menachem Begin to fit his rickety narrative. He does not like him saying that Herzel was antagonistic towards religious Jewry, or that Begin was “a terrorist, a militant, and an extreme Jewish chauvinist.”

Well, my friend, I did not study this history in any formal way, only as an erstwhile student of history. I am not old enough to remember Theodor Herzel either, but I am old enough to remember Menachem Begin. And if I must pass judgment on him, I would say he was a terrorist, a militant and an extreme Jewish chauvinist – exactly how Richard Cohen describes him. This being the case, I am now biased in favor of Cohen's narrative, but I shall try to remain neutral in Harsanyi's dispute with him.

Here is another mistake of the kind that is usually made by those who think of themselves as rightists. They call a mistake of the left that which they seek to sweep under the rug and forget about. In this case, Harsanyi chides Cohen for viewing the entire Zionist project through what he says is “the prism of the leftist.” Leftist? What makes it leftist? Here is what makes it leftist: “He refers to the Jewish State as a last-gasp of colonial enterprise.” Oh yes, colonial. That's the word which makes the rightists cringe. In their view, there has never been a thing called colonialism. Britain, France and the other European nations never colonized the world; they were only civilizing it. As to Israel, it is not colonizing Palestine; it is defending itself.

With the customary Jewish sleight of hand, Harsanyi rejects what he calls the tiresome and unsophisticated accusations of colonialism, and goes on to say: “They offer nothing of value on the question of contemporary Zionism.” And get this: “Even most of Israel's neighbors have come to terms with the reality of Israel.” Apparently Harsanyi never talked to a Palestinian living under occupation, or read any Palestinian publication.

Now writing about Cohen, he says this: “Sometimes you get the feeling that he's about to answer the book's question with a 'no.'” Harsanyi goes on a tangent for a while, then comes back to say this about Jews: “No matter what the proposition, our first reaction is to ask, “but is it good for the Jews?” And he says that Cohen “in a long and winding way, says: sort of. Maybe.” And this is why he feels compelled to answer the question of the book for him, he says.

To this end, he begins by saying that Israel is inhabited by ordinary humans, not saints; and that Zionism is imperfect but is evolving. He then goes on to cite the traditional Jewish talking points to justify not only the establishment of Israel as a state but also its conduct. He says that the Jews have reclaimed their historical and religious homeland. He does that without explaining how it is that a recent convert to Judaism whose ancestors never set foot in the Middle East, has a bigger claim to the land than a Palestinian whose ancestors lived there since the beginning of time.

Another point he cites is that Jews need to escape the next Nazis because anti-Semitism seems to always erupt somewhere. But he does not say why the Palestinians should pay the price for the inability of the Jews to get along and live in peace with anyone on this planet.

David Harsanyi then makes the fatal mistake of talking like a colonial master without having the credentials that the authentic colonial masters had. He says this: “Israel has become one of the most impressive technologically advanced and liberal society in the world.” This is what the colonial powers said about themselves, having started the Industrial Revolution.

The fact is that the Jews can carry on with this fake narrative because they remain – in their mind – in denial of the fact that their enclave is a pathetic and artificial colony. And when you have a colony in which you bring people from such advanced places as Germany, Austria, Hungary, France, Poland, Benelux and the rest of Europe, you ought to be advanced – especially after something like a trillion dollars had been poured into your economy. But the fact remains that nothing is produced in Israel today which is equal, let alone more advanced than anywhere else. In fact, without the support that Israel receives from everywhere, its economy would collapse in a few months.

As to Israel being a liberal and democratic society, the way to attract people into an enclave is to tell them they will have the right to vote on how to treat the people under occupation without the latter having the right to determine their own destiny. If this is liberal democracy, then liberal democracy is the stuff that sewers are full of. Keep it to yourselves and don't try to shove it down the throat of others if you don't want to feel someone's boot in your rear end.

And so David Harsanyi answers the question of Richard Cohen's book: Is Israel good for the Jews? Yes, of course it is.

He says mortgage the Heirloom to save Face

Saving face is so important to some people, they will do anything to have it – including the betting or mortgaging of the heirloom. You can see an example of this in the column that Daniel Henninger wrote under the title: “G.I. Joe in Lilliput” and the subtitle: “The U.S. military is a giant Gulliver tied down by Washington lawyers.” It was published on September 18, 2014 in the Wall Street Journal.

Henninger's idea is that America is a military giant but that it is not allowed to win wars by the Washington lawyers who tie it down in the same way that the little people of Lilliput tied down the giant named Gulliver. Stated simply, his point is this: “The U.S. military has become a giant Gulliver wrapped in a Lilliput of lawyers.” His recommendation is this: “No serious member of Congress should be a party to this toxic legacy.”

To elaborate on his point of view, he gives numerous examples of official behavior he finds objectionable. For example, when General Dempsey said that if the situation reaches the point where he believes American advisers should accompany Iraqi troops, he will make such recommendation. What irritates Henninger is that the White House responded by saying those remarks were hypothetical. And so Henninger goes on to describe the give and take as that of lawyers responding to a soldier.

Another example; one in which Henninger mocks the lawyers poking their noses in military affairs is the one having to do with a White House proposal, amended by Republican Buck McKeon to vet the Syrian rebels who will be “swarming the Syrian war zone” to participate in the war effort. The author sarcastically asks: “Will FBI agents interview friends and business associates” before training and arming the rebels?

Another angle that Henninger tackles is that which is caused by the complexities of modern warfare. One such complexity has to do with the targeting of terrorists using unmanned drones. Another is the use of electronic surveillance to do metadata sweeps. A third has to do with the CIA's interrogation techniques when enemy combatants are captured. The writer does not shy away from calling a mudslide the controversies that erupt in the news when those national security matters are discussed.

What he seems to dislike also is the summary fashion with which some of these controversies are settled. He mentions, for example, that the day the murder of Sotloff was announced, Eric Holder wrote Patrick Leahy informing him that he supports the bill to restrict the NSA's ability to collect telephone data. He also mentions the fact that Obama has bound the executive branch by saying that before being authorized, drone attacks must establish near certainty of not harming civilians.

Another development that seems to irritate Henninger is what he views as being the courts rewriting the rules of war. He calls this “a major post-Vietnam phenomenon.” He gives as example the Supreme Court's 2006 Hamdan decision on trials before military commissions, and the 2008 Boumedienne decision on the habeas corpus rights of captured combatants whom he calls terrorists.

Having drawn up this list of objections, Henninger deplores the fact that “each adds another thicket of legal consideration before, or even during military action.” He reveals that there are 10,000 lawyers in the Department of Defense in addition to those at Justice and those at the White House. He also mentions the ongoing debate in the legal blogs trying to settle whether or not it is correct to call ISIS “our enemy” which brings up the War Power Resolution of 1973 that places a 60-day limit on military action. And there is the question of what the Pentagon will do with captured combatants.

He ends the article by observing that the Vietnam engagement is what caused the hyper-legalization of war. He says the intent was to diminish the U.S.'s ability to act its superpower status, and that the movement will again mobilize to tie down the effort to defeat ISIS.

Well, in response to all that, it must be said that there are two things Henninger forgets in his presentation. The first is that America did not have these restrictions during the Vietnam War and lost it humiliatingly. The second is that the rule of law is America's heritage. To do away with it is like betting or mortgaging the family heirloom to save face about something that is as uncertain as playing poker. Would he do that with his own nest egg?

What has Israel got that Norway does not?

What is this thing they call special relationship between America and Israel? Is it for real or is it a charade everyone pretends to play because no one knows how to get out of it? Well, this is a tough nut to crack, my friend, so sit back and enjoy the ride while trying to figure a way to crack this nut.

There was a time in America when “liberal” Jewish thinking was thought to be superior thinking because it was seen to behave like the giant who could lap the intellectual Lilliputians of America for breakfast but refrained from doing so because of the goodness of his heart. A famous example of that was Alan Dershowitz who said something to the effect that you cannot blame Israel for doing the things that everyone else did at one time or another – and Dershowitz was deified for his supreme eloquence and infinite wisdom.

What he said and the way he said it was so succinct, so fresh and so powerful, the “conservative” Anglo thinkers who used to dominate the intellectual landscape of America at the time were made to look like bugs blinded by so much liberal light, they could not find a shaded spot where to hide and catch their breath. But they did hide in a few places, and they stayed there till they almost became extinct. There was one exception, however, a place that was not too shaded, and where the Anglo thinkers could stay almost unmolested. That was academia.

It was there in Academia that the liberal Jewish thinking was parsed and shown to be nothing better than intellectual masturbation. The Dershowitz saying, for example, was interpreted to mean that Israel had the right to inflict on the Palestinian people every horrible act that anyone in history had ever inflicted on someone. This was no longer viewed as reflecting the intellectual prowess of a giant; it was viewed as reflecting the expressed desires of a Jewish bunch of terrorists.

Still, seeing themselves losing their mettle and developing a kind of mental sclerosis around many issues of the day, the conservative Anglos of academia took advantage of the fact that their world was being filled with worldly academics that had come from Europe, Asia and just about everywhere else in the world. They began to absorb what the newcomers had brought with them and before long, became the new liberals of America, harboring a view of the world that was more akin to that of the United Nations than that of the American isolationists of yesteryear.

Meanwhile, the Jewish liberals who were outside academia and were seeing their intellectual prowess (once considered supreme) being shattered like glass under the steamroller that was “Christian” thinking – decided to jump onto the steamroller and occupy the driver's seat. They did not quite make it to that seat, but were given a place of honor in the passenger's seat. They became the new conservatives or the neocons.

So now, the battle is raging between the non-academic conservatives of which a withering Jewish group continues to fight for control of the whole religious enchilada – and between the academic liberals of which a withering Jewish group continues to fight for control of the whole worldly enchilada. And this is where what used to be a tough nut to crack is finally beginning to show signs of cracking.

With this background under the belt, we now tackle the article that was written by Matthew Continetti under the title: “The Influence Loophole” and the subtitle: “If lobbyists are obligated to disclose foreign contributions, why not think tanks?” It was published on September 20, 2014 in National Review Online. This debate has been ongoing for a while now, and Continetti makes several references to that effect.

What can help us crack the nut, as tough as it is, would be a convincing answer to the question: What has Israel got that Norway does not? Even if we disregard all of Israel's shortcomings, and take it at its word that it is a genuine liberal democracy in the “Western” style, Israel cannot be more so than Norway. And yet, look what Continetti says about these two entities.

He says the following about Norway. “Take Norway, which has given millions to think tanks. Among Norway's goals: Push the U.S. government to fight deforestation. Why? Not out of environmental concern. Slowing deforestation could buy more time for Norway's oil companies to sell fossil fuels even as Norway push for new carbon reduction policies … It is one thing if Tom Steyer gives money to harm his opponents and benefit his allies. Steyer is an American. But it is another thing when a foreign government enters policy debates – and does so in secret … Many of the countries giving to think tanks are American allies like Norway.”

And he says the following about Israel. “The director of Brookings's foreign-policy program was overheard bashing the Jewish State and its government over drinks at a hotel bar … During the war between Israel and Hamas, John Kerry attempted to broker a ceasefire. He did not spend too long in Egypt, whose government had been leading the negotiations in cooperation with the Israelis. Instead, Kerry set off to Paris … But allies have nothing to fear from transparency. And Israel has a broad, deep, and thriving community of supporters both Jewish and Christian. There will always be an Israel “lobby” because of the ethnic and religious and ideological connections between our two countries.”

As can be seen from the last passage, it would have been difficult to crack the nut. In fact, it was because the argument favoring Israel was reduced to a one-liner. It was said that Israel was good because it was a democracy. From this wellspring – however false it was -- came out all the praises about Israel, as well as the rejections of all the things that did not consider Israel supreme in every way you can imagine.

But now that we are in a position to ask the question: What has Israel got that Norway does not? And now that no convincing response can be given as to the specialness of Israel, the nut is cracked, and out of it comes the sordid history of the Jews in America.

It is a history of Jews pretending to be the best because they are superior liberals and not inferior conservatives; and pretending at the same time to be the best because they are superior conservatives and not inferior liberals. It is a sick joke that is making no one laugh anymore.

And the rest of the world looks at the American Jews, and considers them to live by an inferior ideology.

The Krauthammer massive Freudian Slip

Its takes someone that is psychologically exhausted to make a Freudian slip; it takes a former psychiatrist who is intellectually bankrupt to write a column that is a Freudian slip in its entirety. This is what Charles Krauthammer is demonstrating in his column: “The Jihadi Logic,” also subtitled: “Lure the U.S. into the fight that Obama will quit, as in Iraq, Libya, and (soon) Afghanistan.” It was published on September 18, 2014, in National Review Online.

In trying to psychoanalyze what the Islamic State was thinking when it beheaded two Americans on video and propagated the spectacles to the world, he came up with two possible explanations which he then calls theories. One is that the terrorists are motivated by depravity, the display of which they did not realize will “bring down upon them the furies of the U.S. Air Force.” The other explanation or “theory” is that the terrorists meant to “provoke America into entering the Mesopotamian war.”

Even though he began by making it sound as if he were saying either one or the other of the theories was valid, he goes on to talk about them as if both were valid simultaneously. He begins this process by asking the question “Why?” That is, why did the terrorists wish to provoke America into a war? And he answers: “Because they are sure we will lose.” He explains: “They count on Barack Obama's quitting the Iraq/Syria campaign.” What this means is that the author accepts the second theory.

But now Krauthammer does something which says he accepts the first theory as well. He does that by explaining: “As for the short run, the Islamic State knows it will be pounded from the air.” He goes on to say it deems this to be a price worth paying because the public executions translate into renown and recruiting. And this means that the current members of the organization are depraved as are those they seek to recruit. Framing the situation on the ground this way, makes it possible for the two theories to be in force simultaneously. But they open the door for a massive Freudian slip to develop.

Krauthammer gets on this road by lamenting: “The [terrorists] are convinced that, as war drags on, we lose heart and go home.” Further down, he elaborates: “And this goes beyond Obama. They see a pattern: America experiences shock and outrage and demands action. Then tires and seeks leaders who will order the retreat. In Obama, they found such leader.” This is a big admission from someone accustomed to blaming Obama for all that went wrong, attributing his weakness to a misunderstanding of the American value system.

This being a first admission, the author piles more such admissions to the point where he dismantles the entire value system which he and his neocon comrades have fashioned, and have presented as America's authentic system. He begins with the following: “Understanding this requires adjusting our thinking.” This causes the reader to wonder: What thinking? What kind of adjustment? And Krauthammer responds in the most cavalier fashion you can imagine with the moral equivalent of this fictitious allegory: The guy says he was mad at me because I used to rape his 6 children. Well, I stopped raping 3 of his children and he is still mad at me.

Look how Krauthammer does that: “A common mantra is that American cruelty – Abu Ghraib, Guatanamo, 'torture,' the Iraq War itself – is the great jihadist recruiting tool. But leaving Iraq, closing Abu Ghraib, and prohibiting 'enhanced interrogation' has had zero effect on recruiting. In fact, jihadi cadres have swelled during Obama's presidency … Turns out the Islamic State's best recruiting tool is indeed savagery – its own. The beheadings are not just a magnet for psychopaths. They are demonstrations of its determination and of American helplessness. In UBL's famous formulation, who is the 'strong horse' now?”

“Strong horse,” he says? And what about the furies of the U.S. Air Force? The relentless video display of American “smart bombs” blasting Muslim properties and killing everyone inside – is this not a way to say, you kill one of ours and we kill hundreds of yours? Does this not translate in the mind of the terrorists over there that the terrorists over here can bring to bear on their citizens a hundred thousand horsepower in a warplane for every one horsepower they can to bring to bear on an American citizen?

And so the big question to ask is this: Does the relentless showing of Muslim positions being blown up from the air along with every soul that is in them, help America recruit American psychopaths? Many of the TV intros show a display of American mass murder a thousand times a day for what reason? To say the same thing a thousand times a day? Or is it to indoctrinate young audience with the neocon principle that the blood of Arabs and Muslims will quench their thirst for violence if they volunteer to serve.

But how did this proud and relentless display of American mass murder begin in America? Well, the Israelis started the trend by showing what the weapons that America gave them could do. The trend was then imported into America, and the more neocons got themselves into high positions in the American media, the more they popularized the gruesome display.

To us here, such display now looks no worse than seeing how nice it is to drink a cool beer on a hot summer. To them over there, it looks like it would to us as if we had to watch their television, and seeing a head being shopped off a thousand times a day. Their terrorists are still civilized enough not to do that, however. Why should we let the Jewish terrorists over here dictate to us what we should do and what we should watch?

It took the intellectual bankruptcy of an ex-psychiatrist turned neocon to bring all this to light. Maybe we owe him something after all.