How to determine a national Priority?

You see Senator Lindsey Graham run around telling people to elect him President of the United States because he knows that the choice has come down to paying for butter or paying for a gun. He says that he alone has the bright idea of knowing why America must go for the gun, explaining that without it, an America that remains unprotected will not live long enough to consume the butter.

That is faulty logic, of course, because if you deprive yourself of having butter in the first place, what will you protect with a shiny gun in your hand and a hundred rounds of ammunition in your pocket? You may as well fire one into your head, thus be relieved of the misery that is sure to come when your empty stomach starts creating the sort of complications a weakened body cannot handle when deprived of the nourishment that only butter can provide.

Another fault characterizing the Lindsey Graham logic is the shallow simplicity with which he views all matters of state. This is why, when it comes to discussing these subjects, it is better to look at the work of individuals who display more depth, a sharper intellect and a higher aptitude to handling complex subjects. One of these is Michael O'Hanlon who wrote: “Obama's Military Policy: Down-Size While Threats Rise,” an article that also came under the subtitle: “A deliberate strategy shift to a smaller standing army risks leaving the U.S. unable to fight when necessary.” It was published on October 28, 2015 in the Wall Street Journal.

He goes on to explain what he means by “unable to fight when necessary.” To do this, he bases his argument on a decision that was reached by the Obama administration and confirmed by the Pentagon. It is that America will not, once again, buy what amounts to a rich insurance policy, and pay a prohibitive premium year after year. Such policy would amount to keeping a ground force sized to handle “large-scale prolonged stability operations.”

O'Hanlon tells what that is. He says there are two possible scenarios: (A) a situation that would be in the order of a Russian aggression against the Baltic States or a conflict between the Koreas. (B) a situation that would be in the order of a stabilization mission or one of relief or one of peace keeping ... following a regional war or an Ebola outbreak, for example.

The problem is that he does not explain (1) how relying on a large American ground force rather than a European standing army or the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) will deter the Russians from attacking a Baltic State. (2) Why the South Koreans with a population two and a half times the size of North Korea, and a GDP that is ten times larger … all protected by 30,000 American troops and America's nuclear umbrella cannot defend themselves without another American ground force that is sized to handle large-scale prolonged stability operations. (3) Why a large ground force that is armed to the teeth would be necessary to handle an outbreak of Ebola somewhere around the globe.

Without explaining any of that and despite the fact that he is aware of the argument advanced by the former Chief of Naval Operations Gary Roughead to the effect that America only needs an army of less than 300,000 soldiers, O'Hanlon calls on the next president of the United States to correct the current situation. To buttress his argument, he relies more on his emotion rather than his intellect – an approach that brings him close to that of the discredited Lindsey Graham.

For example, he says: “That would barely leave it (America) in the world's top 10. The U.S. army is already smaller than those of China, North Korea and India.” He goes on: “That would have been less than half Reagan-era levels and almost 200,000 fewer than in the W. Bush and early Obama years. Such a figure would also have been 100,000 fewer than in the Clinton years.”

What he does, in effect, is invoke the phony sort of pride that comes with saying: “we have a military that's bigger than the other guy's.” Well, this might have meant something in the old days, but not now. How did this sort of pride help the former Soviet Union with its war in Afghanistan? How did it help Israel with its multiple wars on Gaza and Lebanon? How did it help America with its wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq 2?

Undeterred, O'Hanlon goes on to say that the Pentagon is putting all its strategic eggs in the baskets of cyber operations, high-tech air and sea operations, robotics, space technologies and special forces, and then remarks that history suggests they will not be enough.

In fact, what history has repeatedly shown is that modern military operations that rely on large ground forces yield nothing that's worth having. What is curious is that by the time O'Hanlon had come to the end of his dissertation, he realized this much. Thus, he softened his stance before ending the article, saying this: “Each crisis … could require American forces as part of a multinational coalition. This suggests that the Army may not need to grow significantly.” Amen.

Palestine, a dry Run for what awaits America

The colonial powers of the past – most notably the British and the French – were successful at what they did because they accomplished several objectives simultaneously in the lands they occupied.

They wanted the natural resources of the colonies, and they got them. They wanted to maintain the local population in a permanent state of impotence lest it revolt, and they achieved this goal by employing several schemes. They also wanted to organize the societies they colonized in a way that would serve their military needs, and they did that too.

Still, colonialism as an institution began to lose its appeal after the Second World War. There were a few holdouts in Africa, but they too were vanquished in Algeria, Zimbabwe and South Africa; societies that were liberated by the struggle of their people to start the long journey of becoming regular nations. Amid all this, however, something odd happened; a new colonial power arose in the Middle East. It took over Palestine, called itself Israel and became a base inside of which schemes to colonize other lands were hatched.

The Israelis convinced the British and the French to go after Egypt and retake the vital resource that is the Suez Canal, but the Americans ordered them out of there, and they got out. Seeing that the center of power had shifted to the new world, the Israelis and their Jewish allies reworked their schemes to prioritize the conquest of America. They managed to start the process by asking the Americans to take many of the Jewish refugees that were leaving the other places, and to help Israel absorb those that had nowhere else to go.

Fast forward to the decade of the Seventies, and you see that a remarkable convergence had taken place between the schemes that the Israelis were implementing in occupied Palestine, and those that the Jews of America were implementing in their adopted country – an America that was now treated, not as a cherished motherland, but a recently acquired colony.

You'll get a sense of that parallel when looking at the article that was written by Clifford D. May under the title: “Jobless and desperate Palestinians” and the subtitle: “The boycott, divest and sanction campaign will produce more of them.” It was published on October 27, 2015 in The Washington Times.

The common thread tying the Palestinian and American situations is a lesson to the effect that societies which are kept as colonies can be controlled by manipulating the employment opportunities of its people. You'll see how this is done in Palestine, which is the story of the Israeli businessman, Daniel Birnbaum that Clifford May is profiling in his article.

While the specifics of that story are out in the open for all to see, their parallels in America are a lot more subtle, and harder to decipher. To understand what the Jews are doing in America, we must first paint a picture of what their aim has always been. What the Jews have wanted and still do, is to get America to conquer the Middle East and a number of other places because they know that when this is done, they will have effective control of all these places.

For this to succeed, America will need a large ground force that can occupy those lands for a long period of time. However, there is no way that America can have this size of an army without re-instituting the draft. But if this is done, a repetition of the protests that erupted during the Vietnam era will force Washington to curtail its military adventures overseas. And this is a problem that begs for a solution. What to do?

The solution that's envisaged by the Jews is to have a large army of volunteers. It will be made essentially of uneducated, unemployable young men and women who will acquire financial security by joining the military – an idea that was hinted at inadvertently in some Pentagon commercials, and alluded to by a Joe Biden 'gaffe' moment. The way for the Jews to implement this plan, is to cut on social spending, and use the freed money to produce the weapons that the expanded military will need to deploy overseas.

This is why you see the Jews and they echo-repeaters hammer on the idea of increasing the military budget while cutting on things like the lunch program for schoolchildren, and the pension money that's paid to seniors. It is a demonic scheme that is being implemented slowly now, but one that the Jews hope to accelerate if and when a Republican is elected President of the United States a little more than a year from now.

The Operation was a Success but the Patient died

The latest column by Thomas L. Friedman stands as a metaphor for what is wrong with the ideology they call Jewish, and what is wrong with the movement they call Zionism. Friedman is basically saying that the Jews and Israel are the icons of everything that's good and splendid on this planet despite the fact that nothing has worked for them since their respective beginnings.

Lest you believe this is an abstract concept, remember what happened to Israel's Prime Minister, the late Ariel Sharon when he fell ill. They injected him with a blood thinner that caused him to bleed at the brain, generating the complications that incapacitated him, and kept him in that condition till he died.

But how did the Jews and the Israelis spin the story? They said that the Jewish doctors in Israel who treated him did such a tremendous job thinning his blood; they thinned it better than anyone else could have. In fact, they were so successful, the patient died. And this is why they thought they ought to be admired.

I, for one, do not admire them, and let me tell you why. I am lucky I was not given a dose of Jewish medicine eleven years ago when I had my heart attack and was injected with the correct dose of blood thinner nicknamed “blood clot buster.” I am now alive and breathing and grateful that no Jew was around to do on me the tremendous job they did on Israel's Sharon.

As to the Tom Friedman article – which came under the title: “Telling Mideast Negotiators, 'Have a Nice Life,'” published on October 28, 2015 in the New York Times – it is constructed around the same principles of spin which sent the Israeli Prime Minister to his grave. In fact, Friedman argues that everything about Israel and the Jews is good and splendid, except that nothing is working for them.

For example, speaking of the Jews whom he mentions in the article, he calls important, the book that was written by Dennis Ross, and calls very decent, the defense minister of Israel, Moshe Ya'alon. Whereas he wants to see an American official say publicly to the president of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas: “You rejected Ehud Olmert's offer … Why do you just sit there like Buddha,” he wishes that a Netanyahu aid would quietly whisper in his boss's ear he is “probably historically false.”

In fact, Friedman wrote his article based on what came in two Jewish publications, the Jerusalem Post and the Dennis Ross book. What came in the first is the usual Jewish argument to the effect that years ago, the Israelis made a generous offer to the Palestinians; an offer that was never discussed publicly then but one that was rejected by the Palestinians. At times they may even add, this is because the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

As to what came in the Dennis Ross book, this is what Friedman says: “on the eve of the 1991 Madrid peace conference … the Palestinian delegation had raised some last-minute reservations with secretary of State James Baker. He was livid, and told the Palestinians: With you people, the souk never closes, but it is closed with me. Have a nice life.”

This is supposed to have happened away from the cameras and the microphones a quarter of a century ago – revealed only now by a guy whose credibility is said to be worth exactly two and a half ounces of dog poop.

In fact, the only thing that James Baker did was to go on camera and publicly shout his frustration at the Israelis, telling them he is done with them. They know his telephone number, and when they decide to get serious, they can call him. That was also the time that America refused to extend to Israel the usual loan guarantees. Nothing was said publicly about the Palestinians, and nothing was done to pressure them.

Poor Thomas Friedman, by the time he got to the end of his article, he must have felt he had nothing that would make the Israelis and the Jews look like the good and splendid things he pretends they are. And so he decided to add one last stroke to the deceptive canvass he is painting.

He wrote this: “Israel has creative energy in science, tech and medicine … Israel is a really powerful country.” How many ounces of Ross's currency is that worth?

Signals to tell the World the Jews own America

It was established years ago that the Jewish lobby in America would do things that defy logic in that these things used to hurt Israel rather than serve its causes. It was a puzzle that remained unsolved to this day. But perhaps we may have been handed the key to solving that puzzle.

The luck came in the form of an article published in National Review Online (NRO) under the title: “The Iran Deal: Persisting Problems,” mentioning a report just issued in 16 pages by the American Foreign Policy Council (AFPC) Task Force under the title: “A Nuclear Deal With Iran: Managing the Consequences.”

The AFPC is a group of eight people who think of themselves as forming a think tank on foreign policy, but only seven of them signed the NRO article even though all eight names appear on the original report. They are Ilan Berman, Jack David, Matthew Kroening, Samantha Ravich, Michael Rubin, Jonathan Schanzer, and David Wurmser, with Michael Doran being the name that's missing in the NRO article.

You may think of those Magnificent Seven as the Solomonic Samurais who arm themselves with Gideon Swords, and prepare to go out and protect the sombrero wearing elite peasants of the American Republic from the evil intentions of the turban wearing devils out of the Islamic Republic. The Seven give the impression that they know what they are doing because the first thing they do is issue this declaration: “The nuclear agreement with Iran has not made the world safer.”

But right after that, they hit the reader with a lengthy account which, nevertheless, fails to hide a contradiction that kills their declaration. Here, in condensed form, is the account they give: “In coming days, the Islamic Republic is obliged to begin implementing curbs on its nuclear program. There is good reason to believe that it will do so.” Why then, is the world not made safer?

They try to answer that question but only manage to mount an argument that is so thin, it lacks any persuasive force. They begin it like this: “the entry into force of the deal ushers in a new phase of American policy in the Middle East...” and they continue: “...it has begun to empower a range of destructive behavior.” They go on to explain what that behavior consists of. They say Iran started talks to buy new weapons, and it has expanded its military footprint in Syria. Wow! Are you scared yet?

Because they know this is hardly a threatening posture on the part of the Iranians, our Magnificent Seven have embellished their story by adding to it two typically Jewish ingredients: they speculated, and they made a prophetic prediction. First, they labeled those steps “adventurism,” and then speculated that they will become more pronounced as time passes. That's it. It is no more than that. It's what is supposed to scare you, and scare the sombrero wearing elites of the American Republic.

This done, the Seven give the following counsel: “U.S. policymakers need to begin thinking of steps they can take to mitigate the vulnerabilities that are likely to result from the deal.” They tell what these are, placing them in four broad categories: Compliance, Economic Warfare, Defense and Iranian Democracy.

To expand on the points filling those categories, the seven authors do nothing more than rehash the talking points that were bandied about – over and over again – during at least the last two years. So the question we must pose is this: Given that they are adding nothing new to the debate, and that they are impressing no one in the process, why are they doing this?

Well, there can only be one possible answer to that question. The Seven are not trying to contribute new insights or new information to what is on the table; they are out to send a message to the world. They are signaling to it that despite the apparent setbacks, the Jews are still in charge of America's foreign policy, and will so remain for as far as the eye can see.

To you and me and everyone sane, this may look like it will hurt Israel's interest, at least in the short term, but not to the eyes of the Jewish lobby. That's because they know that Israel cannot last a month without them. Thus, their priority in protecting Israel consists of protecting themselves to be there when Israel will need them.

The puzzle has been solved.

But do the Jews love the Palestinians?

Daniel Pipes writes about the hatred that the Palestinians have for the Jews. In fact, writing about someone hating the Jews seems to be a favorite pastime of the Jews. So, let's settle one thing and never return to it.

It is this: most people in the world hate the Jews and have been since the beginning of time. If there is someone that has not hated the Jews as yet, it is because they have not dealt with the Jews as yet. Being hated being the normal state of the Jews, give those people enough time, and they'll discover that HATE is the natural habitat of the Jews. And they will eventually join the club.

This point settled, let's ask a few questions: Do the Jews love someone at all? Do they love the Nazis? Do they love Hitler? The Palestinians have a reason to hate the Jews; the latter robbed them of their possessions, killed thousands of them, hurt millions of others and decimated their lives. Now the question: Do the Jews love the Palestinians for losing so much to them? For failing to send them back to where they came from? For not driving them into the sea?

Let's end the schoolyard game of who loves whom, and who hates whom. And let's get into the business of saving the Jews from themselves because, left to themselves as they have been for nearly four thousands years, they did not find a solution to their predicament. And in the absence of one, there are those who thought of a final solution; one that must be avoided because it is messy.

We should begin a debate in search of an ultimate solution that will be humane, and that will replace the brutal final solution. We can do this by analyzing the Daniel Pipes article which came under the title: “A century of Palestinian hatred of Jews” and the subtitle: “Repudiating the first mufti's hostility to decency is the only way forward,” published on October 26, 2015 in The Washington Times.

Once again, let's not resort to the childish game of calling on someone to repudiate this act or that one, and believe that this will solve the problem. Five-year old Johnny may ask mommy to repudiate seven year-old Bobby who took his toy, thus get it back when mommy does what Johnny has suggested. But the world of grownups does not work like that. And besides, there is not someone big enough in this world to play the role of a mommy that will babysit the Jews, and look after their needs full-time.

So here we have a Daniel Pipes who fancies himself as being a historian (at least of the Palestine-cum-Israel region) if not the entire Middle East, writing of violence in a land that is occupied by foreign troops – as if this condition never happened before on Planet Earth. Look at the quote that follows, and try to figure what must have gone wrong with the brain of someone to have become so detached from reality: “News comes every year or two of violence … a spasm of unprovoked violence against Israelis.” He calls a half-century military occupation of a people and their land, an unprovoked situation. That's a seriously deficient mind looking at a seriously large problem, and displaying a sorrowful inability to comprehend its dimensions.

But is this the condition of one man, Daniel Pipes, or is it that of the population participating in the occupation? Apparently, it is the attitude of the majority of Jews now living in Israel. Here is what Pipes says about that: “Their [Palestinians] actions harden Israeli opinion, making the prospect of concessions and compromise that much less likely.” Is there a voice contradicting this stance they may be aware of? Yes there is. It is the voice of the world, as articulated by UNESCO which regularly “condemns Israel for this and that.”

What does he think of that? He dismisses the world body because he says “its actions serve more as theater than as practical steps toward conflict resolution.” Is he saying he wants to see practical steps instead of talk? Yes, that's what he wants. But is he not the one that said the problem could be solved if someone just repudiated what the Palestinians are doing? Yes, he is the one.

So why is it that UNESCO repudiating Israel does not yield the result he says is possible to obtain? Because he says “the outside world, as symbolized by UNESCO, must stop encouraging Palestinians … only when they [Palestinians] realize they will not be rewarded will they stop their campaign of violence.” What reward? Is the UNESCO handing out practical rewards? No, it does not. So then, what reward is he talking about? Cheap talk, theatrics, repudiation of Israel.

But again, did he not say that repudiating the Palestinians would solve the problem? So why is it that repudiating the Jews will not solve the problem? No response here.

Okay then. Let's try another line of questioning. If practical steps are needed, like he said at some point, and if the Palestinians are not rewarded with anything practical, would it not make sense to ask if Israel is rewarded with practical things, the withholding of which could be used as leverage to force it to end the occupation, thus save the Jews from themselves and help restore calm to that region of the world?

Oh yes, there is, and there is plenty. In fact Israel could not live for a month if it were not for America's material help. And it could not maintain the occupation for a week if it were not for America's military help.

So then, here is the answer. To save the Jews from themselves and restore peace to the Middle East, America must stop participating in the Jewish ongoing crime against (the Palestinian member of) humanity. Stop sending money and weapons to Israel. And stop protecting it in world forums.

What's good for Israel is bad for America

First, a short message addressed to the Jews:

Hey, all of you Jewish pundits out there, get it through your thick skulls once and for all; nobody owes you anything – least of all America that has already burned itself at both ends to give you the appearance of normal human beings when in reality, you are nowhere near being of this class … and most likely never will.

You have produced thousands upon thousands of articles and video clips in which you insulted, put down and denigrated America, the country that liberated you from the concentration camps of Europe; an affliction you brought on yourselves, having been as obnoxious then as you are today. Moreover, you have done much to hurt America at many levels even though it took you in, fed you and gave you a special status to keep you protected while you got back on your feet.

Second, what that message is about:

It is about an article of Bret Stephens that is typical of the articles and video clips which continue to flood the cultural marketplace … all pretending that America exists for one reason only; to be of service to Israel … no one else and nothing else. The article came under the title: “Iran's Indecent Proposal” and the subtitle: “Khamenei haggles over the price of American surrender.” It was published on October 27, 2015 in the Wall Street Journal.

Six powers, including the United States of America, were mandated by the World to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran, and this was done. But before the talks had begun and while they were proceeding, the mob of Jewish pundits and their lackeys attacked the premise of the negotiations, not knowing what they were talking about. When the negotiations ended, and the details of the deal were published, the mob continued attacking it and the people who negotiated it.

They also attacked America by going after its leaders, most prominently President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, urging them both to scrap the deal altogether, and urging all others in Congress and outside of it to put pressure on the Administration to scarp the deal. When this did not happen, the Jews and their lackeys attacked the Iranians, accusing them of cheating – if not now, then in the future, like they said – because cheating is something that the Iranians do by force of habit.

Not only did Stephens attack the Iranians; he also attacked virtually all of humanity saying this: “also, too inconvenient to the commodity investors, second-tier banks, European multinationals and everyone else who wants a piece of the Iranian market.” Having said this much about the human race, he rides what's being said about computers: “garbage in, garbage out,” and comes up with this piece of wisdom: “When you sign a garbage agreement, you get a garbage outcome.”

With these words, Stephens sets the Jews apart from the human race, and turns the Iran nuclear deal into a bone of contention between them and humanity. This being a demonstration of how the Jews have been doing themselves in throughout history, Stephens is here showing us how and why the so-called Jewish wisdom has been the toxic garbage that kept turning the Jewish existence into a garbage existence. They can monopolize it all they want because no one sane misses it.

And true to form, he points to every little thing and every big thing which the Iranians say and do, to argue that this is proof they have bad intentions. In this regard, he points to the unhappiness expressed by the Iranian Supreme Leader with regard to the reality that the Americans – such as Bret Stephens – are adding links to “their chain of hostile enmity with the Islamic Republic.” And while he and his likes have been pushing to scrap the deal and renegotiate it, he squirms at the idea that the Supreme Leader is doing the same thing, calling his words “renegotiation of the entire deal.” Go figure.

Actually, there is someone that tried to figure this out according to Stephens. They are the characters running an outfit called the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). These people have analyzed every piece of information they could get their hands on, and wrote a report which Stephens discusses in some detail. Going over that, the reader comes up with one question: Where's the beef, Bret?

In fact, there is nothing in the report that's so startling; it prevents you from dismissing it as worthy of no more than being fodder for a movie script in the genre of the old “Indecent Proposal.” Still, this is what prompted Stephens to conclude: “He [Supreme Leader] wants to pocket the concessions he has already gained and wheedled for a bit more.” You would think Stephens is trying to buy a carpet from a Persian, or something. If he has this kind of money, maybe he should try to buy the Brooklyn Bridge from a Jew, or something.

Until he does that, and he tells us about the experience, we have only one thing to go by in gauging his mood. It is the way that he ends the article: “Perhaps none of this matters.” Indeed, nothing of what any Jew does or says matters anymore because the only thing these people are interested in is Israel, only Israel and no one but Israel … and that's what is killing America. It must end.

False Prophets itchy over broken Dreams

If you say something will happen and it does, you are a prophet. If you say something will happen and it does not, you are a dreamer pretending to be a prophet. When the designated time arrives, and what you predicted does not happen, you get itchy as you realize that your prophecy was an idle dream that just broke.

This is what happened to the Jews who celebrated the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the American military, carrying out a plan that was put together ten years earlier by the Jewish cabal in charge of using American power to conquer the world and give it to Zion under the name Pax Americana. Once in Iraq, they predicted that the next two stops will be Syria and Iran, and mused that the only problem now was having to choose between turning left to Syria then right to Iran, or reverse the sequence and do things the other way around.

Among those of the cabal who led the celebration was Charles Krauthammer who expressed more jubilation than anyone else at the conquest of an Iraq he thought had become an American (read Jewish) client state. It never occurred to him that he may be dreaming, and that he could wake up to find himself sitting on top of a broken dream now turned into a pile of useless debris.

But that's exactly what happened when the people of Iraq did what the Jews never saw coming. Instead of welcoming the invading soldiers with kisses, hugs and flower petals as predicted by the false prophets of Zion, the Iraqis fought back against an army they viewed as desecrating their motherland. Things evolved further from that point, and kept changing as more players entered the fray, each trying to grab a piece of the spoils.

The end result is that Syria is now beyond the reach of America's power whereas Iran has grown to become, not another client state of Zion, but a power to be reckoned with in its own right, and a major player that is deciding what will become of Iraq and Syria. This is what is making people like Krauthammer itchy, having realized at long last that his prophecy was an idle dream that just broke. And you can sense him squirm when you read what he wrote under the title: “Putin marches, Obama watches,” an article that was published on October 22, 2015 in the Washington Post.

The most astonishing part in the dissertation of this psychiatrist turned pundit is that he projected his dream onto Vladimir Putin, the man he sees as the new master of what may be called a Pax Russiana replacing a Pax Americana (in reality a Pax Zionica) that just went up in smoke. And look – just look and marvel – at what Krauthammer had in store for the region in case Zion had triumphed and remained there. It is this: “Bashar al-Assad, now Vladimir Putin's newest pet … Assad was summoned to Russia to bend a knee to Putin.” He visualized a pet on bended knee in front of his master.

In the absence of a reversal that should not have occurred, bending a knee to whom you may ask? To George W. Bush in whose name Iraq was invaded? Or to Paul Wolfowitz, the highest ranking Jew who was in the field implementing the cabal's designs? Flabbergasting! What do these people think the world is made of? The same kind of rotting meat populating the American Congress, and those running to be President of the Republic? No, these things happen nowhere in the world but in America and only in America.

While Krauthammer asks: “Does Obama finally understand what Russia is up to?” we look at his description of what he says Russia wants, and determine from that what the Jews would have wanted, had they triumphed. “It's a partition,” he screams, and goes on: “Putin's strategy is obvious … asserting Russia's ability to project power beyond its borders.”

This then, is what the Jews were up to; they wanted to partition the Arab World into little parcels while projecting Israel's power beyond its borders using America's military as proxy, or perhaps as a mercenary Zionist legion in the service of Israel and the Jewish cabal.

He says that controlling territory is a true measure of strength whereas believing in the arc of the moral universe bending toward justice, is a fantasy. His proof is that Putin and his Iranian allies are making progress on the ground in Syria, thus mocking Obama's dream for an Iran that was supposed to moderate its behavior.

It has been a rude awakening for the Jews. Just one link in the chain of awakenings they have experienced throughout time and space. And they still haven't learned a thing.

The eternal Drifter is nearly alone again

If you want to know why most nations in this world spend more money watching their Jewish populations than they spend on combating Ebola, there is a lesson for you in the article that came under the title: “Obama & Netanyahu” and the subtitle: “Another meeting of unlike minds,” written by Cal Thomas and published in the Pittsburgh Tribune on October 24, 2015.

Puzzled by what happened to the Jews around the planet and throughout time, the elites of every nation on Earth began to gain some understanding from what they saw happen in the United States of America under successive administrations, and what they saw happen to Canada under Stephen Harper.

Those elites now have a working knowledge on how Israel's representatives in America – working hand in hand with the Jewish propaganda machine and the Jewish lobby – were able to organize the various efforts, and use them to secure the takeover of the country's strategic government departments, and the other institutions. Based on this knowledge, the elites set out to devise measures that should protect their respective countries from suffering a similar fate. But while these people have learned enough about the machinations of the Jews in America, they only know what transpired in Canada ... not why or how it all happened.

Well then, here is what I know. Living for several decades with the image of a nation that lectured to others on human rights while living a horror akin to that of a degenerate family that's secretly keeping a member in the basement and abusing him, Stephen Harper who wished to be respected in world forums, instructed the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to end the practice of gathering information on one, Fred Habachi, and handing it to the Canadian Jewish Congress that circulated it in the loop of elites among those who knew I had the will, knowledge and talent to destroy the credibility of the Jewish lobby. So they kept me blacklisted.

Among the recruits doing dirty work for the Jewish Congress were powerful editors of big publications. They maintained the lid on my story, and blackmailed the smaller ones to make sure they never gave me the break that would have allowed me to tell my story myself. All of this changed when I went on the internet eight years ago, but before this happened, Stephen Harper had been elected Prime Minister of Canada. His instruction to the RCMP went unheeded until one day I sent a fax to my lawyer. They intercepted it and circulated it, thus violated the lawyer-client confidentiality.

The legal profession went up in arms, and Harper demanded that heads roll this time. The result is that things were done typical of the way they are done at the highest echelons in Canada. That is, when character A commits a blunder, character B is punched in the nose, and the organization is said to have been purified. Believe it or not, this is how justice is meted out in this country. Thus, the RCMP went after a woman in their ranks; one that had nothing to do with my story, and punished her for something she didn't do.

This cowardly act did not solve the problem in that personal information was gathered about me and given to those who would hurt me. By then, I was setting up to go on the internet and they got wind of it. Harper intervened again, and did the right thing this time by firing the Commissioner of the RCMP without prior notice.

I knew all that at the time while the events were unfolding. What I learned lately was that Harper had made a Faustian kind of bargain with the Jews to get them to accept lifting the horror they had imposed on me. It was that the more I unmask the hideous face of the Jewish leaders, the more pro-Jewish pro-Israel and anti-Arab anti-Muslim Harper will become, taking Canada in that direction at home and abroad. And the rest is history.

The chances are that Canada will never again go back to being the family of horror it had been for several decades, though I remain on the blacklist because no one knows how to get me off it – which is in keeping with the Jewish tradition of starting something horrible, and having no exit strategy built into it.

With Harper out, it means that Israel and the Jews have no one left but the American government, its congress, and the media to do the dirty work for them. With this in mind, read the Cal Thomas article, and ask yourself how long this kind of infamy can last before the people of America will rise and declare that anyone running for office at the state or federal level will be considered a traitor and treated like a stinking pariah if he or she mentions Israel favorably during the campaign. The time has come to end this act of cultural prostitution.

Utterly autocratic, the Jews demand being loved

Douglas J. Feith – who is one of those calling themselves children of Holocaust survivors, and an architect of the criminal slander that Weapons of Mass Destruction existed in Iraq, as well as the crime against humanity of planning the invasion of that country for no reason – has a new imbecilic idea. He wants to shut people up, and make them love him and love all Jews … or America will spring into action.

That point must be understood while wrestling with the now established truism that what the Jews inflict on others using America's power and prestige, they turn around and inflict it on the American people sooner or later. You can see how Feith is inching towards that reality by reading the article he wrote under the title: “The Intifada Is Ideological Hatred of Israel in Word and Deed,” published on October 23, 2015 in National Review Online.

Let's be clear about one thing; Palestine is under military occupation and this makes all of it a war zone. The indigenous people who live there, and have been since the beginning of time, have nowhere else to go. Thus, like it or not, what happens to them – caused by whatever reason, under whatever condition – automatically makes of them victims of the occupation. Moreover, being a people under occupation, they have a wide range of leeway to do anything they can to make life difficult for the occupying force. And no matter what they do in this regard, they are freedom fighters and not outlaws or something worse.

If the government that sent the military expedition to occupy their land also sends civilians to live and work there – as did the government of Israel – that government has committed a crime against humanity. And the crime persists as long as the occupation is maintained. Any harm that comes to those civilians – caused by a friend or a foe – for whatever reason, under whatever condition, must be considered a deliberate act committed by a cowardly military that is hiding behind civilians in the hope of garnering international sympathy when those civilians get hurt. This is how the Israeli military must be viewed, defined and treated.

Now, to create noise around all that, and to make the unarmed Palestinian victims look like aggressors while making the fully armed Israeli soldiers and the Jewish civilians they hide behind look like victims, Douglas Feith and the Jewish propaganda machine put together a narrative that blames America for not depriving the Palestinians of their freedom of speech, and for not forcing them to love the Jews and welcome the Jews on their soil rather than fight them.

To explain this logic of the animal-like moron, Douglas Feith who is a member of the chorus that incessantly cries out “you can't equate, you can't equate,” now equates what is happening in Palestine with something that never happened to America and never will. He says this: “Imagine how the American public would react to a political group that incited supporters to knife people on the streets of New York, Cleveland, Denver, and Seattle.”

What? Is he saying that New York, Cleveland, Denver, and Seattle are occupied territories? … What? Is he saying that the occupied people of Palestine have political rights they don't know about? Light years away from understanding such concepts, Feith goes on to say this: “Equivocation by U.S. officials who, having completely lost their bearings, sound like apologists … Officials urged both sides to exercise restraint. US ambassador to the UN invoked the cycle of violence.” This is what makes the braying of a jackass, or the bark of a dog sound like a tenor of the opera.

Douglas Feith, and all those like him, would have liked to hear the U.S. officials command the people of Palestine to love their uninvited, fully armed Jewish neighbors, and treat them like honored guests … or else America will come after them.

While signaling his unhappiness that the Obama people have not said what he wishes they had said, Feith flashes his anger at the Palestinians for saying what he believes they said. Here is how he expresses all that: “anti-Israel preaching is prominent in Palestinian textbooks, newspapers, TV shows, and political speeches … Palestinians hear that they should aspire to do away with Israel as a colonial outpost.” Can you believe that someone – even if a victim – would be so insensitive as to advocate regime change in Israel?

There is worse. Because he is a Jew, he believes he has the right to be more Israeli than the Israeli leaders. And so, he rebukes those who have allowed (guess allowed what) allowed the Palestinians to speak their mind.

Here it is in black and white: “Israeli officials have matched American wrongheadedness. During the Oslo process, Shimon Peres belittled the criticism of Arafat, saying that what mattered were actions not words.”

And there is this: “Prime Minister Yizhak Rabin answered: What do you expect, we're not making peace with friends, but with enemies.” Can you believe that? Peres and Rabin are so wrongheaded; they come close to being as bad as America's officials. What's an authentic Jew like him to do now?

At a loss as to what else he can do to convince the Obama administration it must silence the Palestinians, he tries a new approach: “The conflict is not about statehood or settlements. It's about Arabs' convictions about injustice, and commitment to remedy the injustice … it's about ideas. So words matter a lot.”

In effect, Douglas Feith is telling Barack Obama to tell the Palestinians they ain't gettin' no justice … so shut up, sit quietly, love the Jews, honor them and accept anything they do to you and your family … or America will come and whip you all.

Subtle is creative, but deceptively subtle is not

Here is an example that should be taught by teachers of creative writing as a style that must be avoided. It is a New York Times editorial that came under the title: “Mr. Netanyahu's Holocaust Blunder,” published on October 23, 2015 in that publication.

The essential element of the story which the editors are tackling is that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel – being the brainless attack dog that he is – did what he always does which is to attack the person he chooses to be his hated competitor for the day. The last time before now that Netanyahu did this, he targeted President Barack Obama of the United States of America and challenged him. This time, he chose to go after President Mahmoud Abbas of Palestine.

What Netanyahu did, according to the editors of the Times, is that he made this claim: “a Palestinian man persuaded Adolf Hitler to exterminate the Jews of Europe.” The editors called the claim outrageous, and advised that “the Holocaust is not a history to tamper with.” But that's not all they did in this botched attempt at writing creatively in a style that is subtle without being sublime.

What the editors tried to do is avoid what the rabbis did some time ago when a Jew went into a mosque in occupied Palestine and machine-gunned something like four dozen Muslim worshipers. Instead of coming right out and condemning the act, the rabbis who were in charge of the Jewish propaganda machine, tried to justify it by describing the perpetrator as an ordinary man, even a noble one who cracked under pressure and went berserk because the people of Palestine were resisting the occupation. They refused to accept it, and rejected the idea of learning to live with it, said the rabbis in a style that employed little or no subtleties.

Well, the editors of the New York Times, who are driven by that same mentality, wrote a piece that achieves the same objective but does it in a deceptively subtle way. Still, like the stink that cannot be masked by any measure you employ against it, the attempt of the Times editors remains as transparent and as obnoxious as the rabbis' work of an earlier time. The first thing that the editors did is reject the Netanyahu claim. They did so not because it is the view of a despicable war criminal that's seeking to monetize a lie, but because tampering with the history of the Holocaust is not a good idea, they advise.

Oh yes, the editors did absolve the Palestinians of the Netanyahu accusation by arguing against its very premise. But the idea to do so is one that was formulated some time ago by thinkers who were endowed with an IQ higher than that of Netanyahu. They reasoned that if the Holocaust is turned into a shared responsibility between the Germans and the Palestinians, the Jews will have to return half the compensation money they received from the Germans, and go after the Palestinians. But since the Palestinians have nothing, the Jews will collect nothing. It was therefore concluded by the Jewish Establishment that it is better to shut up and be fed than blurt out nonsense and go hungry.

All of those considerations paved the way for the editors of the New York Times to begin a process akin to that of the rabbis of yore. They tried in their clumsy way to justify Netanyahu's accusation to the effect that an Arab pushed the idea of exterminating the Jews on Hitler. What follows is a montage of the way that they approached this attempt. It is one that is subtle but not so high-minded as to be sublime:

“Mr. Netanyahu's evident intent was to drive home the idea that the current wave of violence has been incited by Palestinian leaders. Palestinian attackers have murdered at least eight Israelis in multiple attacks and more than 50 Palestinians have been killed. Mr. Abbas and other Fatah leaders not only have failed to denounce the knife attacks, but have made comments that seemed to fan the violence and even celebrate the killers. John Kerry called for an end to the violence but for that to happen, Mr. Abbas and the Palestinian leadership must make clear that these terrorist attacks are unacceptable.”

Of course, the editors know that for Abbas and other leaders to say that something is unacceptable; will not motivate third generation youngsters under occupation to listen to them. So then, why are the editors calling for it? They are for the same reason that the rabbis of yesteryear justified the crimes of the Jews by describing the perpetrators as good people who were forced to commit extreme acts by a Palestinian population that refused to enjoy the occupation, and never thanked the Jews for it.

This style of writing tells the readers they are looking at an American journalistic culture that used to impress but has been affected by a parasitic virus which is rotting it at the core. The infection is making it stink so badly, it cannot be masked by any measure you employ against it. The only way to get rid of the disease is to amputate the affected areas cold turkey.

Stop dreaming the impossible Dream

Imagine yourself dreaming that you won the lottery ... the one that carries a prize in the hundreds of millions of dollars. You now live in a mansion, and you own several businesses that pay you a million dollars a week in salary. You have a security ring around the mansion that nobody can penetrate. You also employ a team of henchmen whom you use to go after your enemies and your competitors.

Your neighbor, who lives in a small house, is the kid you grew up with. He was bigger than you; stronger, better looking, richer … and he had all the girls coming to him when you couldn't find one that would date you. So now that you have all this money, you make yourself look bigger than you really are; also strong and good looking. As a bonus, the girls come to you not because of the money you have but because, they say, you have a charming personality. And this is why you spend all that money on them.

You instruct your henchmen to go after the neighbor and ruin his life without leaving a trace that would cause him to suspect you, or lead a police investigation to your doorstep. And one day, that neighbor of yours – the old “friend” you always hated – comes to you and begs for help. He needs a job, he says, and he needs your protection because someone, he doesn't know who, is after him. So you take the opportunity to humiliate him by putting down conditions you know he cannot meet.

And just before he gets down to his knees, you wake up to the sound of your clock-radio. You hear a strange kind of talk coming out that thing. It is a talk that makes you believe you're still dreaming. You wipe your eyes but the talk persists. You turn off the radio and run to the living room where you turn on the TV. And there, in full color, you see your miserable neighbor being interviewed live in front of his house because he just won the lottery of millions you were dreaming about.

It would be cruel if this happened, would it not? Well, the reality is that something like it just happened on the world stage. The dreamers are the Jews who dreamed about an Israel that was so powerful it could blow Iran past the horizon with a simple wave of the finger. But now that the dreamers woke up from their self-induced dream, they are discovering that it is Iran which is bigger, stronger, more attractive and richer than Israel. It is also Iran that has the businesses of the world flocking to it. And all this is happening at a time when Israel is failing in its effort to prevent the world from boycotting it.

You'll get a sense of what the dreaming Jews are feeling now that Israel has been unmasked as the pauper nation of the world, when you read Benny Avni's article which came under the title: “Why Obama will let Iran violate the nuke deal,” published on October 21, 2015 in the New York Post.

Now that the Jews in Israel and elsewhere have waken up from their deep sleep, you find them whine the fact that on Oct. 10, Iran tested a “medium-range ballistic missile inherently capable of delivering a nuclear weapon.” The irony is that decades previous to that, the Israelis had borrowed a rocket and a satellite from the US, launching them into space from Israel. And the Jews around the world celebrated the event with loud fanfare as if Israel had produced the satellite and the rocket.

They who had conned the World into believing they possessed an arsenal of nuclear weapons ready to drop on their enemies – now sought to make the Arab and Muslim worlds believe that Israel mass produced the rocket that took the satellite into space. And they warned their imagined enemies with these words: “think of what else we can do with that rocket.”

Now that these folks have waken up you can imagine what they must be feeling as they read Benny Avni's assertion: “The Iranians are not shaking in their boots. The mullahs published images that depict an array of shiny-looking missiles stashed in a deeply dug tunnel, awaiting launch command.”

The poor buggers thought that Israel was the juggernaut that made the neighbors tremble, but found that Israel is the one that's trembling. Why is that? Because “America has no intention of toppling Khamenei's clerical system.” Worse, Obama is “striking a deal that enhances Iran's financial and military capabilities.”

This is why Avni and all those like him hope that “the next president [of the US] will at least give Khamenei reason to be paranoid about regime change.” What a pathetic bunch!

War Crimes by deliberate Jewish Ambiguities

They banged their heads against the wall, they pulled their hairs off their skulls, they beat their breasts to a pulp and they tore their entrails out of their bellies hollering they were innocent of the charge that they intended to change the status of al-Aqsa Mosque in occupied Jerusalem.

They even called on President Abbas of Palestine and President Obama of the United States to come out and say they knew for certain that Israel was not planning to change the status of the mosque. No less than Benjamin Netanyahu went on television to deny that charge, and to accuse President Abbas of perpetrating a lie. He did so as Prime Minister of Israel despite the fact that his local propaganda machine and the one in America were preparing public opinion in the two places to accept a fait accompli on its way to become a reality.

This is the game of ambiguities that the Jews rely on when they have war crimes in the planning stage. From one side of the mouth they pave the way to unleash an escalating horror on the innocent; from the other side of the mouth, they try to convince someone prominent to absolve them of what they are about to do … making him believe that this will do some good but not telling him what repugnance they are about to let loose.

This is what the Jews have tried to pull off in the occupied territories as shown by the example of David French's article, published on October 13, 2015 in National Review online under the title: “Palestinian Reasoning: Yield to our Crazy Religious Intolerance or We'll kill You,” and critiqued on this website in an article that came under the title: “This Lawyer has gone Banana.”

In that article, David French articulated the lawyer's point of view with this argument: “The holy compound in Jerusalem, a place revered by Jews and Muslims … According to security arrangement [the law] dating back to 1967, the site, while open to Jewish visitors at specific times, is sealed off to non-Muslim prayer … Let's be clear – this is crazed, anti-Semitic religious intolerance, and Israelis are expected to 'respect' this intolerance.”

Now, a week later and despite the dozens of people who were killed, and the thousands who were injured, the war criminals in occupied Jerusalem are still at it. They are trying to justify what they did, and trying to whitewash what they plan to do next. This time, they summoned to the occupied city of Christians and Muslims, Clifford D. May, the Jewish president of the joint they call Foundation for Defense of Democracies – to come and articulate the jokers' point of view.

Clifford May responded to the request with an article he wrote under the title: “Cutthroats of the Holy Land” and the subtitle: “A spate of Palestinian knife attacks shows why peace remains elusive.” It was published on October 29, 2015 in The Washington Times. After listing the lies, the spins and the talking points that usually go into the articles written by members of the comical outfit, May started telling the story of Moshe Dayan, the Israeli General that was in charge of negotiating the Mosque's fate with the Jordanian authorities. He wrote this: “considering Islamic sensitivities, he decided that Jews should not pray there.”

In fact, that was the accord which Dayan and the Jordanians haggled over for long periods of time and codified into an ironclad agreement. But after spinning that history in a manner that suited him, Clifford May resorted to a sleight of hand reminiscent of the David French trick.

He went on to say this: “It was a concession Israeli officials have no intention of revoking. But ask yourself: While it may be inadvisable to open this sacred site to non-Muslim worshipers, should it really be unthinkable? How can there be progress toward a peaceful coexistence if Palestinian leaders believe the very idea of Jews and Muslims praying side by side justifies...”

What Clifford May has done here is kill two birds with one stone. First, he played the role of the humble petitioner that's appealing to the human side of the readers in the name of Arab-Jewish peaceful coexistence. Second, he left the door open for the unthinkable to become thinkable. That is, he signaled the Jewish rejection of what the Israelis have agreed to in 1967.

In fact, this approach is so typically Jewish, it falls in the category of “what's mine is mine, and what's yours is debatable.” You see it in practice when a ruling comes down in their favor and they seek to make it irrevocable. In contrast, they work to repeal every ruling they deem is no longer favorable to them. It's what they are trying to do with the al-Aqsa deal. They want the world to know they will work on it till they get it reversed or till hell freezes over, whichever comes first.

Meanwhile, the government of Israel will continue to provoke incidents such as the one that's ongoing at this time. It will escalate the encounters that result between the unarmed Palestinians and the armed-to-the-teeth Israelis. And the soldiers of occupation will be instructed to kill as many Palestinians as possible so that the rest will decide to submit in defeat, and hand the mosque to the Jews.

It is either this, says Clifford May, or Jewish tolerance “becomes more akin to submission.” The aim here is to tell Jews everywhere in the world that the battle has come down to Palestinians submitting to the will of the Jews, or the Jews submitting to the will of the Palestinians. There is no compromise here as the sheep-like petitioner that used to appeal to the human side of the readers in the name of Arab-Jewish peaceful coexistence, has finally revealed his wolf-like canines.

That's because “peaceful coexistence” is a product that the Jews fabricate in abundance by the muscles of their Jaws – and only that. They sell the product; they pocket the money and they run away before the buyer discovers how fake and useless it is.

The reality is that the Jews enter every battle with the attitude of “it is either us or them. We win absolutely or we lose absolutely because there is no room for the two of us.” So far the Jews lost every battle they instigated ... but like masochists, they have come back for more, and nothing says they will win this time.

Mutilating History by Truncation

An effective tool in the hands of propaganda wonks is the mutilation of history by truncation, and the Jews are the experts in the use of this trick. They play it like a magician, and they score victories they do not deserve before the absurdity of their game becomes apparent to the victims who unfortunately find it almost impossible to clarify the situation and expose the truth.

To see how this works in practice, we need to be aware that a dispute which remains small and contained, or one that escalates to endanger more than the original antagonists, has an absolute beginning and a number of secondary ones; the latter being what causes the cycle of fits and starts in a long running fight. To use their trick effectively, the propaganda wonks truncate history by starting the narration at a secondary start; one that suits them best – while avoiding the absolute beginning of the story.

For example, the disturbances that flared-up recently in occupied Palestine can be thought of as having started two weeks ago when the government of Israel allowed fanatic Jews to desecrate a Muslim holy site known as Al-Aqsa Mosque. That act coincided with Jewish demands that were floated in writing, both in Israel and abroad, to the effect that the 48 year-old agreement which forbids the Jews from doing what they did – must be scrapped.

That was a sure way to get the Palestinians to come out bare handed and defend the site. When this happened, the Jewish soldiers of occupation responded harshly, thus invited a more robust Palestinian response. This being what the Jews wanted, the army of occupation escalated the battle to a more savage level. And this is when the Jewish propaganda machine was put to work making the Palestinians look like the aggressive civilians who started the fight simply because they wanted to hurt the Israeli soldiers who had no choice but to respond by cutting down the Palestinians with live bullets.

As can be seen, when the Jews play this sort of game – which they do all the time, and start the narration at the point when the Palestinians respond to Jewish provocations – an important element of the real story gets lost. It is the answer to the following questions: Who started the fight and why? The effect is that absent those answers, history researchers get confused as to what has motivated each antagonist. This leaves the field wide open for the propaganda wonks to make-up a story that paints the Palestinians as the culprits, and ascribe to them the worst of motives.

One such propaganda wonk is Victor Davis Hanson. His latest work came under the title: “Moral Equivalence in the Middle East,” published on October 20, 2015 in National Review Online. He begins the article by mentioning Arab youth attacking Israelis without even hinting that there might have been a reason for their behavior. In fact, he does not mention Al-Aqsa Mosque – not once throughout the article.

This being the most convenient place from which to start his narration, Hanson goes on to denigrate the Koran which is the Muslim prayer book. He also criticizes the “Obama State Department” for condemning the use of excessive force by Israeli soldiers. And he suggests that America should stop aiding the Palestinians who receive half a billion dollars a year as opposed to the3 billions, or maybe 5 billions that go to Israel.

But there is something more important to Hanson and the Jewish propaganda machine … and he wants to bring it out here and now. Having called the Palestinians terrorists, he asks the question: “Why is the Obama administration morally incapable of calling out Palestinian violence?” And he says there are two reasons. One is that the Obama Middle East policies are in shambles. That's bad, he says, but there is something that's far worse, which is his second reason.

What he says in this regard is something he has been working on for a long while. It is his description of what he calls the postmodern culture into which America is sliding. He does not like it one bit because it runs contrary to the precepts upon which the Jewish culture stands. He does not come right out and say so, but speaks of the “relativist assumptions about human nature” that are plaguing Americans, leading them to believe that “the Westernized world is no longer threatened in any existential fashion.”

You see, my friend, he wants to scare the people of America in the same way that the Jewish leaders scare the rank and file to better control them. You could say he is working to judaicize the American culture more than it is already.

The Chain Reaction of their Delusions

Decade after decade, the Israelis, the Jewish establishment worldwide and the Jewish lobby in America worked hand in hand to convince the Western powers – and when they could, the Eastern powers – to deny the nations of the Middle East the ability to develop economically, technologically and scientifically.

The Jews felt it was necessary for them to adopt that attitude, and do what they did because – motivated as they were by the religious belief that humanity is evil at its core – they were ignorant enough, fearful enough, hateful enough and delusional enough to judge that what was good for the others was going to be detrimental to Israeli interests, if not Israel's existence … and by extension Jewish existence.

And much of what happened in the region since that time, has been influenced by the attitudes that were adopted towards it by the West generally, America specifically, and the East incidentally. This is history now, and no one can tell for certain how the Middle East would have developed absent those foreign interferences. The “what if” approach to writing history is better left to fiction writers.

What we can tell, however, or perhaps imagine with a high degree of certainty, is what will continue to happen if the Israelis, the Jewish establishment worldwide and the Jewish lobby in America, continue to have the success that they had in the past. To put it simply, the region will descend into a more frightening hellhole than the one in which it finds itself at this time.

In fact, this is the game that the Jews kept trying to play recently. Fortunately, however, they were having a hard time succeeding because people everywhere are beginning to realize that the evil which the Jews thought was at the core of humanity motivating it to do bad things, is the evil that was discovered to be motivating the Jews themselves. And this is a condition that remains so tenacious; they cannot be cured of it. They will resist you and fight you to death if you try to exorcise them of it. They, and that evil, are one and the inseparable same.

The drama – or perhaps the melodrama – which used to be played out hush-hush in the past, has recently exploded on the world stage. It happened during the past two years as each of the various characters tried to play a constructive role negotiating the Iran nuclear deal. The exception has been the Jewish character which hung on to its evil tradition, and played the role of spoiler but lost in the end.

The Iran nuclear deal has been signed, sealed and delivered by all sides, and the time has come for the Israelis, the Jewish establishment worldwide and the Jewish lobby in America to lament, wail and cry their eyes out over the spilled milk of their desire to see the destruction of others, and rejoice at the pathetic delusion that Jews will be safe only when surrounded by the weak and the dispossessed.

You can sense, feel, even see in your mind's eye the distress signals that these people exude when someone in the region – be it a foe or a friend – takes a step towards modernization. A short and succinct example is the editorial that came under the title: “Nuclear chain reaction” and the subtitle: “As the Iran deal is formalized, the region begins changing for the worse.” It appeared on October 19, 2015 in the New York Daily News.

You do not need a PhD in philosophy to see that what these people pretended to stand against was not the potential for weapons of mass destruction to proliferate in the region; it was the potential for the nations of the region to enter the modern age riding a new economy, new technologies and a more advanced science.

Look what they say was the intent of the Western powers as expressed by President Obama: “to ensure Iran fully fulfills each and every one of its commitments.” Look what they are moaning about now: “Saudi Arabia has plans to build 16 [civilian] nuclear reactors.” They went from Iran the foe to Saudi Arabia the “friend,” from nuclear weapons to power generation. They lied about their intentions because of one reason: They are Jewish.

Two or three generations from now, the fossil fuels that were discovered in that region in abundance, will be exhausted. Brought by their riches to the gates of the modern era, those nations – including Saudi Arabia – are planning to fuel their future with nuclear energy. This is what the Jews wanted to arrest, and this is where humanity arrested them. They are whining, and the world is no longer impressed with their crocodile tears.

She can hear a Palestinian Marseillaise

The deputy foreign minister of Israel, who goes by the name Tzipi Hotovely, is trying to tell us that the Palestinians are unique in the sense that they have an ongoing love affair with what she calls the culture of death. But instead of doing that, she ended up demonstrating that the Palestinians are similar to the rest of the human race in the sense that they have an ongoing love affair with freedom.

Hotovely made her views known in an article she wrote under the title: “Abbas: We Welcome Every Drop of Blood Spilled in Jerusalem,” and the subtitle: “Palestinian leaders have created a culture of death that is motivating the latest violent terrorism.” It was published in the Wall Street Journal on October 19, 2015.

She begins by accusing the Palestinian leaders of explicitly calling for the spilling of blood, and that the current cycle of clashes in the West Bank of occupied Palestine is a well-orchestrated campaign by those leaders. She ignores the talk that is emanating from her own government to the effect that the clashes are caused by what they call self-motivated lone wolves with no one to organize them.

The government source further explains that such loners are inspired by material they gather from social media. To counter this revelation, Hotovely seeks to buttress her argument – which she must know is false and absurd – by saying that Palestinian children are taught to kill Jews, and taught to regard their own death as the pinnacle of their aspirations. Well, there is only one thing to say about that:

It appears that the lady was reading the words of the French national anthem known as La Marseillaise before writing her piece or maybe while writing it. She must have been impressed by this passage: “Arise, children of the motherland, the day of glory has arrived. Bloody banner is raised; they are coming to cut the throats of our sons and our women. Form your battalions; let an impure blood water our furrows. To arms, citizens...” And so she attributed to the Palestinians the revolutionary fervor expressed in those words.

Still, conscious of the fact that the Palestinians she is talking about are of the third generation, born and raised under the influence of the Jewish culture imposed on the Palestinians for half a century; Hotovely tries to place the blame for what the children have become, not on the roots of the Jewish culture, but the roots of the Palestinian culture. And so, she says this: “Such violence has deep roots. It goes back to the rampages at the behest of Haj Amin al-Husseini, a Muslim activist and at one point grand mufti of Jerusalem, in the 1920s, '30s and '40s.”

This forces the question: Why not Che Guevara? Better yet why not Maxmillien Marie de Robespierre? After all, these were great revolutionaries who actually achieved independence for their people … unlike al-Husseini who lost the Palestinian motherland to the Jewish hordes that came from the sea. But like they say: Ask me no question and I shall tell you no lie.

Convinced by now that she made a brilliant presentation, the deputy foreign minister of Israel takes on the international media for failing to see things her way. This is how she does that: “The apathy shown by the international community and the manner in which violence is treated by the media is doing long-term, irrevocable harm to generations of Palestinians.”

Note that she says she wants to media to change and get better – not to benefit the occupation which is her only motivation – but to benefit future Palestinian generations about whom she could not care less. Like they say, hypocrisy comes without shame but always reveals something new about its practitioner. This time it is revealing that the Israelis have no intention to end the occupation and get out of Palestine.

Immersed in a fantasy-land that delivers all that she wants for now, an important concept escapes her. It is that Israel's soldiers who may be criminals in the eyes of Palestinians are heroes in the eyes of the Israelis. When they die while on duty, they are honored by their government. Likewise, when Palestinians who may be called terrorists by the Israelis are honored like heroes by their people.

Thus, she complains that the Palestinian families of dead heroes receive a stipend, and that monuments are named after them. And so, she wants the world community to do something about it. If not compensation, these people always want the others to do something for them. They are hopeless.

Blue Smoke, Mirrors and the Fog of War

It is said that the first casualty of war is the truth. That's because there are two ways to miscarry the truth. There is the deliberate way, which is done with the use of blue smoke and mirrors. And there is the inadvertent way which is caused by the fog of war.

Parts of the Middle East are in turmoil at this time, and much has happened that can be studied to help us put those two realities in perspective. Now, as before, the Jewish propaganda machine has exploded what may be called a cluster bomb of lies over America. These are the same blue smoke and mirrors which, for several decades, have been shaping America's views about the Middle East. Having monopolized the public square in the absence of the social media of today, the Jews excluded all opposition from the square while spewing massive amounts of lies, something they did around the clock ... throughout the years ... decade after decade.

Had there been an honest “freedom of speech” in America during the past half century, we would not be discussing the situation in occupied Palestine the way that we do today. It would have been pointed out that when Jewish grandmothers and babies are taken into a war zone where they can get hurt or killed, the responsibility for their fate falls on the shoulders of those who sent them there, not on the Palestinians who do not want them on their property. And this would have been the end of discussion the way that discussions have ended with regard to South Africa and the former Zimbabwe.

If you find it difficult to believe this, recall what happened when Israel bombed a UN post in South Lebanon, killing scores of peacekeepers. The post was populated by Canadians, among others, sent there by their government to observe a ceasefire and report on violations if and when they happened. Well, the bombing of the place is what happened, and when the Prime Minister of Canada was advised of same, he blurted out: “What were they [Canadian peacekeepers] doing there? Don't they know there is an ongoing war?” And that was the end of this discussion. But if a Prime Minister can imply that his soldiers asked for what befell them and were responsible for it, ask yourself: what can be said about grandmothers and babies that were sent into a war zone by their Israeli government?

Alas, when it comes to Jews, the discussion does not end here. Despite the fact that not a single question of those that were asked of reporters by their TV anchors (regular and cable) was put to them without a preamble that portrayed the Israelis as victims and the Palestinians as aggressors – the Jewish pundits and their echo repeaters have been spilling rivers of tears because, they say, the “mainstream” media is biased against Israel. And they undertook to deliver tons of spoken and written sermons to explain their point of view.

Two examples illustrate the difference between the deliberate use of smoke and mirrors to miscarry the truth, and the inadvertent miscarrying of it when the fog of war plays a role. The first example is what happened during the last Israeli assault on Gaza, a time when scores of innocent people were bombed in their homes, on the beaches and in schools operated by UN personnel. Israel and its American supporters blamed the mishaps on the victims because they opined that civilians had no business being close to military installations. They said this, knowing that Gaza is an overpopulated small territory where no place can be remote enough to avoid the explosive force of 500 pound bombs.

Several investigations are ongoing to determine if war crimes were committed by Israeli commanders, but that's not the focus of this discussion. Of interest to us at this time are the walls of smoke and mirrors that were erected to paint the Palestinians as the architects of their own misery. The Jewish logic being that the Palestinians were to blame for staying in their homes when the Jewish aggressors came to bomb them. But the reality was that the bombing turned the entire Gaza strip into a war zone, a place from which grandmothers and babies could not escape.

Note that when people are killed – deliberately or inadvertently – the incident becomes a mistake that cannot be corrected because dead people cannot be resurrected.

Now contrast that reality with the incident which the Jewish propaganda machine is using to argue that the mainstream media is biased against Israel. It happened that a reporter for MSNBC was in occupied Jerusalem when a Palestinian young man came running, and was shot dead by the Israelis. He fell to the ground, and the reporter said he could see neither a knife nor a gun in his hand. But the camera never blinks – like says Dan Rather's book – and a replay of the scene with freeze-frame showed that the young man had a knife in the hand before falling to the ground. Well, that was a minor mistake on the part of the reporter, something that resulted from the fog of war. It was corrected instantly, and no one was hurt but the ego of the reporter.

Note that the mistake in this case was made inadvertently, that no one got hurt or killed in the process, and that it was corrected. Such mistakes happen all the time in the fog of war, and they are fixed if not instantly, after a while.

The upshot of all this is that time after time, what happened as a result of Israeli mistakes, is that Palestinians were killed, and the Jews erected walls of smoke and mirrors to argue that it was the fault of the victims. But when – as a result of the fog of war – someone said something that turned out to be exaggerated or false, the Jews and their echo-repeaters blew their entrails out of their bellies, hollering their pain at a media they accused of being biased … even after the media corrected their mistakes, and no one got hurt in the process.

If you don’t mind the gruesome spectacle of seeing entrails blown out of their bellies, watch Fox News. If you want to visualize the phenomenon as you read the sopping articles, read the right wing publications – some of which are delivered electronically before they come out in hard copy. They all sound the same because they all repeat the refrains handed to them by the Jewish propaganda machine.