A double Standard to judge the Standard of others

Jonathan Zimmerman wrote a bizarre article. It is of the kind that says these people have reached the end of the run with their current approach, and were groping in search for a way to create another approach they hope will serve them in the era they see forming ahead.

The article came under the title: “The double standard on terrorism justifications” and the subtitle: “Why do we go out of our way to explain the causes of Islamist terrorism and never do the same for white right-wing domestic terrorism?” It was published on March 28, 2016 in the New York Daily News.

As bizarre as this piece of work may sound, we can begin to understand what the author is trying to accomplish with it. But for this to happen, we need to recall how the current approach was constructed in the first place. What follows is a brief history of that.

Year after year, we heard the social engineers who had put themselves in charge of the culture, repeat the same refrain: it is a relief to know that the crime which resulted in a number of dead people was a senseless act of destruction committed by an assailant that had no political motive or anything like that.

When asked why a potential victim should prefer to die a motive-free death than die at the hand of someone that's motivated by a belief of some kind, those in charge answered that a senseless act rewards only the assailant who gets pleasure committing a crime, whereas the act that's motivated by ideology, hands a victory to the perpetrator who then grows in stature and spreads his hateful ideology widely.

And then the New Conservatives rose to prominence in America and counseled the captains of the ship of state they should adopt their Neocon ideology and turn the country into the policeman of the world. Foolishly, the captains said it was good idea, and went ahead implementing it. But the locals everywhere in the world didn't like the idea whereupon the young among them became so incensed, they banded into groups and fought against what they saw as American intruders masquerading as policemen.

In fact, the locals did not consider the foreign intruders to be policemen doing police work; they considered them invaders that came to wage war on their way of life and their religion. The clashes between the American military and the local Arab and Muslim populations escalated, the destruction became widespread, and all sorts of people, each having a different agenda, joined the resistance fighting the Americans.

This is the point at which the Neocons borrowed the Israeli approach, and came up with the idea of calling “terrorists” the locals who fought against the American intruders. They painted a picture in which American soldiers such as those responsible for Abu Ghraib as being outstanding young men and women who were over there fighting a noble war against Arab and Muslim terrorists that hated America not for what it was doing to their homeland but because America was free and they hated freedom.

The Neocon propaganda machine came up with another distinction by which to contrast the two sides in the conflict. They described the Americans as being so human, they were deeply affected by the war and became susceptible to going berserk. If and when they committed infractions, they did so because they were human, after all, which meant they were not responsible for their actions.

By contrast, the Arabs who saw their homes blown up by bombs falling from the sky, and saw their families turned into piles of dismembered body parts … well, these people could never have gone berserk. If and when they responded to the horror that came to them from abroad, they did so deliberately and were therefore responsible for their actions. Which is why they were described as hated characters that must be treated as such.

The bizarre nature of Zimmerman's dissertation begins at this point: “We view Muslims who kill as products of a toxic environment, which helps explain their poisonous acts. But we're less likely to account for white terrorism in that fashion because, well, whites are more privileged … Never mind that suicides and drug overdoses among middle-aged white Americans have been climbing”.

In other words, young Muslims are bad because they commit deliberate poisonous acts in self defense, whereas Middle-aged white Americans should be excused because they get stoned, and don't know what they are doing.

The rest of the article should give you a good indication as to how the new formulation will take shape in the future.

The Ted Cruz Fixation and other Obsessions

Replying to criticism that was leveled against what he had said with regard to patrolling Muslim neighborhoods in America, Senator Ted Cruz wrote an article that was published under the headline: “Ted Cruz replies to Bill Bratton on NYPD's demographics unit and the fight against Jihadist terrorism,” and appeared on March 28, 2016 in the New York Daily News.

The two debaters made their points with clarity, and I have no desire to interfere with that. Having gone through the sayings of Ted Cruz, my intent is to discuss what he may have revealed about his own state of mind. In doing so, I take into account the background against which Cruz's mind is operating at this time. It is that he is involved in a heated campaign to be elected president of the United States, and he is running against an opponent that gives back as much as he receives – doing so in spades, and then some.

That opponent is also a wealthy man having the means to finance his own campaign. By contrast, Ted Cruz relies on the donations of individuals who became wealthy, not by giving away politico-charitable donations, but by demanding a hefty quid pro quo for every dollar they lay out. And no one – I mean absolutely no one – plays this game more cunningly than the Jews. Among them is the gambling mogul named Sheldon Adelson who is considered the patriarch of Jewish fanaticism. He is known to move mountains for every inch of land that the Jews dare to snatch from the Palestinians, be it by hook or by crook.

It is the wealth of that man which is obsessing Ted Cruz; it is where Cruz's attention is fixated; it is the motivation that's animating his brain and his mouth. In fact, what Ted Cruz has said about patrolling Muslim neighborhoods in America is exactly what Sheldon Adelson expects from someone relying on his financial contributions.

To be clear, I never understood how someone can be obsessed or fixated about a concept as abstract as quid pro quo. It was four decades ago that I was introduced to the idea for the first time. It happened when the vogue infesting the media was to say that the late President Richard Nixon had an “anal fixation.” I didn't know what that was at the time, and I don't believe I fully understand what it is even now. But I came across a few things that may shed some light on the subject – or may not. Here they are anyway:

First, I saw a piece of writing that said zebras and wild jackasses walk in line – one behind the other – because they are genetically programmed to train their eyes on the rear end of the one that's ahead of them. It could be that this is a form of anal fixation.

Second, I saw a piece of writing that said most animals in the wild leave their scent around a territory they claim as their own. Some animals have special glands that produce a scent they rub against a twig or a rock. Other animals urinate or defecate in and around the territory to leave their scent there. Still other species of animals rub their rear end against the grass to mark it with their scent. Maybe this too is a from of anal fixation.

Third, I had the opportunity to study the mentality of politicians who sit at the helm of so-called democracies … America being one of these. Some of the politicians say and do the assholish thing of talking about subjects they do not differentiate from their assholes. They soon discover they have been silly, and then spend a lifetime trying to locate their assholes to find out what made them act in such a stupid manner. Maybe this too is a form of anal fixation.

Fourth, I have studied, and I continue to study the journey of tons of politicians as they gradually develop an obsession for the donating moguls whose ass they die to kiss. I am almost certain that the phenomenon has something to do with these characters having caught the affliction of anal fixation.

I am convinced this is the stage at which Ted Cruz is now operating. However, the concern ought not to be about him; it ought to be about the children he professes to protect from the sleaze of other politicians. They too may be sleazy, but they are no better and no worse than him. They are his peers after all, his equals and his comrades in arms.

As to his own children and those of America, nothing will rob them of their humanity as they grow up seeing their father on his knees with eyes fixated on the Jewish ass of Sheldon Adelson, trying to kiss it so as to fulfill his part of the quid pro quo.

Public Enemy number one acting as expected

Not many individuals get to be called public enemy number one. That's because to earn the honor, one has to be a hugely horrific character, having committed crimes so intense, they surpass the ability of a well-adjusted normal human being to commit them.

If despite all that, someone earns the designation and is so named, you can predict how he'll react to society's view of him. He'll issue excuses and explanations that paint him as innocent victim of a society that harbors so much unwarranted hate towards him; it must be condemned for its criminal approach to handling his case.

As stated, the rule is that only a few individuals fill that profile. And when it comes to a group of people being so honored, the number shrinks even further: the Third Reich and the aspiring Islamic State being two. But watch out because an old group has again risen. It is one whose horrific accomplishments surpass those two put together.

The new/old group consists of the Jews who aspire to create a Jewish State. The difference between them and any calamity that has plagued the planet since the beginning of time is that they adhere to a religion they constructed with building blocks – each of which is a crime all by itself. In their “wisdom,” the Jews compiled all those crimes and published them in a book they call the Old Testament.

Aside from the trail of murder and mayhem that the Jews left behind everywhere they roamed in antiquity, during the Middle Ages and in more recent times, they are currently occupying the nation of Palestine. It is a place where they hunt young men and women, shoot them in cold blood and harvest their internal organs which they sell on the worldwide underground market they set-up for this purpose and for other equally hideous purposes.

This is the sort of conduct that made the group known as Jews, public enemy number one. They have been that and nothing else since the dawn of human history, throughout the ages and up to our times. No one on this planet – be it in the northern part, the southern part, the eastern part or the western part – could stomach the antics of these people for too long. Time after time, one after the other, well-adjusted members of the human race have wanted to exterminate the Jews the way they exterminated any common infestation.

And now, the entire human race has come together – at the United Nations and in other forums – trying to solve what some have referred to as “the Jewish problem.” They want to do it without resorting to the old style mass extermination of what the people of the Earth continue to regard as Jewish eternal misfits.

But guess how the Jews are responding to that act of human generosity. See for yourself. You can do that by studying the Pittsburgh Tribune's editorial which came under the title “Rights' travesty,” published on March 27, 2016. And you can do it by studying the article which came under the title: “The Always Reliable United nations,” written by Elliott Abrams and published on March 28, 2016 in National Review Online.

Here is what the Jewish editors of the Pittsburgh Tribune say about a United Nation of human beings trying to give them a new lease on life:

“How pathetic that this club of the world recognizes it has little to celebrate. The council had reached the point of absurdity. A new council was hailed as a new beginning for the promotion and protection of human rights … Today's members don't exactly rise to that challenge. But they'll focus inordinate attention on the primary target of their disdain: Israel”.

In other words, the editors of the Pittsburgh Tribune are telling the human race to go shove it. As to Elliott Abrams, he says this:

“The United Nations, always hating Israel, has done it again … The selection has been made: It is Michael Lynk … these hate-Israel jobs are important … He blames disregard by Western nations for the international rule of law. He condemns Israel for war crimes. He used to think the critical date in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict was 1967, the start of the occupation. Now he thinks that the solution to the problem must go back to 1948, the start of ethnic cleansing. In other words, Israel's mere existence is a harbinger of ethnic cleansing and other crimes.”

Not a sign can be detected in what these people say or do that would indicate they understand they must make an effort to live harmoniously with human beings; something they can achieve as individuals by toning down their bent to play dishonest games, and by ending their streak to intrude into other people's lives.

As a group, they can also cease being public enemy number one, something they can achieve by getting Israel to end the occupation of Palestine.

America paying for Israeli Lawlessness

Think about it, for several decades America has professed to stand for the rule of law. Her leaders have repeatedly said it is the only system that allows for the peaceful interaction between individuals, groups of people and the nations of the Earth.

For this reason, America gave herself the right to police the world and deter the nations, groups and individuals who might be tempted to violate the lofty principles which flow from the rule of law. Furthermore, America's leaders have repeatedly promised that if the deterrence is challenged by an aggressor who would violate those principles, they will not hesitate to bear any burden and come to the defense of those who are afflicted by the lawlessness of those who afflict them.

In addition, America has throughout the decades, lectured to the world that when disputes arise between individuals, groups of people or nations, the way to resolve such disputes would be to adhere to the process that is designated by the law.

And then the Jews infested America, and bedlam ensued. How did that happen?

It took the Jews three generations to position themselves at the helm of key institutions from where they took control of the military and financial powers of America, her prestige in the world and her influence among the nations of the Earth. Secure in their positions, they put down one overarching rule: All that America has enshrined with regard to the rule of law applies to everyone except Israel which remains above the law. This edict is definitive; to question it will be regarded as peddling antisemitism. For punishment, the questioner will be ruined professionally and financially, and made to disappear from the public square. End of discussion.

Not only did the Jews end the discussion in America; they tried to export their crime to the rest of the world. Of course, they used America's financial and military powers to get there as well as her prestige, influence and the veto power at the UN Security Council. They also tried – but thankfully failed – to convince the world it should accept that Israel be armed to the teeth and allowed to do what it wants while occupying a Palestine whose population was forbidden from owning any means of self defense. America closed its eyes to Israel's crimes; the world refused to stare at evil and yet see no evil.

Faced with a beastly situation that came about with the marriage of America's power and the satanic ideology of the Jews, the people of Palestine had no choice but to start the process of having their case adjudicated in accordance with the rule of law. That's when the edict stating that Israel was above the law kicked in and kept impeding the wheel of justice ... all this happened under American protection and encouragement.

Seeing that the Jews had succeeded at forcing America to play the demonic game of maintaining, promoting and spreading the principles of Jewish supremacy, the nations of the world chose to confront the situation peacefully. They told Israel they will not deal with her till she ends the occupation of Palestine. The Jews responded to that decision, and it is in this response that the full force of Judaism's bestiality can be assessed.

You will see how all this comes together when you read “Promoting peace or assaulting Israel?” an article that was written by Ziva Dahl and published on March 27, 2016 in the New York Daily News. The article also came under the lengthy subtitle: “The Rockefeller Brothers Fund supports groups that encourage or participate in the BDS movement”.

The horrifically diseased mentality of the writer jumps at you at the start of the article. Look at this: “The BDS movement which singles out the Jewish State among all nations continues to gather steam.” This is like a bank robber complaining that of the two million people who live in the city, the police singled him out for apprehension.

You conclude that this guy's brain is so badly mutilated he cannot see the cause and effect relationship which exists between robbing a bank and being apprehended. Likewise, the Jews can do no better than a rat when trying to judge if Israel's occupation of Palestine is causing the world to distance itself from Israel. The truth is that when it comes to logic, the Jews have gone well beyond the threshold of hopelessness.

Now that you have come to the edge of the Jewish cesspool and got a glimpse of what's in it, you refuse to learn more about these people. You back off in disgust, having decided that you have no interest in discovering what else makes the Jews tick.

You walk away having learned how America became the defender of Jewish lawlessness while lecturing to the world about a rule of law it buried deep inside the Jewish cesspool of horror and endless wars.

America is asked to drink from a Witches' Brew

The punch bowl is neither sweet nor alcoholic but demonic. It was prepared by the witches and warlocks of Zion, and readied for America to drink it.

The ingredients and secret formula have been around for thousands of years. The incantation that goes with each situation changes from one setting to another, but the objective remains the same. It is to short-circuit the brain of the target societies and take control of their bodies. These would be the global treasure troves that the Jews have come to believe were promised to them by God.

Happy that the Jews brought Marxism to his country, Joseph (Joe) Stalin did his part to help them steal Palestine from the Palestinians. Once settled on the land in large numbers, they set-up communes called kibbutzes and ran the artificial entity under the name Israel. They lived and ruled along a strictly Marxist ideology seven decades ago, and little has changed since that time.

It could not have changed, in fact, because to do so would have meant creating an economy – something the Jews cannot do because they are incapable of producing anything. They can only lead a parasitic life at the expense of others, receiving compensation from every sucker that succumbs to their trickery, and from donations handed to them by naive Christian fellows.

Eager to get the secrets of the atom bomb that only America possessed at the time, Joseph Stalin urged the Jews to go settle in that nation and spy for him. They did exactly that, and managed to get “Uncle Joe” what he asked for. Another Joseph – this time the American Senator Joseph McCarthy – did not like what he was seeing, and started harassing the Jews. That's when they realized that the power had shifted to America, and was concentrated in the hands of the Congress.

This realization prompted them to look in the store of ingredients, searching for and picking what they needed to mix the correct witches' brew for the occasion. They also formulated the correct incantations, and started to work on short-circuiting the Congress. This done, they gradually took control of the American Republic – one high position after another, one command after another, and one institution after another.

But they sensed once more that they were facing a changing situation. It is that the power was shifting yet again; this time away from America – which meant away from them. They realized they needed a new witches' brew and a new incantation. They hastily put something together, and we have the opportunity to examine the thing. The details can be seen in the New York Times editorial that came under the title: “Time to Rethink U.S. Relationship With Egypt,” published on March 25, 2016.

This episode began two or three years ago when the Arabs decided that they will do what was necessary to keep their house in order. To this end, they intervened militarily in Libya, Bahrain and Yemen, acts that drew the ire of the Jews who thought that America (meaning them) should have been consulted, asked for permission to act; also asked for the mirage in the firmament that the Jews and their sidekicks call American leadership … whatever that is.

And so the Jews began to work on a new incantation, this time based not on Stalin's Marxist ideology or the lure of the kibbutz, but on the word “democracy” which they define, not as rule of the people by the people, but the rule of all the people on Planet Earth by the Jews ... always the Jews ... and no one but the Jews.

You can see them use that word in the New York Times's editorial. And you can see them base the entire editorial on the most useless of the Jewish concoctions: Project on Middle East Democracy; Working Group on Egypt. It is a website on which is posted a letter that was sent to President Barack Obama instructing him on what to say … not only privately but also publicly.

You see, my friend, the Jews always command the President of the United States to insult everyone but praise Israel publicly. And they command him to praise someone or criticize Israel only if he must and only privately. Neat huh! But why this time?

It is because the Jews have once again told the Arabs that they commanded America to take issue with them, and that America will dutifully obey. Their aim is to show the Arabs, and ultimately show the world that they own and operate America, and have the power to command it anytime, anywhere for any reason. When the President says what they tell him to say, the world takes note and puts it down that the Jews have turned America into their private washroom.

Will Obama drink from this demonic punch bowl? The truth is that whether he does or does not, little or nothing will change in a world that has grown accustomed to this sort of thing, and has taken precautions against the possible fallout. But when it comes to America, imagine what will become of the kids who are growing up in a climate where they must absorb a culture that's imbued with the Jewish witches' brew and little else.

Meanwhile, what's happening quietly amid all that noise is that the Jews are acutely aware they are losing a world that's changing at a fast pace. They have resigned themselves to living with such a world when it comes. To compensate, they are strengthening their grip on America lest they lose it too and be left with nothing.

Thus, everyone must know that anything the Jews do in foreign policy from this point forward is meant to solidify their grip on America.

How serious can the frivolous appear to be?

Are you in the mood to look at a situation of high tragedy and see what in it may compel someone to crack up with uncontrollable laughter? If your answer is yes, I invite you to read the latest editorial by the esteemed editors of National Review Online (NRO.) It came under the title: “After Brussels, Time to Get Serious,” and was published on March 22, 2016.

Because a presentation is usually made of two parts – one being the information that's relayed; the other being the logic that weaves the information into a coherent tapestry – it is better in this case to make a clear distinction between the two when discussing the stream of ideas that were strung together by the editors. And so, we put aside for now our preoccupation with the veracity of the information that's relayed, and concentrate on the logic of what's delivered as opposed to what's promised.

The title of the piece makes it clear that the intent of the editors (hence their promise) is to deliver something that is serious. In making this promise, they mean to say that nothing of what was done up to now has been serious, but they have the formula that will change all that, and solve the heretofore insoluble problem.

So we go through the editorial looking for the proposed solution. We find a preamble that prepares the readers for that moment, and then find what the editors claim to be the solution.

First the preamble: “In another part of the [city] are roiling ghettos populated largely by Muslims from North Africa and the Middle East – for example a Belgian-born French citizen of Moroccan descent who was captured last week in Brussels just a few hundred yards from his childhood home … A refusal to require assimilation of immigrants has resulted in cities fractured along ethnic lines … As Brussels officials have admitted: 'It's literally an impossible situation, it's very grave'”.

Now the NRO editors' solution: “Securing our borders is a crucial step. Other measures are necessary. Ted Cruz stated, 'We need to empower law enforcement to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized.' … Directing limited resources toward certain mosques and community centers. This strategy should entail allying with the Muslims … New York City was engaged in this sort of surveillance program. It should be restarted, and others like it begun … Defeating the Islamic State will require eradicating it in Iraq and Syria. An air campaign backed by American forces on the ground is the way to rip it. This war will require a serious strategy, carried out by leaders serious about keeping America safe”.

This being the logic, we now gauge the veracity of the information that's relayed by the editorial piece. Here is how the editors begin to lay out what they say are relevant facts: “Decades of willful blindness to the problem of ideological fanaticism...” Look closely at that statement, and you'll conclude it is not a factoid but an opinion disguised as fact. It is bogus, and so is everything else that was built on it.

What is relevant to this case is that the terrorist act pulled in Brussels was hatched in the French section of the city and not the Flemish. It is connected to an event that happened in France months before, and to another event that happened years ago. This was the time when young unemployed French-born non-White citizens rioted in Paris and set cars on fire to draw attention to their plight. That incident should have served as a warning sign to the French authorities but was ignored.

Here is the difference between America and Europe. The “new worlds” of Australia and the Americas were populated by immigrants who left their identity and everything else behind to start a new life with strangers. Once settled, these people remained open to accommodating newer immigrants themselves. And the tradition continued with wave after wave of immigrants. By contrast, the migrants who end up in Europe learn that they must contend with indigenous populations which are not as open to accommodating them.

But not all Europeans harbor the same level of rejection for the newcomers. Germany in particular that lived through a sad chapter of racist ideology in the past has now become the most accommodating European nation to newcomers. It has a program of assimilation that is as good, if not better, than any in the new worlds. The other nations display various levels of acceptance or rejection ... the French being the most chauvinistic of all as if to live up to the ideal of Nicolas Chauvin from whose name was derived the word “chauvinism”.

This should lead us to the view that because Muslims started settling in America more than a century ago and turned out to be outstanding citizens, we must take it for granted that they will continue to be outstanding.

If something can change that reality, it will be the moves suggested by the morally bankrupt small men who pander to Jewish groups by provoking young and immature Muslims who will be forced to challenge the system to assert their manhood – or whatever.

This is a decades-old Jewish plan. It was put together by Jews who pretended to be security experts and flooded the media with suggestions on how to racially profile the Muslim population.

They said that a system of this kind was in force in Israel, and we now see the result. They had 250 casualties in 5 months over there, a figure that translates into 36,000 casualties per year for an America that is 60 times larger.

They explain that Israel is undergoing a third intifada that may yet explode full force. Now try to imagine an intifada taking place in America – what will it look like? If you haven't yet imagined, rest assured that Ted Cruz and the editors of National Review Online have … which is why they are drooling with anticipation.

Real-Life Events stranger than Fiction

Let's try to write a fictional story and see what we can learn from it.

There is this guy they nicknamed Baron because he is a wealthy and ruthless businessman. Though he was never elected to any office, he commands everything in the town he runs with an iron fist. He does that by controlling the lives of just about everyone that's important and has influence on the town-folks.

He is getting on with age, however, and knows a few things that his immediate family and the extended part of it, have no clue what they mean. It is that the children, the grandchildren and the in-laws were born with a silver spoon in the mouth, and cannot conceive that things are beginning to change in their town. But he sees the coming change and knows that things cannot continue to unfold as they have been for much longer.

Whereas the signs point to an impending change he knows is inevitable, the signs become fodder for the rest of the family whose members embark on endless debates and ideological fights that tear the family apart. Added to this is a family lawyer who is more of a weasel than an officer of the court … always delighting at throwing gasoline on every brush fire he gleefully turns into an inferno.

The truth about the town is that lesser families have sacrificed like saintly heroes to raise children and give them the kind of education that allowed them to compete against the business empire of the Baron, survive its frequent assaults on them, and beat it in certain areas. And these rising children are getting stronger by the day.

The Baron's family views them as a nuisance that can be dealt with if only the Baron would show a firmer resolve than he has so far. Knowing that this sort of suggestions will get him nowhere, he delegates power to the loudest among his children, and tells them to go deal with the situation themselves.

Well, my friend, it is time to tell you that this fictional story is a metaphor. The Baron is America, his family is the opinion makers, the rising town-folks are the rest of the world, and the weaseling lawyer is the stereotypical Jew. Now imagine an America that is exhausted but trying to remain strong enough and influential enough in a world that is rising with unparalleled vigor. The opinion makers continue to believe that America has the power to tell everyone what to do … with the Jews standing behind them, nudging them to be more aggressive at demanding that the old man show more resolve.

First, imagine one delegation of American opinion makers deputized to go to China intending to warn the Chinese that if they don't rein in their client state, North Korea, they will suffer the consequences. What do you think the Chinese will say after hearing what the Americans had to say? Try this: You who arm Israel, an outlaw entity that launched more than a dozen wars in the region and now occupies a neighbor – are here telling us to rein in North Korea that is neither occupying someone's land nor fighting against a neighbor? Which planet do you come from?

Second, imagine another delegation of American opinion makers deputized to go talk to the Arabs intending to nudge them to participate in the war against ISIS. What do you think the Arabs will say after hearing what the Americans had to say? Try this: You, the West, who have labored for a century to cobble together groups you knew will fight each other, and then lit the match that started the fights – are here telling us to enlarge those fights and turn them into massive inter-Arab and inter-Muslim civil wars? Which planet do you come from?

Third, imagine yet another delegation of American opinion makers deputized to go tell the Russians to stop encircling the nations of Eastern Europe in an attempt to bring them into a sphere of influence that will be dominated by the Russian Federation. What do you think the Russians will say after hearing what the Americans had to say? Try this: You who promised not to interfere with the nations we let loose from the old Soviet Union, and broke your promise – are here telling us not to try extending our sphere of influence? Which planet do you come from?

No great power that I can think of, except for one, has aged gracefully, and so they ended up humiliated. The exception is the Soviet Union that recognized the limits of its power and shrunk itself to a size it was able to manage without fighting against someone. It has a good chance of rising again. Will America learn to age gracefully and pull back the tentacles it extended around the globe?

The Mushroom Cloud and the Kaboom

It is a safe bet to assume that future historians will conclude that ninety percent or more of America's demise, ruin and debasement came about as a result of Jewish advice that was blindly embraced by the legislative and executive branches of government. It is easy to see how and why this situation came about, developed and became the mainstay of America's approach to world affairs.

At the core of every Jewish advice given to America and taken by it, has been demagoguery. Defined as the rule over people by sowing fear in their hearts, demagoguery is the theme you'll find recurring in every advice that America has followed to its eventual demise, ruin and debasement. All the while, America was becoming increasingly more dependent on the Jews, no matter how ignorant and destructive they proved to be each and every step of the way.

The exception has been Barack Obama who was the first American President to stand in front of a Jewish created demagogic tsunami trying to flood his country with the fear of negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran, and said: Hell no; you won't get past me. He stopped the Jews right there and then by defeating every wave forming their tsunami. And he concluded the deal with Iran to the relief of every human being on Planet Earth.

It may be that Obama succeeded because George W. Bush who preceded him in the White House, had committed what is now considered America's most suicidal act in the realm of foreign policy. He had attacked Iraq, having justified his crime by uttering the mother of all demagogic mouth-born excretions – something to the effect that he will not wait for mushroom clouds to form over cities before responding to Saddam's plans.

And despite the fact that Bush's response proved to be the act that shredded America's heart, and snatched America from the hearts of those who used to love her, the Jews have continued to invoke the events of the 1930s, using that history to incite America in a vain attempt to move her against dozens of countries considered to be impediments to the Jewish quest for world domination.

You can see how the Jews played their demonic game, and how they continue to play it even now, when you study the article that came under the title: “Even after Brussels, the West is answering terror with fantasy,” written by Benny Avni and published on March 22, 2016 in the New York Post.

After laying out the history of the events in Brussels, and after regurgitating the same old steady diet of analysis and opinions of the kind we have grown accustomed to, Avni ends his article in a way that reminds the readers of the mushroom clouds analogy. Here is the new version of that satanic formulation: “America remains the ultimate target ... Must we wait for the big kaboom before waking up?”

Note how the demagogic principles have remained the same over the past 14 years whereas their formulation has changed so as to harmonize with current thought. In 2002 George W. Bush stressed the urgency of the moment claiming that Saddam Hussein already possessed nuclear weapons. Benny Avni now stresses the urgency of the moment by speculating that it may not be long before “ISIS (or one of its Sunni rivals, or an Iranian-backed Shiite proxy) gets – nukes”.

What is galling him – which means galling all the self-appointed Jewish leaders, is that Obama is:

“Ending past enmities … letting others address the contemporary world … without leadership that in the past America alone could muster, aimless Europe is in deep trouble. And soon enough, us, too … Is America in the mood for global leadership?”

This is galling the Jews because America is the latest and certainly the last country to put its military at the disposal of Israel and the Jews of the world – known collectively as World Jewry. Let America not be the gun in the hands of the Jews … and the Jewish dream of conquering the world will perish as if hit by the tsunami of a human race saying in unison: enough is enough.

As a species, we are the culmination of a savage evolution. But we developed the ability to rationally codify the self-preservation principles that the lower primates have developed by instinct alone.

Clearly then, it is our destiny to pursue the quest for the continued survival of our species by strengthening the self-preservation principles that brought us to this point despite the unrelenting Jewish sabotage of our efforts to form a more perfect union of human beings.

They toil to orchestrate malignant Neglect

The late Senator Patrick Moynihan is credited with having come up with the expression “benign neglect,” and there is a long history behind that thing.

That was then. What I see happening now is not the advocacy of a neglect that would be benign, but one that is deliberate and malignant. The intent behind it is to provoke a horrific apocalypse that will benefit the few at the expense of the many.

In fact, there are print and audio-visual publications whose self-assigned mission is to do everything they can to bring to America the horrors they see happening in Europe. The aim of their demonic editors and contributors is to spark a war of the religions; a happening they are confident they will win. That's because they see themselves being of the superior Judeo-Christian persuasion doing battle with the inferior Muslims.

Those demons have a pretty good idea what is happening to young Muslim men living in Europe. They wish to duplicate in America the social and economic conditions that have created the discontent that's driving these young Muslims to despair and ultimately to violent action. The demons also know that the difference between America and Europe makes it so that America is naturally less susceptible to go the way of Europe. And so, they designed a plan to artificially change all that.

The plan consists of pushing prominent people in politics and other fields to publicly speak accusingly of Islamic this and Muslim that. The demons badly want to see this development take place because they know that its effect will not be benign but malignant. The fact is that everyone already knows that the perpetrators of the violent acts are Muslim because they say so themselves. Thus, to emphasize the Muslim part is not to clarify the situation – which is amply clear already – but to add to it an editorial content.

People who studied the visual arts understand that point very well. Here is an example: you are watching a scene not knowing if the woman on the set is married not. To you, that's irrelevant anyway even if she is sitting with a man who is clearly not her husband. The two are having a conversation that sounds like they are flirting. Now you wonder: is she, or is she not? But you don't care much as long as the film director does nothing to rouse your curiosity.

Then, all of a sudden, the camera zooms in on the woman's finger, prominently displaying her wedding ring. It is that the director has decided to inject an editorial content into the scene … and that changes everything. He does not tell you what has changed; he leaves it up to you to figure it out. His intent, however, is to let your imagination run wild, go anywhere it wants to go, and come up with anything it desires.

Similarly, when prominent people speak accusingly of Islamic this or Muslim that, they do not clarify a situation that's already clear; they editorialize about it. The demons take over from here but will not tell you what that is because they know that you have an imagination on which they will work to get you where they want you to be. This approach – if it comes to pass – will create two effects.

First, it will tell the disaffected young Muslims there will never be a place for them in this society. Second, it will tell the rest of society that even the elites among them are endorsing the idea that the Muslims must be ostracized. They will be encouraged to join those elites, and ostracize the Muslims among them because it is the right thing to do.

When this happens, the demons will have engineered a situation that resembles what exists in Europe at this time. The result will be that when asked to join a cause whose purpose is to give meaning to their life, young ostracized Muslims will respond positively. Upon that, they will be fully trained and sent to commit violent acts in the belief it is the most glorious thing they'll ever do.

Given that there are more guns in America than anywhere else in the world, the demons easily envisage the spark of Armageddon on this Continent. It will have consequences that will fulfill, even surpass anything they dreamed of since the last time they had their heads examined.

The inmates may yet succeed at taking over the asylum.

Another horror Story in triplicate plus one

Like ancient times, the Jews are after the children of America, doing to them what they did to the children of Egypt eons ago. Egypt had taken in the Jews who were literally sold by their own flesh and blood, liberated them and nurtured them till they could give no more. This is when the Jews devised schemes to punish the Egyptian parents by savaging their children. It happened to Egypt long ago; it is happening to America now.

The occasion is that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) wrote one long speech and gave it to four contenders (3 Rs plus a D) running to be president of the United States of America. Each plucked a few paragraphs from it, put them together and delivered what turned out to be four versions of one and the same speech. And in that speech, there came the promise that the winner will cut off funding to the institutions of learning that allow the children of America to deviate from the curriculum put down by the rabbis of the “Jewish madrassas”.

This may not sound as horrible as when the Jews murdered the first born in every Egyptian family before looting the homes and temples of the nation and fleeing into the desert; an escape they now call Exodus 1, but it comes close. The fact is that the move is only a small part of the Jewish grand scheme to suck the blood of young Americans by raising non-Jewish generations that will continue to accept without question the supremacy of their Jewish counterparts – which is the case now.

Speaker after speaker came to the AIPAC podium on this 21st day of March, 2016 and spoke about the Jews and Israel in such glorious and absolute terms, God Himself would have blushed were he talked about in that manner. Now imagine what happens during such performances to the non-Jewish children who watch this sort of cultural pornography and absorb it by osmosis.

Now you know how and why after two or three generations of this kind of indoctrination, America has become dysfunctional. It is that the kids of yesterday have become the adults of today. They are the maintenance people who need 4 men and 8 hours to fill a pothole, and they are the members of a Congress whose collective IQ could not compete against a single lizard … a brain dead lizard at that.

And that's not the only thing the Jews do to savage the non-Jewish children of America. They get the mentally retarded adults in the media and the political circles to advocate eliminating the school lunch program for children. When those children do badly in school, the Jews encourage them to enlist in the military; an institution they constantly keep occupied by starting endless wars for them anywhere in the world, and nagging the commander in chief to get America involved.

When the young Americans return home alive but with a mental or physical injury, they get treated not like Jewish VIPs, but treated worse than their dogs if they have one. This is when the Jewish Channel, Fox News joins the fray. If the soldier returns in one piece and happens to have a dog, Fox News captures the reunion between man and his best friend, and gets credit for a “touching scene”.

What the Jews do to the children of America these days is a version of what they used to do decades ago. What they did then and continue to do a little differently today, is invite American youngsters – Jews and non-Jews alike – to go to Israel and spend time in communal settlements they call Kibbutz, which are built near to the places where the Palestinians live, work and play. They provoke the Palestinians, forcing them to respond and when the response comes – however mild it may be – the Jews record the scene, spin it and make propaganda hay with it in America.

What they do today is build Jewish settlements in the places where the probability is high that the Palestinians will find it strategically convenient to dig a tunnel connecting Gaza to their stolen property in what is now Israel. And when the tunnel is discovered, the Jews run around America making propaganda hay about their children coming close to danger.

To create informational noise and divert attention away from their criminal activities, the Jews send their warplanes to cluster-bomb Palestinian kids playing on the beach, and then claim they made a mistake or that the Palestinians were storing weapons where they should not have – a claim that always proved to be a lie.

But that's okay with the Jews and their running dogs because they can always get the lizards who run to be president of the United States to repeat their lies for them over and over again.

This is what adds to the screwing of young minds in America; those who grow up to fill potholes and those who get elected to the Congress of the brain dead.

And this, my friend, is but a small part of the four thousand years horror story that the Jews have had with their children and those of others. The rest is told in their bible; that which they call the Old Testament.

Naive Promises becoming moral Obligations

The vital – at times even existential – lesson that people who deal with the Jews, learn to their chagrin is that they made a potentially deadly mistake when they naïvely promised something to those Jews, however insignificant the promise may have been when first made.

Be aware and never forget that when the Jew tries to convince you that only good things and nothing bad will follow when you say this, or when you do that – he or she is trying to plant into your bloodstream the umbilical cord that will serve to drain you of every ounce of energy you possess. Lend him or her your ear and you'll start wilting like a leaf at the start of the Fall season. And you can be certain that Winter will follow the Fall.

On March 16, 2016 Elliott Abrams told the world what he just did. He said it in an article that came under the title: “Democracy and U.S. Foreign Policy,” posted on the website of the Council on Foreign Relations. What he did was write an open letter to the candidates now running to be president asking them to “commit to embracing the cause of democracy and human rights if elected president of the United States.” And he published the letter together with the signature of 138 other supporters of the ideas it contains.

This being an initiative of Elliott Abrams whose reputation is that of a joker, it would have been brushed aside or treated like tissue deserving of being flushed down the tube … except that the next day, on March 17, 2016, The Washington Times reminded us of something more serious. It is that initiatives of this kind have led America to places no one wants to see again. The reminder came in the form of an article under the title: “Is Obama Israel's greatest enemy?” written by Madison Gesiotto who also urges “improving U.S.-Israeli relations as we prepare to choose our nation's next leader”.

Contrasting the promises you see in the Elliott Abrams open letter against the fulminations you encounter in the Madison Gesiotto composition, you'll be tempted to think up scenarios that might go under titles such as these: The promise and the back-stabbing; The dream and the nightmare; The pie in the sky and the trap in the thicket; The sweet friendship and the bitter enmity … and so on and so forth. What all these represent are Elliott's description of the umbilical cord, and Madison's attempt to plant it in America's bloodstream.

Here is what Abrams says: “the advance of democracy serves U.S. interests and contributes to order and peace around the globe … the number of countries that are free and democratic has more than doubled. From Latin America and Central Europe to East Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, people have opted for accountable government. This is rooted in the universal longing for liberty – also due to America's support for human rights and democracy.” He does not elaborate on that last remark.

However, Madison Gesiotto addresses that point among many others. Here is what she says: “Obama claims to support Israel, but his refusals to help our struggling ally in the Middle East, say otherwise … He spent seven years betraying America's treasured friend … Israel has continued to serve as a monument of democracy in a region of instability … The betrayal does not stop there … Obama's refusal to enforce provisions in bills that would penalize trade partners who boycott Israel … Israel needs America, and Mr. Obama exposes himself as a hypocrite through actions that run counter to his verbal statements of support for the country”.

That is, Gesiotto is asserting that because Obama made a naïve promise to the Jews who lobby for Israel, he is morally obligated to keep it or he'll forever be labeled a hypocrite. Imagine every lobbyist calling a hypocrite every politician that broke their promise. How many non-hypocrites will be left in the Washington Beltway?

More seriously, even if we pretend that Abrams is not trying to accomplish what Gesiotto is advocating, we cannot escape the conclusion that the “democracy project” undertaken by America has been a great big farce. Worse, it turned into the poison that's now hurting the Middle East, and turned into the Jewish dagger that was planted in the heart of America.

Abrams admits it is a human trait to long for liberty and to fight, even die, to achieve it. He also says that people in Latin America, Central Europe, East Asia and sub-Saharan Africa have achieved liberty, but not the people of the Middle East. Why?

Gesiotto says that Israel has served as a monument of democracy in that same Middle East. Therefore the questions that come to mind are these: What did that monument do for the region? Was it an authentic monument to begin with, or was it a Trojan Horse planted there to destabilize and decapitate the existing order everywhere it found it?

Furthermore, despite the fact that Abrams says the democracies work harmoniously together to accomplish marvelous things; Gesiotto is attacking Obama for not attacking America's “democratic” partners who are attacking “democratic” Israel by boycotting it. Is this a house divided on itself, or is it the case of a human family discovering a plague ridden rat in the house, and chasing it out?

Could it be that Obama and America's democratic friends – whomever they may be – have realized that (1) Israel is an apartheid terrorist state and not a democracy, and that (2) the Jewish pundits in America have been advocating not democracy for the world, but the destruction of both the Western and Islamic civilizations? Are the Jews pitting Christians and Muslims against each other to start Armageddon and hasten the coming of the Messiah they believe will hand them the planet to rule over?

This is what the Jewish jokers of America are still trying to accomplish … watch out for the Elliott Abrams of this world. This is what the depressed Jews of America are protesting is not happening …keep an eye the Madison Gesiottos of this world.

He says they are guilty of being born

You look at the title which says “Sons of anarchy,” you look at the subtitle which says: “Crony capitalism on the West Bank,” and you wonder if this is meant to equate crony capitalism with anarchy.

That's what happens when you first glance at the editorial that was published under that title and that subtitle in the New York Daily News on March 18, 2016. But when you get to read the entire text, you wonder if it was written by the supposedly professional editors in charge of the editorial board, or by the amateur who owns and publishes that New York rag of the tabloid format.

The amateur in question is the Canadian born Mortimer Zuckerman who is known to stand behind every editorial that mentions the Middle East in a direct or indirect way. He must be the one that's trying to promulgate the idea that President Mahmoud Abbas of (the still occupied) Palestine is the anarchist who fathered two very capitalist sons … even if their business empires are maintained with the help of the crony connections that only nepotism can provide and nurture. That's a mouthful, eh!

Yes it is, and it is complicated too. Well, that's what you get when you try to decipher the literary product of a New York real estate developer whose analytic prowess is nowhere near being sharp enough to argue an ambiguous case and have it both ways … all that without dropping the veil on a feeble and naked intellect.

In fact, what Zuckerman is doing is tell his readers that the Palestinians are lawless anarchists. Moments later, he forgets what he just said, and tells the readers that Abbas and his sons are law abiding capitalists. The proof is that they operate under the laws of Israel, which happens to be the occupying power.

Let it be known that if Abbas or his sons were doing something wrong, Israel (that does not hesitated to jail Palestinian “outlaws,” and has jailed a “corrupt” former prime Minister of Israel not long ago) would have arrested the father, the sons or all three. It would have tried them and jailed them – something that did not happen. And this prompts the question: What is Zuckerman trying to accomplish with that editorial?

Looking for clues, you find tidbits that can go into a montage as follows:

“The sons are actively undermining the goal shared by their father and Israel: a two-state solution … they enjoy sabotaging the two-state solution with Israel that their father pays lip service to … They support a unitary state – merging Israel with the West Bank and Gaza, which would swamp the Jewish state, annihilating the Zionist dream … That's no future for Israel”.

Thus, we have a split between the opinion of the father and that of the sons. Whereas Zuckerman says the sons “advocate a return to a single state – a [majority] Arab state,” he also says: “For the U.S. and Israel, Abbas is the best worst option at the moment … he does cooperate with the Israelis on maintaining security and preventing terror”.

Well then, if the Palestinian father-and-sons team has committed no violation of Israeli law or any law, and if the father shares the same goals with Israel and America, could it be that Zuckerman considers the sons alone to be criminals – perhaps in a non-legal sense – because they advocate for a unitary state that will turn Israel into an Arab state, thus annihilate the Zionist dream?

Actually, it does not look like this man's intellect has matured enough to entertain that level of a logical argument even if he had the right instinct. And when you look closely at his ultimate conclusion, you realize that he considers the three Palestinians to be guilty of the most heinous crime of all: They were born. And that's his bottom line.

Look how he ends the editorial: “An aging, nepocratic regime does not provide any long-term stability, especially with its heirs supporting a future outcome that will enrich themselves – and endanger the region”.

In other words, he says that what counts is not what the Palestinians do or refrain from doing. What counts is what he – as a Jew – feels in his gut they will do in the future. And what he feels at this point in time is that no matter what happens, the Palestinians will do what will endanger the region … and by extension the world.

That's what constitutes a crime in his view; what makes the Palestinians guilty. He does not see an immediate or a long term solution to their crime, which makes it so that danger lurks simply because the Palestinians exist. In his twisted sort of way, Zuckerman is saying that the world would have been better off had they never existed.

Accusing others of what they are

Fifty years ago the Americans began to listen to the Jewish opinion makers and to those of their surrogates, believing that such opinions were made in the interest of America and the American people. In fact, that was the assurance given to the ruling class in Washington by Jews who sounded so sincere, the captains of the American ship of state did not suspect otherwise.

The Jews then adopted a policy of conflating the interests of America with those of Israel. They started the trend insidiously and kept enlarging it at a rate so slow, the growth was almost imperceptible at first. But by the time that a generation had passed, the Jews and their surrogates were talking about America and Israel as if they were one and the same body … with Israel being the head and America the economic and military muscles.

By the time that a second generation was firmly planted in America (more precisely the symbiotic duo that is now America/Israel) humanity had come to regard that generation as being the biggest threat to world peace, and the most serious danger ever faced by civilization. These ideas reached their climax during the reign of George W. Bush (the W), who was the forty-third president of the United States. At the end of his second term in office, W was replaced by Barack Obama who turned out to be the antidote the world was waiting for.

Almost immediately, Obama started to work on repairing the damage that his predecessors had caused America when they listened to the Jews; when they deferred to them, deputized them, delegated powers to them, and in the case of the W, by handing them the key to the executive office and staying out of it himself.

As if by habit, the Jews started to cajole, beg, warn and threaten Obama in an effort to make him toe their line but failed to do so in any serious or lasting way. Frustrated, the Jews went as far as to declare Obama an anti-Semitic enemy of Israel as well as enemy number one to an American population they pretended to represent by virtue of being Jews who also happened to be American.

Having defied them by conducting negotiations with Iran, and coming to an agreement with that nation on nuclear matters, the Jews attacked Obama as if he were the worst thing that happened to Jews since the Holocaust. Their attacks on the American President continue to this day, the latest being an article that came under the title: “Iran's missiles and the nuclear deal” and the subtitle: “Agreement backers must answer for a lethal combination,” written by Cal Thomas and published on March 16, 2016 in The Washington Times.

Our author begins his presentation by planting the seeds of its own destruction early on. Here is what he says: “When Iran's leaders believe they get their marching orders directly from Allah, there is no way they would violate those instructions.” Allah is Arabic for God, which is the word used by all Muslims – Arabs or not – including the Iranians. Thus what Thomas says about the Iranians applies to all Muslims.

So we want to know: What does Thomas say Allah has been saying to Muslims? And he tells us that Allah's instructions to them “include the eradication of Israel and the defeat of the 'Great Satan,' which would be America.” That's where we recoil because there are 65 Muslim nations on the Planet, inhabited by a billion and a half Muslims. Thus, the question: Should we believe Thomas's assertion that all these people and all those nations want to eradicate Israel and defeat America?

Since the answer is an emphatic no, that kind of talk by Cal Thomas serves only one purpose: to warn the readers that the article is the product of a schizo-paranoid mind. This being the case, we must consider everything in it to be suspect. And this effectively demolishes the entire Thomas thesis.

So, we ask: Why did it come to this? Why did Cal Thomas fail to see he was making a sweeping generalization that had the potential to kill everything he is laboring to articulate? The answer to that question sheds light on an important character of the Jews and their surrogates. It is that they always accuse someone else of what they see in themselves.

The truth is that the Old Testament, which is the Jewish bible, ends with the description of an apocalypse that promises to usher the era of Jewish rule over the entire planet. This is the character that Cal Thomas is falsely attributing to the Iranians and all Muslims. It is a hypocritical stance, and the very Jewish thing to do.

Major economic Coup described as Gamble

Under the title: “Egypt's Political Gamble: Devaluing the Pound,” Steven A. Cook wrote an article that is truly perplexing. It was published on March 15, 2016 in the National Interest.

As indicated in the title, Steven Cook is supposed to be discussing the devaluation of the Egyptian currency, which is an economic concern. But instead of talking economics, you'll find that the author dragged into his presentation superfluous items and used them to beat up on Egypt. For example, instead of discussing the decision of the central bank from an economic point of view, he launched a diatribe against a field marshal that died half a century ago. He happens to be a man whose nephew is the current head of Egypt's central bank. The author failed to make a direct connection between the military man of the 1960s and the economist of 2016 because there is none. The only thing motivating the writer has been the desire to denigrate Egypt.

Reading the article, you immediately realize that Cook is suffering from the same debilitating Jewish disease affecting the editors of the New York Times. That is, when writing about the Arabs, those sickos automatically trigger an internal algorithm that prevents them from presenting reality as it is. Instead of doing that, they twist and spin every piece of information at hand in such a way as to make two points: (1) The only thing that the Arabs do rationally and deliberately is to plan for and inflict violence on others. (2) Anything else the Arabs do, they do it because they are scared or pressured or told to do it.

Look how our author begins the article: “I received a message with just two words: “They caved.” That is, he says that the Egyptians caved to some nebulous force that wanted them to devalue their currency at a time when they did not want to. Well, let me say this: Never before was the devaluation of a currency discussed in this fashion. But then again, never before was someone afflicted by that nasty Jewish disease.

To understand what the Central Bank of Egypt (CBE) was facing and how it reacted, we need to know two things about the currencies of sovereigns. First, they have an inherent value that the central bank tries to maintain as stable as possible. Second, they have a relative value attributed to them by the foreign exchanges. The best way to discuss all that is by looking at two actual examples.

A currency is a commodity like any other. When used in the jurisdiction that prints it, its stability is determined by the fiscal policy of the government, and the monetary policy of the central bank. The measure of that stability is gauged by the overall inflation rate. Speculators, fund managers and all those who are not satisfied with the economy's rate of growth have a bag of techniques they can use to create bubbles in stocks, real estate, commodities and many others, thus make more money than they have the right to.

When the speculators and the fund managers operate on the international stage, they have all of that at their disposal, and also the currency exchanges. Like vultures, they look for an economy that is vulnerable because it is going through a transition, or that it is experiencing a bottleneck. When they spot one, they sell – even short sell – its currency so as to cheapen it.

That's what happened to Britain at one time, and the attacker selling the British pound was George Soros. The more that the central bank of Britain defended the pound using its reserves of dollars, the more that Soros sold the pound, pocketing the dollars. When the pound reached rock bottom, Soros used the dollars he just pocketed to buy it back at a cheaper price. He thus made a profit of a billion dollars in one day at the expense of the British Central Bank.

That's an example where the central bank lost to the vulture. A happier example is the one that happened to Canada. Sensing that the vultures were testing the waters to see how far they can go before the central bank of Canada will run out of reserves defending the Canadian dollar, the Finance Minister “played dead” while quietly talking to other central banks from Tokyo to Paris to arrange lines of credit that were practically unlimited.

He let the vultures sell the Canadian dollar till they ran out of reserves and credits. By now, the Canadian dollar was so cheap; the Finance Minister swooped down on the market and bought all that was available without putting much of a dent in the lines of credit that were extended to him by the other central banks. Some of the vultures went bankrupt; the others never tried that stunt again on Canada.

What happened to Egypt was something close to that but not exactly the same. What the foreign vultures planned to do was invest in the country's anticipated explosive growth, buying stocks and bonds and paying for them in Egyptian pounds. They had the dollars that the country needs to purchase goods from abroad, and they wanted to exchange them for as many pounds as possible. The way to do that was to sell – even short sell – the pound to force the central bank to devalue it.

Unable to set-up lines of credit with other central banks as did the Canadians, and keen not to duplicate the British experience, the CBE used a strength it knew it had but was neglected up to now. It is that the country was awash with dollars and other hard currencies, money that was kept in bank accounts and with the currency exchange firms. Added to this was another Egyptian quality sometimes used as a tool to achieve impossible goals. That would be the famous Egyptian patience.

Because the foreign vultures were eying the Egyptian stocks and bonds while shorting them together with the pound, the CBE saw fit to quietly borrow or buy dollars at a high price from the locals while encouraging them to buy the stocks and bonds that were selling cheaply. Believing that Egypt will never devalue, the foreigners began to lose patience, and they started to sell at fire-sale prices what they were hoarding.

When the central bank was satisfied that most of the stocks, bonds and pounds were in the hands of Egyptians, it devalued the pound. The moment this happened, the value of all forms of Egyptian assets exploded upward. The stock market alone went up a thousand points in the first 4 days. Unlike the picture that Steven Cook is painting, this was a major victory for the Central Bank of Egypt.

A Tower and primal Desire of young Males

If you want to know why Donald Trump is doing so well in the primaries, I have a theory. If you want to know what happened to Marco Rubio on his way to the White House, I have a theory there too.

Consider this question: Why is it the secret desire of every young male in the human species to stand at the top of a building and pee on the world below? In case you wonder, this is different from the question: Why do dogs urinate at the foot of every tree they encounter even when no urine is left in the bladder to discharge?

There comes a point in the life of human young males when they feel strong, all-knowing and indestructible. When they get there, they do not understand why the world does not appreciate them more than it does. They feel frustrated, and at times express their frustration by going to the top of a building where – circumstances permitting – piss on the world below. Or they fantasize about it if they can't actually do it.

Even though Donald Trump is not of that age anymore, he does not seem to have outgrown it despite the fact that he piled-on several years past it. He gets all the attention he desires because he knows how to grab it, but not enough of the admiration he craves. The thing though, is that he does not have to go to the top of just any building to express his “primal” frustration because he is permanently perched on his own Trump Tower. That's the place from where he pisses on the world whenever he feels that the world is not appreciating him enough.

And so, when he ran for president of the United States, and he told the people they once were great … are great no more … but will be great again because he'll make it so, the people took to him. That's because they too were frustrated at one thing or another. He became their alter ego, and every time he insulted those who would prevent him from fulfilling his promise, the people urged him to pee on the world because in so doing, they felt like they too were peeing on the world. The act relieved them tremendously, and they became addicted to it. The more he gave them of that sort of behavior, the more they asked of him.

The males of the species identified with Donald Trump and played along with him – not as spectators but as leading players in his production. After all, they were not only watching; they were voting. They voted to keep him in, and voted to keep the others out. As to the females of the species, they were grossed by the spectacle at first, but then some of them began to appreciate the creative energy it was generating. If they could not stand at the edge of a building and pee down below, they enjoyed watching the males do it on behalf of everyone.

We now look at the case of Marco Rubio. As long as he did not get in the way of Donald Trump, he projected the image of the American Dream being fulfilled in the best tradition. Well, that's what most people saw in Rubio … but not Donald Trump who saw something different. To understand this point, we need to know a little of the forces that must have contributed to the shaping of the Trump character.

This man inherited a fortune from a father who made it when there were no Jews competing against him. Young Donald was not so lucky because by the time he was fending for himself, the Jews were there trying to push all the non-Jews out of the New York real estate development business so as to monopolize it. Trump survived the Jewish onslaught and learned a great deal from the experience. In fact, he became such an expert on the Jewish tricks, sleights of hand, double-talk, opportunism and the unremitting drive for self-promotion, he developed the ability to lap a dozen of them for breakfast before they had the opportunity to eat his lunch.

Donald Trump began to see “little” Marco as the kid who was so terrified of the Jews, he would get on his knees and kiss the rear end of a thousand of them. This was happening despite the fact that Trump was seeing what Rubio could not. It is that the power of the Jews was unraveling at the hands of a Jewish rank and file now busy dismantling a Jewish establishment that had failed them big time.

Trump had seen the likes of Santorum, Huckabee, Fiorina, Bush and others trounced by an electorate that could not stomach the optics of a candidate running to be President of the United States with lips glued to a Jewish ass. Rubio had lasted a little longer than the others but every time he mentioned Israel during the debates, his numbers went down. More revealing was the fact that the Evangelicals were abandoning their longstanding support for Israel and its pimps, and were joining the protest movement led by Donald Trump.

When Rubio attacked him for the first time during a debate, Trump let him have it. The next day, Rubio responded by calling on Dan Senor, his master puppeteer from Canada, to arrange a meeting for him at a synagogue where he performed the act of massively kissing and licking the Jewish ass.

That's when the electorate dropped the sword of Damocles on his head, and finished him off for good. He lost a humiliating defeat in his home state, a result that forced him to suspend his run for office.

This has been the story of the Republican quest to capture the White House from the Democrats up to now. There are four months to go before the Republican convention is held, and four months after that before the general election. Fasten your seat belts.