A never asleep Hate Machine spewing again

The JHM-NYT axis is at it again. That would be the twinning of the Jewish Hate Machine and the New York Times, still hollering their pain as the two demons see Egypt continue to make steady progress, and there is nothing they can do to sabotage the good work.

This time, they came up with an article under the title: “Our Mediterranean, Our Survival,” written by D. Rachael Bishop and published on January 30, 2016 in the NY Times. It is almost an identical duplicate of the article that came under the title: “Under the Ships in the Suez Canal,” written by Juli Berwald and published on November 13, 2014, also in the NY Times. My response to that article came on the same day under the title: “The Floodgate of Jewish Hate and Envy”.

Note the change in tone between the two NY Times titles. Fifteen months ago, they used a descriptive title to inform the reader what the article was about. In fact, it was about the migration of fish through the Suez Canal, going from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean. When that badmouthing of Egypt did not work, and the country widened the Canal in record time as promised, the demonic JHM-NYT axis resorted to hollering that they fear for their survival. The jokers have played their ultimate Jewish card: crying out the Existential refrain.

The fact is that the Suez Canal is a North-South waterway and not an East-West waterway. This makes it so that the sea level in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Red Sea are always at the same level despite the rotation of the Earth, and the revolution of the Moon around it. This means there was never a need to install locks along the Suez Canal similar to what was done along the Panama Canal.

Also, the fresh water Bitter Lakes that existed at Ismailia between the city of Port Fouad on the Mediterranean Sea, and the city of Suez on the Red Sea, were bound to disappear as they did a long time ago because they were too small compared to the size of the two salty seas. When the waterway was opened decades ago, the Lake waters started immediately to mix with those of the Seas and became a part of the salty system.

Thus, what Bishop is saying: “Previous expansions and agricultural wastewater dumped into the canal flushed it away,” is worse than a big lie; it is a Jewish lie. The truth is that there has never been agriculture on either side of the Canal, and there will not be for a long time because the entire area is a desert that's too far away from the Nile Valley where Egypt’s agriculture is concentrated.

As to the expansions of the Canal a quarter of a century ago, and again six years ago; they did nothing to change the salinity of the Ismailia Lake – what used to be the Bitter Lakes. That's because the Canal has been around for nearly a century and a half. In fact, suggestions were floated to the effect that Egypt should construct a pipeline from the fields of the Delta to Ismailia, and dump the agricultural wastewater produced there into the Lake, thus turn it into a barrier that will prevent the Red Sea fishes from migrating to the Mediterranean.

But that idea is now considered a bad Jewish joke for a reason that was revealed inadvertently by none other than D. Rachael Bishop herself. Look what she says: “It [the Canal] opens a path for invasive species from the Indian and Pacific Oceans to flood through the Red Sea into the Mediterranean.” As disgustingly primitive as this is, it is also comical because you cannot help but visualize two fishes half a world away in the Pacific Ocean talk to each other.

The antisemitic fish tells the other: Guess what, my friend. The Egyptians have widened the Suez Canal, so now we can go through the South China Sea, the Java Sea, the Gulf of Thailand, the Andaman Sea, the Indian Ocean, the Gulf of Aden, the Red Sea and a Suez Canal that is wide enough for both of us to pass through, thus get to the Mediterranean Sea where we'll bug the hell out of those darn Jews occupying Palestine. Neat, huh!

Sick Jewish jokes aside, what is it that bothers those clowns? Here is the answer: “the $8.5 billion project will increase toll revenue from $5.3 billion to $13.2 billion.” And so, in the same way that they used America's good name to “educate” the nations of the Nile Basin on how to blackmail Egypt and force it to pay for the Nile water it receives, they are now trying to make Egypt incur unnecessary expenses to fix a problem that isn't there.

And in the same way that they shed tears over the building of the Aswan Dam for several generations, expect to see them shed tears about the expanded Canal for several more generations. They are hopeless.

Creating the desired Perspective on Demand

The late Carl Sagan got annoyed one time with contemporary earthlings who thought they were seeing a message from space aliens in representations that were left behind by what seemed to be ancient earthlings. And so Carl Sagan decided to show how improbable these claims were.

Apparently, what the contemporary earthlings used to do was identify a number of points on ancient representations, and claim that they showed the position of stars – not when looked at from the Earth's position today, but from where the Earth was in the past, or where it will be in the future. This, in their view, indicated from where and when the space aliens had visited Earth. They left messages for us to discover and decipher when we'll be advanced enough to understand what they mean, said those annoying contemporary earthlings.

What Sagan did, was input into a computer the position in three dimensions of the stars as they appear from Earth today. He could command the software to move forward and backward in time, thus show how the stars would appear from the Earth's position or from various angles in space. The result was that you could spot any image you desired to see by picking the right time and the correct angle from which to look. Thus, Sagan concluded that what the contemporary earthlings thought they were seeing was an improbability with no real significance to it.

To the astronomer that he was, the demonstration he put on was just another lesson in astronomy. What he did not realize at the time, however, was that he had created a metaphor we can use today to explain what happens when we embark on endless discussions that go on forever, that mean nothing now and mean less and less as time moves on.

An example of that is the article which came under the title: “With Iran it's strictly business” and the subtitle: “Just as with the Nazis, the big companies line up to trade with the purveyors of evil.” It was written by Cal Thomas and published on January 27, 2016 in The Washington Times.

What the author does is draw a parallel between the way that the West is treating the Iranians today, and the way that the Allies treated the Nazis in an earlier era. He put it this way: “the four days of meetings involving Iran's President, European leaders and businesses should remind people we have seen this show before.”

Cal Thomas goes from there to show how today's big companies are eager to do business with Iran in the way that the big companies of yesteryear were eager to do business with the Nazis. What happened next, he says, was that the Nazis were responsible for the “slaughter of an estimated 11 million people. Six million of these were Jews.” As to Iran's President, our author claims that he “referred to Israel as 'an old wound' that 'should be removed.'” And he saw a resemblance in these two positions.

The problem is that Thomas does not say when, where and in what context, the Iranian President said those words. Nor does he explain what the President meant by 'old wound' and 'removed.' What is also missing is an account as to who translated the Persian words into English? Were there other translations? Where is the link that could have taken the readers to the origin of those sayings? Even if we attribute the worst explanation to those utterances, can they really be equated with the slaughter of 11 million people?

Cal Thomas is so distraught, he laments: “Have they learned so little from history that they are willing to repeat it?” Well, listen Cal, to learn from history, there must be an accurate account of it. For this to happen there must be references and documentations that will satisfy all those who will look into them. If and when that is established, a vigorous debate must follow to make sure that the image we are painting is not of the kind that can be created on command by a Carl Sagan type software.

In fact, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the production of literary and audiovisual material on the Holocaust, as well as the construction of memorials commemorating the event, are having a savage effect on the people who become addicted to them. The worst part is that the damage done to the perceptive abilities of youngsters who get exposed to that kind of material, increases with every new generation.

Today, you see young men and women who are filled with so much hate, fear and self-pity, they become walking time bombs. If they cannot forge a career for themselves in the media; a place from where they have the chance to pour their venom and get paid on a regular basis, they seek relief by going to occupied Palestine, settle in the West Bank and live their criminal existence there.

And that is no longer just a Jewish crime; it is increasingly becoming an American crime against humanity.

A System of Beliefs by self-Delusion

When journalism sinks to the level of the weird, you get something like what you see in Benny Avni's latest column. It came under the title: “After Abbas: The coming Palestinian bloodbath,” and was published on January 27, 2016 in the New York Post.

You are taken aback when someone predicts a bloodbath. That's because two possibilities race through your mind, none of which is savory. Either you expect to see intriguing clues that will make you conclude yes, a bloodbath is in the offing, or you'll discover that the writer is wishing so hard that the Palestinians will kill each other, his wish has turned into a delusion, and the delusion has become a part of his system of beliefs.

So you start to read the article looking for an explanation as to how a bloodbath might result if and when Mahmoud Abbas retires. Failing this, you expect to see strong clues that a bloodbath is a real possibility because of some other reason. The trouble, however, is that you find neither of those. What you encounter, instead, are clues as to how the writer borrowed heavily from literature to construct a fantastic story he is masquerading as journalistic punditry.

Avni begins to tell the story like this: “What if a Shakespearean battle … was raging and no one was there to document if?” Well, there was no one there to document the story and so, our journalist turned fiction writer started to imagine things. Because he mentions names of people who exist in real life, we must accept that the fiction is based in part on real events.

Now that you know this is fiction by another name, you stop looking for an explanation as to how a bloodbath might result when Abbas retires, and you stop looking for clues as to what else might lead to such a bloodbath. You decide, instead, that because this work is the product of the head and the heart of the writer, you'll try to establish what motivated him to produce an article (a fiction) of this kind.

The best way to do that is to read the article to the end where the punchline usually provides a good indication as to what the author has aimed to establish from the start. And what you encounter at the end of Avni's article is this: “The real double standard is in endlessly scrutinizing Jerusalem while ignoring Ramallah.” And that's the answer to your question.

It is the fact that the world sees very little that's wrong in what the Palestinians are doing; and sees much that's wrong in what the Jews are doing. This is what motivated Benny Avni to imagine a Shakespearean tragedy befalling the Palestinians with a bloody ending for it.

Now that you know the beginning and the end of the story, you want to know how the writer went about working a middle for it. You quickly discover that Benny Avni has talent for fiction. Look what he does to interest the readers and maintain their interest as he develops the plot: “American and Israeli officials shrugged off Abbas's warnings that he'd dissolve the Palestinian Authority … he so often made similar threats, no one took him seriously … No one, that is except some who started thinking the 80-year-old is finally thinking of retirement.”

You must admit this is an intriguing cliffhanger, skillfully designed to stir up the natural reflexes of the audience to wonder: Will he or won't he? Well, the plot unfolds with four other characters jockeying to be in the best position to jump into the race and replace Abbas when the right moment will come. But they cautiously avoid revealing the extent of their ambition lest they see their heads metaphorically chopped off by an Abbas who may not be serious about retiring after all.

The plot thickens further by two realities. The first is the leaking of news to the effect that Abbas is about to launch a UN campaign to fight Israel diplomatically. It means he is not retiring. The second reality is that Palestinian law stipulates the speaker of parliament must take over the Authority pending new elections. The trouble is that the speaker is a member of the Hamas group which rivals the party of Abbas. And this is a Palestinian style conundrum.

All that confusion prompts the author to observe that “such chaotic political fighting often leads to violence.” Even though he uses the word “often” he does not cite a single example when this was the case. But that does not bother him because he has something more serious in mind.

It is that he is unhappy about the UN saying it is human nature to resist occupation. This legitimizes the Palestinian struggle while delegitimizing the Jewish occupation of Palestine. Avni is also unhappy about the US saying Israel's system of justice employs a double standard; one for the Jews and one for the Palestinians.

That's why Benny Avni has deluded himself into believing that the Palestinians will create their own bloodbath and defeat themselves, something Israel has been trying to do for half a century but failed miserably.

That's what they call World War III?

Before the Jews had managed to gain full control of America and make it their own in the eyes of the world, they used to cry out that if America did not get involved in the affairs of the Middle East and protect Israel, World War III will be set off, and we're all going to die.

When, as a result of these scary utterances, the Jewish Establishment managed to subjugate the American Congress of zombies and make it work exclusively for Israel, the Jews started saying that the occupation of Palestine was a non-issue; a dead subject that does not merit the attention of anyone … except maybe that something could be done to starve the Palestinians till they agree to follow in the footsteps of the American zombies and allow themselves to be subjugated by the Jews.

But now that the Jews have succeeded beyond their dream in getting the American military to destabilize several countries in the region, thus cause the humongous chaos they thought was going to benefit them but did not, the Jewish Establishment has finally understood that its plan has failed because it was a bad idea from the start.

The plan did not work because the unintended consequences created a situation that has the potential to turn nasty against Israel. So now, the Jews want the world to believe that World War III is knocking at the door of the Planet if it has not already started. And they warn that if America did not get involved in Middle Eastern affairs to protect Israel, things will get worse and we're all going to die. The old refrain is new again.

That is the gist of the article which came under the title: “Skirmishes on the Indian front” and the subtitle: “Cunning Jihadis act locally while thinking globally.” It was written by Clifford D. May and published on January 26, 2016 in The Washington Times. The author begins his presentation by chiding the media for reflecting Obama's view that it is “over the top to suggest we're engaged in World War III”.

May's view is that we are; and he has the numbers to prove it. Mind you, he does not say that World War III is here because of what is happening in occupied Palestine; it is here, he says, because of what is happening to the East of Palestine. Thus, you must rest assured that the occupation of Palestine remains a non-issue; a dead subject that does not merit the attention of anyone … except maybe that something could be done to starve the Palestinians till they agree to follow in the footsteps of the American zombies and allow themselves to be subjugated by the Jews.

Let's now look at the Clifford May's numbers. He says that attacks are ongoing near the border separating India and Pakistan. So far, the tally in dead and wounded is as follows: (1) three members of India's security forces and four attackers were killed. (2) Three Indians were injured, and two more attackers were killed. (3) At least twenty-two Pakistanis were killed in a university shooting reminiscent of what happens regularly in America.

The total comes to 31 dead and 3 injured on all sides. Believe it or not, that was enough for Clifford May to view the skirmishes in the Far East as the advent of World War III. He did so even though he views the encounters in occupied Palestine as a non-issue despite the fact that something like 170 people were killed and hundreds more were injured on both sides in the same period of time.

Now, when you consider that the various populations in occupied Palestine amount to 8 million people, and that the populations in India/Pakistan amount to 1.6 billion, you realize that there are 200 times as many people in India/Pakistan as in Palestine. Thus, when you work out the proportions, you discover that the 170 dead people in Palestine would amount to the equivalent of 34,000 dead people in India/Pakistan. But there were only 31 dead people in the Far East, and our author says it's enough to qualify as World War III.

Clifford May says he connected the dots because he is prone to doing so, and this led him to conclude that 170 dead people in Palestine constitute a non-issue whereas 31 dead in the Indian subcontinent constitute the kind of “World War” that Western leaders don't understand. This forces him to lament that “they [Western leaders] are unlikely to formulate policies to fight it.”

Which is why he believes that “for the jihadis, that must be a source of great encouragement.” Maybe Clifford May and all those like him need to take lessons in logic before writing articles as complex as that.

To die for a Cause is a tragic human Trait

The editors of the New York Daily News have reported on “The boy who believed in a cruel Islam,” which is the title of the piece they wrote and published on January 25, 2016. The views they express in that editorial triggered a few thoughts in my head, some of which I discuss below.

As a toddler steeped in Catholic teachings, I learned that Jesus died on the cross to redeem (racheter in French) me and all human beings because we collectively committed the original sin of disobeying God even though we were not with Adam and Eve when they ate the forbidden fruit.

As I grew older, it began to dawn on me that Jesus did not die unexpectedly or by accident. He knew that what he was doing will lead him to the Calvary. He even dared the Romans to destroy this temple (his body) because he could rebuild it in three days (his resurrection). And on the eve of his arrest and crucifixion, he told a disciple he'll betray him before dawn. So the question that began to haunt me was this: Did Jesus plan his own death because he had a fanatic love for the human race? And then, I started to become aware of what was happening in the world; and I gradually ceased to be surprised.

In the time between my toddler years and the start of the Korean War, I heard a great deal about the Catholics who were martyred – many of them willingly – during the hundred-year religious war that raged in Europe between the Catholics and the Protestants. I wondered if I would have died for the cause had I lived in that era.

Still, I was not surprised to hear that during the Japanese occupation of China, hundreds of unarmed or lightly armed Chinese peasants would storm a Japanese war vehicle knowing they will be cut by cannon fire and by machine gun bullets before they could overwhelm the vehicle. The result was that dozens died so that one or two may reach the Japanese, throw a hand grenade in the vehicle and kill its occupants. Those were the same Chinese combatants who were now fighting the Americans and their allies in Korea. Which cause were these people dying for?

I was not surprised to hear that during World War II, Japanese pilots, sailors and foot soldiers would go on suicide missions for what they thought was the debt they owed to their emperor. And I was not surprised to learn that many people – some of them under-aged – from North America volunteered to go fight in both World Wars knowing that the odds they will survive the adventure were near zero. What stories did they hear that lit up the desire to do what they did?

Beyond that, the more I studied the human condition – be that in peace time or in wars – the more I became convinced that dying willingly for a cause is a human trait that's shared by all sorts of religions and all sorts of persuasions. I concluded that an individual who is motivated enough to believe in a religious cause or a secular one, is capable of committing an act of martyrdom. Was this the case of the Masada Jews who committed suicide rather than surrender to the Romans? History is not clear about this one.

After that, a new phenomenon began to hit the news. Devout Christians in the Americas and the Philippines asked to be crucified at Easter for the love of Jesus. Did these people feel the pain, or were they sucked so deeply into a religious trance, they became numb to pain as if they were anesthetized. Would they die for the faith if asked? And then, the phenomenon of the suicide bomber appeared for the first time in Sri Lanka, and made its way to Western Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.

This is why I am not surprised to learn that a teenager who believed he sinned against God when he raised a hand by mistake, decided to cut off the hand thus prove he is still devoted to God. He turned out to be a Pakistani Muslim who says he did not feel the pain, but he could have been a Christian from the Philippine or the Americas or anywhere else.

This is why I dismiss as nonsense the assertion made by the editors of the New York Daily News that: “Death as vengeance and as a doorway to paradise is central to radical Islam.” It is more like a human trait that could affect anyone, anytime, anywhere … if not individually, then collectively such as the followers of a Jim Jones or any of the other cult leaders.

Thin Probability spawns a Pack of Hoaxes

Ralph Peters has given us a perfect example showing how the fear of seeing something or the desire to see it can make the beholder see the thing where it is not. That's like a frightened child seeing demons in a cloud. It is like diehard fans of Elvis Presley seeing him everywhere they wish he were.

And so, Ralph Peters is seeing Vladimir Putin. He sees him become more murderous and more dangerous than ever before. In fact, this is the title of the article he wrote. In full, it reads like this: “Vladimir Putin will only become more murderous and dangerous,” published on January 24, 2016 in the New York Post.

Those who might have wanted to know how much Ralph Peters dislikes Vladimir Putin now have the answer; Peters dislikes Putin a lot because he fears him a lot. But that's not the puzzling part. Rather, the puzzle is in the body of evidence that the author lays out to convince the readers they too must fear Putin, and must learn to dislike him a lot. To make that point, Peters relies on the findings of a British inquiry which says that a Russian defector “was murdered, and that Vladimir Putin 'probably' approved the operation personally.”

And folks, believe it or not, that's all there is to it. Ralph Peters has only a probability he uses as evidentiary stepping stone from where he launches a ferocious attack on Putin. He prosecutes the Russian leader for this crime, and for all sorts of other crimes, about which he has no evidence except that the defendant deserves to be feared and disliked.

Unlike the Church Inquiry in America producing solid proof that the CIA committed crimes abroad, unlike the strong evidence that came up to the effect that Henry Kissinger was involved in the murder of Salvador Allende, unlike the Israelis who constantly brag they can and do assassinate their enemies anywhere the latter go to hide – the evidence against Putin's involvement in the death of a dissident comes down to this: “On his deathbed, the [dissident] stated that Putin had ordered the hit. No sane person doubted him.” That's it, my friend, that's all the evidence that Peters has; evidence he asserts can only be doubted by the insane.

And all that information prompts him to ask the question: “Why should we care about the death of one defector when the world's ablaze?” And he answers: we must care because Russia has nuclear weapons, and Putin ignores international law. Like Hitler he uses war to settle differences with others. He is brilliant but also ruthless, making use of his genius to understand his people and size up his enemies.

To elaborate, Peters says that when Putin took charge of Russia, the country was in dire shape. He took advantage of the oil and gas boom to enrich his people, an achievement that made them proud of him and their country. The trouble in the eyes of the author is that the local adulation spilled over into Western Europe. Coupling that reality with Putin's use of natural gas as a weapon, his influence grew large. He was thus able to force the Europeans into signing the kind of energy contracts that serve him well. And he was able to disrupt every response they came up with to his bad behavior.

But is this such a serious development, we should worry that Putin is out there doing what he does? Oh no, says Peters, that's not the whole story; there is more to Putin's doings. He took Crimea and invaded eastern Ukraine, says Peters. He also deployed forces to Syria which he managed to stabilize. He also grabbed an airbase in the interior. And the worst part is that “along the way, he suffered embarrassments, but no compelling defeats.” See?

But why is that so bad, Ralph? It is bad because “he [Putin] now expects to win – which makes him extremely dangerous.” What's the connection, Ralph? How does the expectation to win make someone dangerous? He explains that despite his genius, Putin has a weakness; it is that he has no grasp of economics.

Those are points that Peters sees as dots on the map. He believes he can connect them to reveal something big. To do that, he constructs a scenario he says will eventually unfold in real life. It will go like this: “The danger may be coming to a head; market forces are applying the brakes. With oil and gas prices plummeting, Russia's economy is shrinking … and the first cracks in Putin's popularity are showing … the grumbling has begun.” But whose fault is that?

Aha, that's a good question, says Peters. It is Putin's fault, of course. Do you know why? Well, to know why, you must disregard what was said earlier about Putin having no grasp of economics. You must, for the next little while, believe that Putin knows economics so well, he understands that Russia's salvation rests in the diversification of the economy.

Here is the catch however: “a diversified economy would have defused his [Putin's] authority.” Because this would have threatened his own salvation, he chose not to diversify the economy thus safeguard his salvation, rather than diversify and safeguard Russia's salvation. See? See how things work out nicely when you hold two contradictory ideas simultaneously in your head?

This is why the Russian economy will continue to deteriorate, says Peters. He then asks: “Should we rejoice? Does this mean that the assassinations and invasions might end?” No, says the writer, and that's because the Russian President could turn bitter and reckless, given that his pride has been wounded. He might lash out left and right at anything that moves.

And that's how one thin probability – uttered by a dying man – spawned an elaborate scenario that's full of guesses, hoaxes and meaningless warnings.

Princes of Darkness complaining again

Never in the history of Planet Earth has there been a place as peaceful and civilized as the Middle East before the advent of the Jewish Irgun and Haganah terrorist groups. And never since the advent of these Princes of darkness has there been a place as savagely primitive as the land where the Jew has set foot.

When you have creatures as evil as that, you expect to hear them attribute to themselves the nobility they see in others, and expect to hear them project into others the evil they see in themselves. And so, it happens that such noise is what's coming out of Israel and out the worldwide Jewish propaganda machine.

The latest rattling that came out of Israel came in the form of an article under the title: “Where Does All That Aid for Palestinians Go?” and the subtitle: “An outsize share of per capita international aid, even as the Palestinian Authority funds terrorists.” It was written by the deputy foreign minister of Israel, Tzipi Hotovely, and published on January 25, 2016 in the Wall Street Journal.

Bearing in mind that the occupation of a country is the most extreme form of terrorism you can inflict on someone, you'll find that occupation is the calamity that the Jews are inflicting on the people of Palestine. They came from Europe as armed groups, having behaved so obnoxiously in those countries, the locals could not take it anymore, and did something about it. They gassed some of the Jews, incinerated others and threw the leftovers out of the continent.

Those leftovers invaded Palestine where the indigenous people had no way to defend themselves. Now, almost a century later, the Palestinians find themselves fighting supersonic jets and attack helicopters equipped with night vision, and armed with smart bombs. The Palestinians fight the flying war machines, and fight the tanks and the armored vehicles on the ground with bare hands, stones, and any object they can throw at the savages riding them; those who come to kill their families and steal their properties.

And guess who is doing the crying? No, it's not the Palestinians who are crying; it's the Jews. It is Tzipi Hotovely pulling her entrails out of her belly, trying to convince the world that the Palestinians have no right to defend themselves, and that the Jews have the right to bomb, kill and rob them because it is the preemptive offense that the Jews call the best defense.

All that happens because the reptilian Jewish brain says that when the Palestinian defends himself, he is a terrorist. When the Jew terrorizes, kills and loots, he is defending himself. Now, my friend, you know why when the Europeans of decades ago began to understand how that brain functions, they determined there were only three places where it can be disposed of: the gas chamber, the oven and the sea.

To give her discussion an air of respectability, Hotovely cites a few statistics. However, instead of putting together an argument that's relevant to the topic of the discussion, she unwittingly shed light on the English saying: Figures do not lie but liars do figure. What she says overtly and covertly is basically as follows:

'There are lots of downtrodden people in this world because there are bad characters doing them in. We're doing our share of doing it to the Palestinians but look, we're not as bad as some of the others. You can tell by the fact that the Palestinians are somewhat better off than people in places like the Sudan, South Sudan, Jordan, Lebanon, Somalia, Ethiopia, Afghanistan and the Democratic Republic of Congo.'

Maybe so, Tzipi, but a comparison cannot be made between the Christians and Muslims of Palestine against those of other nations. It must be made between those Christians and those Muslims against the Jews occupying Palestine. That's where you see that from one source alone, the official American aid to the 5.5 million Jews of Israel being 3.5 billion dollars; it amounts to a per capita of $636.37. This is more than three and a half times the $176 that the Palestinians receive. It is happening despite the fact that the per capita GDP of the Jews is said to be (true or false) something like 8 or 10 times that of the Palestinians.

So why are the Jews still complaining? They complain because despite all the hardware which they have to fight with, they encounter Palestinians who continue to resist them if only with their bare hands. And so, the Jewish reptilian brain has reasoned that if you starve these people, they may not be able to use their hands as effectively.

If this happens, it means that when the Jews will go with their tanks and their armored vehicles to kill their families and rob them of their possessions, the Palestinians won't be able to fight back as well. This is why the Jews want the world to help them starve the Palestinians.

Thus, we can expect to see Tzipi Hotovely continue to pull her entrails out of her belly till the world is convinced that it must let the Christians and Muslims of Palestine starve and be so weakened that the Jewish tanks and armored vehicles will have an easy time exterminating them.

NY Times paves the Way to implement 'Situation'

The “Situation” is a Jewish concept in social engineering they are experimenting with in occupied Palestine. Sooner or later the Jews will consider the concept to have been perfected, and will work to adapt it for a stealthy implementation in the Anglophile countries where they already have a leg up. That's because those countries have always tolerated the Jewish social experimentation.

Helping the Jews succeed in this endeavor, are the editors of the New York Times who already began to peddle the Jewish idea smoothly and insidiously. Their aim is both to gain America's blessing for the implementation of the concept in Palestine, and to pave the way for its implementation in the Anglophile nations. The editors did this much in the piece they wrote under the title: “The Fading Two-State Solution,” published on Jan. 23, 2016.

In Palestine, the Israelis are well on their way to having the experiment fully implemented. In fact, it was written about in the North American publications on several occasions, the last I know of being the article that the former ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren wrote under the title: “Israelis, Palestinians and the 'Two-State Situation,'” and the subtitle: “Instead of demanding what each side cannot do, we must ask what each side can do – and then make the most of it,” published on Feb. 25, 2015 in the Wall Street Journal.

But what exactly are the editors of the New York Times doing? Well, see for yourself. Look how they start the editorial: “Given the brittle relations between the Obama administration and Israel...” And look how they end it: “With only a year left in office, President Obama is unlikely to make another run at a peace process or even apply serious pressure on Israel to halt settlement-building.” With that, they signal what they wish to see happen by pretending it is what they predict will happen. It’s a trick as Jewish as matzoh bread.

But that's harking back to the old Judeo-Israeli demand that went this way: “Give us the tools and we'll do the job [of killing Arabs and Muslims.]” It is a plea for the Jewish lobby in America to make sure that come hell or high water, the Obama Administration will continue to give Israel unconditional diplomatic support worldwide, give it money, money, money and give it lethal weapons. And do all these things while asking for nothing in return – that's absolutely nothing in return.

But how do you renew a demand of that magnitude without setting off alarm bells that will shake the American Administration to its core? That's not to mention the echo that will reverberate all the way to a European Union which already thinks of Israel as a massive social laboratory not different from the biological one set up by Joseph Mengele where he determined that the Jews were an inferior race. The difference between Mengele and Israel's rulers, however, is that the latter have learned to avoid uttering words like those of Mengele by convincing the likes of Mitt Romney to say things for them in return for a million dollars.

And the way that the editors of the Times are renewing the old demand is by writing a seemingly balanced editorial while insidiously advancing the poisonous ideas that made it possible for the Jewish lobby to torpedo what could have been accomplished at Annapolis even before the current administration had taken office.

Thus, instead of starting the editorial by asserting that the occupation of Palestine is the problem we must end before considering anything else, the editors start with this: “Considering the relentless violence and attacks on Israel's very existence, Israelis are understandably [that's understandably] on high alert to defend themselves.”

And that, my friend, has always been the killer of sensible progress in Palestine. Every time that those words were uttered by American officials, the Jews pocketed the idea and walked away from everything else. But they continued to demand that America give Israel unconditional diplomatic support worldwide, give it money, money, money and give it lethal weapons. And do all these things while asking for nothing in return – that's absolutely nothing in return.

What they are doing now in Jewish occupied Palestine, is implement a system of governance in a one-state “situation” that looks Liberal and Democratic on the surface, but in reality sets the Jews as the permanent governing race, and the Palestinians as permanent subordinates.

Not coincidentally, this happens to be the model that the Old Testament is promising the Jews will happen not only in Palestine but in the whole world. It is also what the Jews are close to achieving in the “tolerant” Anglophile nations, having monopolized all the key institutions already.

And the Jews reckon that if they fully succeed in Palestine with America’s help and blessing, thus gain widespread recognition, they will be able to push the envelop further in the Anglophile world, and subordinate it like they do in occupied Palestine. Their dream is to pull this thing off so as not to repeat the blunder they once committed in the French Canadian Province of Quebec.

That's the time when they tried to Hebronize parts of the Province and link it to English Canada but were rebuffed like a leper. If, however, they succeed in Palestine, protected by the American umbrella, they will be given the entire Anglophile world to rule over as effectively as they now rule the American Congress.

Consequences of the Mother of all Swaps

I write this article in response to Benny Avni's column that came under the title: “Why Iran's thugs just took more hostages,” published on January 21, 2016 in the New York Post. This discussion is actually a continuation of what I started to parse in the previous article; that which came under the title: “Krauthammer gets the Swap Story all wrong”.

The point I made then was that the Republican President, Ronald Reagan began his tenure as President of the United States by conducting the biggest swap ever made by America with another country. The peculiarity of that swap, however, is that it did not involve the usual prisoner for prisoner exchange, but the release of American prisoners held in Iran in exchange for lethal American weapons stored in Israel.

The reason why it is necessary to recall this episode is that the folklore which arose about Reagan's herculean qualities in standing up to the vile enemies of America and winning by staring at them and talking tough – is delusional poppycock peddled by those who have no idea what they are talking about. The truth must be told to avoid feeding a cottage industry that is out there fabricating urban legends based on a legacy of Ronald Reagan he would be astonished to hear were he alive today.

A consequence of those legends is what we see in the current article by Benny Avni. His point is that Iran's thugs “just took more hostages” because the current President, Barack Obama did not stare at the Iranians and did not talk tough to them as Reagan would have done. Believe it or not, that is only a sample of the delusional poppycock which is endlessly fabricated and constantly peddled by the likes of the New York Post and the Fox News contributors who try to outdo each other at the business of inflating the Reagan legacy.

Avni has “connected the dots” and has speculated on a narrative that is based on what he calls “credible reports” to the effect that three American citizens were kidnapped and transferred by their captors to a city in Iraq that is ruled by an Iranian-backed Shiite militia. And this, in his view, makes it so that the culprit in all of this is none other than the American President, Barack Obama.

That is the case, he says, because Obama exchanged prisoners for prisoners with Iran instead of doing what Reagan would have done, which would be to stare at the Iranians, talk tough to them, and then ask the Israelis to ship lethal weapons to Iran. As can be seen, the delusional poppycock has now transformed into sheer right-wing madness.

But what did those credible reports say that convinced Benny Avni of the narrative he is peddling? He says the reports constitute “a dark story” told by the Iraqis. Here it is: “Two men and one woman were partying in an area described as a 'red light district.' The source speculated that the three had American passports … This turned them into a commodity and they became valuable.” That's why they were kidnapped, says Avni – well, make that, apparently so because he cannot be one hundred percent sure.

But was there a demand for an exchange of prisoners? No. Well then, was there a demand for a monetary ransom? No. So then, what? Then, the urban legend stands because urban legends do not need legs to stand on; they simply need to be told once and they live at perpetuity. Get it?

That point made with clarity, and because “US citizens are now held in an Iraqi area where Iran wields much influence,” Benny Avni and those like him feel free to perpetuate the myth that Barack Obama and John Kerry are the guilty parties in this whole affair. It is as simple as that.

What makes matters even worse in the eyes of the Avnis of this world is that the unfolding of the recent history is yielding consequences even more ominous than previously thought. Are you ready for them? Here they are:

“Now, in the eyes of American officials, Iran can do no wrong ... even if there was no direct order from Tehran, the kidnappers must have believed that their Iranian patrons would be pleased … whatever the reality, the new situation won't be resolved without Tehran's involvement … after all, the Islamic Republic has yet to shed old habits. The Guards or some proxy can always find new hostages to start the whole process anew.”

And the likes of Benny Avni will keep on creating and peddling urban legends that will never die.

Krauthammer gets the Swap Story all wrong

Charles Krauthammer wrote what may be described as an editorial spoof. Unhappy with the way that the Republicans have reacted to the America-Iran prisoner swap, he tells them to relax because there is a bright side to the story. He elaborates, and in so doing, the reader realizes that the author has seized on a trope, and he is milking it for all it is worth.

Krauthammer did that in the column he wrote under the title: “The GOP gets the Iran prisoner swap wrong,” published on January 21, 2016 in the Washington Post. He begins with the premise that the swap is a sideshow, which makes it that the Republican preoccupation with it is unwarranted. In fact, he says, “the near-simultaneous exchange was meant to distract from the sanctions-lifting deal.”

To call the event a sideshow means that it was stage-managed by the White House. And this could not be done without the cooperation of Iran, the other partner in this enterprise. Furthermore, because this is not simply a stage play meant to entertain but a matter of importance to the national security of the United States, staging such a sideshow must have risen to the level of conspiracy in the mind of the writer. To him, this is more than comical burlesque; it could be as serious as a life-and-death situation.

The author must have reasoned that because it is a conspiracy involving the White House and Iran, it must be that the performance was meant to serve the political designs of the White House or hurt those of the Republicans … or it could be much worse. If you want to know what Krauthammer thinks, here is what he says about the swap: “cleverly used by the administration to create a heartwarming human interest story to overshadow a rotten diplomatic deal, just as the Alan Gross release sweetened a Cuba deal that gave the store away to the Castro brothers.”

Not only does he say that the Administration gave away some sort of store to the Iranians, he accuses it of recidivism, having staged a similar piece of theater with Cuba's Castro brothers on a previous occasion. And this is the point at which we must pause to ask if this is recidivism or a normal kind of activity whose nature calls for simultaneous exchanges that end up looking like conspiracies.

The fact is that there are plenty of examples in which this kind of simultaneous exchanges happened between parties that did not trust each other. We would have to go to the Cold War era to find them … the example of Natan Sharansky being one that Krauthammer himself has cited. But there is also something that should disturb the Republican crowd that our author is trying to calm.

Here is what happened as I remember the history – leaving it to others to research it in depth, and perhaps correct me on a few minor points. The late Republican President Ronald Reagan who was running to be President had been negotiating secretly with the Iranians for them to release the embassy employees that were held hostage for more than 400 days already.

The two parties reached an agreement several days before the first inaugural of Reagan, and the Iranians were prepared to release the hostages right there and then. No, said Reagan, keep the hostages locked up a few more days, and release them on the day of my inauguration. Whoa! Did you get that?

The hostages had been locked up more than 400 days already, and the newly elected Republican President, Ronald Reagan tells the Iranians to keep them locked up a few more days so as to give him the chance to stage a theatrical splash on his inauguration day. What a big heart! What a fine example of Republican value system!

What do you say to that Charles Krauthammer? What do you say to that, all of you Republicans out there? Is Reagan a hero, and Obama a zero? Or is it the other way around? Say it loudly, Republicans: Barack Obama is a hero, and Ronald Reagan was a zero.

How do you like the sound of those lyrics? Look at your glass house the next time you feel the urge to throw stones at someone. You may wish to restrain yourselves.

The Albatross around America's Neck

The two principles “meritocracy” and “the quest for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” cannot be separated. To have one you must have the other. If you lose one; you lose the other.

And so, if you seek to implement one of the principles anywhere in the world, you must also seek to implement the other. This is what you should want for your friends; it is also what you should want for your enemies if you can convince them to change their ways and adopt your way of life.

Of course, if someone is your enemy and you are locked in a battle with him, you do what you can to deprive him of what he is pursuing. It also means that you try to deny him obtaining what he merits getting as reward for his talent and for the effort he exerts to improve his condition.

If you manage to turn an enemy into a friend, you end the effort to deprive him of what is due to him. In fact, this was the policy that the United States of America used to pursue following its World War II victories. And this is why America was loved, respected and honored everywhere in the world. But then something evil happened. It is that America was infiltrated by the Jews, and things turned for the worse.

Much has been written on this website regarding the Jewish influence on American politics locally, and American diplomacy on the international stage. There is now the opportunity to study another aspect of that influence; the effort that's exerted on America's culture. The occasion is an editorial that came under the title: “Obama's no-win situation on Iran nuke deal,” published on January 21, 2016 in the New York Daily News.

This piece of work is a classic example of how the Jews slander innocent people. They do it by imagining the worst about their victims, and laying out their vision as if it were an established fact. In this case, they are painting the Iranians as the devil that will not change now or ever. To sound convincing, they fragment the known facts relating to the matter that's being discussed, and conveniently select the parts that will work for them. This done, they use those parts to construct arguments that lead to the conclusions they envisaged at the start.

Here is an example. First, the editors attack President Obama for saying that the pact with Iran closes every path to the bomb. No, they say, “the pact extends the breakout time only from a few months to a year.” Despite the fact that this point represents only a fragment of the pact, they discuss it as if it were the entire pact. They go from there to discuss other things, then return to the same point and select another fragment. This one: “The nuclear deal handcuffs Iran for just a decade.” And they attack Obama for that too, making no attempt to link the two fragments they brought up so far.

But when you put the two fragments together, you realize that they say Iran's path to the bomb has been put off from a few months to at least a decade. Well, this may not mean that the path to the bomb has been cut off for ever, but it comes closer to what Obama had said it will do. And that's not even the whole story because the editors neglected to mention the fragments that would have completed the picture. It is that international inspectors will monitor everything that the Iranians do in the nuclear field; from the mining of uranium up the supply chain to its use in the production of electric power.

Had the editors of the New York Daily News painted a complete picture of reality rather than fragment it and attack the fragments they selected, they would have had no choice but to conclude what Obama had concluded. They would not have attacked him for “imagining that within 10 years the mullahs will be members in good standing of the world community;” they would have affirmed that prediction.

Unfortunately, however, that's precisely what they wanted to avoid saying because they wish to deny the Iranians what is rightfully theirs ... such as the billions of dollars that were frozen. And that's because they fear that “each dollar will bolster Iran as a regional power to the disadvantage of Israel.”

What panicked the editors is this: “Obama has led the world into a new era of Western relations with Iran. The mullahs are closer to regional domination than before.” In fact, they want Israel to be that – not Iran. Thus, they want America to act against its own principle of promoting meritocracy by denying the Iranians their version of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

In so doing, the Jewish editors do not worry about the consequences of their machinations. That's because they could not care less about robbing America of the love, respect and honor that the world wishes to bestow on that country again. To the Jewish editors, it is Israel, always Israel and no one but Israel.

And so, it can only be concluded that as long as the Jews are allowed to continue playing their game at the expense of America, Israel shall remain the albatross that's weighing heavily around its neck.

Jewish Game infecting America's Culture

This discussion is about fairness and legality on the international stage. However, before we get into the main topic, we need to flesh out an idea. And the best way to do this is to give an example.

Suppose a serious dispute erupts between two American States or two Canadian Provinces or an American State and a Canadian Province. Can any one of these jurisdictions insist that its courts have the exclusive right or even the moral authority to adjudicate the dispute? Of course not.

What happens normally is that the aggrieved State or Province sues the alleged culprit in the courts of the culprit. But if there is a treaty between the two nations, and a dispute arises on a matter covered by the treaty, a tribunal composed of jurists from both nations is convened to adjudicate the case.

In the past, when it came to international disputes involving the United States, the Administration went to the appropriate international tribunals and had the disputes settled there. And then one day, the Jews ran out of money – having milked Germany for all the “compensation” money they could get – and so they looked for compensation somewhere else. The trouble is that no Nuremberg sort of tribunal had been set-up to put the squeeze on someone the way that it did on the Germans. This being the case, what's a Jew to do?

Well, the Jews that had trained the American Congress to bark when signaled to do so, sent out a signal to let it be known that they wanted a law permitting them to sue in America someone like Switzerland, for example, asking to be compensated for damages they suffered during World War II. And the Congress of the United States barked exactly as instructed, and geared itself to extort money from the Swiss to give to the Jews.

For this primitive coup to succeed, the operations of the Swiss banks in America were held hostage. Either the Swiss agree to pay what the Brooklyn courts had ordered, or their assets in America will be confiscated. And the banks may be ordered to stop doing business in the country altogether. That, my friend, was the incident that allowed a slippery slop for the proliferation of similar actions, to take root in America.

A consequence of that is a case that involves Iran. It is discussed in the editorial which came under the title: “American Tax Dollars for the Mullahs” and the subtitle: “Tehran gets more cash while its U.S. victims get nothing.” It was published on January 21, 2016 in the Wall Street Journal.

Two formulations you encounter in that editorial tell you there is in it a heavy Jewish influence. One formulation appears in the first paragraph. It is this: “Iran's Supreme Leader has good reason to be happy.” In fact, this is the method by which the Jews gauge if something is good or bad for them. Because they know they hate the Supreme Leader ... to see him happy says that the nuclear deal he concluded with the world must have been a bad thing for the Americans to have negotiated.

The other formulation is an ambiguity of the kind that is committed by Jews when they try to have it both ways ... which is most of the time. Here is how they cooked up the current ambiguity: “the Administration agreed to pay $1.7 billion to settle a claim dating to the 1970s.” They explain: “That amount includes a $400 million trust fund, plus $1.3 billion in interest.” They complain: “The $1.3 billion will come from U.S. taxpayers.” Because of this, another argument can now be injected into the debate. It is this: “it happens that $1.7 billion is also the amount at issue in a case brought by Americans against the Central Bank of Iran.”

What happened here? What happened is that $400 million that grow at a compounded interest of 3.5 to 4 percent a year will reach the value of $1.7 billion after about four decades. That's because the money does not sit idle in the bank vault. It is invested, and he who has it reaps the benefit. When the time comes to return it, the entire profit – or at least a part of it – is returned with the principal. That's what happened in this case.

What it means is that the $1.3 billion is as much Iran's money as the $400 million. It is not taxpayers' money. The editors of the Wall Street Journal lie to their readers when they say it is. Even a Jew knows that. But the Jew will lie shamelessly and deliberately if he believes he can gain something he is not entitled to. And this is the depth to which the Wall Street Journal sinks when it is influenced by Jews.

Too bad. The Journal used to be a respected publication.

Defending a Democracy they don't understand

Clifford D. May says he is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Would it not be nice if he knew what democracy is?

Oh yes, all sorts of abstract political definitions have been attributed to that concept. But what does it mean in real-life organic terms? That question pops up in the mind when reading May's latest column: “The threat to America's national existence,” which also came under the subtitle: “That's not the only threat the United States should be worrying about.” It was published on January 19, 2016 in The Washington Times.

He says basically this: Forget what I've been saying about a bunch of Muslim kids armed with stolen guns and a few vehicles threatening the existence of America in a military sense. I must now admit they could not do that. But let me assure you that they can threaten America's existence in another way.

And so he sets out to tell the story of rowdy, drunken men who were celebrating New Year’s Eve somewhere in Germany. He says this: “there were hundreds of acts of violence and sexual assault against women … Local politicians at first tried to cover up what happened. Most media adopted a don't-ask-don't-tell attitude. Little by little, however, details have been emerging.”

So you want to know the details, and where they came from. Well, as it happens, there is a little snag here. It is that he cannot tell you what the German politicians or their media gave out because, like he said, they gave out nothing. But he can tell you what the American Wall Street Journal wrote. And he can tell you what the American New York Times wrote.

What they wrote were not individual stories that can be verified, but sweeping generalizations of the kind that the Jewish propaganda machine puts out to bounce off the walls of the echo chamber till they become entrenched in the folkloric quackery which passes as truth these days.

So you discard the whole thing as another Jewish attempt to stir anti-Arab and anti-Muslim hatred because, by their own admission, there are six times as many anti-Jewish acts in America as there are anti-Muslim acts. And because the Jews wish to balance things out, they seize on every occasion to stir up hatred for the other side.

Having cleared the table of the Jewish garbage that was cluttering it, you now wonder what kind of democracy this guy Clifford May believes he is defending. He mentioned acts of harassment committed against women on New Year’s Eve in the open air in full view of hundreds of men, of other women and a police contingent that was composed of men and women. Does that threaten the existence of Germany? Of Europe? Of America?

Does he subscribe to the old view that women are so fragile they need to be protected by men like himself? No wonder there are those in America who do not understand why the “feminists” do not get mad at a womanizer like say, Bill Clinton, but get mad at the men who lock their own daughters in the basement and abuse them. And why they get mad at the men who kidnap young girls off the street to lock-up in the basement and use as sex slaves for decades.

Clifford D. May, and all those like him ought to read the book, and ought to watch the series titled “The Ascent of Man,” authored by the late Jacob Bronowski. He says at the end that the most democratic act committed by nature was to make it so that the human male and the human female copulate face to face. To him this was nature's way to make both genders are equal. And this, my friend, is real-life organic democracy, unlike the fake political democracies that May and all those like him say they are defending.

If that is not enough to drive the point into his thick skull, he may consult the lyrics of Helen Reddy's “I Am Woman” where it says: “I am woman, hear me roar … No one's ever gonna keep me down again … Oh yes I am wise … If I have to, I can do anything, I am strong, I am invincible … you can bend but never break me … And I come back even stronger … till I make my brother understand.”

Do you now understand, all of you Cliffords out there? Just mind your own business and let the universe unfold as it pleases. It does not need you.

The Finger, the Arm and the learning Curve

The finger and the arm in the title refer to the saying “Give them a finger and they'll want an arm.” It is a version of the slippery slope analogy. It means that you must not be generous or lenient with some people. If you're generous, they'll ask for more, and never stop asking till they suck you dry. If you're lenient, they'll take advantage of you and stir up mayhem that will wear you out.

As to the learning curve in the title, it refers to the aptitude that people have to learn from experience; to the amount of knowledge they can absorb and the speed at which they can absorb it. Thoughts relating to these subjects were prompted by the piece that came under the title: “Unfair Exchange with Tehran,” an editorial that appeared in National Review Online (NRO) on January 19, 2016.

The piece discusses the implementation of the nuclear deal that six nations, including the United States of America, negotiated with Iran on behalf of humanity. The editors express their apprehension about the manner in which the deal began to be implemented, and then say the following near the end of their presentation: “That is a precedent that other hostile regimes are sure to exploit.”

This view implies that America, her friends and her allies are the angelic parties who will be exploited by the demonic hostile regimes who will get on the slippery slope of asking for an arm every time they are given a finger. Well, if you do research in the pantheon of punditry that was published during the past half century, you'll find that similar accusations were made incessantly by Jews, made exclusively by them, and always leveled against the targets they chose to hate for the day.

But when you exit that pantheon, and you get into the history of Jewish accretions in America, you find that the Jews were the ones who asked for – in fact, demanded – more and more of what America was generous enough to give away when it could. But when circumstances changed and America could only afford to give away less than before or nothing at all, you'll find that a parallel pantheon came into being. In it, you'll hear the incessant howling that the Jews let out at America, accusing her of abandoning Israel, and telling her what to do next.

That would be the howling of pundits demanding that America cut its domestic spending to have the resources that are called for to finance the schemes serving Israel and the other Jewish causes. You'll take this as a sign which shows that if you give the Jew a finger, you establish yourself as a convert to the principle that's fed to Jews with their mothers' milk. It is a principle that says: if a Jew sees something and covets it, the thing instantly becomes his property by divine edict. And if you, the convert, own the thing but refuse to release it, you become an apostate, thus deserve to be punished harshly.

A repeated implementation of that principle throughout the decades has established an umbilical cord linking the resources of America to the black hole of Jewish avarice. With time, the cord got larger and larger because the Jews kept sucking on it harder and harder. This development paralyzed America so effectively, the country surrendered to all sorts of Jewish dictates. Among these was the idea that America must demand guarantee of outcome for negotiations it did not yet begin.

That being a Jewish absurdity, no one in the world bought it and America was forced to drop it. Instead of dropping it too, the Jewish pundits and their echo repeaters turned it into a regular criticism they level at the Administration when it fails to extract from others what would benefit Israel. Here is how they express that habit in the current editorial: “The release of four prisoners from Iranian custody … should have been a sine qua non of any negotiations.” Why? Because “the regime in Tehran used them [prisoners] to extort further concessions.”

And the NRO editors elaborate on that: “the failure to demand the release as a starting point for negotiations enabled Iran to extract favorable terms for it, securing not only its frozen assets, but Iranians imprisoned in the United States.” Thus, in the Jewish culture, when you hold on to money that someone left in your custody, and he gets it back through negotiation, it is like he used extortion to extract the money from you. What can be more asinine and more Jewish than that?

But what about the learning curve? Well, the Jews have been at it for thousands of years, and once again are demonstrating they cannot learn a thing. With a learning curve that is as flat as a horizontal line, it takes them an eternity to learn nothing, advancing as they do at the speed of a tree sloth.

Playing the Antisemitism Card and losing

When the editors of a publication say that: “the Methodists make investments in Israeli companies, and have rejected resolutions to divest from the Jewish state fully,” and then say that the Methodists have “joined the anti-Semitic movement” because they harbor “loathsome bias,” you know these editors have an agenda that does not include combating antisemitism. And you conclude, it must be that they have a whacky kind of agenda.

The above quotes are but a small part of what appears in the editorial that came under the title: “A madness to the Methodists, targeted at Israel.” It was published on January 18, 2016 in the New York Daily News.

Those editors are expressing nonsense because they want the world to believe that to blacklist five Israeli banks – from among the hundreds of companies that operate in Israel – for failing “to meet human rights investment guidelines” is a loathsome expression of antisemitism. And the effect of this, in their view, must be that the Methodists are actively seeking to bring about the next holocaust so as to realize the Final Solution. This approach is not new; it is what they used to say to intimidate the people who refused to obey them.

Things are changing, and that approach is becoming useful to them again. That's because it is the kind of reasoning that will allow the rabbis and other Jewish leaders to shut everybody up the way they did at the start of their conquest of America. Doing this, they were able to monopolize the debates; to keep everybody out and infiltrate the key institutions of the American Republic, turning them into units that operated exclusively in the service of Israel and the Jewish causes. All that happened at the expense of the American people who were relegated to the status of silent potted plants of the liberal democratic flavor.

The aftermath was that a generation of Americans grew up in a climate that did not question, much less oppose, the supremacy of the Jews. In fact, every little boy and every little girl that heard their Christian pastor say that the Jew was the new Jesus they ought to love, and the new God they must worship – dreamed of being able to befriend a Jew they can serve obediently and faithfully thus become a good Christian.

But then, the Christian leaders began to wake up to the reality that the rabbis and the other Jewish operatives were not individuals protecting the rights of a minority as they claimed. They realized that the rabbis and those Jews were cogs in a colossal machine that was run by a program written long ago. Its prime directive is to forge ahead and stop at nothing till the Jews have succeeded in their quest to establish a complete and absolute form of dominion over all aspects of American life.

That realization prompted church leaders to look anew at history and geography ... this time through a magnifying glass. They discovered that the Jews have been playing that program for hundreds of years, and were punished for it gruesomely at times, throughout time and everywhere they went on the planet.

As to geography, the Christians discovered that the Jewish program for America does not stop at the water's edge but extends to other places around the world, especially Palestine where the Jews commit unspeakable crimes against humanity using American weapons. Moreover, these people – called settlers – are financed with American money, and given American protection both physically and diplomatically. It is that the Christian kids who grew up dreaming to be of service to Jews are now getting elected to the Federal Congress and State Legislatures from where they serve their Israeli Jesus, and worship their Israeli God the way they were taught.

Some churches, such as the United Methodist Church, came to realize that to continue doing normal business with Israel was to participate in the ongoing crime against humanity that is the occupation of Palestine. They tried to communicate these thoughts to the Israelis and to their Jewish and non-Jewish enablers in America, but doing so was like talking to a wall.

Tired, the church leaders began to take small actions in the belief that they will be more effective than words. However, instead of the Jews getting the message, they accused the Christians of joining “the anti-Semitic movement to isolate Israel from the world community,” as expressed in the editorial of the New York Daily News.

The lesson to be learned is that the Jews are proving once again they are a hopeless bunch. This means you have no choice but to do what you must while relegating them to the status of noisy potted plants of the Jewish authoritarian flavor.

Two opposing Views on Business & Investment

Oil prices are coming down, and worries about what happens next, fill the air. Gone is the jingoistic talk that had reached its high point a year ago when most pundits saw the phenomenon as a triumph of American ingenuity over the monopolistic tendencies of the OPEC cartel.

Instead of seeing the drop in the value of oil as an ongoing price war between the OPEC producers of conventional oil, and the American producers of shale oil – obtained with the use of the fracking technology – the pundits attributed the drop in prices to the latter's effort to challenge the supremacy of OPEC. They declared victory for their side, and thought that the challenge ended then and there. But boy, they were wrong!

Now, a year later, the pundits are singing a more somber tune. They see that many of the “frackers” are fracking no more. They see their employees given the pink slips, and their equipment sold at fire sale prices. They realize that hard times are here for the oil patch, and have no idea when things may turn around.

With this side of the equation dissolving before their eyes, the pundits have turned their attention to the other side of the equation; the members of OPEC. Two editorials in this regard are worth looking at. The first came under the title: “Saudi Arabia's Dollar Sense” and the subtitle: “Tough choices now are better than a crisis of confidence later.” It was published in the Wall Street Journal on January 14, 2016. The second came under the title: “When Oil-Rich Countries Need More Cash,” published in the New York Times on January 17, 2016.

The two editorials focus on Saudi Arabia, the biggest OPEC producer, though the New York Times mentions the other players too, if only in passing. In a nutshell, the concern of the Times's editors comes down to this:

“Falling oil revenues will increase the need for producers to raise money by selling their investments … The sums involved are huge … Most of the $7.2 trillion in sovereign-wealth funds is from nations that rely on oil and gas to sustain their economies … they pulled out an estimated $100 billion … the IMF warned that interest rates could be forced up if sovereign funds began to sell their bond holdings. An official said that asset sales [and a run on] those funds could cause large price movements.”

The editors of the Times see the problem getting worse, and so they hint at a possible solution. We shall get to it in a moment. Meanwhile, the editors of the Wall Street Journal look at the same subject but from a different angle. They see a situation that is entirely different, thus hint at something that is altogether different. Here, in a nutshell, is what they say:

“Kudos to Riyadh for sticking to its smart, maintaining the riyal at 3.75 to the dollar … Investors have speculated that Riyadh might be forced to abandon the peg. The immediate problem is fiscal, with the budget deficit hitting some 15% of gross domestic product … important are the fiscal reforms the government is undertaking. The 2016 budget cuts spending by 14% compared to 2015.”

In other words, when the deficit reached 15%, the Saudis cut spending by a comparable 14%. The WSJ editors saw wisdom in this, and responded by congratulating the Saudis for “Riyadh's willingness to make cuts and reassure investors.” They explain: “This entails tough choices, such as reductions in subsidies and delays in public works ... Pain from reforms is more bearable than instability from lost investor confidence in a devaluation … it's a relief when a government resists devaluation in favor of stable money and domestic reform.” Who can argue against that?

Now to the possible solution that's hinted at by the editors of the New York Times. First they complain that the Saudis and the Russians maintain their market share by flooding the world with cheap oil. They go on to explain: “Those dynamics are unfolding without the transparency that investors and policy makers need … efforts to create disclosure rules on sovereign wealth funds have had limited success … financial regulators opted not to impose heightened standards on asset managers that handle sovereign wealth, thus precluding the chance to monitor the funds by monitoring their managers.”

It looks like the editors of the Wall Street Journal know something in business and investment that the editors of the New York Times do not. It is that serious long time investors do not need frequent minutia information to make good investment decisions. They look at a long time strategy such as the one devised by the Saudis and feel comfortable with it. They like the stability it brings to the market, thus bet on it because they want their portfolio to be handled by stable hands, operating in a stable market reflecting a stable economy.

On the other hand, fast-buck artists like the split-second high frequency traders who speculate on the minute by minute movement of stocks, are the ones who need a continuous stream of minutia information to beat everyone else at getting into a stock and out of it before the others have had the time to digest the information.

They do not care about the economy because what they need to make a profit is a market that's undergoing large swings in prices. They interact with it and cause the bubbles that lead to crashes and ultimately to economic recessions.

So kudos to the Wall Street Journal, and darts to the New York Times on this subject.