Moral Dyslexia interchanging Left and Right

Kevin D. Williamson wrote an article that ends with three consequential thoughts:

First, there is this: “My own view of it is that the Palestinian Arabs have some legitimate grievances, and that I stopped caring about them when they started blowing up children in pizza shops”.

Second, there is this: “Israel isn't my country, but it is my country's ally, and it is impossible for a liberty-loving American to fail to admire what the Jewish state has done”.

Third, there is this: “And that is why the Left wants to see the Jewish state exterminated”.

The title under which came that 1,100-words article is this: “Why the Left Hates Jews,” published on April 29, 2016 in National Review Online.

If we adopt the three Williamson thoughts as criteria by which to judge the right of one side to win the case in a dispute that involves two sides, it must be said that according to the first thought, humanity was correct to stop caring about the Jews when the latter murdered the children of their Egyptian benefactors, looted the homes that took them in when they were thrown into wells by their own siblings, and cared for them during 400 years. That is, humanity was correct to treat the Jews harshly for the next 3,500 years following their exodus from Egypt.

Since that is the story the Jews tell about themselves, asserting it is how they came into being as a religion, an ideology and a nation, there can be no two ways about it but to say that humanity has done the right thing judging the Jews not by the ethnicity from which any one individual descended but by the religion, the ideology and the nationhood to which the Jews aspire as a group … or the “Semitic” group they falsely pretend to be.

That argument defeats two points people like Williamson make to confuse the issue when they lose the debate. First, they call anti-Semitism the opposition exhibited by normal people to the offensive behavior of Jews, accusing such people of harboring hidden motives that can be as severe as advocating the mass extermination of Jews. Second, the Williamsons of this world make subtle accusations when they attribute to others a thought such as this: “We don't hate the Jews individually, just as a nation,” to which he remarks: “That's not much of a defense.” Well, this is a remark that ignores the Jewish assertion they behave the way they do, not because they are individuals, but because they are a Jewish group – more precisely, a group of “Semitic” Jews.

Another consequence of the Jews constantly accusing those who disagree with them of anti-Semitism, is that the accusations become an objectionable behavior to others. When the objection is expressed openly, the Jews regard this too as an act of anti-Semitism. And this is the circular argument that keeps the Jews caught in a vicious cycle from which they never get out. In short, the give-and-take unfolds something like this: (1) You object to a Jewish behavior; (2) the Jew accuses you of anti-Semitism; (3) you reject the accusation; (4) this proves to him you are anti-Semitic. And round and round the thing goes.

As to the saying that Williamson finds it impossible for an American not to admire what the Jewish state has done, it must be said that he listed as Israeli accomplishments the layers upon layers of lies that were stacked on top of each other over a 70-year period. In fact, the Jewish jewelers and musicians that stole Palestinian lands did not make the Fertile Crescent of Milk and Honey bloom … it is that the blooming place had been lush with goodness long before the advent of the Jews.

And when it comes to what the Jews have accomplished in high-tech subsequent to that time, the scam according to which Israeli Jews milked naïve American investors of billions of dollars by listing zombie companies on the NASDAQ, has come to an end. This is why those same Israelis have migrated to the Canadian exchanges where they are setting up the infrastructure to try and milk Canadian investors the way they did the Americans.

But rest assured that the Canadians are aware not a single product or a useful invention in hi-tech ever come out of Israel. They are also aware that two humongous blunders came from there; one being the messing up of a design that cost the American Intel Company a billion dollars; the other being the idiotic modification that the Israelis brought to an American spyware. It is the one whose consequence has been to alert the Iranians they were being spied on. And so, the bet in Canada is that the Jews will be financially kneecapped if they try to steal as much as a penny from investors in this country. We are not as tolerant of con artists out here.

And this is why you should expect to see the Jews continue to run television infomercials in which they beg Christian fellows to donate 25 dollars to help feed the hungry Jewish population of Israel. The truth is that Jewish accomplishments are not measured on the ground – there is nothing to measure there – they are measured by the Jewish power to con American “intellectuals” of the Kevin Williamson caliber. These are the ones who believe that begging for food is a glorious hi-tech accomplishment … as long as the begging is done by Jews.

As to the love of freedom, no group that is colonizing another may claim to fight for freedom. Do that and you're a fraud. On the other hand, the group that's colonized is the one that by definition can produce freedom fighters. However, it can also happen that individuals from the colonizing group will join the cause of the victims and fight alongside them for their freedom. These would be the individuals that Williamson calls the Left.

If only he knew it was the Left that established the “State of Israel.” If only he knew it did so in response to the attempted extermination of the Jews by the Nazis who sit at the Right side of the political spectrum.

There is something called visual dyslexia. Kevin Williamson is a perfect candidate to define moral dyslexia.

Here's how CNN became the Toilet of Journalism

Ashley Franz could not have done a better job telling the world why CNN has gone from being the flagship of American excellence in journalism to representing the toilet of American journalism, and that of every other journalism for that matter. It is that CNN has willingly become the flagship of Judeo-Israeli propaganda for generating noise, and for spreading hate and confusion.

Franz wrote “Egypt's long, bloody road from Arab Spring hope to chaos,” a work she posted on the website of CNN on April 27, 2016. After a short introduction telling the readers what the discussion is about, the writer promises to explain herself, but that's a promise she does not keep. What she does instead, is use the available material to advance, amplify and promote the Judeo-Israeli confusing propaganda.

She starts her journey on that road trying to highlight what is already summarized in the headline. It sounds as follows: “Egypt's bloody road to chaos.” Mind you, she is talking to an audience that knows what bloody is, and what chaos is. The reality is that people see on CNN and other stations what bloody looks like in places like Iraq, Syria, Yemen and occupied Palestine. And they see what chaos looks like, watching the march of refugees as they flee disorder and mayhem on foot and by the sea going from the Levant to Europe.

Unable to paint a horror picture about Egypt that comes close to the mega horrors the CNN audiences see in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and occupied Palestine, Ashley Franz tries a substitute approach by which to make a false analogy, thus hope to shock the readers with regard to the situation in Egypt.

Where there is suicide bombing in Iraq, Syria and Yemen; where there is the cold-blooded murder of civilians by heavily armed soldiers in occupied Palestine, our author hits the readers with an opinion about Egypt she hopes will fool the readers into thinking this is the same as the situation in Iraq, Syria, Yemen or Palestine. Here is that infamous opinion:

“Five years after Egypt's Arab Spring, the country is on shaky ground financially, unemployment is rampant, and the people are angry. And an ISIS-linked insurgency is growing, the terror attacks becoming more brazen and frequent. Nothing seems sure in Egypt today, except that there's bound to be more fitful change ahead”.

And that's the message she wants to drum into the heads of the legislative feeble minds in America. Nothing is certain in Egypt, she says, except the certainty that there will be more of the same. Never mind what makes her so certain, suffice it to say that the Jews told her something and she believed it.

But even if that were true, you say to yourself – knowing that it is not, but that it may be the product of her imagination and the imagination of her Jewish bosses – how does that compare with nearly fifteen years of Judeo-American hell inflicted on the Levant? And then you remember something that happened recently; something that continues to unfold unabated.

It is that the heads of most countries in Europe and Asia have been streaming into Egypt at a rate equal to the stream of businesspeople that go to Iran looking for business opportunities. Those that go to Egypt, not only take with them large delegations of businesspeople, they also take political and security operatives who look at the situation in Egypt and praise the country for the stability it has brought back to its people and to the region.

And that was enough to cause the eruption of volcanoes of hate, fear and envy in the bellies of the Jewish leaders in charge of these matters. As you might have expected, they responded by calling on CNN and a number of supermarket tabloids to mobilize themselves and carry out the task of hitting their audiences with a tsunami of content that will be made to look as legitimate journalism, but is not.

It is of the kind that is mass-produced by the Jewish hate and incitement machine; the kind that is taken out the cesspool of journalistic filth. In fact, the Franz piece posted on the CNN website is but a sample of that kind of obscene filth.

The net result is that Egypt will lose nothing. Israel will lose nothing. The Jews will lose nothing. But the American people will have their heads, hearts and souls filled with Jewish moral syphilis; the kind that will pass from generation to generation, and down the line with no end in sight.

Relax Paul Pillar, Things will turn out okay

Paul R. Pillar is apparently worried that things will turn out badly in Egypt. He wrote “Trouble Brewing in Egypt” to elaborate on his view; and had the article published on April 26, 2016 in The National Interest.

By the time you're done reading the article, you wonder if he is really worried, or if he is contributing to the noise that's generated about Egypt these days so as to promote his own agenda – whatever it may be. You start developing that suspicion the moment that you encounter this passage: “The most worrisome consequence of the regime's harsh policy has been the boost it gives to extremism, including violent extremism in the form of international terrorism.” Aha! It's that thing again. They all seem to have caught the disease.

As a former official of the intelligence apparatus, Pillar knows better than anyone that the ideas contained in that passage are lies. They exist only because they were the most effective tool ever devised by the Judeo-Israeli propaganda machine to mesmerize the American political system; to control it, mobilize the nation and make it serve Israel, always Israel and no one but Israel.

Pillar knows, as do all those in the intelligence business, that the one thing which can provoke Arab anger, is interference in their country's affairs by a foreign power. When the younger crowd senses that something like this is happening, it turns against the foreigners; also turns against the rulers for allowing it to happen. And if the youngsters sense that the rulers are colluding with the foreign powers for whatever reason, they go out of control and turn things ugly for the leaders.

That is how and why the Muslim Brotherhood was created in Egypt in 1928; it is the reason why Ayman al-Zawahiri was involved in the assassination of Anwar Sadat, why he joined UBL's al-Qaeda, why UBL plotted the attack on America, why Hezbollah was created in Lebanon, and why Western-born youngsters turn to terrorist activities in Europe and America. And the irony – the very sad and very bitter irony – that seems to have escaped Paul Pillar is that terrorism is now exported not from the Middle East to Europe or America, but from Europe and America to the Middle East. Figure that out, Paul!

In the same way that all those places are attacked by thrill-seeking youngsters from around the globe for reasons that have nothing to do with the governance of a country, Egypt is being attacked in the Sinai ... a phenomenon that started long ago when the Peninsula was briefly occupied by Israel. The mischief-makers who now come from Europe, America and Asia may have changed their appearance, but that's the nature of terrorism which keeps mutating as it keeps metastasizing. And maybe – just maybe – there is something wrong with the kind of governance that is practiced in Europe, America and Asia. But that's a discussion for another time.

Having gone on for several paragraphs in an attempt to mount a heroic but futile attempt to establish a link between the absolutely minimal terrorist activities that take place in the Sinai Peninsula at the hands of foreign fighters – to the policies by which the Egyptian mainland is governed, Paul Pillar now turns his attention to the relationship that exists between the United States of America and Sisi’s Egypt.

He guesses that Sisi's regime “probably” hopes to quell violent groups the way that Mubarak did more than two decades ago. No, says Pillar, that performance will not do well because Sisi is worse than Mubarak. And he warns that the consequence of Sisi's actions in combating terrorism will be to export that terrorism. To strengthen his argument, Pillar gives the example of al-Zawahiri who left Egypt and joined al-Qaeda. However, instead of strengthening his argument, Pillar demolished it having forgotten that when Zawahiri left Egypt, Sisi was a toddler and not yet President of Egypt.

Unaware of what he just did, and eager to strengthen his argument even more, the author mentions an event that has the effect of burying the already demolished argument. Look at this: “Most recently there have been indications of broader and active even nonviolent, opposition to the Sisi regime. Cairo saw the largest protest demonstration in at least two years”.

Whatever Pillar may think of that event, it can only be seen as evidence that when the people of Egypt do not like something, they demonstrate. They do so in a relatively peaceful manner, and do not get pepper sprayed or shot in the back the way things are done in places that shall remain unmentioned.

Prager knows not what he's talking about

Unaware of what he did, Dennis Prager wrote an article that condemns the idea of erecting a culture on a foundation of ambiguities while pretending that it leads to clarity. He wrote “Why the Left Loathes Western Civilization,” and had it published on April 26, 2016 in National Review Online.

The intended point of his presentation is to say that Western Civilization is superior to everything else, especially Islam, but he employed ambiguous approaches to articulate his point of view. He used the incident of students at a major American university rejecting a course on Western Civilization, to say that the Left hates that civilization because it stands for excellence whereas the students, who like to protect Islam, prefer shoddiness.

Prager made that colossal mistake because he neglected to inform himself on realities he should have been aware of before trying to explain that “after decades considering the question, I have concluded: The Left hates standards – moral standards, artistic standards, cultural standards. The West is built on all three, and has excelled in all three”.

Dennis Prager would not have been that categorical – making an ass of himself – were he aware of two massive works on Civilization that contributed to the demise of Western Civilization in the eyes of the well informed, the educated and the impartial. They are the 1969 series 'Civilization' produced by Kenneth Clark, and the 1973 series 'The Ascent of Man' produced by Jacob Bronowski.

There is no doubt that many of the students who rejected the university's proposal were aware of these works or at least aware of their content when they said that Western Civilization stands for “White supremacy, capitalism, colonialism and all oppressive systems.” Prager could have argued – as would any sane person – that it is preferable to study that Civilization and compare it with others than reject it totally. But he didn't do that, preferring instead to spin the little that he knows and produce yet another “anti-Left” diatribe that adds no value to the ongoing debates on this subject and the related ones.

In fact, a related subject is Israel which happens to be Prager's passion. He brings it into the discussion by making the following connections, as absurd as they sound: The Muslims loathe the West therefore the Left must protect them, and that is why the Left loathes Israel.

At this point Dennis Prager starts getting specific. He says that the Left hates standards because they force judgment, and “the Leftists don't want to be judged.” To clarify, he gives several examples: Michelangelo and Rembrandt are no better in the eyes of the Leftists than non-Western artists, contemporary artists or street graffiti, he says. Also, “melody-free, harmony-free, atonal sounds are just as good as Beethoven's music. And Western classical music is no better than the music of any non-Western civilization. Guatemalan poets are every bit as worthy of study as Shakespeare,” he goes on to rant sarcastically.

And that's where the foundation of Jewish ambiguities upon which he has erected his thesis gives way, letting the edifice he just built come crashing. Fact number one is that … were it not for the art of Ancient Egypt, there would not have been a Michelangelo or a Rembrandt. Fact number two is that the vast majority of what he calls Westerners prefer Jazz and Blues over classical music. As to the common element connecting all this, is that Egyptian art and contemporary American music have their roots in Africa. Does Prager consider that continent to be a part of Western Civilization? Or is he ambiguous about that?

Furthermore, ignoring the reality that Christianity arose to stand on the principles of love and peace, thus serve as an antidote to the Jewish principles of hate and bloodshed, Prager speaks of the Judeo-Christian Civilization as a reality rather than the oxymoron it really is.

He stands on that fallacy to argue that something inherent to Judeo-Christianity renders it superior to Islam, the proof being that it allows women to vote. The poor man … he is ignorant of the fact that women always had the right to vote in predominantly Muslim Egypt whereas women did not win that right till recently in America and other “Western” Christian nations.

That man Dennis Prager desperately needs a heavy dose of education before writing another article, or he will again make an ass of himself.

Bret Stephens' great Service to Humanity

There is no doubt that the Jews have been the source of horrendous calamities on this planet for a very long time. Thus, to determine what gives them the ability to generate so much pain and suffering has become the number one preoccupation of those who look into these matters.

A great deal has been discovered and uncovered in this regard. But the one thing that remained mysterious up to now has been the way that these people were able to persuade officials at the highest level of government in the jurisdictions they infiltrated, to betray their own people so as to serve the Jews. Well, Bret Stephens has laid out the blueprint by which future historians will be guided to make definitive judgments on how and why planet Earth was so badly afflicted.

Stephens wrote “The Anti-Israel Money Trail,” a column that also came under the subtitle: “Pro-Palestinian campus activists have some 'very smelly' financial supporters.” It was published on April 26, 2016 in the Wall Street Journal.

Talking about an exchange that involved a member of the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), Stephens says it “is another reminder of the anti-Israel, and increasingly anti-Semitic, environment students now experience on American campuses.” Linking the notion of opposition to Israeli policies with the notion of anti-Semitism by calling the opposition “anti” Israel is an old trick he is reviving. This approach comes around in cycles in that it is abandoned when Israel is doing well, and revived when Israel is doing badly.

But the notion of anti-Semitism no longer has the bite that used to galvanize people in the media and the political circles. Now, the bite is felt with the mention of – get this now – terrorism. And this is why Bret Stephens went on to pave the way for linking opposition to Israeli policies to terrorism. Here is how he began to do it: “That's the doing of several groups. None is so prominent as SJP … sponsor[ing[ anti-Israeli events, heckling pro-Israel speakers and agitating for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) resolutions on campus”.

Because no one in his right mind would see something wrong with that, the author has relied on the Jewish trick of using the students' own words, and make them sound like a terrible thing. Here it is: “SJP's self-declared goal is to end Israel's occupation and colonization of all Arab lands while promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes”.

But who on earth except a bloodthirsty savage human-looking animal would object to that? Oh, there are some who are perfectly justified to object to that, says Stephens. And he explains why. It is because: “that's another way of saying destroying the Jewish state,” he says.

Well, it must be that he does not have the IQ to realize he just said that Israel's existence depends on occupation and colonization of other people's lands, as well as the denial of the rights of refugees to return to their homes. Go tell that to the refugees from Syria, Bret Stephens.

But if he does not have the IQ, he had the instinct that allowed him to sense there was something wrong with his presentation up to now. And this is why he handed the whole thing over to Jonathan Schanzer, one of the comics at the troop calling itself, Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

This guy Schanzer fancies himself as an expert on terrorism-financing. He volunteered to testify before the congress on what he knows regarding the link between the activities of college students in America and what he says is terrorism. After going on a long descriptive tour during which he laid-out a web of relationships that would raise your hair, he mentioned that the FDD had seen no evidence of illicit activities in any of that.

So you ask: What was the brouhaha all about to begin with? And Bret Stephens provides the answer. He says this: Everyone has rights, including to assembly and speech … still it is worth thinking about the politics that these people support.

That is, if Jews have it their way, your politics will determine whether or not you are a terrorist. This is the kind of noise that affects the feeble minded officials at the highest level of government. And this is why some turn against their own people to serve the Jews. Future historians will be pleased to know.

The Tribune's incessant bashing of the UN

At one time or another, a publication or another had a feature that watched a person or an institution. The common element tying these features was that all the things being watched were hated by the Jews.

At this time, the Pittsburgh Tribune is the publication that's carrying on with that tradition. It has a feature called U.N. Watch where bashing the United Nations is the specialty.

What has become somewhat safer to say that could not be said previously, is that these activities never happened randomly or spontaneously but were designed and managed from a central point. Their purpose was and still is to bring the democratic jurisdictions under Jewish control. There was a time when writers who brought these realities to light saw their characters assassinated by the Jews, and were made to vanish from the public square for life.

This kind of horror is not new to the planet. Thanks to Alexander Solzhenitsyn, we know of a time when writers who did not toe the line imposed by the established authorities in the old Soviet Union, were sent to a gulag. That era has now passed for Russia and its old satellites. But what used to happen in the authoritarian countries – now liberated of old tyrannies – is happening with a vengeance to the democratic countries that fail to protect their freedom from the despotism of the Jewish ideology.

It must be said that the situation in the democracies was turning increasingly despotic even at a time when the communist countries were moving in the direction of perestroika and glasnost before the fall of the Berlin Wall. True there were no physically constructed gulags to which democratic refuseniks were sent, but the Jews had managed to create virtual gulags in the hearts and minds of those who ran the Establishment. And it is in those hearts and minds that the free writers were buried never to be seen or heard from by the public at large.

The importance in remembering this history lies in the fact that some Jewish leaders have not given up the old habit. They continue to try vanishing the people who do not toe the Jewish line – be they commoners or a former president of the United States … and there is more. Having conquered America and other democracies, the Jews have set their eyes on the world. It is the final frontier they plan to conquer using America's dwindling power and prestige as a springboard.

You can see how they go about doing this when studying “U.N. Watch: Palestinian pitch,” an editorial that was published in the Pittsburgh Tribune on April 24, 2016. The essence of the plot they are hatching is crystallized in the first paragraph. Here is how it reads: “the Palestinian Authority is drafting a U.N. resolution condemning Israel's settlements … This time, the Palestinians hope that a lame-duck U.S. president won't use the U.S. veto to quash the measure”.

Two observations need to be made here. First, a connection was made between the U.S. and a U.N. resolution concerning Israel. Second, a connection was made between the U.S. president being a lame-duck, and him not using the veto to quash that resolution.

What's the significance of all that? Well, America has been making a fool of itself on the world stage, vetoing every UN resolution that condemns the savage behavior of the Israeli Jews who live emotionally and mentally in the Stone Age of biblical times. And yet, America continues to equip these savages with warplanes, bombs, tanks and attack helicopters free of charge … and they continue their savage behavior.

That situation has existed for a long time. It continues to exist because the Jews were able to devise and maintain a savage grip on America's Establishment. It is a grip that's solid enough to threaten anyone who dares to oppose the Jewish line … and that includes the sitting president of the Republic.

But a lame-duck president that is not running for reelection; one whose party is facing an opposition that's melting like an ice cube on a hot stove – is not likely to be intimidated by the Jews or by anyone. Thus, he may try to help America save face before he leaves office ... or so the thinking goes. If this happens, he may set a precedent for future presidents to follow in his footsteps.

That will mean shattering the Jewish grip on America's Establishment. If this happens, the Jews will lose the means by which to plot the control of the United Nations. And if this happens, it will mean the melting of the centuries old Jewish dream to take control of the world.

The world will heal eventually, and the Jews will want to vanish their murderous ideology once and for all.

The insidious is never sublime

There is a group of people – perhaps a third of America – that segregates itself from what its members call the “mainstream” because they wear the political stripes of the right wing, whereas the rest of society wears the stripes of the left wing or chooses to remain independent of either wing.

The puzzling part is that having segregated themselves, these people accuse the mainstreamers of engaging in the kind of rhetoric and politics that divide the American people rather than bring them together. They incessantly complain about that situation and yet, fail to see the contradiction in segregating themselves willingly, and then complaining of being kept apart from the others. So you wonder if there is a hidden rationale behind this stance – be it sublime or be it insidious.

That reality reveals itself glaringly when you undertake to study the accomplishments of President Obama, and contrast what you find with what the leaders of the right wing crowd say about him. They criticize the President for governing the nation with the mentality of the community organizer he once was, and reject as too socialistic such programs as ObamaCare and the bail out of the auto industry. They explain that these two programs and others in the same vein have the effect of pitting the lazy “takers” in society against the enterprising “makers” of society.

That's when you begin to sense a not so sublime intimation as to what the rationale behind the stance of these people truly is. It is that they want to be kept apart from the masses, yet recognized as members of the upscale crowd. At the same time, however, they want to be loved and not envied by those below them despite the fact that they are “successful” and the others are not. They had expected President Obama to tell the hordes at the bottom of the ladder that they must love and appreciate those at the top, but Obama did nothing of the sort.

So you want to know what methods people of the right are using to ascertain and flaunt their supremacy. To this end, you read an article that came under the title: “Do Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe in the Same God?” written by Dennis Prager and published on April 19, 2016 in National Review Online. As suggested by the title, you get the feeling that the writer is trying to separate people according to the God they purport to worship.

That may answer one question but you want to know more about the thinking of the writer. You read the article, and by the time you're done, you find that he said nothing to startle you. He simply placed Christianity, Islam and Judaism at par with each other. Something caught your attention, however. Whereas the writer shied away from differentiating between the three main religions – a stance that would have been politically incorrect had he taken sides – he dotted the article with rhetoric that sets people apart in a big way.

What follows is a sampling of how he does that: “Two groups make this argument. The first consists of people who … The second group consists of people who...” He then asks two questions: “How are we to know whether any two people believe in God? How do I know if another person believes in the same God as I do?” And he answers “I ask three questions.” This done, he categorizes the responders according to their answers.

Here are the questions he asked: Do you believe in the God of Israel? Does the God you believe in judge the moral behavior of every human being? Do you believe in the God who gave the Ten Commandments?

It is obvious that the questions are specifically designed to lead to the conclusions which he reaches. They are these: (1) True moral life flows out of Judaism and only Judaism; (2) Most Christians and Muslims respond in the affirmative to the questions he posed, therefore are moral people; (3) Islamists (whether violent or not) would not respond in the affirmative to those questions, therefore are not guided by morality.

This is the politically correct stance to take and he did. But the insidious message which nevertheless comes to the fore is that Prager has placed the Jews at the top of the moral ladder. The people who are not envious of them and accept their supremacy, are moral people, he says. Those who do not accept that reality must be set apart from the rest, and their views dismissed.

Now you know why President Obama refuses to tell those at the bottom of the ladder they must worship those who imagine themselves at the top. Let the latter sell the cake they backed, or let them eat their own cake.

They'll spit out America like they did Obama

Spitting out their benefactors after sponging on them all they can is a Jewish tradition that endures as much as the Passover they have been celebrating for some 33 centuries. That was the time when they say they left Egypt, having lived there 4 centuries putting an honest day's work and getting paid honest wages.

The reason why they got into Egypt in the first place was that they were kicked out of the tribe and the family by jealous brothers who threw them into wells out in the desert. They were found by nomads who took pity on them and escorted them to Egypt where they were given food, shelter and a job to work and have a decent life. As to the reason why they got out of Egypt centuries later, was that a crooked Jewish leader promised them a life of luxury without having to work. He told them they'll live like the princes and princesses in the Pharaoh's court.

Believing they will eat manna from the sky during the journey to the promised land of milk and honey, and that they will be given free milk and honey every day when they get there, they murdered the children of Egypt in the middle of the night, robbed the homes and temples of their treasures, and ran away into the desert. If you ask why the murders and the looting, there is only one answer: they are Jews.

Alas, things did not turn out as promised for them, and the price they were made to pay for their foolishness was never to find a place that feels like home again. Never again. It is not that their hosts reject them at first sight; it is that they are the ones who reject their benefactors after sponging on them all they can, believing that a better opportunity exists elsewhere. The ongoing tragedy is that there is always a self-styled leader who will promise the Jews a place of milk and honey if they'll follow him to the other side of the mountain, and they always do.

The tale about the exodus out of Egypt is the undocumented history that the Jews tell about their beginnings. The thing is that it does not really matter if it's a religious myth or a collection of stories meant to stand as metaphors. What matters is that the stories are a compendium of tenets guiding the Jews in their daily lives whether they practice the faith or they don't.

It must be said, however, that the Jews do not tell the tale of the exodus the way it is told here. Instead, they have a narrative in which they describe as “slavery” the act of putting in an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. They keep telling false stories despite the fact that slavery did not start on this planet till the rise of the Roman Empire 15 centuries later. The Jews also describe the looting of the people who cared for them, as an act of piety. And they describe the murder of sleeping children as an act of heroic bravery in the Jewish tradition.

You'll have no difficulty judging the Jewish version of history to be a made-up narrative when you see how the Jews describe current events – which are known to everyone. You'll find one such description in an editorial that came under the title: “Enough already on Israel” and the subtitle: “President Obama and John Kerry need to leave well enough alone so the next administration can repair the damage done.” It was published on April 23, 2016 in the New York Daily News.

You can see from the title and the subtitle of the piece that they already spat out the Obama administration. It is that they anticipate the advent of a new administration on the other side of the election season; one that will deliver to Israel more political, financial and military manna, milk and honey.

It must be said that America has been the cow that the Jews have milked for half a century under the guise that Israel is facing an existential threat. If you remove that threat – whether it is real or imagined – will remove the excuse by which they milk America. This makes the mention of peace between the Palestinians and the Jews, a trigger that erupts a volcano of fear and loathing in the belly of the Jewish leaders.

That's what is causing the vitriol you see in the editorial. Speaking of Vice President Joe Biden, the editors say mockingly that he is “styling himself and his boss [Obama] as the best defenders of the Jewish State.” They go on to say – also mockingly – that Biden and Obama want “to secure Israel's existence as a Jewish, democratic state”.

This being a potential killer of the excuse that allows them to milk America, they suggest “it is time for the administration to leave the field to the next White House.” And that, my friend, is not the regular spitting of an administration that has kept Israel from sinking into oblivion; it is a spit that is full of acid-like rage.

The editors go on to dictate three “no mores.” (1) No more telling the truths that unmask the Jewish lies about America agreeing with Jewish falsehoods. (2) No more rejecting Jewish thievery in Palestine or calling it an obstacle to peace. (3) No more talk about letting the Palestinians have their day in a civilized court of law knowing that civilization and Judaism are like water and fire.

That is how the Jews spit out Obama at this time; it is how they will spit America after bankrupting it and turning it into a useless has-been. This is how they spat Egypt in ancient times; it is how they will spit every society that takes them in and cares for them. They are Jews, after all.

They were made to suffer and to make humanity suffer with them. It is the story of good and evil where humanity is good, and the Jews are evil.

A Pile of rotting Meat poisoning America

No, this is not beef or pork or chicken or turkey; it is a thing called Tom Cotton. Apparently, he is a human senator representing an American state in the upper chamber of the federal legislature called the senate.

This guy is doing his part to kill America economically the way that food poisoning kills unwary guests at a reception. This is why the metaphor of Tom Cotton being a pile of rotting meat fits him exactly right. In fact, his latest action is that he “moved to block confirmation of a nominee for an important post at the Department of Treasury.” He could not have chosen a deadlier way to attack the American economy.

The quote above is from an article that came under the title: “Cotton Puts His Foot Down on Iran Deal,” written by Lee Smith and published on April 21, 2016 in the Weekly Standard. The article also offers a link to a video clip that shows Cotton on the floor of the US Senate proposing the blockage.

To understand how activities like those of Tom Cotton and his ilk have the potential to add up and form the critical mass that will implode the American economy, we need to understand a few things about America's economic situation in the world today.

There was a time when the global production of goods and services (known as wealth) was small compared to the value of the precious metals – mostly gold but also silver – that were mined and traded, or were kept in bank vaults. For this reason, the fiat money that was printed to represent the wealth of a nation could be backed by gold. For example, the American dollar was said to be as good as gold because the Treasury kept enough gold in storage to exchange the paper currency for gold at a fixed rate to anyone that demanded it.

But then, the Industrial Revolution developed past the steam engine and started to use other forms of energy conversions such as internal combustion and electricity. Now, instead of producing goods – from perishables such as food, to durables such as building materials – exerting 100 watts an hour of human energy or 750 of animal energy, machines were used to mass produce those goods expending thousands of watts an hour of mechanical and electrical energies.

This meant that the machines were now producing hundreds of times more goods than ever before for every consumer on Earth at a time when the population was increasing exponentially. That situation created the need for an increase in services such as education and healthcare – all of which ballooned the size of the economies. But while the amount of goods and services produced globally was exploding in size, the amount of precious metals that was mined remained fixed, even began to diminish in some places.

The result has been that the price of the precious metals went up, but that was not enough to cover the amount of money that was printed to reflect the size of the goods and services now produced. This made it so that the currency could no longer be backed by gold. In turn, this made it imperative to link the strength of a currency in each jurisdiction to the health of the economy that is underlying it, and to the amount of foreign currencies that the central bank can accumulate.

This is where the vulnerabilities of the American economy become apparent. First of all, because of history, the American dollar became the currency that everyone trusted. This meant that in international commerce, the dollar became the currency with which every seller wanted to be paid. The dollar thus became the reserve currency for all nations.

As trade grew globally, new international financial institutions were set-up to act as clearing houses and facilitate that growth. Because the dollar occupied a preferred position, the American financial institutions came to dominate their international sisters. The result has been the creation of a virtual central bank for the world. Call it a “Cloud Central Bank” that considers the economies of all the jurisdictions to be a single global economy. And it is this worldwide virtual economy, not the American economy that underlies and backs the value of the US dollar at this point in time.

This development gave America unprecedented powers, but like the saying goes: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Unfortunately, America got corrupted. Even before Tom Cotton was born, America had started to abuse its newly found influence around the globe. Urged by local ideologues and by Jewish fanatics, America was putting the squeeze on countries like Cuba, the Soviet Union, Egypt, the nations of Latin America and others in an effort to force these countries to bend to the will of America's ideologues and to Jewish fanatics.

This prompted the nations of the world – including America's allies – to look for alternatives to those institutions and to the dominance of the American dollar. China has made a great deal of progress in this regard, pulling other nations around its vision for a new world order. The day will come when the American economy will be considered the only valuable that's underlying and backing the US dollar. Given that it is a fifth the size of the world economy and getting smaller in relative terms, you can imagine what will happen to the dollar.

Add to this what Tom Cotton and his likes are doing, and you'll realize they are causing more damage to America in one day than China could in a year. Indeed, every time a senator blocks a nomination to have something done the Jewish way, the world regards him as another American adolescent holding the gun to his mother's head so as to force his father to give his Jewish buddy what he wants.

The performance of Tom Cotton nauseates people around the world so badly; he looks like a pile of meat left to rot in the gutter of a decaying city.

Liar, Liar is funny but where's the Lie?

On April 20, 2016, the foreign minister of Iran, Mohammad Javad Zarif, published an op-ed in the Washington Post. On the same day Reuel Marc Gerecht responded in the online edition of the Weekly Standard.

The Zarif piece came under the title: “Why Iran is building up its defenses”. The Gerecht piece came under the title: “Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire,” and the subtitle: “A response to Foreign Minister Zarif”.

You read the two pieces to see what Zarif said that might have prompted Gerecht to say he lied. You find that Zarif did what he promised he'll do, but not Gerecht. Whereas Zarif explained why Iran is building up its defenses, Gerecht responded to something that's inside his head, not something that's out of Zarif's pen. And this should prompt you to shout: Where's the lie, Reuel? Who's the actual liar, Reuel?

The point that Zarif makes is that the people who were agitating against the nuclear deal – recently concluded between Iran and the (P5+1) nations – are back again pulling the same old tricks. Using mantras like “all options are on the table” and “never again,” these people have tried – and they continue to try – dragging the region into yet another disastrous war, even a nuclear one if they can.

There should be no doubt who these people are. They are the self-designated hawks in America, such as the Jewish neoconservatives and the Israeli agents who whip the congress of fools to sponge on America's largess. As Zarif further explains, they are also: “Others [who] have been less blatant.” These would be the Gulf States – including Saudi Arabia – that “resorted to a rapid build-up of their already excessive military hardware”.

These are the reasons why Iran is building up its defenses, says foreign minister Zarif. To start his presentation, he mentions the “artificial crisis over my country's peaceful nuclear program.” And this is where Gerecht saw an opportunity to attack him. In doing so, he proved to be one of the self-designated hawks who continue to try dragging the Middle East and the world into disastrous wars.

The undeniable fact is that because the nuclear deal has been concluded, even the hawks admit that Iran's nuclear program will remain peaceful for at least 15 years if not forever. Thus Zarif was correct in describing it as a peaceful nuclear program. The question is this, however: “Has it always been peaceful?” Those who wish to move on with their lives, cooperating with everyone to build a global structure for peaceful coexistence, will say that the question is now moot, and we must put it behind us once and for all.

But that's not the case with those who wish to continue dragging the world into wars. Gerecht is one of these, and he has a very thin ground on which to stand when making his case. It is that he invokes a foggy past that's based on “a dossier, which has included information provided by defectors cataloging the regime's nuclear weapons ambitions since the late 1980s.” Sounds impressive but...

But the Americans have learned long ago (when dealing with defectors from the old Soviet Union and from Iraq) that they were nothing more than self-serving leeches who took the Americans for suckers, selling them false information for good money. And there is no reason to believe that the so-called Iranian defectors are more honest or more reliable than the charlatans who preceded them.

Sensing that he stands on shaky grounds as he throws accusations based on hearsay and not concrete evidence, Gerecht tries to redeem himself by pointing to something that's concrete. It is this: “Iran's ballistic-missile program makes absolutely no sense. Nations that have striven to develop long-range missiles inevitably have married that effort to the development of atomic warheads”.

These were China, India and Pakistan who developed their nuclear arsenals and did not use them to this day because their utility has been to stand as a deterrent. It is that the old doctrine known as Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) has come into play once again. Well, given that the Jews of Israel and their megaphones in America keep threatening Iran with all options being on the table, the Iranians would be justified to try and build their deterrent force if they so wished.

They may not want to do it, but they would be prudent to try and become a threshold nation in the relevant fields. They owe it to their people whose existence is constantly being threatened by the Jews and by America.

To make sure that Iran is not forced to resort to that option, the option to do mischief must be taken away from the Jews and from America. This will be done when humanity will make it clear it knows that the Iranians will remain the civilized nation it has always been, that the Jews will remain the biblical savages they have always been, and that they exert maximum effort at this time to fashion America into their horrific image.

The Neocon desperate Effort to remain relevant

With the Pax Americana dream dying out, the Neocons who spawned it do not see a practical way to revive it at this time, and so they don't try. In fact, their most pressing preoccupation right now is to remain viable as a movement, and they realize that this can only be done if they identify problems they'll pretend they can fix. But what if they don't find any such problem? Well then, they'll just have to make them up.

This is what the so-called “Working Group on Egypt” did when it commissioned two fantasy articles, and had simpletons affix their signatures to them. Both articles appeared on April 19, 2016, each in a different publication.

One article came under the title: “Egypt Extends Campaign Against Dissent to Turtle Bay” and the subtitle: “From Burundi to Syria, the lone Arab member of the U.N. Security Council is sparking concerns that it's working to weaken international human rights norms.” The signature affixed to this article is Colum Lynch, and was published in Foreign Policy.

The other article came under the title: “Egypt's Military Regime Grows More Brutal Every Day” and the subtitle: “Copts Likely To Find Persecution, Not Protection, Ahead.” The signature affixed to this one is Doug Bandow, and was published in the Online Forbes Magazine.

The pair of simpletons are simple-minded because they were asked to do something dumb and they did it not realizing how ridiculous they were. Here is what Lynch is supposed to be fuming about with regard to Egypt's activities on the UN Security Council: “Egypt plans to host a public debate on the need to fight incitement to terrorism and extremism.” And there is this: “Egypt is planning … along with New Zealand and Spain, a resolution urging governments and armed groups to respect the sanctity of medical workers and hospitals in conflict zones.” Gosh, can you believe this? How bad can these Egyptians get! Will someone stop them!

Bear in mind that the two anti-Egypt diatribes were identified by Doug Bandow in his Forbes article as having been spurred by “The Working Group on Egypt, whose members include leading neoconservatives such as Robert Kagan and Elliott Abrams.” It is not surprising, therefore, to see why these people had volcanoes erupt in their bellies, when exposed to what else Egypt has done. Look at the following passage in the Lynch article: “The Security Council has been polarized on many issues way before we joined it. We are in fact trying to bridge the gaps,” the Egyptian official said. “We have been proactive on almost every item. We simply refuse to be part of the furniture, as we are stakeholders on most of the issues on the council's agenda,” he added.

Scandalous. How dare they speak as a sovereign nation? As if this were not enough to set the entrails of the neocons on fire, look what else happened:

“Egypt's diplomatic counterparts at the U.N. say Cairo is shrewdly deploying elaborate and sophisticated arguments on a range of issues to push back on efforts to interfere in the domestic affairs of U.N. member states. Some U.N. officials have also credited Egypt with helping to press for a cessation of hostilities in Yemen … council diplomats say they have been deeply impressed with their Egyptian counterparts' diplomatic savvy … The Egyptians hit the ground running … They have mastered the U.N. Security Council's working procedures, an essential skill for influencing council debates, and Egypt's expert on Burundi, Somalia, Syria, and North Korea have all served in those countries before coming to New York … They are the best diplomats in the Arab world.”

Scandalous. How dare they be this good without obtaining prior permission from a higher authority in Washington or New York? These people must be punished.

Now to the Doug Bandow article. He says the following:

“the Middle East has turned hostile to Christians … also at risk are Egypt's Copts … the authorities did not actively persecute Copts, observed Michelle Dunne … Al-Sisi overthrew Morsi and became president. The previous Pope was connected to Mubarak. Pope Tawadros II publicly supported the coup and called al-Sisi a 'hero' … The church support for the military found itself targeted by angry Islamists … al-Sisi celebrated Christmas at a Coptic service”. What else can a president do to be close to his people? Nothing. In fact, the Christians of Egypt are asking for nothing more.

But that's exactly what’s bad about Egypt, says Bandow. He explains that the Christians of Egypt, including the current Pope and the one before him, did not know what was good for them. And if you want to know why that is, here is Bandow's explanation: “Even if Copts believe they remain safer under al-Sisi, they may have sold their liberty birthrate [he means birthright] for what turns out to be a mess of security pottage. The Coptic Church appears to be on the side of the oppressors … Copts live in the same unfree society as everyone else.” To which Egypt's Christians tell the Bandows of this world: go shove it.

But why is he saying what he says? It is because he fantasizes that “Cairo is engaged in a systematic campaign to shut down organizations which report on government abuses. Scores of domestic and international NGOs are under investigation … which raises questions about the stability of al-Sisi's rule”.

That last statement – indeed the entire two articles – is proven false by what Bandow says next: “In April public protests erupted over the gifting of two islands to Saudi Arabia.” Well, if repression in Egypt is what he says it is, those protests would not have taken place, or they would have been met with such force, people would have died. But nothing like that ever happened.

The truth is that the two islands belong to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Fearing an Israeli attempt to steal them, the militarily weak Kingdom at the time asked president Nasser of Egypt to protect them. He did, and now that the Kingdom has the military might to protect them, it got them back. When this was explained to the protesters, they went home quietly.

Now look what else Bandow says: “Egyptians unwilling to turn out on behalf of democracy demonstrated against this public prostration before Riyadh.” Two things are wrong with this statement. The first is that the protesters were uniformed. When they were told the history of the islands, they went home quietly.

The second thing is that the Egyptians will always be willing to turn out on behalf of democracy. They did twice before and they will do it again. For Bandow to say they were unwilling to do so this time is to show how confused the Americans have become about the meaning of democracy and the set of values it represents.

The problem is that for half a century it was drummed into the heads of the American people that democracy is expressed in the form of Jewish haggling, complete with “tough” Yiddish insults. That's what the people of America have come to believe. It's what the congress of the brain dead has come to reflect. And this is why America is paralyzed today.

Mooring the American Ship of State to Israel?

There is an old saying which goes something like this: “When God decides to destroy someone, he first renders them mad.” If you look at the situation in America today, you'll find that it applies on the dot to the self appointed leaders of the Jews who are losing the allegiance of their rank and file in droves, and are going bananas.

One of those going really mad is Lee Smith who wrote “A World Unmoored,” an article published on April 18, 2016 in the Weekly Standard. Smith begins his presentation by saying that Secretary of State John “Kerry hearts Mohammad Javad Zarif, the Iranian minister … Kerry has a man crush on his Iranian counterpart.” And why is that? Because “Kerry reportedly speaks to Zarif on the phone regularly.” That is, Kerry is doing jaw-jaw instead of war-war, says Smith – and this must be love (or is it luv?) not politics or diplomacy.

If you are old enough to remember the time during the 1960s when all the talk was about sexual politics, you'll be tempted to put today's events in that context. So you ask why John Kerry is talking to Javad Zarif as often as he does, and Lee Smith provides the answer: “That's a good thing, says Kerry, because it means there's now a channel open to discuss issues between the two countries”.

Okay, you say, and you contrast that reality with the never ending talk in America and Israel about the exceptionally close relationship that is said to exist between America and Israel. To wit, you remember the time when the Jewish leaders in America and the Israeli operatives everywhere else lured President Obama into visiting Israel with the promise that the move will beget a peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians.

Obama took the bait, visited Israel in good faith, and had what was described as a love-in with Netanyahu and his party. But no peace treaty was begotten, an outcome that was predicted by those who know the Jews inside out. So the question we pose to Lee Smith is the following: What do you call that, Lee? Was it luv or was it the seductive promise of a dick-teaser?

Perhaps Smith had realized this much by the time he got thus far writing the article. We make this assumption because he shifted the imagery from sexual politics to this: “Why Kerry boasts of this dubious achievement is partly a function of his vanity.” He now says it is vanity not love, and goes on to make the scenario a little more complicated. It's not only one man, he says, it's two of them: “The pictures of Kerry laughing with Zarif as well as his opposite number in Moscow, Sergey Lavrov, are evidence of something gone wrong in Washington”.

But why all this vitriol, you want to know? Two reasons, says Lee Smith. First, “the Iranians threaten America's chief Middle East ally, Israel, while the Russians are trying to drag another U.S. partner, Turkey, into conflict.” Second, he explains that: “Kerry is off the reservation, but it's the president who is giving Iran concession after concession.” And there is a dark reason for that, he explains. It is that Obama is doing worse than appeasement, “it's an Obama reeducation program”.

It is that bad, huh? Bad? We are told it is bad? What's bad? What the hell does it all mean, anyway? Good set of questions, says Lee Smith. And he answers them. He says that Obama is “correcting American foreign policy by changing a mindset 'characterized by a preference for military action over diplomacy' … He believes he freed himself from the 'Washington playbook' [that's] out of the foreign policy establishment prescrib[ing] military responses,” and only that.

Wow, no more military responses, says Obama. It is back to the Sixties. It is peace and love (luv) again where flower power will defeat the mighty gun. Will Lee Smith be asked to tiptoe on the tulips?

He must fear this will happen because Obama believes that “decades of American thinking were wrong.” No, says Smith, that's false and he explains why: “The purpose of America's post-WWII foreign policy was to ensure a degree of stability abroad.” But how was this to be achieved? By dividing the world into two camps, says Smith: “These are our allies, and these are our adversaries”. And he warns: “dismantling the global order backed by American power, Obama has left the world unmoored”.

But how do we know who is our ally and who is our adversary? Simple, says Lee Smith. If someone extends his arm in friendship, he's our adversary. If he teases our dick, he's our ally. Israel is doing that and the American ship of state should be moored to it.

Round two of the Hate Machine now engaged

Shortly after the first Gulf War, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and the United States of America (USA) entered a period that might be called belated honeymoon.

It happened because the half century of relations between the two countries – that had never gone beyond business dealings – suddenly turned into an intimate courtship. It's that Saudi Arabia had invited America to come and kick the redoubtable Saddam Hussein out of neighboring Kuwait. Doing this, scoring a brilliant victory and receiving payment for a job well done, the Americans were satisfied, and so were their Saudi hosts. The two were slated to live happily ever after … At least that's how things looked on the surface.

But the reality is that a double game of love triangle simmered beneath the surface. On the one hand, the Jews in America were jealous of that relationship because their scheme had always been to monopolize the American superpower and exploit its potentials. On the other hand, a group of Saudis, led by Usama Bin Laden, were jealous to see the hallow grounds of their kingdom desecrated by foreign troops that overstayed their welcome.

Bin Laden responded to the situation in a spectacular way, and history has recorded most of the minutia relating to that response. What is missing from history is the way that the Jews played their game and continue to play it. They were already influential in America at the time, but not as much as they are today. And so they chose the easy way to drive the wedge between the two “devotees.” They did it using the CBS television show 60 minutes to start a focused attack on the KSA.

To this end, they found an American woman that had served with the military in Saudi Arabia. They got her to whine that she felt violated being there. You would think she was raped by the entire Saudi military but no, it's not what happened. In fact, nobody even touched her. Well then, what happened? Are you ready for the answer, my friend? Here it comes: Her problem is that she was told to cover her head with a scarf when in public. Oh help us patron saint of repressed women! What infamy! What horror! What violation of a woman's human right!

For a time after that, the gates of heaven were left wide open to let the tears of sorrow rain down on a nation in mourning. The gates of hell were also left wide open to let the fire and brimstone of every orator and every wordsmith lob their biting ordnance at the Saudi way of life. The effect was that a rocky relationship developed between the two countries for a time, but things got back to normal eventually and to business as usual.

That was round one of the Jewish attempt to drive a wedge between the Saudis and the Americans. Bear in mind, however, that in a great drama, the storyline may be told through the main plot but the sizzle always comes out the subplots. And the subplot in this drama happened to be that the demise of Saddam Hussein had spurred the rise of Iran. What used to be Israel's friend now became its fiercest enemy. Iran was growing so fast, Israel resorted to reassuring its supporters in America that, in the confrontation with Iran, Saudi Arabia was on its side. For this falsehood to stick, Israel instructed its braying megaphones in America to hold back on the fire and brimstone they were lobbing in Saudi Arabia's direction.

Two things happened subsequent to that episode. First, Israel and the Jews lost the battle of the Iran nuclear deal. Second, the two pillars of the Arab world, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, started a rapprochement that promises to turn the dormant Arab Spring into a renewed Garden of Eden – the way the region was before the occupation of Palestine. And so, the Jews of America went back to the 60 Minutes show, and to the theme of Bin Laden.

It is that Bin Laden had expressed his anger at America by staging the 9/11 event. What the Jews have done 15 years later was to get 60 Minutes to demand the publication of classified pages in that file. Their intent is to start round two in the attempt to drive a wedge between KSA and USA, something they hope will drag Egypt into the dispute as well. It is worth noting that using America to hurt the Arabs, especially Egypt, has always been the most enduring of the Jewish dreams.

You already see American megaphones returning to the business of braying the same old Judeo-Israeli refrain. In fact, a recent article came under the title: “How Saudi Arabia dangerously undermines the United States,” written by Ralph Peters and published on April 16, 2016 in the New York Post.

Read it, and you'll understand why nothing ever ends well for the Jews. They have been damned for an eternity.

Fanatic Friends of Israel insulting Americans

You cannot find two so-called friends of Israel who would be more fanatic in their support for that artificial concoction than Mortimer Zuckerman and Alan Dershowitz.

In fact, Zuckerman brags that when it comes to supporting Israel, he is like the 90 year old man who keeps siring children. As to Dershowitz, he is a diehard volunteer lobbyist for Israel who spent a lifetime etching in the minds of America's retarded lawmakers that Israel has the divine right to commit against the Palestinians any crime that anyone has ever committed against a human being anywhere in the world, anytime in history.

Each of those two wrote a piece and had it published in Mortimer Zuckerman's New York Daily News on April 17, 2016. Under the guise of writing a regular editorial, Zuckerman authored: “Bernie just doesn't get it on Israel.” As to Alan Dershowitz, he wrote: “Bernie Sanders' illiberal supporters,” a regular Dershowitz piece of propaganda that also came under the subtitle: “Do they expect safe spaces everywhere?”

Here is how Zuckerman introduces the readers to the reasons why the pair of fanatics were motivated to raise their panicky voices at this time: “Brooklyn born-and-bred Bernie Sanders fancies himself a truth-teller by decrying Israel's response to Hamas and promising to sympathize with Palestinians should he win the White House … His remarks reveal him to be dangerously naïve about the realities of the region”.

He then starts the argument in defense of Israel by shooting himself in the mouth and shooting Israel in the head. Look at this juvenile passage: “While repeating that Israel has the right to defend her people, Sanders undermined that assertion by insisting that the Jewish state's response to Hamas was 'disproportionate'”.

What he says is that because Israel has the right to defend itself, it can employ any measure it wants when attacking someone – however extreme the measure may be. And her actions must never be considered disproportionate, says Zuckerman. Well, this is just another way to formulate the Dershowitz doctrine which says Israel has the right to commit any crime that anyone has committed anywhere in the world, anytime in history. The two fanatics are of one and the same mind on this matter.

But wait a minute. This is a universal right. In fact, it is well recognized that everyone – not just Israel – has the right to defend themselves. Consequently, the Dershowitz doctrine says that everyone has the right to commit any crime committed anywhere, anytime in history. This being the prevailing Jewish ideology, you know why my Jewish friend used to throw his hands up in the air and cry out that the self-appointed fanatic leaders of the Zuckerman and Dershowitz variety, are the people who – by their egotistical mutterings and selfish activities – stuff the proverbial train with innocent Jews and send them on a one way trip to the gas chamber.

And guess what, my friend. Bernie Sanders is the only Jew currently trying to put an end to this 4,000 year old human tragedy. The task is so superhuman you can only talk about it in fictional terms. That is, given Bernie’s stellar performance – as if powered by the warp engine of the Sanders truth-telling starship – Zuckerman's attempt to discredit him looks as comical and tragic as the performance of a Manhattan thief obstructing Captain Kirk (of Start Trek fame) and trying to rob him.

Look how Zuckerman has tried to pull his stunt: “the candidate [Sanders] infamously – and wrongly – told this editorial board that 10,000 Gazans were killed when that was the statistic for the injured.” That's it? That's all there is to Sanders' infamy and wrong-headed deed? Is this the performance about which Zuckerman moans “doesn't make Sanders good for Israel or America”?

But what about the editors who interviewed Bernie and asked a question to which they didn't know the answer? At least he admitted before answering that he couldn't remember the exact number. When he asked the editors to refresh his memory, they said they didn't know the answer either. Yeah, that's the truth, my friend. It is how the interview unfolded. Check the transcript and see for yourself.

So this message is for you, Captain Kirk of the starship. Have pity for the Zuckerman. Do not vaporize him as you might be tempted to do, but tell Scottie to beam him to a barren planet where he'll not sire anymore children.

As to Alan Dershowitz, here is what he proclaims at the start of his presentation: “the time has come to focus some of those who are most actively backing his [Sanders] candidacy.” He then goes on to insult Black Lives Matter, CodePink, MoveOn, the Occupy Wall Street veterans and the BDS movement, calling them all repressives.

He explains that they have “a warped concept of free speech that reflects the maxim 'free speech for me, but not for thee.'” But the fact is that no one other than Alan Dershowitz has admitted, let alone bragged, about curtailing someone's free speech.

It is that Dershowitz beat his breast like a proud ape of the jungle when he successfully denied a former President of the United States the right to free speech. And being a Jew, he did what comes naturally to him; he accused someone else of what he sees in himself.

This alone merits asking James T. Kirk of the starship to do what he sees fit with this defective specimen.

Incorrect Diagnosis and wrong Prescription

Let's be clear about one thing; the American President, Dwight Eisenhower who knew a thing or two about war and weapons of war – having been the American general who defeated the Nazis and liberated Europe – did the right thing when he warned about the growing power of the military-industrial complex.

He may or may not have been a military historian, and he may not have been an economic whiz kid, but he did not need to be a historian or an economist to know something about the relationship that exists between an absurd military posture and the ruin of nations. All he had to do was read up just a little about ancient Greece, Rome, the Ottoman Empire and others, to realize that a nation in relative economic decline (compared to others) will sign its own economic death warrant and military decline if it tries to expand militarily. Too bad, Eisenhower did not live long enough to see his view vindicated by the collapse of the old Soviet Union. He would have said to the Russians, I would have told you so if I thought you'd listen to me.

The correlated reality is that a rising economic power feels compelled to embark on a program to arm itself. It will do so in the knowledge that those who are still more powerful will try to slow down, if not crush, the economic progress it is making. And so, it will take the view that it is prudent to arm itself as if buying an insurance policy to protect its gains. In fact, a rising economic power can do so because to prepare for self-defense – as opposed to taking offensive action – will only cost it a fraction of the economic growth it is achieving.

That was the history of rising economic powers such as Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Belgium, Holland and Japan till they made the fatal mistake of changing their military posture from defense to offense and the conquest of other lands. They captured the colonies whose natural resources they coveted, and then got so greedy as to turn against each other. And while this was happening, America became the rising economic power that began to see the necessity to arm itself and protect its gains. It did so and did it well – not only for itself but also for the foolish European powers that ruined themselves eventually.

Why is it important to remember this history? It is important because the cycle of life has come full circle, and America is now in economic decline compared to other rising powers, especially China. This is the rising economic juggernaut that's arming itself with mostly defensive weapons. It has also deployed a limited number of systems to act as offensive deterrence. This is to signal to the world that an aggressor contemplating a surprise first strike on China will not escape retaliation.

In response to that situation, there are those in America who argue that the country should arm itself, and there are those who argue it should adapt to the new reality, concentrating instead on revitalizing its economic base, thus be in a position to face a future that no one can predict how will unfold. Benny Avni is one of those who argue for arming America. He wrote: “Will any of the 2016 candidates be ready for the China challenge?” an article that was published on April 15, 2016 in the New York Post.

Having called China a challenge – as seen in the title of the article – and having nitpicked on every activity China undertook no matter how benign it may have been, Avni diagnosed China's posture, describing it as an evil-minded aggression. And he ended the article as follows: “Bottom line: The best chance of reining in China is through credible military deterrence … Will our next president put [that option on the table]? Based on the candidates' words and deeds, there's little sign of that so far”. This is a most extreme hawkish posture.

How did our author come to formulate those ideas, anyway? Actually, it is hard to answer this question because the writer started the article by stating his position without prior warning. Here is how he did that: “Our top Asian allies may soon find themselves in an epic battle with China.” He then falsely claimed that China took properties that belonged to other nations when, in fact, no flag was flying over any of the reefs or atolls he says belonged to those nations. But to reinforce the absurd claim he made, he quoted Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter who said that China's actions are causing anxiety and raising tensions in the area.

Whereas the Secretary did not say to whom those reefs and atolls belong, Avni went on to explain that America has a skin in the game because: “$5 trillion in annual trade and a third of the world's maritime traffic sail those waters [South China Sea,] and China may soon become the arbiter of it all.” As can be seen, Avni's suggestion is that the South China Sea should be interceded by America which lives half a world away, and not by China that lives in the neighborhood. Go figure.

Benny Avni mentions that Ashton Carter announced new military deployment in the Philippines. But he moans that “a show of force no longer instills fear.” As if to illustrate this point, he asserts that Obama will always shy away from military confrontation. He then asks: What will our four top presidential wannabes do about China”?

He guesses what each candidate will or will not do if elected president, and gives his bottom line. He prescribes that America should arm itself.

Dwight Eisenhower must be spinning in his grave.