A Plan for the Jews to make big Gains again

I have a plan I wish to suggest to the Jewish pundits who, like Benny Avni, come out every week with a new reason to bemoan the fact that they were pushed off the driver's seat in the vehicle of American foreign policy. I can promise that if they adopt my plan, they will regain some of what they lost, if not all of it, and then some. But this will happen only if they adopt my plan.

The key to the plan is that they must first repudiate the old method of badmouthing A while praising B only to reverse position and badmouth B while praising A. This approach worked for a while, and made them look like the gods of strategic thinking in the eyes of America's intelligentsia. The proof of their early successes is that America's elite saw the Sunni Arabs as the bad guys while the Shiite Iranians were seen as the good guys. When the Jews reversed position, so did America's elite who started to despise the Iranians on cue.

But then, something happened (it doesn't really matter what) and the Jews started to attack the Shiite Iranians while praising the Sunni Arabs. And this is when the cream of the crop among the American intelligentsia said they have had enough allowing the Jews to dizzy them with flipping one time, flopping another time, only to re-flip and re-flop for no apparent reason, or maybe a reason that escapes them.

Having turned the old approach into a useless tool that no longer yields benefit to them, the Jews can still find solace in the fact that they played a few tricks in the past which continue to yield great benefits. One of those tricks – which would apply marvelously well in the current situation – is what they did in occupied Palestine. What they did there is annex chunks of the territory, and instead of calling the original population their own people, they treated these people like foreigners.

What this has allowed them to do is launch massacre after massacre in their never ending genocidal quest to annihilate the Palestinian people and steal the rest of their possessions. The effect has been that instead of the American intelligentsia vociferating about the Israelis killing their own people – that's the key here: their own people – they praised the Jews of Israel, sent them more money and weapons, and protected them in world forums. And that's something the Americans continue to do to this day.

This being a great Israeli success that endures, the Jews can duplicate it in Syria and throughout the Levant. They can ask the American elites to consider Bashar Assad a foreigner who is attacking a population that is foreign to him. This will make him eligible for money, weapons and protection from America. When the stream starts flowing from America to Syria, the Jews can sit back and watch him do to “Assad occupied” Syria what the Zionists are doing in “Jewish occupied” Palestine.

In time, the Jews will get what they want, which is a Levant that is bathed in blood where dozens of little fiefdoms will spring up and fight each other using American weapons imported by Jewish jobbers and sold at a high price to the highest bidders, and given at fire sale prices to those who look eager to kill but have no money to pay for the instruments of death.

The idea of something like this happening is very much in the realm of what Benny Avni imagines can happen in real life. You see this in the title of his latest column: “Obama has turned Putin into the world's most powerful leader,” published on September 29, 2015 in the New York Post. If Obama can turn Putin into something he is not, the Jews can turn Assad into something he is not: a stooge that will do the dirty work for them.

And that work will no longer be what Avni and the echo-repeaters claim to be an “Assad drop[ping] barrel bombs on innocent children,” but will be an Assad who, like the Israelis, is delightfully dropping phosphoric, napalm and cluster bombs on innocent men, women and children.

And like the reality that's played out all the time in occupied Palestine and the District of Columbia, there will be an avalanche of resolutions – binding and non-biding – passed in the American Congress condemning the terrorist women, children and toddlers of Syria who dare to brave the tanks and armored vehicles sent by the Assad forces of occupation to demolish their towns, homes, fields and crops.

And Benny Avni and all those like him will sit in their offices in New York, toasting with Champagne the spectacle they worked so hard to realize.

Millions more just to obey Jewish Orders

If you ever thought that the Jews would drop demands they made when events prove they were wrong making those demands in the first place, perish the thought. Here we have hundreds of thousands who died, and millions more who were displaced, yet the Jews continue to demand that the situation in Syria be continued as is because what matters to them is that the regime in that country be changed. This is the course they command America to continue pursuing even if millions more must die or be displaced.

The Jewish leaders in charge of that operation deputized the editors of the Wall Street Journal to relay their order to America's high command, and the Journal did just that in a piece they wrote under the title: “Obama's 'Dangerous Currents'” and the subtitle: “Putin and Iran corner the U.S. on Syria, as world disorder spreads.” They published the piece in the Journal on September 29, 2015.

The occasion that brought about those events is a world that has had enough watching the Judeo-American game of decapitating the Arab and Muslim governments in the region for the benefit of Israel, and decided to do something to end the butchery that's unfolding in the Levant, and spilling into Europe. The decision was announced to the General Assembly of the United Nations by Russia and Iran, countries that came together to carry out a peace plan for Syria. They invited the Americans to join them in the effort, and when President Obama gestured his initial acceptance of the plan, the Wall Street Journal blasted him.

To make their point, the editors rely on two well known Jewish tricks. The first is to say they know of something that someone whispered in their ear because that someone doesn't want to say it loudly. The way they expressed the trick this time is through the use of the Latin expression “sotto voce” which they employed at the start of their piece. The second trick they used is to make a list of what someone (this time President Obama) said sometime ago which may be at variance with what he is saying now, thus deduce that he must be wrong in seeking peace, and they must be right in demanding that the butchery be continued.

Furthermore, whereas in his address to the General Assembly, President Obama made a reference to Russia's involvement in Ukraine with these words: “we see some major powers assert themselves in ways that contravene international law,” the editors of the Journal dishonestly made it sound like he was talking about Russia's plan to bring peace to Syria. The way they pulled this sleight of hand is to begin the next paragraph like so: “Nowhere is that clearer now than in Syria.” This is so very dishonest, it can only be Jewish through and through.

What is galling the editors and their Jewish masters is that Russia and Iran worked out a peace plan for the region instead of joining the demonic plan that Israel, World Jewry and America have been implementing for five years now. This is how the editors express their dismay: “Far from cooperating with the U.S.-led Syria strategy, Mr. Putin and Iran are moving to replace the U.S. coalition and strategy with their own.”

And they explain why they are dismayed: “Mr. Putin will introduce a resolution at the Security Council calling for a coalition against the Islamic State in Syria. This means supporting [the] regime in Damascus against … those trained and armed by the U.S. … This follows the news that Iraq will share intelligence with Russia, Syria and Iran.” And the editors go on to speculate in a fashion that is Jewish to the core: “The Putin-Tehran goal is to build an arc of influence that extends from Western Afghanistan to the Eastern Mediterranean … the goal is to isolate Israel.” They speculate because they want you to believe they know what goes on in the hearts of people.

And so they whine: “The White House is doing little more than protest. Mr. Obama told the U.N. 'there cannot be … a return to the prewar status quo in Syria … realism requires a managed transition away from Assad.'” They whine because: “How is Mr. Obama going to achieve that result? Putin is establishing facts on the ground each day.” And this is happening; they say “while Mr. Obama is harrumphing … Even if the U.S. vetoes Putin's resolution, Mr. Obama is likely to accept the survival of Mr. Assad.”

And that's their bottom line. The Jews ordered the decapitation of the governing body in Syria by removing Assad, and the Americans are not complying. They must comply, say the editors of the Wall Street Journal, even if millions more must die, and the rest are turned into refugees. So very savage, so very Jewish.

The Problem with Putin isn't Putin

Suppose I said the following to you: “The Putin doctrine is a decisive, well thought out attempt to strengthen Russian foreign policy in order to improve the country's strategic and economic outlooks, thus re-establish it as a hub of progress that will be respected again.” Will you accept this as a legitimate effort on the part of Putin? Of course you will; and that's because there is nothing wrong with what Putin is trying to do.

Look now how these same ideas were expressed by a contributor to the Weekly Standard: “The Putin doctrine is a decisive, calculating attempt to imperialize Russian foreign policy in order to re-establish Russia as a strategic and economic hub of power.” Now, that's something scary, don't you think? The reason is that the contributor characterized Putin's effort not as a legitimate endeavor but a diabolic illegitimate plot. He did it with the use of three alarming notions: Putin is calculating, he wants to imperialize Russia's foreign policy, and that's because his ambition is to re-establish the lost hub of Russian (read Soviet) power.

You'll find that passage and many more like it in the article that came under the title: “The Putin Doctrine in Action,” written by Lamont Colucci and published in the Weekly Standard on September 26, 2015. By the time you have gone through the entire article and cleaned it of its negatively biased editorializing, you'll have realized that Putin is a regular guy that's doing nothing more than discharge the duties placed on his shoulders by virtue of the office he occupies.

This being the case, you ask two pertinent questions: (1) Why did Colucci adopt the tone that he did? And (2) What does this approach do that's different from stating his opinions in a straightforward manner? Well, with regard to the first question, you get an inkling as to what the answer may be when you look at the first sentence in each of the article's first two paragraphs.

The first goes like this: “Unlike American presidential doctrines, Russian doctrines tend to go unnoticed by the western media or are often dismissed as propaganda.” The second goes like this: “As the Obama doctrine is a tortured pathway of penance, contrition, and risk aversion designed to manage the decline of the United States abroad...” That is, the author hates Obama, and hates the western media for not shaming him, which it could do by pointing out he is the weakling that Colucci implies he is.

As to the second question, the answer to it is a little more complicated. That's because in telling what the Colucci approach has accomplished that's different from what it would have been had he stated his opinion in a straightforward manner, we find ourselves in a situation akin to standing between two mirrors facing one another – each being reflected by the other being reflected by it.

Here is the problem: Colucci accuses the western media of dismissing Russian doctrines as propaganda. This means he believes that the western media persistently fail to understand Russia's intent and the effect of its doctrines. But that's what can also be said about Colucci, except that the roles are reversed. As it turns out, he too fails to understand Obama's intent and the effect of his doctrine.

Whereas he sees the Obama doctrine as a tortured pathway of penance, contrition and risk aversion, Colucci fails to see that the intent here is to ask the world for time out. Time out? What does that mean? Well, since World War II, America has been involved in four or five dozen conflicts around the world, neither of which – except for Iraq 1 – has been a resounding success. This is like playing a deadly game that exhausted it, and risks putting it out for good. The wise thing to do under this condition was to ask for time out to catch one's breath, take a sip of water, and tend the wounds that promise to bleed you to death. And that's what Obama did.

No, no! has cried Lamont Colucci who sees Obama's approach as being “designed to manage the decline of the United States abroad,” instead of ignoring that apparent decline and fighting to the death. The problem with this view is that the decline is not only apparent but real, even if it is relative rather than absolute. And there is nothing that America can do, being exhausted as it is, aside from taking a rest and preparing for an entirely new world whose emergence and eventual rise it can neither stop nor slow down.

It is clear that the problem with Colucci and the media in general is that they do not understand economics, let alone the economics of the new world order. Aside from being illiterate in the related subjects, they are confused by economists, pseudo-economists and downright charlatans who deliberately or inadvertently flood the public square with false ideas. These people do so because they don't know what they are talking about or because they wish to mislead the public in furtherance of personal and political gains. And yet, understanding economics is key to understanding the new geostrategic order.

The reality that is lost on many is that China has been the last nation to project economic power around the world by growing its economic base horizontally. The old Soviet Union, together with the Warsaw Pact allies, had all that was necessary to become this kind of economic superpower, except that it had neither the inclination to do it, nor the vision to know how to do it. That's because “consumerism” was synonymous to decadence which was anathema to Communism. This restricted the Communist world to expanding the economy by growing vertically with mega projects consisting of advanced science, heavy industries and infrastructure works, all happening at a time when the population was craving the consumer goods it new the Capitalist countries had in abundance.

But the world that is shaping now in this post-China horizontal growth, is one in which the production of consumer goods is becoming the poor-man's occupation while knowledge pertaining to projects in advanced science, heavy industries and infrastructure – is becoming the way to building the super-economy of the future. This is where Russia has a clear advantage over China, Europe and America. Do not be distracted by the low price of oil; look instead to what Putin is offering the emerging economies, and draw your own conclusion.

To end his article, Colucci asks: How far will we allow the Russians to proceed in successfully implementing their doctrine? What will it take for America to act?

This is like a child asking his teenaged brother: Why aren't you trying to stop that train? What will it take for you to act?

The Parasite that's turning into a Maggot

A parasite is a small creature that lives off a large body. For the creature to be considered a parasite, however, the body on which it lives must be alive. But if the body dies – perhaps as a result of the parasite taking too much too fast out of it – another creature called maggot starts to feed on the rotting flesh.

These are biological realities which lend themselves to being used as a metaphor illustrating a situation that may arise when the playing of social games is pushed to an extreme. In fact, those realities can even be altered artistically to make it so that upon sensing the approaching death of the body on which it feeds, the parasite begins the process of transforming itself into the maggot that will feed on the corpse that will result.

This age being one in which planet Earth got connected by several networks of communication, leaving no one in the dark as to what is happening near or far (except for those who wish to be left undisturbed while meditating) a few things have become common knowledge on a world scale. One of those is the image of the Jew being a parasite that feeds on those who will let him.

Not once until now has there been a situation in which the host allowed the Jewish parasite to consume him to death. In fact, the rule had always been that upon sensing he is being abused by the Jew, the host was the one to take the initiative and do away with the parasite … something he did by expulsion or incineration or the suffocation with a deadly gas.

A situation in which that rule was broken can be studied in the article that came under the title: “The Iran Deal Will Ignite Nuclear Proliferation,” written by Douglas J. Feith and published on September 25, 2015 in National Review Online. It should be mentioned that Feith is one of those who call themselves children of Holocaust survivors. He was employed in the W. Bush Administration, working with the team that created the hoax of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq; a work that started the process of siphoning life out of America.

Seeing how much America has deteriorated and guessing that the end is near, Douglas Feith has started the process of transforming himself into a maggot. He is positioning himself at the highest point in the food chain that will devour the corpse which used to be America.

Look how he starts the article: “Republicans will keep Iran as proof of Obama's national-security malpractice. But they don't all grasp why the nuclear accord is flawed and why it matters.” In other words, he is saying that no one in America knows what they are doing when it comes to national security. This being the case, he senses the imminent death of the body on which he and those like him have been feeding for a long time.

What is even more telling, according to him, is that Obama “decided to paper over the nuclear problem in order to pursue a partnership between America and the regime in Tehran.” This is a dangerous move, he explains, and the proof is that Obama himself once “promised to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon.” But then, the commander-in-chief went from saying: “all options are on the table” to saying: “One couldn't always hit home runs. One had to bend to reality. What's important is getting the best deal possible.”

Thus, instead of seeing Iran as “an Islamist-extremist rogue-state enemy,” Obama's administration officials “have begun to highlight shared interests … US negotiators accordingly made concessions for the nuclear deal,” he goes on to say. And this has three dangerous consequences, according to him. First, it confirms Iran as a threshold nuclear-weapons state. Second, more than $100 billion will become available to Iran. Third, the world's nuclear-non-proliferation apparatus will be damaged.

When this happens, Feith goes on to prophesize, “the deal will spur [many] in the region and beyond to acquire nuclear weapons.” It will be a world where “the risks of nuclear war will increase enormously,” which is why he calls it a problem of historical importance. And that's why “the capitulation of Obama to the ayatollahs will be recognized as a turning point.”

And the moral of the story he wishes to convey to the world is that having created the hoax that started the process of siphoning life out of America, he expects the body of that Republic to die soon. This is why he is transforming himself from the parasite that he was to the maggot that will be.

Taught by the Rote of Dogmas, they are now lost

A remarkable thing happened last week that should serve as a guiding light to the future historians who will want to study the effect that the Jewish cultural tsunami has had on America's foreign policy. Here is a hint: “That sounds like an Administration moving to reverse its demand for Mr. Assad's ouster.”

It is a small part of what the editors of the Wall Street Journal wrote in a piece they published under the title: “Putin's Syria Tour de Force” and the subtitle: “Before: Russia is 'doomed to fail.' Now: Obama is happy to talk,” published on September 20, 2015.

The idea that there has been a policy reversal is a big thing in itself, but that's not the whole story because the rest of the quote goes like this: “It also coincides with the Administration's admission that its feeble attempts to arm a credible opposition to the Assad regime have failed – a failure for which White House spokesman Josh Earnest had the ill grace to blame on critics of Mr. Obama's Syria policy.”

Note that “critics of Mr. Obama's Syria policy” is code to mean the demands that were developed in the form of dogmas by the Judeo-Israeli lobby, and spread among the mob of Jewish pundits and their followers who echo-amplified them into the tsunami that swept aside all other arguments. What was left in the end was the call to oust the Assad regime, a call that was compounded by the drawing of a red line which Assad was warned not cross but apparently did without being bombed as promised.

Now, the Obama Administration is reversing itself, say the editors of the Journal – and this means it is brushing aside the Jewish call for violence in favor of doing something else. They tell what that thing is … not by describing it as the quest to reach a peaceful settlement, but describing it as a strategy devised by the evil Vladimir Putin of Russia who pulled a tour de force on Obama and scored a big success. Thus, the editors of the Journal have expressed a preference for destruction over the peaceful approach that's in the offing.

That was the stance of the Journal's editors on September 20. Four days later, they came up with a new piece which they wrote under the title: “Putin Is on a Syria Roll” and the subtitle: “His arms gambit wins a meeting with Obama in New York. Oh-oh.” What they lament this time is the crumbling of another dogma; one that was formulated by the Jewish propaganda machine to the effect that Putin must be isolated diplomatically.

What future historians will establish from all that, is the fact that America's paralysis and its descent into irrelevance did not come about by chance, but happened as a result of its adherence to dogmas that were put down by the Jews at the start of every policy consideration. The worst part is that the Jews did what they did to force the American government into taking positions that satisfied the Jewish penchant for the theatrics of talking tough and going nowhere instead of putting together a comprehensive strategy that would have served the interests of America and the world.

Now that the Jewish approach has been repudiated by Josh Earnest, signaling America's desire to resume operating on the world stage the way that a superpower is supposed to, the Jewish establishment is running around like a chicken whose head has been cut off. It is a spectacle that is staged editorially by the performance of the pundits in charge of the Wall Street Journal's editorial page.

You can see their disarray in what they said on September 20, and what they said on September 24.

Here is their stance on the 20th: “Secretary of Defense Carter's call to Russian counterpart to explore 'mechanisms for deconfliction' in Syria … Mr. Obama has gone from warning Russia to seeking face-to-face talks with Moscow … the Secretary of State wants to restart peace to reach a political settlement for the Syrian civil war.” And so they volunteer their advice: “The only hope the U.S. now has of a decent settlement in Syria is to create … a model of what it did in Iraq in the 1990s, with the explicit aim of arming a militia to destroy the Assad regime.”

And here is their stance on the 24th: “President Obama agreed to meet with him [Putin] during the U.N. General Assembly in New York … Russia is blowing up Obama's Syria and Iraq strategy, and he'd better see what the strongman wants … Now Putin knows he can make further strategic gains … imagine his potential wish list.” And so they go on to tell what the list may contain.

What we see here are editors whose war dogmas have been swamped by Russia's comprehensive strategy to bring peace to a Middle East that was turned into a hellhole by Israel and its Jewish contacts in the American Congress.

The editors of the Journal fail to understand what Putin is doing, and fail to see that Obama understood what Putin is doing. They wish to replicate in Syria what they caused America to do in Iraq, because it is the only thing they are able to grasp.

Whatever condition America and the world will be in when the future will come and people will examine that record, they will be amazed at the reality of Jewish shallowness, and paradoxically, the power it has had to drain even a superpower.

The perpetual Holocaust begging Machine

The Jewish propaganda machine came up with a new quip in fulfillment of the Jewish never ending quest to make humanity accept the notion it is screwed up because it refuses to recognize the Jews as having special privileges which give them one hundred percent right to everything that exists, and zero percent obligation to anything. The quip boils down to four simple words: antisemitism is a derangement.

And while the Jews believe that every human being that does not convert to the Judaic movement – which they say rises to the level of a religious belief – remains a deranged person by genetic disposition, the human race has determined long ago that to embrace a belief does not change the genetic make-up of people, but can change their character.

Thus, while it is unlikely that humanity has pogromed and holocausted the Jews everywhere on the planet and throughout time because it is deranged and refuses to be cured by converting to Judaism – it is more likely that converting to Judaism is what turns people into warmongers. When these people cause the wars that inflict pain and suffering on the innocent, humanity turns against them to pogrom or holocaust them.

How this never-ending cycle starts, develops and ends, only to start again, can be understood by studying the article that Michael Makovsky wrote under the title: “What Next?” published on September 25, 2015 in the Weekly Standard. It is about the nuclear deal that six nations, including America, have concluded with Iran on behalf of the world. It is also the deal that the Jews opposed before the negotiations had started, opposed it during the negotiations, and oppose it now that the deal has been concluded. Their reason for doing this has been one and only one: they wanted war, war, war.

And war is what Makovsky is calling for in his article. To make the point, he walks the path that the Jews have walked since President Obama was elected to office. That is, they have been teasing the Americans with the reproach that no one in the world respects them anymore because Obama abandoned the role of leadership that America used to play, having a powerful military to back it. Now that the military has gotten weak, the consequences have been these: “blunders in withdrawing from Iraq, drawing but not enforcing a red line in Syria, and declaring quasi-war but doing very little against the Islamic State, the Iran deal was the straw that broke the camel's back of American credibility.”

This is putting the world in mortal danger, he goes on to say, which is why something must be done. And so he asks: What is to be done? How does one begin? And he tells of four considerations that must be included in a national security policy.

First, he says, don't obsess about sanctions – which proved ineffective – but make them only a supporting element of a new policy against Iran. Second, he says, stick to what works which is a credible military threat. To prove this point, he speculates that Qaddafi of Libya gave up the quest to build a nuclear arsenal because Saddam Hussein was toppled. He calls this speculation “an empirical record” yet ignores the actual empirical record of Syria's Assad not being impressed by America's red line. Go figure.

Makovsky goes on to explain his third point. He says he hopes the next president of the United States will walk away from the deal and use the military threat to scare Iran. He does not explain why Iran – that is as much as a hundred times more powerful than Syria – would fear an American air attack when Syria was not. Still, he goes on to the fourth point which is to “boost the military capability of Israel.” And this is where he calls on the Congress to play a role.

He makes that call because he is about to ask for something he knows that no American President – even a mentality retarded one – will ever accept. Since the Congress, which is populated by hundreds of the mentally retarded, has proven time and again it will go to any extreme if taken there by a Jew, Makovsky asks that B-52 bombers and bunker busting bombs be given to Israel.

And so he ends his presentation like this: “When we have an American leader willing to prevent a nuclear Iran, that president must have the tools – as must the Israelis – to do the job.”

And you can hear 7 billion human beings wonder: When are they begging for the next holocaust to happen?

A ludicrous Plan designed by Fools

A mad scientist creates a Frankenstein, and the creature turns against its creator. This is the best way to describe what many Western countries have been doing in trying to impose on others a system of culture and governance they believe is so perfect, every nation on Earth must follow it voluntarily or be forced into it.

That's what is attempted by someone who goes by the name Peter Kohanloo, and says he is president of a group he calls Iranian American Majority. He put down his ideas in an article that came under the title: “A Road Map to Regime Change in Tehran” and the subtitle: “Critics of the Iran nuclear deal can at least make sure America puts the 10-year horizon to good use,” It was published on Sept. 24, 2015 in the Wall Street Journal.

To understand how foolish that is, we need to develop a historical perspective as to how and where such ideas originated. It was during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries that the European fiefdoms started the trend and practiced it on each other. They did so by taking turn harboring each others' dissidents and using them to foment insurrections in the home countries of the guests they had taken in. Now that time has passed, and we have the advantage of hindsight, historians are not rushing to point out that such policies bore fruit anywhere.

The policies did not work because they constituted a break from the traditional ways that cultures have evolved over the millenniums. Throughout time, travelers that visited other lands took ideas to them, thus helped to bring about a gradual change to those places. And when the travelers returned home, they brought back the new ideas that contributed to the evolution of their own cultures. Everybody changed … and they did so voluntarily.

When the age of colonization began towards the middle of the nineteenth century, the Europeans did not think of the colonies as being worthy of having a system of culture or governance comparable to theirs. They considered the people of those places backward, and worked to maintain them in that state indefinitely so as to exploit their resources for as long as they could.

But then, one by one, the colonies managed to liberate themselves, and the tendency gave the colonial powers the idea of interfering with their progress. They did so by enlisting dissidents and training them to foment insurrections in their own countries. They also promised that if a revolution results and the governing body is defeated, they will receive all the help they need to take control of the territory and govern it themselves.

The colonial powers had some success in some of the places but failed in other places. The net result is that such attempts created a horrible legacy, forcing future rulers of former colonies to start adopting authoritarian forms of governance to protect themselves from what they called outside interference. And that's when the dissidents fled to the home of the colonial powers where they took up residence. In the safety of these places, groups of dissent formed and labored to bring about a regime change in the countries they left behind.

That's what the Kohanloo group is trying to replicate. The fact that his article was published in the Wall Street Journal, says he has the backing of none other than the Judeo-Israeli lobby. Because of this, it is worth recalling what happened to similar attempts from three angles: (1) How the people of the Middle East reacted; (2) What happened to the dissidents; and (3) What has been America's experience with that game.

1. I know from first hand experience what happened in Egypt because when I landed there towards the end of the 1950s, there were something like ten so-called pirate stations beaming hateful propaganda against then President Nasser, urging the population to rise in anger and bring down the government. Instead of developing anger, we treated the thing for what it was: a laughable and entertaining thing. They wasted their breath on us.

2. The stations disappeared, Nasser died, new governments came and went in Egypt but groups of dissent remained in Britain from where they beamed hateful propaganda not only at Egypt but also the other Arab countries. This is when the Arab governments warned the Brits they were creating the Frankenstein that will someday turn against them. This came to pass … and look who's sorry now.

3. Cuba, Nicaragua, Chile, Venezuela, Peru … is there any place where the United States scored a success worth replicating? Not one place.

It is time to tell Peter Kohanloo and his group of Iranian American Majority to take a hike.

Stop and gimme your undivided Attention

Because it is difficult to understand how a handful of Jews in the American Congress have managed to paralyze the normal work of that institution (which is to serve the American people) and divert the full attention of its members to the exclusive service of Israel and World Jewry – what the Jews do in the open is a welcome development because it provides a glimpse as to how they pull off such feats.

What they do basically is operate under the umbrella of blackmail as they unleash a non-stop shower of nagging demands to the effect that America must stop doing what it is doing, and devote its energies to the business of ascertaining the welfare of Jews throughout the world, as well as guarantying the protection of Israel in the Middle East. Theirs is the never ending refrain of: Stop doing what you're doing, America, and gimme your undivided attention … or else.

Two articles, recently published, do just that. One came under the title: Our Iranian Interlocutor” and the subtitle: “Ali Khamenei's dark obsession with Jews and Israel,” written by Ali Alfoneh and Reuel Marc Gerecht, and published on September 22, 2015 in the Weekly Standard. The other came under the title: “Better To Be Xi Than Bibi,” written by Irwin M. Stelzer and published the next day, September 23, 2015 in the Weekly Standard.

The very first word in the 4,150-words article written by Alfoneh and Gerecht is “Antisemitism.” When you see that, you know these people have returned to square one, having lost the battle in which they were trying to con the world into seeing things their way. In fact, antisemitism was the accusation that the Jews used like a rocket propelled grenade half a century ago to shut everyone up and begin the move to monopolize the marketplace of ideas from where they plotted the takeover of America one strategic post at a time, one institution at a time.

Ever since that time, antisemitism has been the accusation to which the Jews have returned when they got defeated on the battlefield – something that happens once in a while despite the advantages they have accumulated. And when they have returned to the starting point, they begin their march to conquer America anew by zeroing in on one or two institutions at a time, over which they unleash their non-stop shower of nagging demands while howling orders for America to stop doing what it is doing, and devote its energies to ascertain the welfare of Jews throughout the world, and guaranty the protection of Israel in the Middle East.

That non-stop nagging make up the entire content of the long Alfoneh and Gerecht article. It is where they chastise the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency because those two institutions seldom discuss antisemitism. The authors also attack the Arab elites for thinking antisemitism – having been influenced by the preferences and vicissitudes of the European Left.

And they attack Western scholars of every stripe because these people feel uneasy discussing antisemitism, thus avoid discussing the subject altogether. That's not to forget the Iranians who do not only talk the talk but also walk the walk by developing a nuclear arsenal with which they plan to wipe Israel off the map because that's where there is a high concentration of Jews.

Given that the Jewish movement is basically that of a conspiratorial cabal, you see the effect of the “breathing together” which these people did before loading the rocket propelled grenade, and firing it at the chosen target of the day. The notion which they breathed together this time is the newly sounding “antisemitism is a derangement.” You'll read about it and hear it echo-repeated by every Jew and his cousin that has access to a microphone, a website or a broadsheet.

As to the Irwin Stelzer article, it is displaying a pale duplication of something that happened a couple of years ago on a larger scale. Today, Stelzer is whining that Obama will roll out the red carpet for the Chinese President Xi Jinping whereas he left a meeting with Netanyahu to attend a private family dinner.

Perhaps Obama treated Netanyahu in that manner because the echo-repeating conspirators tore their entrails out of their bellies a couple of years previous; crying out that Obama had gone to Egypt and Turkey but not to Israel. They promised that if Obama went to Israel and staged a love-in festival, Netanyahu will snap his finger and solve the Palestinian problem. Obama delivered, Netanyahu pocketed then stabbed Obama in the back.

Now tell me this, would you invite a dog like that to a family dinner? Obama didn't. Good for his family.

A dishonest Lecturer, a deceptive Lecture

I normally do not get involved when two writers are having an argument, and I will not this time. What I'll do, however, is correct as many errors as I can in what Clifford D. May is saying in his lecture to Ann Coulter ... who wondered “How many f–ing Jews” are there in America?

May's lecture came in the form of an article under the title: “Why Republican presidential candidates support Israel” and the subtitle: “A few points Ann Coulter might want to consider.” The article was published on September 22, 2015 in The Washington Times.

Let me say at the outset that I am of Egyptian origin which means I am of Hamito-Semitic stock. That is, I am at least a half Semite, confirmed by my physical attributes which are comparable to the paintings and the carvings of ancient Egyptians; the people among whom I have roots. What annoys me is that Clifford May, who does not remotely look like a Semite, is taking liberty defining what is Semitic and what is anti-Semitic. He, in effect, stole my identity and he is monetizing it by taking advantage of people who have no idea what he is up to.

For all I know, he may be the descendant of a Caucasian child that the Jews kidnapped generations ago to make themselves look Caucasians, or he may be the child of someone that converted to Judaism for one reason or another, or he may be an imposter like the Soviet citizens who pretended to be Jewish to get out of the USSR when the government there opened the door for the Jews to get out.

Here is what Clifford May says about anti-Semitism: “It morphs but never dies. It's a derangement syndrome. Those afflicted cannot be reasoned out of it because they weren't reasoned into it.” Well, the fact that the phenomenon never died means it was fueled by something everywhere the Jews went, and during all the time they existed. The fact being that the one thing common to those places and those moments were the Jews themselves and only the Jews, it must be that the syndrome which May calls a derangement, is a Jewish affliction and nothing else. That is, the derangement he is talking about is a property that's exclusive to Clifford May and those like him, not the property of a Coulter or a Habachi or for that matter, an Obama.

And neither is that derangement the property of the original Caucasians who are now called Iranians. Like the Egyptians, these people have a long history of high culture and civilization with roots as solid as rock. They did not kidnap children of other races to change their looks, and they did not steal the identity of others, or monetize their crime to live at the expense of those they swindle.

So the question is this: “Who are the people that the Jews swindle – the reason why Ann Coulter felt compelled to describe the swindlers as “f–ing Jews”? They are the American people … Ann Coulter's people; those who ultimately pay the price in fulfillment of the largess exhibited by politicians like the four horsemen of the electoral Apocalypse: Christie, Huckabee, Rubio and Cruz; those who generously give away American lives and American treasure in exchange for services they expect from the Jews, and will never receive.

These syphilis-sucking politicians do what they do not because they believe that all four of them will be elected presidents to govern one and the same republic, but because they are peeing and crapping in their pants for fear that the Jews; yes those f–ing Jews, will badmouth them to extinction if they don't pay up with OPM. They are the characters who have skeletons in the closet, the ones who are easy to blackmail. When this happens, their only recourse is to buy the silence of the Jews and pay with the most valuable possession that America has; the things that belong to Ann Coulter and to her people. That's why they are, in her eyes, those f–ing Jews.

Nor do these Jews, be they f–ing or not, restrict themselves to blackmailing only politicians. They do it to the American public at large by launching scary campaigns of demagoguery like the one that May is waving in Coulter's face. Here is what he says in this regard: “They [Iranians] don't need ICBMs to mass-murder Israelis. They need ICBMs to deliver nukes to targets on the other continents. Like the one you and I live on.”

This done, the Jews retain the sort of poll takers who know how to formulate the questions that draw the answers they seek from respondents. In this case, the answer they sought was: “we're scared too,” and that's what they got from the public.

The writer goes on to say that the Israelis never asked American soldiers to defend them. This is false. But even if true, so what? The fact remains that Jewish and non-Jewish Americans volunteer to do so on their own, many being children of prominent American personalities. Not only that, but some have dual citizenship and live in Israel or in America till they are needed. There is also the fact that in 1973, the Americans participated directly in the war to slow down the Egyptian forces that had crossed the Canal. The Jews also engineered America's assault on the Sudan, Iraq and Libya … all that to protect Israel before there was danger to it.

What is also noteworthy is that other youngsters from the West, including America, are duplicating those same approaches for the benefit of what they view as the other side. They volunteer to join the fight in the ongoing melee because they see it as the thing to do. They take with them a level of savagery such as the locals never witnessed before. In fact, it is youngsters from the English speaking West that conducted the acts of public beheading we know of.

All in all, the lecture that Clifford May has given Ann Coulter is a dishonest one because it aims to deceive the readers as to why mankind rejects certain behaviors … whether committed by Jews or by others. The difference is that all others take the hint and cease being f–ing whatever, whereas the Jews double down on their antics and call those who do not like them anti-Semites.

The two Faces of a castrated Stud

I learned something new during the eight years that I've had this website; something I call the law of random coincidences. This is when two or more articles appear on the same day or a day apart, each telling part of a story that's complemented by the parts told in the other articles.

One such case happened on September 21, 2015 when an article appeared under the title: “Vlad of Arabia: Putin's drive to the heart of the Middle East,” written by Benny Avni and published in the New York Post … and another article appeared on the same day under the title: “Israel Needs New Friends,” written by Shmuel Rosner and published in the New York Times.

The difference between the two is that Rosner – who lives in Tel Aviv, Israel – is interested in telling his people they are about to go through a period of major changes because many things, which are outside of their control, are happening around them, and that they must adapt or face the prospect of hard times ahead if not the prospect of whittling away.

On the other hand, Benny Avni – who lives in New York, USA – is interested in addressing two issues, each directed at one of two constituencies. The first is the Jewish rank and file in America which still supports Israel but needs to constantly be reassured that its effort in propping up a distant regime is not wasted on a lost cause. The second is the American Congress whose aid in feeding, arming and protecting Israel is what prevents the artificial entity from becoming a lost cause.

Before the advent of the internet, Jewish leaders such as Avni and Rosner had an easy time advancing two contradictory notions simultaneously. They did it for half a century because they could throw the anti-Semitic accusation at those that opposed them, thus ruined their lives and careers. From the Left side of the mouth, such leaders advanced the notion that Israel needed financial and military aid because it was about to be destroyed. From the Right side of the mouth, they advanced the notion that Israel was so strong, it could protect itself and also protect America, which is why America must continue to support it financially and militarily. In fact, Israel was getting it coming and going.

To spread their varied messages as widely as possible, the Jewish leaders built a formidable propaganda machine and used it to flood America with hundreds of thousands of stories for half a century. They disseminated those stories day after day through the audio-visual and print media which they took control of gradually and stealthily. They circulated stories they fabricated to suit the moment, thus helped to cement the self-serving notions which they drummed into the heads of the Jewish rank and file, and the heads of America's legislators.

The internet then came along and democratized the marketplace of ideas in that the contributors could now point out the Jewish contradictions without losing their job. This made it increasingly more difficult for the Jewish leaders to spread the two contradictory messages in the same place at the same time. The new reality signaled to them the need to separate the messages, directing each at the constituency that would be affected by it the most. And that's what is reflected in the Rosner and the Avni articles.

Rosner's message to the constituency that follows him is that Israel must learn to “make do with less” because it became lazy over the decades, having “developed an unhealthy overreliance on [America's] friendship alone. This needs to change.”

By that, the author means to say that Israel has cultivated its own impotence, having taken America for granted, a situation that can no longer be sustained. To Rosner, Israel is now a castrated eunuch that must relearn the art of studmanship – to coin a new word.

As to Avni's message – which is directed at the Jewish rank and file and the American Congress – it is to the effect that “Netanyahu's Moscow visit was about preventing a shooting war between Israel and Russia.” He thus set up an equivalence between the recognized military superpower that is Russia, and the yet to be recognized military stud that is Israel.

To cement this view, Avni draws a contrast between the reason why Netanyahu went to Moscow, and the reason why other Mideastern leaders did: “Everyone in the region visits Moscow these days to kiss the ring of Putin, the region's new don.”

Thus, his message to the Jewish rank and file and to the American Congress is that Netanyahu is the super-stud that did not kiss the don's ring. Moreover, in view of Obama's dereliction of duty in that part of the world: “our staunchest Mideast ally, Israel must fly to Moscow … to work out what really matters.”

In short, what used to be a single-faced castrated stud that lived on American aid because he was both a eunuch and a stud – has now split that face into one representing his castrated self, and one representing his hunger to become the stud he never was.

Jews whine that Obama chose a civilized Course

Please go along with me on this one for a moment; it will all clear-up at the end. Suppose I told you that God sent an angel to the Jewish editor-in-chief of the New York Daily News and told him that He will put an end to the horror that is unfolding in the Levant if he, as editor and publisher of the publication, wrote a piece welcoming the end of the horror.

The angel goes back to heaven and sits beside God waiting to see what the opinion page of the NY Daily News will carry in the next edition. To Their surprise – or maybe lack of it – the editor of the Daily News does the Jewish thing by lamenting that God and His angel wish to end the horror that's unfolding in the Middle East and spilling into Europe. Worse, he goes further and blames President Barack Obama for this turn of the events because the latter had an earlier opportunity to compound the horror but decided to do the humane thing of choosing life over death, says the editor.

Of course, that scenario did not unfold in the way that I told it here, but this does not matter because how things happened is of less importance than what did happen. That's because the aim of this undertaking is to shed light on an important reality concerning the reason why this planet has been plagued by wars since the beginning of time. It is the evil intent behind what motivates the Jews to do what they do, and to incite others into doing.

The way that the scenario has actually unfolded can be seen in the editorial that came in the New York Daily News under the title: “Letting Syria bleed” and the subtitle: “On Syria, Obama and Kerry follow Putin and Rouhani's lead.” It was published on September 21, 2015.

Right off the bat, the editor reveals the intent which motivates him as if proudly displaying the trait that sets the Jews apart from the rest of humanity. He says this: “Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and Russian President Vladimir Putin are in sync about how to end the Syrian civil war.” Why is this bad? Because it entails: “Help[ing] Bashar Assad fight his opposition, including ISIS.” Can you imagine? Putin and Rouhani wish to take out ISIS, when “taking out” someone or something is the exclusive right of America under Jewish command.

And who is to blame for that? It is of course, the current President of the United States of America, Barack Obama. And here is how the editor of the Daily News reveals this part of the story: “United and muscling increasingly into Syria, Rouhani and Putin are bending President Obama to their will five years after he called for Assad's ouster.”

To prove his point, the Jewish editor of what is supposed to be an American publication, pits his logic against that of the Persian Rouhani by quoting what the latter said in a recent interview: “How is it possible that we fight the terrorists of this country without supporting and helping the government of that country? … Of course, after we have fought terrorism and a secure environment is created, then it is time to talk about the constitution, or the future regime to talk and discuss, opposition groups and supporters sit at the table.”

What a scandalous idea this must be to the mind of a Jew. Someone wants to do first thing first and secure an environment in which everybody can then come and discuss the future of Syria. What will happen to chaos, mayhem, blood and refugees? There are 15 million more Syrians, 20 million Iraqis, 6 million Jordanians and 5 million Lebanese that have not yet been displaced. Why not send the mighty US air force and bomb the hell out of them all, thus engineer the biblical apocalypse that will force the Messiah to come right away, and hand the world to the Jews? It sure beats the idea of an angel going to the editor of the New York Daily News, telling him about a divine plan to end the civil war in Syria.

And look at the temerity of that guy Putin. Not only does he want to put an end to the horror, he is also inviting everyone, including America, to join in the effort. Hear him talk and let his words blow your mind: “We support the government of Syria in the fight against a terrorist aggression … and we call on other countries to join us.” What's this guy trying to do? Does he not realize that Israel feels lonely being the only terrorist state on the planet? Does he not want to see the self-proclaimed Islamic State remain in the region as soul-mate and comrade-in-terror with the self-proclaimed Jewish State? What a couple: Islamic State/Jewish State.

And so it goes with the apocalyptic Jewish vision of the world. And so it goes with a human race that has it up to here with these people.

The Erosion of America's Liberal Democracy

It is a truism to say that the way something appears to the naked eye depends on the features which are proper to the thing; also on the place where you stand from which you look at it. This reality applies to objects that occupy a physical space; also applies to ideas that exist inside the human mind.

For example, if you are an American of the Progressive Liberal stripe, you view abortion as the act which gives women the right to choose. But if you are an American Conservative ideologue, you view abortion as the act which takes the life of a helpless child unable to defend itself. To be sure, there is no dispute in that the physical operation of aborting a fetus looks the same to both sets of eyes, but the perception as to what such operation means, is what separates one beholder from the other.

In the situations where perception does not matter, the way that an act is perceived has little or no consequence. However, in the situations where perception motivates people to take action, huge consequences can follow. This would be the case in the political arena where ideas are generated, where they are perceived differently by different people, and where they are acted upon according to the way that each perceives the thing; a reality that often means they will act at cross purposes to each other.

Think of the situation in North Korea. Imagine you are a young Korean aspiring to join the ruling elite. You look at the different factions as they jockey to be in the right place from where to move up the ladder while avoiding the possibility of landing in front of a firing squad for something you did or something you neglected to do. To you, the situation on the ground is all that matters because it is more real to your mind's eye than anything else in the universe. But if you are a non-Korean, and you stand outside the country looking at the situation from the proverbial 30,000 feet up, the minutia of what's going on below, means nothing to you because what you see is an overall dysfunctional system that's impaired because it is based on the Communist ideology.

Well, the same method of measuring the effectiveness of a system of governance, applies to the situation in America as well. Whereas the people who live in that country are totally absorbed by the various factions operating on the political stage, and seeing nothing else on earth or in the universe as a result, the rest of the world looks at America from 30,000 feet up, and sees something very serious if not very disturbing. It sees an overall dysfunctional system that's impaired because it is based on the Liberal Democratic ideology.

Jonah Goldberg is a member of a faction called Jews of the Neo-Conservative (Neocon) stripe whether or not he admits it. This faction is opposed to the Progressive Liberal group that's headed by the current President of the Republic, Barack Obama. Most of Goldberg's writing follows the Neocon line, which consists of relentless attacks on the President for what he does and what he chooses not to do. The latest column written by Goldberg affirms this reality in that it came under the title: “Syria: Just One of Obama's Foreign-Policy Failures,” published on September 18, 2015 in National Review Online.

Look at any place in the world, look at America before the Jewish domination of its media, and you'll find that attacks heaped on the administration with such relentless ferocity, happened only when the chief executive was caught red-handed in a scandal of “Watergate” size and caliber. So you go over the Goldberg article once again to see if he is alleging something that comes close to that level of outrage … but find nothing of the sort.

What you find instead is that the Pentagon – now as always – is spending lots of money and delivering little. It is also expressing itself in a funny language that used to be called Pentagon-speak, now called “word salad.” As to the intelligence community, someone has alleged (no proof yet) that it is putting out inaccurate reports. The description of these inaccuracies remain nebulous and ill-defined, but are nothing of the “WMD in Iraq” magnitude or consequence.

As to the sins – however minor they may be, and certainly not scandalous – committed by the President, Goldberg says that he misjudged the strength of the enemy, calling it jayvee squad when it is more than that. There is also the irony of him writing about a nuclear-free world while a student, an event that contrasts with the Neocon predictions that Iran will build a bomb and will be emulated by its neighbors. But given that the Jews always say they can predict the future only to be proven wrong when the future comes, their latest predictions do not pass the laughing test. So guess what, my friend, those so-called sins can't even be classified as sins.

Goldberg ends the article saying something about the President giving a speech at the site of the Berlin Wall, only to be confronted by Europeans building walls to keep refugees out, and by Americans who increasingly cherish the idea of building walls. What exactly the author means to convey by that, remains obscure.

What is becoming less obscure as time passes, is that the influence of the Jews on America has been the single most effective agent at eroding the system of Liberal Democracy in the country. These people are using the freedom that comes with democracy to stifle the democratic right of others, thus monopolize the governance of the ship of state.

They are doing it by heaping a Niagara of criticism on anything and everything that does not serve their purpose, and they are throwing an avalanche of anti-Semitic accusations at those who dare to ask just how many of them can there be in the country.

The truth is that the Jews have been eroding the system which made America prosper and grow strong. It is the very system that gave them a new lease on life, having been pushed out from everywhere else. This is their thank you note to America; a gesture that is so very Jewish, that the people of America have noticed.

Pathetic is to run a Race that's imaginary

Look at this headline: “Obama's Pathetic Cave-in to Putin's Power Play in Syria”. It is the title of an article that was written by Elliott Abrams and published on September 18, 2015 in National Review Online. It is worth recalling, for this occasion, that power play between the big powers, is what has disrupted progress in the world, especially among the smaller nations that were trampled on. As the African saying goes, “when two elephants fight, the smaller creatures get crushed under them.”

Worse, it happens at times that the power play does not even come down to a race between two entities. It happens that one of the two simply imagines itself in a race against the other when the other has no interest to play the game. A most infamous non-race of this kind came in the form of an imagined competition between America and the Soviet Union to send a man to the moon and bring him back alive. The truth is that the Soviets never entered that race; and the whole American enterprise looked like a nation racing against itself.

There is no doubt this is a habit that is endemic to the American culture. It has a positive purpose in that it fosters the spirit of competition – that which is referred to in economics as animal spirit. But it has a negative side too; a side that manifests itself when things are pushed past the limit of what is useful. This happens when a higher authority encourages a minion to outdo itself. For example, a supervisor might repeatedly ask an underling to produce more next time. Also, a parent might keep pushing a child to do better in sport.

True to form, the Jews whose method entails the exploitation of traits they discover in the cultures they invade – and make those traits work for them – have discovered that American trait and have been exploiting it ever since. Pretending to be experts on everything and everyone outside America, they kept encouraging the Americans to do research on this weapon system or that one – such as the self-propelled gun they called Crusader – because the Soviet Union or the Chinese or the Iraqis were about to achieve a breakthrough … an accomplishment that will threaten America's lead in the field.

And that's not the only way that the Jews exploit America. Another way is what comes out the Elliott Abrams article. It is the Jewish denigration of the individuals, including the President, who run the American political establishment – when they neglect to seize on issues that may not be of interest to America, but would be to the Jews or to Israel. Instead to telling the truth about their motives, the Jews make it sound like America will suffer because it refuses to intervene in those situations.

The focus this time is on the part of the Middle East that goes by the name Levant. The region is going through a difficult time – a situation that delights the Jews because it is what has allowed them to live a parasitic life at the expense of others since the beginning of time. Their worry now is that the Russians have decided to attempt producing a modicum of stability in the region.

Whether or not the Russians will ultimately succeed, the mere fact that they entered Syria makes Israel look like the player that's sitting at the table empty handed, having lost all his chips. This is why Elliott Abrams and his likes are furious … they who had been the main drivers occupying the seat of America's foreign policy … they who worked exclusively to promote the interests of Israel and World Jewry.

Because Abrams could not put together an argument that would convince the Americans that stability in Syria will constitute an existential threat to America, he opted to say that Obama's foreign policy scares America's friends who see him cozy up to their enemy. He goes on to explain that such policy also has the effect of undermining a half-century of American policy, delighting enemies such as Iran and china while mortifying friends such as Israel, Jordan, Egypt and the Gulf states.

Building on this, he sets up an imaginary game where the competition is between an America that wants Assad out of power, and a Russia that wants him in power. But alas, he goes on to whine: “Instead of resisting or leading, instead of making the Russians pay a price, we will now have a dialogue with the Russian army.”

Because the Jews live to advocate the things that produce blood and mayhem, he warns Obama: “The events in Syria will be an indelible stain on [your] record.” And he calls on the next president of the United States to pick up the pieces of Syria and of America's leadership position in the Middle East. These people never stop.

When the Gambit is a noble Undertaking

A new era was ushered when the Jewish organizations began to work tirelessly on hastening the crumbling of the home front to secure America's withdrawal from Vietnam – be it in victory or in defeated – and plant the superpower firmly in the Middle East to protect what was known as an aggressively adventurous Israel.

The strategy that was employed by the Jews to get America where they wanted to plant it was a complex undertaking, planned for and executed on several levels at the same time. Behind it all was the idea of making the Americans believe they were in mortal danger because Soviet expansionism was eying a space for itself in the Middle East, and that Israel could protect America … if only America would position itself in such manner as to protect Israel from the Arabs.

While those ideas were debated publicly, a whispering campaign was also raging. It was a campaign in which the Jews did the whispering, and the Americans did the listening. These were not any Americans; they were highly placed individuals in both the Legislative and Executive branches of the government. What the Jews conveyed to the Americans were slanderous lies about the Arabs being untrustworthy and treacherous. They said the Arabs will not hesitate to team up with the Russians and stab America in the back if they get strong enough to do so. This is why the Jews urged that America team-up with Israel and work to continually maintain the Arabs in a helpless state of underdevelopment.

To put these ideas into practice, the Jews monitored the efforts made by the Arabs to achieve progress. Each time that they accumulated enough information on a country, they did what they do now with non-Arab Iran, which is to tell the Americans what they must do to stop the Arabs in their tracks … and America complied. For example, it intervened to have the World Bank reject Egypt's loan application to build the Aswan dam. It also intervened on numerous occasions to deny the Arabs access to world markets for their manufactured goods. In fact, the Americans constantly got in the way of the Arabs as they tried to conduct business with the rest of the world. This slowed them down – at times considerably – but did not stop them in their tracks.

This American attitude forced the Arabs to turn to the Eastern block from where they got what they needed to achieve the progress that their populations were clamoring for. They got the equipment and the financing that allowed them to realize big infrastructure projects, and they sold to Eastern Europe the products they had in surplus. That's when the Jews put on their cynical hats; the very moment when they pointed to the Arab moves, calling their actions proof they were untrustworthy and treacherous – a transparent lie that no one missed.

Despite all this, the Americans played the game as per Jewish instructions and got deeper and deeper into the pickle. Instead of improving their standing in the Middle East as promised, they began to realize that the Jews had led them astray. And so, they finally began to retreat from that part of the world, redeploying their forces in the Pacific region, and in places where they now deem that real danger does exist.

Meanwhile, the youth of the Arab countries were getting restless at the slow progress that their countries were making. They correctly identified the reason as being “Western” interference in their affairs. Seeing that their leaders were unable to protect them from what they saw as the sabotage of their progress by America and its allies, they revolted. A full fledged revolution ensued and developed as normally as can be in North Africa … with the exception of Libya where Jewish American interference created a hell. As to the Levant, things went badly there, the original culprit being the Sykes-Picot Agreement according to which the map of the region was redrawn to suit the divisive schemes of the colonial powers of the day. This act created artificial nations; a reality that plays an important role in the current state of turmoil and instability.

The history of that part of the world unfolded at a time when the economic and military centers of gravity were shifting from the West to the Orient. Thus, it became increasingly obvious that restoring calm in the Levant – which lies at the Western side of Asia – was of vital interest to Russia, China, India and the other emerging powers of the Asian Continent. Since Russia had extensive relations with the nations of the Middle East, it moved, with the blessing of the other powers, to bring about the sought after stability. Russia invited America to join the effort, and the signs are that America understood the noble intent behind the invitation.

The trouble is that the Jewish scheme which made Israel's parasitic existence possible is now disintegrating. Asia and Europe wish to see stability in the Levant, and Eurasian Russia has received their blessing to take on the task of realizing it. As to America that was run aground by Jewish over-exploitation, it now sees its interests developing somewhere else. This is why World Jewry, which includes the Judeo-Israeli lobby in America, is alarmed. It is why the Jews are uniting to create a new false narrative they hope will keep America mired in the Middle East where they wish to see it continue feeding, arming and protecting Israel while the latter continues to inflict its Jewish-style murderous rampage in the Levant.

A glimpse as to how the Jewish false narrative is shaping, can be had when reviewing the latest article written by Charles Krauthammer. It came under the title: “Putin's gambit, Obama's puzzlement,” and was published on September 17, 2015 in the Washington Post. The tsunami of cynicism in this article speaks for itself and needs no further explanation.

Foreign Charlatans exploiting American Idiots

A perfect example has finally come to light as to how semi-clever individuals from backward Second and Third World countries manage to work their way into the hearts and minds of even lesser individuals in America, and reap huge benefits for themselves.

This time, the semi-clever individual is named Kassem Eid. He came from Syria, and went through steps in America which he discusses in an article he wrote for the Wall Street Journal. It has the title: “The Rubble of Obama's Syria Policy” and the subtitle: “I kept asking why the administration wasn't doing more to help my people. Then the Iran deal came through, and I Knew.” It was published as an op-ed on September 18, 2015.

Like the Iraqi individual whose name – if I remember correctly – was Chalabi, this Syrian must have had dollar signs dancing in his head, and must have planned for great things he will do with the hundreds of millions of dollars he expected to receive from the stupid Americans. And he must have entertained numerous daydreams about living a happy and prosperous life the way that the Iraqi role model he tried to emulate, now lives.

Alas, this charlatan-in-the-making discovered that America under Obama cannot be fooled the way that a previous administration was. And so, he went seeking support from the Jewish organizations that embrace this sort of individuals and use them to advance the Jewish agenda in America as well as the Israeli agenda in the Middle East. They heard from him about the steps through which he went when visiting officials in Washington, and they wrote something for him to claim was his creation and his alone.

He says that in February 2014: “by some miracle, I managed to trick the regime into letting me leave Syria.” Two months later, he met with “high-level Obama administration officials in Washington D.C.” He told them about the horrors he saw the Assad regime commit in Syria, and asked those officials “to take simple steps, to do something, anything, that would protect the civilians I left behind.” He pressed for answers, he says, but they gave him the usual excuses as to why they will not get involved.

And then, something big happened, he says; something that revealed what was really going on. Call it a second miracle happening to him or whatever you wish, but in numerous meetings he had with people at the State Department, with Democrats in Congress and at the White House, he learned the truth. He learned about Mr. Obama's personal thinking, he says. He explains that he reached “a moment of honesty when someone would say in effect: President Obama does not wish to upset the Iranians.” Pow! It was like a Supernova exploding before his eyes, shedding a flood of light on the manner in which Obama's brain functions.

As to what he knows about America in general, he did not learn about that solely from the year and a half that he lived there. No, he says, what really happened was that his father had “managed to smuggle copies of the Reader's Digest, from which I learned that people in the world lived better than we did. I also read on the American Revolution, when people … picked up arms when forced to do so.”

And that's not all, he says, because the sequel to that story unfolded when Obama was elected in 2008. He doesn't say whether he learned about the event from the Reader's Digest or from another magazine his father may have smuggled into Syria, but says he celebrated the good news alongside his friends. And the sequel does not end here because there is more to it.

It is that he had goosebumps, he says, during Mr. Obama's Cairo speech of 2009. Well, this means he must have had a radio or a television set in the house at the time. And not only him, because he goes on to say this: “All around me in Syria, I heard excited talk of a new era.” Well, this means that the Syrian people were well informed about what's going on outside their country.

This raises a question of credibility about Kassem Eid: Did he need the Reader's Digest to learn that people outside Syria lived better than he? Or did he invent the story of a smuggled Reader's Digest just to mention the American Revolution, a time when people picked up arms because they were forced to do so, as he says?

From the sounds of it, this is the work of the Judeo-Israeli lobby … in the business of creating ammunition for use by the Republicans, now running to be elected President of the United States. They never stop.