They complain about the Stink they produce

Contrary to the Jewish moral clarity that leads to the toilet, the moral clarity of the gentile races populating the planet, leads to enlightenment. An example of the morality that the world hungers for these days would be a declaration that the Iranians, like everyone else, have the right to produce nuclear weapons if they so wish.

But the fact that the Iranians are negotiating to curb their ability to do so, says something about the human spirit that powers these people. We must, therefore, conclude that unlike the Jews who describe themselves as being a breed of exaggerated and laughable qualities, the Iranians have shown to be enlightened human beings – even if they are too modest to trumpet their qualities to the world.

Being diagonally opposite in temperament and character to the Iranians, the Jews have spent the last four decades trying to convince the world of a reality they say is as clear to them as the ambiguous assertion Israel may or may not possess untested weapons of the nuclear kind. They have been making these assertions while howling the fear that the Iranians pose an ambiguous threat to their existence. Go figure.

The reader can get a sense as to how this drama plays itself out on the world stage because the players are giving a new performance at this time, and Bret Stephens wrote a column about it. His piece came under the title: “The Capitulationist” and the subtitle: “The Obama administration refuses to negotiate openly, lest the extent of its diplomatic surrender to Iran be prematurely and fatally exposed.” It was published on March 31, 2015 in the Wall Street Journal.

The position that Stephens is taking is that President Obama has capitulated to the Iranians at the negotiations that were held to curb the ability of the latter to produce nuclear weapons should they wish to do so. The approach that Stephens is taking to make his points is to highlight what Obama has said in the past, and what Stephens says he is agreeing to now. The author concentrates on three points he calls: Fordo, Arak and advanced centrifuges.

First, whereas Obama once said that the Iranians do not need an underground, fortified facility such as the one at Fordo, to have a peaceful program, he is now letting them run hundreds of centrifuges at that facility.

What happened between then and now? Negotiations happened. It is clear that while the Jews are apprehensive about the intentions of the Iranians for no reason at all, the Iranians have apprehensions about Jewish America for a good reason. It is that Israel bombed the peaceful nuclear programs in Iraq and Syria using the help it received from America. It will not hesitate to do the same in Iran if it could. And Mr. Obama could not guarantee that this will not happen. The Iranians had no choice but to protect their assets. They are wise people.

Second, whereas Obama once said that the Iranians do not need a heavy-water reactor such as the one at Arak to have a peaceful nuclear program, he and the other Western powers are now only asking that the reactor be reconfigured to produce less plutonium … and the Iranians have agreed to that.

What happened for this change of heart to occur? Negotiations happened. Since plutonium has a dual purpose: one civilian requiring small quantities of it, and one military requiring larger quantities, the Iranians have agreed to reconfigure the reactor and produce small quantities, thus curb their ability to produce bombs.

Third, whereas Obama once said that the Iranians do not need some of the advanced centrifuges they currently possess, Iran is building 3,000 of them.

What happened? Negotiations happened. The truth is that Iran has large deposits of uranium. Given that it will run out of oil and natural gas in a few decades, it will rely on nuclear energy to power its industries and light its cities. It may also sell some of that energy to foreign buyers.

Rather than sell raw uranium as if they were “drawers of water and hewers of wood,” the Iranians want to process their own resources and sell them as finished or semi-finished products. To do this and be competitive with other nations, they will need all the centrifuges they can build, as advanced as they can make them.

In addition to that, Stephens mentions the matter of ballistic missiles. Well, the Iranians, like everyone else, have the right to explore space, go to the moon, and go to Mars and to the other planets. That's what ballistic missiles will allow them to do. And who has the right to tell them not to?

So how does a Jew like Bret Stephens make it sound as if – despite all of that – the Iranians are the bad guys while the Jews are the good guys? Answer: He does the very Jewish thing of attributing to the Iranians the filth he sees in the Jews; and attributing to the Jews the nobility he detects in the Iranians.

Here is an example of that: “Iran's habit of lulling the world with a cascade of small infractions is an ingenious way to advance its program without provoking a crisis.” No, that's not Iran. That's what the Jews have been doing with regard to the occupation of Palestine. The evidence is there, poking more than 14 billion human eyes everyday for decades – with no end in sight.

And this is why no one has tried to pogrom or holocaust the Iranians whereas these punishments have accompanied the Jews everywhere they went, every time they presented themselves to someone. Their bad habits are not only a reflection of their DNA; they are their DNA.

The stink that the Jews complain about is not that of gentiles; it's their own.

From the Sky down into a Jewish Cesspool

How did America fall from the position it used to occupy as sole superpower scraping the sky like a tall building, to a position that is as low as the bottom of the Jewish cesspool known for its uselessness? The simple answer to this question is that America was made to believe Jewish ideas were divine. It listened to them, adopted them, and then realized – when it was too late – that the ideas were worthless demonic contraptions worthy of a place, not high up in the firmament but down below, scratching the bottom of the pit.

An example of this kind of ideas is given by David Schenker and Gilad Wenig, both of whom belong to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy; a Jewish cesspool, one of the many that pretend to act like think tanks. The two men co-authored an article under the title: “Uncertain of Obama, Arab States Gear Up for War” and the subtitle: “A pan-Arab coalition with a patchy record steps up as Yemen falls apart and U.S. policy remains unclear.” It was published on March 30, 2015 in the Wall Street Journal.

Someone who may not be fully familiar as to who these people are, but knows a little of what they do – having read some of their writings – would realize from the title of their article that they are delving into an exercise in self-delusion. The evidence is that they pretend to know for a fact that the Arabs are “uncertain of Obama” when the thing that is most uncertain is their qualification to write about this subject ... or any subject that is more complicated than a high school preoccupation.

Moreover, they say in the subtitle that the pan-Arab coalition they are about to discuss has a patchy record without giving a hint as to what that means. This leaves the reader with the notion that the only patch these two are feeling as apposed to seeing, are the patches that cover their eyes, blinding them from the reality of life. And that's not all because, unsatisfied with committing only two demonic blunders before elaborating on the subject that is promised in the title, they commit the third and biggest of their blunders.

It is that they assert the following at the start of the discussion: “Few organizations boast a reputation of dysfunction comparable to the Arab League's.” Is that so? But what evidence do they give to illustrate this statement? This is what they give: “Over seven decades the Arab League has distinguished itself through infighting and fecklessness.” Is that it? Yes, that's it. It's all they have. But hold on, hold on. It happens all of a sudden that the Jews have found someone to hate more than the Arabs; a discovery that has revived the Arabs and put them on the map. Here it is: “But now, with the Obama administration seen as missing in action in the Middle East, the alliance of 22 countries is undergoing a renaissance.” Wow! One dies and one is reborn.

Aside from the idiotic cause-and-effect linkage they make between what they believe has been Obama's response or lack of it, and what they see as the Arab renaissance – above and beyond the so-called Arab Spring – the description that the two authors give of the way the Arab alliance has responded to the events in its backyard, is no different from what any alliance would have done. The Arabs did as well as they could when and where they intervened, and refrained from intervening when there was no clear purpose for them to intervene.

The Arab League is intervening at this time in Yemen, and it may have to do the same in other Arab countries because their world is undergoing a transformation similar to the ones experienced by other cultures in Europe, Asia and the Americas. As always, there will be outside forces that will try to take advantage of the chaos that ensues, which is why the Arab League will be there to protect the evolutionary process, and allow it to take its natural course.

As to the view of Schenker and Wenig, they express the Jewish and loathsome opinion that the Arab response “represents a growing desperation.” Speaking of the campaign in Yemen, they say: “Although the initial progress was promising, it is not clear the enthusiasm will endure – or be effective. What the f**k does that mean? Since when has a military campaign been clear about its durability or enthusiasm? Can't the Jews ever report on an event in a straightforward manner without being f***ing opinionated about it?

And so they list all the things they wish to see come into play so as to make the Arab effort fail. Of course, they do not say this is their wish but suggest this is the reason why America should poke its nose in what the Arabs are undertaking.

But there too, they do not want to come right out and say so openly; thus they only pretend to know what the Arabs are feeling. This is how they put it: “Will Washington provide backing to the Sunni Arab force? The Arabs don't appear to be counting on it.”

Now, my friend, you know how and why Superpower America fell from the level of the sky down to the cesspool level of Jewish uselessness.

There is Democracy and there is Demoncracy

To put things simply, we could say that “democracy” means to govern a nation with the consent of its population. But there is another kind of governance; one that is more widespread in the world than most people realize. It is governance that is made to look democratic but in reality is a demonic form of rule. For this reason, it would be appropriate to call it “demon-cracy or demoncracy.”

Before I discuss what this is about, let me tell you a true story. When I opened my school in Montreal and had problems with the landlord, I moved to a building that used to be rented by a union representing the employees of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC). In fact the building was not too far from the CBC tower. For a while, people – mostly technicians – dropped in on us, perhaps because they wanted to see what happened to the “old homestead,” as one of them put it, or because they were confused about the union's address. Some of these people got interested in what we were teaching, and kept visiting us when they had the time.

I developed a close friendship with two of them such that I was made privy to the sort of information that does not make it to the public domain. These were truly the kind of “stories behind the stories.” The one that interested me the most was that of the English speaking female reporter who was assigned to spy on a group calling itself: “Jews for Jesus” or some such name. It was a group that the Canadian Jewish Congress wished to obliterate, thus wanted someone who was trusted by the group to gather dirt on its members. They wanted the dirt not to broadcast it, but to hand it to the Canadian Jewish Congress.

The story of that reporter/spy was known to the people at the lowest level of the CBC hierarchy, therefore must have been known to those who sit higher up in the Corporation since nothing in that place failed to filter up, I was told … and yet no one did anything to put a stop to the practice of using a reporter to spy on a legitimate group. To me, this is a symptom of what demoncratic rule looks like. But a full blown manifestation of this kind of governance screams at the world from the chambers that make up the American Congress.

The main question to ask is this: How did the act of using reporters to spy on groups opposed to the Jewish establishment, develop into an organization such as AIPAC that has managed to control not only the American Congress, but the entire English speaking world? Well, an article written by Matthew Continetti and published on March 28, 2015 in National Review Online (NRO) under the title: “James Baker's Zombie Foreign Policy,” is but a real example of the intermediary steps that were employed to go from the level of the lowly reporter to that of the AIPAC monster.

In the same way that the Canadian Jewish Congress went after the group “Jews for Jesus” some time ago, the entire Jewish Establishment in America today is using the media outlets it controls (such as NRO) to destroy a rising rival group calling itself J Street. The occasion was that people who left their mark on history such as former Secretary of State James Baker; and people who are currently making history such as White House chief of staff Denis McDonough, have visited the rival and have spoken to its members. In the words of Continetti, this legitimizes J Street and suggests “a division in GOP ranks when there isn't any.”

Thus, to destroy J Street before it gets to be fully legitimate in the eyes of the Jewish Establishment, the author of the article unleashes a diatribe that is aimed at destroying the good name that James Baker has made for himself over the decades through hard work, sharp intellect, and the kind of courage that a hundred of today's Congressional dogs could not replicate no matter how loudly they bark, and no matter for how long they maintain their threatening posture.

Why did Continetti go through the trouble of developing a diatribe of this lethality? He did it because James Baker is on the list of advisers that were retained by Jeb Bush, a man on the verge of announcing his candidacy to run for President of the United States. And what the author of the article wants to see happen is what he expresses in this passage: “It's W.'s advice Jeb Bush should listen to, not Jim Baker's.” But why is that?

Because Continetti believes that the W. shaped the current policies of the Republican Party which remains strong on defense, hawkish and unabashedly pro-Israel.

And that's all that counts to this man and to all those like him. It is Israel, always Israel, and no one but Israel.

Jewish Scorpion trying to eat its UN Mother

There is the simple fact that Israel was begot in 1948 by the United Nations, an act that, in the long run, proved to be a stain on the record of that international body as well as the conscience of the human race. Nevertheless, the world has accepted as fait accompli what it wrought, and has tried to mitigate the horrendous consequences that followed; those unintended and those intended by the mischievous colonial powers of a bygone era.

Ever since that time, the world has watched what it thought was an act of kindness – aimed at saving the Jews from a cruel fate – metastasize physically in the region like a hard-to-cure cancer; and metastasize morally throughout the world by seizing the moral centers of the big powers, insidiously spreading ideas to the effect that biblical style wars and horror will cleanse the Planet and bring about the Jewish Nirvana that humanity has been waiting for since the beginning of time.

One by one; from the Soviet Union to Britain to France, and now the executive administration of the United States of America, the big powers of the day have repudiated what they finally came to realize was the tapestry of repugnance that the Jews – using Israel as their base of operation – have been knitting around the globe. This is when the morbid dance of the scorpion trying to eat its mother was initiated in Israel and taken up by the leaders of the Jewish communities everywhere in the English speaking world.

One Jewish leader that is deeply involved in the attempt to cut-up the institution of the United Nations into bite size portions is John Bolton who suggested that the top third of the UN building in New York where the administrators work, should be dynamited. In fact, he never stopped accusing the institution that created Israel of harming its own creation by insisting that Israel must comply with its resolutions. Bolton has engaged in such accusations, never shying away from insisting that other nations must comply fully with all UN resolutions, or be bombed into the Stone Age.

Bolton has done it again in the article he wrote under the title: “Mischief at the U.N.” and the subtitle: “Obama toys with cutting Israel adrift in the Security Council.” It was published on March 27, 2015 in the Weekly Standard. Rather than attack the UN institution as a whole this time, he attacks the American Administration of Barack Obama for showing signs it has had it up to here with the tapestry of repugnance that the Jewish leaders in America, working with the Israelis, have been knitting around the globe, to insure the continued occupation of Palestine and the spread of biblical style horror everywhere else in the region and beyond.

This article clearly shows how the Jews were able to sell to the big powers of the day the ideas that those powers later discovered were poison decorated like ready-to-eat delicacies, and delivered directly to the mouth. Well, my friend, find a way to protect your mind from blowing, then look at the following passage: “exposing Israel to the tender mercies of its Security Council opponents harms not only Israel's interest, but America's in equal measure.” And why is that? Bolton tells you why: “Roughly half of Washington's Security Council vetoes have been cast against draft resolutions contrary to our Middle East interests.”

And this is the sort of argument that pushers of drugs use to get kids hooked to their poison, and keep them from abandoning the habit. But the Americans have seen what half a century of Jewish advice on the Middle East has done to their interests in the region, and have said enough is enough. Still, Bolton is trying to tell America that it cannot abandon the habit because the symptoms of withdrawal will kill it … but America has stopped listening.

Having lost the leverage they had to force an American Administration – now in office for more than six years – to do what they command it to do, the Jews are using psychological pressure to achieve the goals they refuse to give up. This is what Bolton is doing with this passage: “Obama needs reminding that petulance is for teenagers, not presidents.”

Of course it is. And this is why the kids that never grew up during the four thousand years of their history have been pogromed and holocausted by everyone on this planet, everywhere they went … but no American president has been so treated.

John Bolton, who is one of the custodians in charge of the Holocaust Memorial in Washington, will do well to add an inscription at the entrance of the building that reads: This is what will happen to you if you insist on Jewing the world much longer.

WSJ says only America can fill a Vacuum

Look at this Wall Street Journal title: “Obama's Mideast Vacuum”. Now look at this subtitle: “The Saudis invade Yemen as the Sunni-Shiite war escalates.” The two sayings belong to one and the same article – actually an editorial of the Journal that was published on March 27, 2015.

The editors are saying that the Saudis are now in Yemen but they consider the place to still be a vacuum because America is not there ... in fact, America was there, they go on to say, but President Obama is pulling out because he no longer wants to remain in Yemen.

Beginning with this premise and the mentality that goes with it, the editors try to make a case for America to continue being where it has failed. They make this argument because, in their view, it is better to perpetuate the misery of American failure than to give a chance for someone else to succeed at something. But what is that something? In fact, the editors do not even attempt to define success in the way that sane people do. That's because they have already defined it as America being there and everywhere, filling a vacuum whether or not the vacuum has already be filled by someone.

The situation that is unfolding at this time in Yemen started a few days ago when the pro-Shiite Houthi militias entered the capital San'a and seized it. That's when Mr. Obama ordered the withdrawal of the American personnel who were there conducting the drone air war against the militias – formerly named terrorists. Upon this withdrawal, the Saudis launched their own air war against the same “enemy,” a move that prompted the editors of the journal to declare that Obama's vacuum “produced a region on fire,” asserting that the situation “is becoming a broad Sunni-Shiite war”.

The editors go on to speculate the following: “What had been a proxy war is in danger of becoming a direct Saudi-Iran conflict.” They assert that this potential development was caused by Obama's decision to withdraw because “the Saudis [have] given up on the U.S. as a stabilizing force in the Middle East.”

But right after that, the editors go on to say something that attests to a mentality which values American failure more than Saudi success. Are you ready for it? Here it is: “This resembles their [Saudi] intervention into Bahrain in 2011 to put down a rebellion by its Shiite majority against the Sunni government.” Well, this has been the Saudi success that the editors of the Journal cannot stomach, preferring to see a repeat of America's fiasco in Yemen, Libya and Iraq. They call America's performance in these cases “a stabilizing force” whereas Bahrain, in their view, remains a risk.

However, unable to ignore the stability that has reigned in Bahrain during all these years with no sign that it will fail anytime soon, the editors make the point that “Tehran probably won't intervene directly, but … will try to bleed the Saudis and their allies for as long as possible.” And this is why they recommend that “Mr. Obama should do what it takes to help an ally win.” Commendable, isn't it? But wait a minute, how do they say Obama should help that ally?

This is how the editors put it: “a warning to Iran that the U.S. will assist in stopping Iranian flights that arm the Houthis … Iran needs to be told its flights run the risk of being shot down.” This means the editors still wish to see America get involved to “fill a vacuum” if only partially. Whereas they speculate everywhere as to what the future may hold, they now say nothing about what will happen when escalation will result, as surely as it will, and lead to a mission creep with consequences that will duplicate the murderous days of “shock and awe.”

But perhaps this is what they dream about because they leap at this point to a discussion about the nuclear deal with Iran. This is a subject about which they made clear for years that they wish to see America take the option on the table, and shock and awe the Iranians.

They accuse Obama of being obsessed with making a deal that “seems increasingly out of this world” and go on to say that America's allies in the region fear he wants to cast them aside and create a new U.S.-Iran alliance.

What they do not say is that if this should come to pass, America's influence on Iran will be so positive, it will accomplish what shock and awe has failed to accomplish in Iraq. And there will be no need to cast the other allies aside.

Another Bush, another Bush League America

Jeb Bush wrote an article in which he describes his vision for a foreign policy that is out of the Cheney-Rove era. In fact, if you didn't know the article was written by Jeb, you would think it was written by the W. himself – or what people used to think was the W. The article came under the title: “On Israel and Iran, President Obama Mistakes Friend and Foe” and was published on March 25, 2015 in National Review Online.

But knowing that the W. never had a thought of his own, relying instead on the Cheney-Rove speechwriters to stuff words in his mouth, you must now conclude that the team which turned America into the bush league it became, will be back if Jeb gets elected president. That team will reverse the slow and steady progress which President Barack Obama has been making, pulling America out of the hole in which it was sunk. The team will resume America's demise, and will have it rejoin Israel at the bottom of the cesspool where the older brother took it before.

Jeb Bush says: “The [Obama] administration indulges our enemies and attacks our friends.” So you look around the world to see which friend America has attacked and which enemy it has indulged. But all you find is that America's air force, its naval units, it drones and its missiles have only attacked what Jeb would call the bad guys who chose to fight America. So you look around to see what enemies America has indulged but find that it has been handing military and financial aid to countries that Jeb would call the good guys, who chose to stand with America – or in the case of Israel, pretended to stand with America while stabbing it in the back.

So you ask: What the hell is Jeb Bush talking about. More precisely, what the hell have the speechwriters been stuffing in his mouth? You look over his article and find this: “The rest of the world must wonder what it takes to enrage the White House.” So that's it. Jeb Bush wishes that Barack Obama had displayed rage, and he promises that if elected president, he will display rage to the world. It must be that in his view, this will make the world fear America, trust it, love it and do what Israel does which is to pretend standing with America so as to obtain the military secrets it can sell to the Chinese.

Bush makes it clear he is not happy with what he describes as: “the White House issued a half-hearted congratulations” when Netanyahu won 29 seats out of 120 in the Israeli Parliament, instead of the 28 he was predicted to win. Bush does not say what he would have liked to see, but leaves the reader with the impression that maybe a fiesta-like party in the Rose Garden, or dancing in the streets of DC would have satisfied him. And he is serious about that because, he hints that this is the way the world will come to respect America.

But why is that? Well, Bush seems enamored with the regime of apartheid that the Jews have constructed in occupied Palestine. And he seems to resent it when: “the Obama administration treats announcements of new apartment buildings in Jerusalem like acts of aggression.” He explains all that as follows: “This is no way to treat an ally. Conducting the foreign policy of a great nation requires maturity and a strategic sense of America's long-term interests. This is no time for schoolyard antics.”

The trouble is that he does not explain how any of that can be achieved except to put out the general statement that: “Israel and America must work together to build a more prosperous and hopeful future for the region.” But the Israelis and the Jews have had a tremendous influence in shaping America's foreign policy for half a century, never achieving those goals. Moreover, during the 8 years that the W. “ruled” America, the superpower crashed and almost took the world down with it into a financial cesspool shaped like the Star of David.

This is when America could no longer sustain its food and fuel aid to Israel, which is why a rabbi whose name escapes me, started a fellowship tying together the Christians of America and the Jews of Israel with an umbilical cord that sucks the life out of America and sends it to Israel.

The people of the Middle Eastern region look at that spectacle and shake their heads in wonderment. Imagine what they will say if Jeb Bush went to them, a Jew attached to his hip, to say that he is here to work with Israel and “build a more prosperous and hopeful future for the region.”

I can tell you right now how the people of the region will respond. They will say: Take your plan and shove it right up your asshole – you, another bush league asshole … And get out of here never to return.

Begging to be herded to the Gas Chamber

There is an old saying which goes this way: Those whom God intends to destroy; he first renders them mad. We must accept the validity of this saying because observation of life shows that there is a relationship between the symptom of madness and the destruction that follows. What is in doubt, however, is the role that God plays in the process. But if we take God out of the picture, we may restate the saying like this: Those slated for self-destruction first exhibit symptoms of madness.

And that's what the Jews are now exhibiting for the umpteenth time. If you want to know how it looks like, there is a loud example as to how it sounds like. It sounds like this: “When the President's chief of staff invokes the lexicon of the Palestinian terrorists to describe Israel's democracy...” But you want to know what that lexicon was. Well, are you ready for it? Here it is: “An occupation that has lasted for almost 50 years must end.” That's the language of terrorists? That's what terrorizes the Jews?

That's not made up, my friends. All of it and more is contained in the Wall Street Journal editorial that came under the title: “Obama's Israel Tantrum” and the subtitle: “The leader of the free world takes revenge on an ally,” published on March 25, 2015. What's more, the editors of that Jewish publication go on to ponder: “Americans and the world are left to wonder whose side the leader of the free world is on.” By that they mean: Is he on the side of the Palestinians or the Jews?

What these characters are not equipped mentally to grasp is that the world could not care less which side America is on because the world knows which side humanity is on. It is on the side of the Jews. No, not on the side of the Jews maintaining the occupation of Palestine; on the side of the Jews being herded to the gas chamber if that's what it will take to end the occupation of Palestine. Take it for granted, all of you feeble minds out there, you will not collect a thimbleful of tears from the entire planet if the Jews are once again marked for extermination. They are desperately begging for this to happen and they may just get it.

But what's the editorial about, anyway? It's about a small group of peace-loving Jews calling themselves J Street, who understood that nearly 4,000 years of lessons hammered into the heads of Jews to the effect that enough is enough, should convince all Jews that this is their last chance to live like the rest of humanity or suffer the consequences of what they are forging.

President Obama's Chief of Staff, Denis McDonough spoke to that group – which is a welcome change from the annual pilgrimage that America's administrations have been making to the war-advocating AIPAC – and it was this event that stirred the bile of the Wall Street Journal editors. To express their anger, they unleashed a vicious barrage of insults at their American president to make the bloodthirsty Jewish prime minister of Israel look good.

What is worrying the editors is that America has finally got a President that decided it was time to kick the beggar in the ass when he steps out of line to aggressively demand that he be given what he asks for, rather than gently request to be assisted. Thus, like the sick dog that ate a piece of meat laced with cyanide, they puked this piece of filth: “Remarks of presidential pique – including the threat of an end to U.S. backing of Israel at the United Nations.” You don't threaten to kick a puking sick dog; you kick it. Period.

Here is one more Jewish habit about which humanity has had it up to here. For a number of decades now, the Israeli media outlets which are aimed at the Arab world have been working to convince their listeners that the Jews control the American military so effectively, they could command it to wipe them out … and the command will be obeyed instantly and without question.

Later, when Communism fell and the Easter European nations started to look for opportunities outside what used to be the Warsaw Pact, the Jews told the leaders of those nations that they own the American Congress so tightly; the Congress will only do what the Jews ask it to do. Thus, it behooves the leaders of those nations to be nice to Israel so as to be rewarded with American gifts – courtesy of World Jewry.

And now, the Jews have turned the table, telling America: “All of America's traditional Arab friends in the region are now closer to Mr. Netanyahu's position on the Middle East than Mr. Obama's.” That's poppycock, nonsense, hooey, bunk and hokum. It is Jewish through and through, which means it is meaningless.

Stop evoking Antisemitism to avoid fighting it

The best way to fight antisemitism is not to evoke it in the first place. Since almost the beginning of time, this has been the piece of wisdom that eluded the unfortunate characters who got lured into the Jewish ideology that is falsely called religion, and remained trapped in it.

One such hapless character is David Brooks who tries, whenever he has the opportunity, to discuss and to explain the phenomenon of antisemitism. The problem he encounters each time, however, is that he tries to do the explaining by saying and doing the very things which add to the intensity of the antisemitic feeling normal people experience. You can see him doing it again in the column he wrote for the New York Times under the title: “How to Fight Anti-Semitism,” published on March 24, 2015.

As indicated by the title of the column, Brooks assumes that antisemitism can only be fought against when it appears, where it appears. He makes this assumption having given not the slightest consideration to the possibility that the phenomenon can be prevented from happening entirely, or that it can be nipped the moment it rears its head. In his view, antisemitism remains dormant till the moment it appears. It quickly grows to menace the Jews, and when that goes too far, people of goodwill stand up and fight it.

And so, in the absence of even a recognition that antisemitism has an origin; David Brooks obligates the readers to accept the conclusion that the phenomenon is a disease endemic to the human species. The way he perceives the entire subject matter is that antisemitism is here; it is real and has become the fist of the non-Jew who would harm a Jew for no reason but that he is a Jew.

It is not a random coincidence that this Jewish author wrote this article at this time. It is that an old process has started to unfold yet again in the same old way. And so, the Jewish writers were summoned to attack it like a swarm of drones called to defend the beehive against an intruding beetle. That old process is the story of the “friend” who repeatedly got stung by the Jew and decided to respond by reconsidering their relationship. The friend is the America against which the Jew is now spewing the kind of visceral hatred he normally reserves for those who rebuff his attempts at controlling them. And the Jewish hive is now attacking the Obama beetle.

The difference between David Brooks and those other Jewish writers is that he works for a publication that will not allow him to attack America by attacking its president. Attacking a nation by attacking its head being a trick that the Jews employ against the enemy they hate for the day, Brooks was forced to abandon it, and use another trick to put his views out there without being fired from a publication that is aligned with the current administration. What Brooks did, instead, is attack those he sees as being Obama's proxies standing for him and representing him morally and spiritually if not legally.

Thus, while the other Jews are busy nitpicking and savagely attacking every personal habit, idiosyncrasy and manner they see in Barack Obama, David Brooks attributes visceral antisemitism to the people in the Middle East whom he views as projecting the image of: “derangement, a flight from reality even in otherwise sophisticated people”. Thus, even if Barack Obama is a sophisticated legal scholar that has managed to become President, he could be deranged given that he rejects what Israel and the Jews throw at him. Brooks does not have to say so openly but the analogy speaks for itself.

As to the anti-Semites of Europe, their problem is alienation, says David Brooks, because he does not dare say what the other Jewish writers claim to be true, mainly that Obama is practicing the politics of division by using such divisive issues as rich and poor, men and women, white and colored citizens of the Republic. Here too, Brooks avoids adding his voice to those of others by letting the analogy speak for itself.

All this boils down to the fact that politics in America is divided into a right wing and a left wing, where people develop opposite views even when they look at the same thing. Thus, where there is moral certainty on the Right; there is relativism on the Left. Where good is good, and bad is bad on the Right; there are shades of good and bad on the Left. Where no comparison is allowed on the Right between Israel and anyone else, the comparison is made regularly on the Left (but with a twist) between Israel which is said to be a paragon of virtue, and its enemies who are said to represent the depth of moral degradation.

And this is the point where a few observations must be made, and a few questions asked. The truth is that the American son of David Brooks has enlisted in the Israeli army at a time when those who go to train or to fight in the Middle East are considered to be terrorists. Does David consider his son to be a terrorist?

Also, given that the Jews consider lineage to pass from mother to children, does David Brooks consider his son to be a Jew given that his mother is a Christian who converted to Judaism as a convenience to marry David?

What if the son decides to stay in Israel after the military service? Will David condone the throwing out of his home an indigenous Palestinian to make room for the non-Jewish “Jew” that came from America and decided to make occupied Palestine his home?

Does the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews allow the affliction of that form of Jewish savagery on the Palestinians? Is David Brooks a sane American or is he a deranged Jew calling deranged the Palestinians whose only crime is to wish remaining in the homes where they lived since the beginning of time?

What these observations and these questions demonstrate is that David Brooks is no different from the other Jewish authors who write on subjects related to the Middle East by attacking anyone they can, to avoid writing about the realities on the ground which involve them and their families.

If these people had the courage to face reality, they would know they form a part of the problem, and in many cases, the entire problem. Their activities evoke the antisemitism which they call on America to fight for them using its own finances and risking the lives of its own children.

They are the problem, and America will never be the solution, but maybe … just maybe the Final Solution.

Boot Camp for Israel, not Boots on the Ground

Boots on the ground has come to mean that America must send soldiers to invade Arab and Muslim lands with the view of remaining there for an indefinite period of time if not forever, to fight the locals who will resent the American presence, and most certainly resist it in every way they can. This will happen because the Arabs and the Muslims hate the freedom which comes with occupation, says the Jewish delusion.

The Jews of Israel, those of America and those of the English speaking world have always advocated that policy, and have worked covertly and overtly – using their American resources, those of Israel and those they have everywhere else in the world – to implement that policy and make it a reality. The Jewish argument has been that contrary to what humanity has believed for the last 4,000 years, it is the Arabs and the Muslims, not the Jews, who have plagued mankind since the beginning of time.

What is at play here is something that is familiar to teachers; it is also a lesson that some parents learn the hard way. It is that kids turn up the way you raise them. In fact, if you teach a kid that yellow is red, he'll grow up calling red everything that is yellow. When confronted by someone who calls yellow a yellow color, and calls red a red color, the kid will come to believe that he just stepped into a world of the surreal. This is what happened to Mario Loyola who writes: “The Obama administration's statements about the Israeli-Palestinian peace process have a surreal quality about them.” The way to retrain kids so affected is to send them to boot camps.

Loyola wrote that passage in an article which came under the title: “It's Obama, Not Netanyahu, Who's Killed the Two-State Solution,” published on March 22, 2015 in National Review Online. You can tell how seriously distorted the author's view of reality is when you delve into the logic he employs to explain and justify his point of view. An added bonus to the reader is that on that same day, in that same publication, Elliott Abrams published: “Obama Tries to Invent Whatever Excuse He can to Break with Israel,” an article that shows why these people grow up to see the real world as surreal, and why they see the surreal as being reality.

In brief, the way that Mario Loyola describes the narrative of the situation is this: The two-state solution has gone into a coma because Arafat sent it there. Later, Israel was kicked out of Lebanon and Gaza, which is why its army became “populated by 18-year-olds who grew up knowing only that Palestinians want to murder them.” Even then, a peace agreement could have been worked out between the parties, says Loyola, except that President Obama intervened and killed that possibility; a reality that is very real to him, yet one that “nobody in the administration (or the media for that matter) stops to consider.” It is as if the world had gone mad, and that he alone has remained sane.

But what would he do if he had the power? Well, he would reverse “everything [Obama] is doing in the Middle East.” He would not have withdrawn from Iraq, would have done something about Syria, would have treated the Israeli government better, and would now be opposing Iran's nuclear program. All of these being code words that mean American boots must be on Arab and Muslims grounds for ever and ever.

So the question is this: Why did this guy, and others like him, grow up to be like that? Well, you can find at least a hint as to what the answer may be when you look closely at what came in the Elliott Abrams article. To make things easy, you may ignore his opinions which are but a repeat of the same old stuff that earned him the name: baker of shit pies. Pay attention, instead, to something that he reported.

He reported what Obama said to Netanyahu on the phone. Here is an abbreviated version: “We indicated that this rhetoric was contrary to Israel's tradition. Although Israel was founded based on the need to have a Jewish homeland, Israeli democracy has been premised on everybody in the country being treated equally and fairly. If that is lost, it gives ammunition to folks who don't believe in a Jewish state, also I think, starts to erode the meaning of democracy in the country.”

What is wrong with this kind of advice is that it gives the Jew the impression he sits at the center of the universe. To suggest he should refrain from hurting others because it may damage him, is to say it is more important to keep him undamaged than to alleviate the hurt he is inflicting on others.

What should be said to the Jew, instead, and repeated over an over, is that holocaust or no holocaust, if he tries that again, all options will go on the table. This should make him see yellow as yellow, and red as red.

They voted to reaffirm the apartheid Regime

Stanley Kurtz says he is not surprised to see the events develop the way they did following the Israeli election. He does not like what he sees, and blames it all on Barack Obama whom, he says, had it in for Israel since before he was elected President. Kurtz says this much and more in the article that he wrote under the title: “What Obama Thinks of Israel,” published on March 21, 2015 in National Review Online.

Well, Stanley Kurtz is only one of the American pundits who repeatedly discussed matters relating to Israel and to other Jewish affairs – doing it to the exclusion of most other subjects. The remarkable thing about these people, however, is that they proved to be the many voices that spoke in one voice. They spoke distinctively – each according to his or her temperament, style and approach – but they all started with the same premise and finished by reaching the same conclusion.

If we are to believe these people, who insist on calling themselves experts on Israeli matters and everything related to Jewish matters everywhere else in the world, what happened in Israel is that the population – not only the rulers – proved to be a part of the demonic setup that maintained Israel as the pariah Jewish state it has been since the beginning.

These pundits tell us that Netanyahu won 29 seats instead of the 28 he was predicted to win (apparently a victory of cosmic dimension in Jewish fantasy) because he did two things. (1) He told the Israeli Jewish population that if elected, he will maintain the anti-Palestinian apartheid regime. (2) He warned the population that because the Christians and the Muslims are voting in droves, he may lose the election. Upon this warning, say the American pundits, the Jewish population went to the poles in droves, and gave Netanyahu the extra seat that shifted the Cosmos they created inside their deluded imagination.

Well, this is what happened on election day in Israel, say the pundits who have asserted that they remain forever the infallible experts. But these are also the pundits who asserted on previous occasions that they knew what went on everywhere else in the world. And what they said about the world is that a free and democratic election leads to good government which leads to prosperity, to peace and to security for everyone involved. Thus, they went on to conclude that until the Palestinians have free and democratic elections, there will be no prosperity, no peace and no security in Palestine – including the part that was renamed Israel.

But then, the Christian and Muslim Palestinians held a free and democratic election at which time the party that the Jews love to hate won the election. Aha, said the Jews of Israel and the pundits of America: but we neglected to mention something during all the years that we preached the merits of free and democratic elections. It is that elections have consequences, they went on to say. And because the Palestinians chose to freely elect the sort of government that we do not like, explained the Jewish pundits, they must suffer the consequences, and America must make sure that they do.

Here is the catch that is seen by a world which remains free of Jewish insanity, however. These would be the people that saw Jewish and American pundits make the sauce for the Palestinian goose. And so, they have asserted that the pundits must now use that same sauce on the Jewish gander. They see with clarity that this is the fair thing to do because the old wisdom to the effect that what is sauce for the goose must be sauce for the gander – holds true and cannot be violated. Thus, the Jews of Israel must pay for how they voted.

Failing this, the world has no choice but to conclude that the demonic setup which governs Israel has been insidiously and stealthily imported into America, and has dominated the American media. Also, because domination of the media leads to the domination of the political system, it must be that the paralysis seen affecting the American government, especially the Congress, is due to the Jewish and Israeli takeover of America's means of mass communication.

And this leads to the surprising observation that America will not be free of the insane Jewish domination that is eroding it, till Palestine is free of the insane Jewish domination that is terrorizing it.

Suddenly, America's fate has been tied to that of Palestine which is why an American Administration has the duty to free Palestine thus free America also.

The Jewish Lies that sucked America dry

Putting out lies that no one could or would verify is the way that the Jewish leaders have managed to attach Israel's parasitic umbilical cord to America, and suck the superpower dry in the span of half a century. Some of the lies were related to the pretense that the American people and those of Israel loved the same things in life – among these being the high consumption of chicken, the love of freedom and possibly even the wearing of brown shoes on Wednesdays – however absurd and illogical this may sound.

But love alone is a state of mind that does not produce a sturdy umbilical cord. People outgrow it all the time because, believe it or not, the only love that is allowed to exist in permanent form under the sun, is the love of change. All other forms of love come and go at a rate that is comparable or that is faster than the love which a diehard playboy would have for replacing the girl he shows up with as his escort for the night.

And so, the Jews discovered after a period of time that nothing was more sturdy than the umbilical cords they make of hate … which is the opposite of love. Thus, if you are a parasite by genetic disposition, and you eye a host on whom you wish to attach yourself and suck the sustenance to your heart's content, the way to do it and succeed, is first of all, to make the host hate the same things that you do. You then attach the umbilical cord to the two of you, and you suck the thick blood of hate from the host … the way the Jews do it all the time.

After making these discoveries, the Jews determined that the most powerful hate which people tend to develop is the hate that is motivated by the fear of something. And when that something is related to their very existence, the hate that ordinary people develop takes on extraordinary dimensions – which is to say, the fear grows to become boundless and infinite … like everything that is horrible and Jewish at the same time.

Having developed that knowledge over a period of time that spanned the centuries, and having honed the experiences that come with it, the Jews were able to pull off all sorts of tricks everywhere they wandered around the globe. And then it happened that they ended up in America where they pulled their biggest con job on the people that trusted them the most.

The Jews told the Americans that Israel will protect their very existence if they will protect it from the people who wish to harm it. To be sure, Israel needed money, money, money, as well as destructive weapons of all sorts, and protection from every kind of condemnation that may be leveled against it in world forums.

But then, several wars erupted in the region – all of them initiated or catalyzed by Israel. On several occasions, America got involved directly to save Israel. On other occasions, America allied itself with Arab armies to defeat a common foe, telling Israel to stay out because it could do nothing that will be helpful. And this reality blew the pretense that Israel could do something to protect America. This claim proved to be pure hogwash.

With that pretense destroyed forever, the Jews came up with another pretense to make the Americans believe they will not be protected unless Israel protects them. They repeatedly made the claim that such is the case because Israel has the know-how to gather the sort of intelligence information that no one else can – not even the Americans.

But then, it turned out that instead of Israel's intelligence apparatus working to protect America, it worked to deliberately put America in situations that made people around the world hate that country. And several started to work on protecting themselves, even when it meant harming American interests in the process.

The most elaborate and most criminal of the Jewish doings in this regard was the stealing from America of information that allowed Israel to bomb Iraq's civilian nuclear station. When the consequences of this heinous act inflamed the region, the Israeli intelligence apparatus added gasoline to the fire by misleading the American and NATO intelligences into believing that weapons of mass destruction were made in Iraq. This dragged America into a war that broke its back, killed its young, ruined it economically, and robbed it of the status: sole military and financial superpower.

Aware that they can no longer be seen as the authors of this kind of pretenses, the Jews are gradually toning down their claims while encouraging the filthy, low-life gentile dogs of the Republican Congress to make the claims on their behalf. And these ones are lining up in droves to bark their utter uselessness.

Half a Century writing Scripts of Fiction

The difference between writing a script of fiction and writing about a real life situation is that in describing an event, fiction allows you to state or show anything you want if it will make the scene “work” … meaning make it look and feel plausible. By contrast, when describing an event that has unfolded in real life, requires that you give ample details, and be accurate about all of them because human beings are instinctively biased toward the suspicion that the devil is in the details.

Having learned that lesson from centuries of bitter experience gained from trial-and-error, the Jewish leaders who planned the takeover of America more than half a century ago came up with the idea of accusing anyone who might doubt what they say as being anti-Semitic. This trick helped them stop the flow of push-backs that could have weakened the falsehoods they put out in the public domain over the decades.

Thus protected from being exposed as the charlatans that they are while posing as pundits, the Jews wrote what they pretended to be real life situations … but without the requirement that they authenticate what they say with any sort of corroboration or detail. The end result is that they compiled a narrative which – seen in retrospect – turned out to be a half-century massive work of mutilated history and pure fiction.

This approach is shown in the piece that was written by the editors of National Review Online (NRO) under the title: “Obama Manufactures an Israel Crisis,” published on March 20, 2015. They begin the piece complaining that they are disturbed because the White House is “ignoring the torrent of hate and hypocrisy that has issued forth from the Palestinian side for years, and now using its own words to drive a real wedge between the United States and Israel.”

But the editors of NRO offer not a shred of evidence or detail to back what they say. By contrast, what is known to the readers of this website is that nearly 1400 postings – each reviewing between 1 and 4 articles written by Jews or their lackeys – push back against the torrent of hate and hypocrisy that has been coming over the years not from the Palestinian side but from the Jewish side.

Another example on how the Jews fabricate a fantasy that suits the moment by plucking ingredients from thin air and presenting the package as reality is given by none other than Benjamin Netanyahu. The NRO editors quote him as saying: “Anyone who moves to establish a Palestinian state is just giving territory away to radical Islamic attacks against Israel. That's the actual reality that has come about in recent years.”

Thus, Netanyahu's fictitious opinion to the effect that to realize the idea of two-states living side by side in peace will lead to radical Islamic attacks against Israel, is made to sound like a proven historical fact. And this, my friend, is how these people shred reality, create fictitious “facts” and mutilate history. Furthermore, to make sure that the Netanyahu fiction is cemented as fact inside the heads of readers, the editors of NRO buttress it and nail it down as follows: “This is an acknowledgment of reality, not reckless rhetoric.”

Now conscious that Netanyahu goofed not once but twice when he added what the editors call an ill-advised expression concerning high Arab turnout at the polls, they try to justify what he said by putting out the fiction that his expression was but “a shadow of the contempt that Palestinians regularly show for Israel.” Here too, they offer no proof, no evidence, no corroboration and no authentication. They simply state.

They go on to pile ever more unsubstantiated attacks on the Palestinians, and then turn against Barack Obama, their own President. They say, in this regard, that for some reason, the President of the United States is blowing this controversy out of proportion as he did with a previous controversy, because he does not understand the need to defend Israel on the world stage.

Finally, they see the need to diffuse the situation and so, they suggest under the guise of speculating, that Israel should offer “concessions on settlement construction.” They also warn Obama that “this episode will do real damage to Israel's trust in the United States” instead of reminding Netanyahu that he is the beneficiary of America's largess, and warning him not to abuse America's trust.

They end by doing the very Jewish thing of insulting those they chose to hate for the day: The Palestinians who will be emboldened by Obama's stance, they say. And Obama who will negotiate giveaways to Iran.

Start of Movement to Palestinize America

On March 18, 2015 I read: “Netanyahu's Win, Obama's Loss,” an editorial in National Review Online (NRO); and I felt uneasy about it because it signaled the start of a trend that some of us had warned about long ago. The next day, I monitored a number of the audio-visual media outlets, only to discover that the trend has already taken roots, and was likely to entrench itself at a faster rate with the passage of time.

To better understand the essence of that trend, we need to look at several realities whose confluence gives substance to it. The first thing we do is recall that apartheid South Africa and the former Rhodesia, claimed to be democracies because they assembled a group of people from a chosen ethnic composition, and allowed them to vote in what looked like a normal kind of government. These people voted on matters of interest to them, as well as matters relating to groups of other ethnic compositions who had no vote and no say in the affairs of government or in the issues that related to them.

                                  

Responding to this situation, a world that was led by vociferous Canada, mouthy Britain, persuasive America and finger-waiving Australia, recognized those two regimes for what they were – colonial, apartheid and an insult to democracy. Not only did the world refrain from doing the things that would have helped them survive, it applied sanctions against them to speed up the process of their demise. The effort bore fruit when those regimes fell, and were replaced by something better.

While the drama was unfolding between the world and the two apartheid regimes in Africa, the Jews were creating an analogous sort of situation in Palestine. They colonized an indigenous population that is Christian and Muslim, depriving it of any say in the way that it is governed. At the same time, they brought more and more Jews from all over the world and gave them the right to vote on matters relating to them and to the other groups.

Most nations of the world rejected that Israeli setup in the same way that they rejected apartheid South Africa and Rhodesia. But there were four exceptions. Irony of ironies, they were the very same Canada, Britain, America and Australia who not only refrained from criticizing Israel, but helped it morally and financially to maintain its regime of apartheid. And that's a regime which remains immeasurably more murderous than those of old South Africa and Rhodesia.

These being the nations that led the campaign against the bad regimes of an earlier era, it became clear to some of us that the Jews who convinced them to reverse their morality and adopt a stance contrary to what used to motivate them – will go beyond what they have accomplished and do, at least to America, what they did to Palestine. We deduced and we warned that the Jews will set up a system under which the Israeli population will be asked to vote on matters pertaining to America without giving the American people the right to vote on those matters. We thought that the Jews will sooner or later Palestinize America.

And that's what happened. The way to pull off such a thing in real life is the way that the events were made to unfold during the month of March in the year 2015. Netanyahu had the American Congress invite him to come and tell it – and presumably tell the American people as well – how to use their resources and their military power when dealing with the world, especially with Iran. And because Netanyahu's views stood in opposition to those of Barack Obama who is the current President of America, it was necessary to take a vote and determine who wins and who loses.

That's what they did, but there was one catch to the process. Only the Jews of Israel got to vote on matters having to do with American issues. It is a replay of what happens when those same Jews get to vote on matters having to do with Palestinian issues, and the Palestinians do not get to vote on them. This is why the editors of NRO and those that pronounced themselves in the audio-visual media the next day, saw fit to celebrate.

The NRO editors used a bit of psychology to express their triumphal exuberance without hurting America's feelings too much. It was not the case with the radio and television crowd, however. The NRO editors put it this way: “It would be a stretch to say President Obama lost Israel's election.” As to the audio-visual crowd, they said clearly that Netanyahu defeated Obama … there was no fuss, no muss and no apology that they may have stretched reality a bit.

Banality of Jewish Logic killing Americans

When talking about normal human beings – especially those that run for office and get dumped by the electorate or get elected to a government post – we says that someone made it by a whisker if he or she receives a fraction of a point above the fifty percent level of the total votes. Also, we say that someone won by a landslide if and only if he receives sixty percent of the votes or better.

But there came a time – some half a century ago – when the Jewish rabbis started to emulate the jackasses at the zoo or those in the wild … braying in our faces, under the guise of educating us, the cry that: “you can't compaaaare, you can't compaaaare.” By this, they meant that a comparison cannot be made between anything that is Jewish, and something that is not. They said this was the case because Jewish matters do not conform to measures that apply to normal human beings.

And so, by the power of this logic, the Jewish dominated American media spent the last twenty-four hours blaring as loudly as they could that Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel won a huge victory – calling it a landslide and just about every superlative you can think of. It is not that he received sixty percent of the votes or better. Not that he received fifty percent of the votes or better. Not even that he received twenty-five percent of the votes. It is that he received 29 seats in a parliament of 120. Normal human calculation says that this amounts to less than a quarter of the seats, but don't tell it to the Jews or to their American barking dogs.

What is this about? And how did the situation develop the way that it did … to the point that it did? Well, the undeniable truth is that the Jews have managed to take control of the American media, making such effective use of it, they currently run the nation for all practical purposes. They dismissed the administrative branch of government (one of the three branches stipulated in the Constitution,) substituting for it the journalistic mob rule of everyone braying the same hee-haw or barking the same woof at the same time. America is now running to the hee-haw of a Martha MacCallum and to the woof of a Wolf Blitzer more than it does to the orders of the commander-in-chief.

An example of how this works can be seen in the March 19, 2015 editorial of the Wall Street Journal which came under the title: “Netanyahu's Victory” and the subtitle: “President Obama loses his bid to defeat a U.S. ally.” Of course, there is no alliance here, or in what comes near the end of the editorial under the formulation: “Obama's concessions to Iran have united Israelis and Arabs.” The truth is that the relationship between the U.S. and Israel is that of a parasite feeding on its host. That between the Arabs and the Israelis is one of mutual loathing.

Aside from that, the Journal editorial sounds like the kind of game high school kids play when they decide to work on developing “personal relationships” instead of studying. In fact, the victory that is attributed to Netanyahu in the title of the editorial, and the loss that is attributed to Obama in the subtitle, attest to the banality of the mentality that works to send American boys and girls to die in foreign lands … simply because this is what the Netanyahu sort of Jews bray for and bark for.

How much more trivial can the editors of a publication get to be than when they write what those of the Journal have written in the first two paragraphs of their piece? Read and be disgusted: “The Israeli election turned into a decisive victory for Netanyahu … with 29 seats in a parliament [of 120] … The victory is a remarkable personal triumph for Mr. Netanyahu.” Still, no matter how banal this may sound, it came two weeks after that same barking and braying Jew had given: “a high-stakes speech to the U.S. Congress on Iran.”

And this is how a parasitic chickenshit gets to take command of a superpower's military. He tells the male bimbo in charge of the Congress to invite him to where he plans to deliver what amounts to a blueprint for America's involvement in the next military adventure on behalf of Israel and all the Jews in the world. It will be another calamity that will cost the waning superpower thousands of dead boys and girls and trillions of vanished dollars ... all borrowed from the rising superpowers of the future.

And when that future will come, and the American people will have realized what (the bleep) just happened to them, they will want to see justice done. And no one at this point can tell what this will look like when it happens.

Economic Promise of Egypt's Renewal

More than any of the ancient cultures, Egypt's seven thousand years of history have come to represent the seemingly paradoxical phenomenon of a country that is simultaneously enjoying a state of permanent continuity while constantly undergoing some form of renewal.

This duality came about because two natural realities converged. The first has to do with the location of Egypt among the three main continents of the old world – Africa, Asia and Europe but not the Americas that were not yet “discovered”. The second reality has to do with the lay of the land; a fertile valley which, for a long time, remained protected on both flanks by a prohibitive desert.

Thus, for half the time that Egypt had been in existence, its people developed their civilization without fear of being attacked by neighbors. They created a culture of self-sufficiency that relied on the availability of natural resources to produce the goods they needed for survival, and to provide for the services they required to make their living an enjoyable experience.

But then, the neighbors from the African South, the Asian East and the European North developed the means to raid the Egyptian frontier outposts at a time when internal dissent was creating a chaotic situation in the interior. In time, this combination gave the foreigners the ability to invade Egypt, and in some cases occupy it for a period of time. But rather than impose their ways on the Egyptians, the foreigners who looked more like ferocious warriors than tamed urban dwellers, were so impressed with Egypt's culture, they chose to adopt the Egyptian way of life rather than force their own way on the people of Egypt.

This condition made it possible for the Egyptians to voluntarily absorb and mix into their culture the foreign traits they deemed compatible with their own and saw them as desirable enough to hang on to. This is how the Egyptians maintained the continuity of their civilization while renewing it by gradually absorbing into it what the foreigners were bringing to them.

Then came the European Industrial Revolution, symbolized by the invention of the steam engine in Great Britain where the first railway system was built. That Revolution stirred the appetite of Europeans for natural resources which they knew existed in abundance in the other continents. Colonization began, but rather than see Egypt as part of the nations to be colonized, the British saw it as a partner to share in the spoils of colonization. They built a system of railways in Egypt – the second in the world – as a prelude to extend it to the rest of Africa where they foresaw the rise of their future dominion. Egypt thus became a part of Europe’s Industrial Revolution.

But the unfolding of history being as unpredictable as it is, the events that materialized in Europe and Western Asia at the start of the Twentieth Century brought about, among other things, the Sykes-Picot Agreement which caused the dropping of Egypt from the list of nations slated to be a part of the Industrial Revolution; relegating it not exactly to the status of colony, but to one that was neglected by the emerging world powers, and by Egypt's own rulers who were in most part of foreign descent.

Things changed again when the Nasser Revolution awoke Egypt in the Middle of the Twentieth Century, and put the country on the path that led to the current situation. We now have a group of people determined to make use of the traits they developed over the centuries to maintain the continuity of the civilization that served them well. And yet, these people wish to absorb and to incorporate into their culture what is compatible in what the foreigners may bring to them.

There is no doubt that Egypt has become an attractive place where foreign investors can now participate in the renewal and the rebuilding of the country. Those who will do well are the investors who understand and respect the Egyptian penchant for that which is durable, which will contribute to the self-sufficiency of the nation, and will inject into the culture what is new and worth preserving. Recommendation: Adopt the Egyptian way and be successful rather than seek to impose your way and be resented.

Also, fly-by-night, quick-buck artists will not be welcomed in Egypt. The best thing that these people can do is stay away from that country for their own peace of mind and for the good of an ancient and wonderful civilization that has no use for their kind.

Hate Volcanoes erupting in Jewish Bellies

They have fire in the belly. But this is not the fire of sympathy which ignites in the belly of a human being upon learning of injustice being committed on a massive scale. Rather, it is the fire of hate which ignites in the belly of the Jew upon learning that someone other than himself is doing well.

And when that someone turns out to be the entire country of Egypt, well then ... it is volcanoes and not just a fire that erupt in the belly of the Jew. And these volcanoes recreate the desire to see the biblical plagues which, for nearly four thousand years, have caused the Jews to dream of the day when Egypt will be hit by unimaginable calamities and be destroyed.

The first time in modern times that the Jews let the volcanoes of hate erupt in their bellies and spill over into the open, was the time when the Egyptians built the hydroelectric and reservoir complex at Aswan. The Jews and their lackeys spent several decades badmouthing the project in ways that demonstrate they had no knowledge of the technical or the economic aspects of what they talked about. What they had was an intense desire to see the dam demolished, and see Egypt flooded by the reservoir's water; killing millions of people and setting the country back several decades if not centuries.

The Jews and their underlings are doing it again, now that Egypt has had a successful economic summit where plans were unveiled concerning an administrative capital that will be built in the desert, and whose purpose – among other things – will be to relieve the pressure on Cairo, the current capital, a city that was originally built for six million people but has grown to house eighteen million of them.

You can get a taste of that Jewish hate when you read two articles on the subject – published one each – in the two rags notoriously known to be unswerving hate-Egypt publications; The Atlantic and the Washington Post. The Atlantic printed an article by Matt Schiavenzamar under the title: “Egypt's New Potemkin Capital” and the subtitle President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has announced plans to replace Cairo with a new city built to its east. But the money would be better spent elsewhere.” It appeared on March 15, 2015. As to the Washington Post, it printed an article by Ishaan Tharoor under the title: “Egypt's strange $45 billion plan to abandon Cairo as its capital city,” appearing on March 16, 2015.

What the two articles have in common is that they base their entire analysis and commentaries on the observation that was made by an Egyptian blogger on Facebook. His name is Khaled Fahmy, and he wondered if it would not be better to spend the money on improving the life of those who now live in Cairo, and lack some of the amenities enjoyed by the well off. And that was enough for the Atlantic to flash in big headline the story of ‘Egypt’s Potemkin Capital,' and follow it with the assertion that 'the money would be better spent elsewhere.” And it was enough for the Washington Post to flash in big headline the opinion that Egypt was strangely planning to abandon Cairo.

What all those involved in this story are missing is something that is there, that is obvious and that is jumping out of their own writing. Look what Matt Schiavenzamar has written: “Appearing at an economic development conference, President al-Sisi framed the new capital as a major step forward for his country which has endured decades of economic stagnation.” And look what Ishaan Tharoor has written: “A website outlining the proposal hails it as 'the catalyst for an Egyptian renaissance' and a 'momentous endeavor to provide for the country's sustainable long-term growth.'” Nothing could be clearer than that.

The truth is that previous governments in Egypt chose to rely on the welfare of subsidies to alleviate the burden on the poor – which is what Khaled Fahmy proposes to do more of … and what the Atlantic and the Washington Post seem to endorse. By contrast, the new Egyptian government has decided to use the money to rebuild the country, and thus create the openings that will give the poor a steady job and a steady paycheck rather than give them cheap food and subsidized fuel.

Well then, is there someone out there who knows the truth about the economic summit that just ended in Egypt, and the story behind the new capital? Yes, there is. They are the Jews in whose bellies the volcanoes of hate have erupted precisely because they realize that Egypt – which has experienced a dozen renaissances throughout its long history – is starting yet another renaissance. And the Jews don't like it one bit.