A Metamorphosis taught me something new

This presentation has to do with an article that was written by Steven A. Cook. It deals with his presentation on two levels. First, there is the content of the article. Second, there is a happenstance against which I brushed many times previously but never realized how influential it can at times be until now.

Let's begin with the second level. I have dealt with columns that were syndicated to several publications for many years, conscious of the fact that each publication used a different title under which to print the same article. Because the articles were printed the same day or one day apart, I seldom read more than one version. But when I did, I reacted more or less the same way the second time as I did the first time.

And then I brushed against the Steven Cook happenstance, and learned something new. Here is the reality, Cook is not a syndicated columnist; his work appears mostly on the website of the Council on Foreign Relations. Once in a while I would find an article of his printed in another publication, but that's all. This time, however, an article that was published on the Council's website also appeared in Newsweek. But there was a difference this time. The article appeared on the Council's website on May 25, 2016, and on the Newsweek website 4 days later, on May 29, 2016.

And let me tell you – those 4 days, coupled with the difference in the titles under which the same article was printed, made a big difference. The Council chose the title: “Drinking from the Nile,” which probably was Cook's choice. That of Newsweek was: “Don't blame Obama for Egypt's political mess,” which represents not the spirit of the article but the mental disease of the editor that came up with it.

You cannot imagine how much affection for Egypt is packed in the saying with which Steven Cook started the article. Here it is: “There is an Egyptian saying that goes like this: 'Once you drink from the Nile, you will come back again.'” That's the sentiment which is also reflected in the title: “Drinking from the Nile.” When you see this, when you go over the article, and you see how it ends: “All of this is a long way of saying, I cannot wait to go back,” you realize that Steven Cook just kissed and made up with Egypt after a two-year estrangement because he wants the world to know he loves that country.

Did I get that same impression when I read the article 4 days later under a different title? No, I did not. In fact, having read dozens of other articles in the interim, and having written and published at least 4 new ones myself, the original sentiment had worn off, and different ones were enveloping me. It is as if I was one organism one day and a different organism 4 days later.

The Cook article is made of two parts. The first is the kissing, the embrace, the asking to be forgiven for past indiscretions, and the promise that he, Steven Cook will be more gentle writing about Egypt from here on. The second part consists of writing a first draft of the recent history of Egypt; that which he witnessed close-up.

Reading the article the first time, I was left with one overriding impression. It was this: Steven Cook had started a beautiful new relationship with Egypt. It is one that distances him from the “Washington-based Egypt watchers” and from the likes of Michelle Dunne; all of whom are incorrigible in his view.

To display even more affection for Egypt, he threw into the mix something deeply personal. For the first time, he mentioned his daughters. It is clear that he is signaling he'll want to introduce them to the magnificence of that civilization “Keda.” And this is an Egyptian word that would have warmed the heart of Walter Cronkite because it translates into: That's the way it is.

So now, what do I make of the Newsweek treatment of the article? Well, the person that chose the title: “Don't blame Obama for Egypt's political mess” may or may not be a part of the Washington-based Egypt watchers, but he or she is definitely a part of the New-York/Washington noise-making and disinformation machine.

Yes, it is true that Cook wrote a paragraph under the subtitle: “For Egypt's elite, it is all Washington's fault...still,” in which he says this: “The persistence of this narrative is odd, mainly because it contradicts the record,” but that does not justify the Newsweek title.

Yes the narrative persists, like he says, but there is nothing odd about it. The fact is that Egypt's elite that's known to Cook lives in Cairo, not in Washington. And what these people know about Washington is what reaches their ears coming to them from Washington.

They have been hearing noise to the effect that: this is happening in Egypt because Washington did that. Also, this is not happening in Egypt because Washington failed to do that. They heard it on and on and on.

It is the idle talk of a bunch that hungers for an “exceptional” America that can transform the universe by uttering a word or two – but cannot find an exceptional way to realize their hungry dream. And so they talk about it to make foreigners believe it is real. Well, they have succeeded, at least in Egypt.

It is obvious that neither the elites in Cairo nor the watchers in Washington have been reading this website. If they did, they would know I've been shouting from the rooftops that the millions who demonstrate in Egypt, who speak on television and who write in the newspapers, make things happen because they do not care what Washington says or what the local elites hear.

These people – the majority of Egyptians – have a vision for their country, and they will implement it … be that today, tomorrow or the next decade. They will succeed eventually because it is what they want.

WSJ: Okay to murder children if you're gay

Actually, the Wall Street Journal editors did not come right out and said it’s okay for gay people to murder children, but they said the things that imply they meant it. So the question: Why did they not realize what they were doing?

You can try answering that question after reading: “Democrats vs. Israel,” a piece that also came under the subtitle: “Sanders puts two hostile voices on the party's platform committee.” It was published on May 27, 2016 in the Wall Street Journal.

It is the same old story about editors being so blinded by the intensity of their Jewish fanaticism, they could not see past the end of their noses. And right there, at the limit of their vision, there was this set of instructions … this one thing only. It was a list of talking points designed to lead to one conclusion and nothing else ... this conclusion: The righteousness of the Jews extends beyond infinity; the unrighteousness of those who do not love the Jews extends beyond infinity. It is that when talking about the Jews, the currency used must be nothing less than a set of absolutes.

You'll see how fanaticism made the WSJ editors sound like they say they do not mind seeing gay people murder children because homosexuality is part of a value system that's tolerated by Americans of the liberal democratic persuasion, and rejected by the enemies of the Jews. Yes, there is the fact that a large segment of the Jewish population also rejects homosexuality and that conservative Wall Street Journal does too. But in the eyes of the editors, this reality does not elevate the homophobic enemies of the Jews to the level of the homophobic Western lovers of the Jews.

The editorial is about a paradigm that's shifting in America. The shift is opposed by the Journal editors in the way that a child tries to stop a moving train. He does it by imagining himself to be Superman pushing backward a train that wants to go forward. The train in this analogy is the sense of justice that the American people say is the moral force motivating them to do what's right regardless of the consequences. To the dismay of the Journal editors, this is how that force manifests itself: “A Pew poll found that self-identified liberal Democrats now tilt to the Palestinians, 40% to 33%.” And that was enough to make the editors see red.

Realizing there is nothing they can do to stop the train, let alone push it backward; the Journal's toddling Superman tries to sabotage the rails on which the train rides by painting an unflattering picture of the men that Sanders put on the platform committee of the Democratic Party. This is what the editors say about them: “The pair are expected to push hard for a more 'even-handed' position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict”. Got it? To the Wall Street Journal, even-handedness is now a crime. At least it is for this one occasion.

Even if you're not old enough to remember a time when it was anti-Semitic to say that the Jews were lobbying to make America biased towards Israel rather than be even-handed, the fact that they now openly call for America to be biased even as she plays the role of honest broker, should send the chill down your spine. This will happen if you think of the venomous morality that these people have stealthily been injecting into the American culture for half a century.

And that's not all. Realizing that they have no convincing legal argument they can advance to oppose Sanders' choice, or oppose the views of the two gentlemen, the Journal editors try to pull a fast one. To do that, they rely on the mistaken notion that America and Israel share the same values. The trouble, however, is that they end up creating a situation that backfires on them.

Here is what happened. First they chided one of the appointees for articulating his views with regard to the Gaza War. He had said this: “The Israeli massacre of precious children is a crime against humanity.” And then, they ended their presentation like this: “support for Israel should come naturally to the Democratic Party. Last we checked it was better to be a homosexual in Tel Aviv than in Gaza. As they write their party's platform, Democrats might ask why Israel that fully shares their values, should be the one they condemn”.

In other words, the editors of the Wall Street Journal are saying to the 15 members who will write the Democratic platform: Don't worry about Palestinian children being massacred because the Israeli pilots responsible for the massacres may turn out to be homosexual.

That's how blind and obnoxious become the people who get bitten by Jewish fanaticism.

Making the foreign Policy Sausage

It is said that making decisions in the American democracy is like making sausage. The process may at times appear disgusting, but when all is said and done, the final product is a delightful thing to have and to live with.

This should apply to decision making in all aspects of democratic life, including the making of decisions in the realm of foreign policy. In fact, the process in this case should appear even more disgusting since it requires interacting with foreign powers whose kitchen manners may be less appetizing than those of America.

This being the case, you would expect that the media refrain from reporting on the making of the political sausage, restricting their discussions to the substance of what's being decided. In addition, when a decision is made and turned over to the executors, you would expect that the discussion on both the substance of the decision and its making will cease. In fact, this should become an obligatory restriction because to continue attacking the final product will signal rejection of the democratic process itself.

Now a pertinent question: Is this what's happening in America today? Or is it an ideal situation that may never see the light of day? The answer is that it's not happening in America today. However, the idea is not so ideal that it was never implemented in the past. In fact, that was the norm till the advent of the Jews who infiltrated the media, took them over, and used them to dismantle the pillars upon which the American culture stood.

One of the pillars being a foreign policy that made America the shiny city on the hill everyone looked up to, admired and respected – the Jews pulled down that policy with ruthless efficiency, and replaced it with the biblical imperatives of blood, mayhem, fear, suspicion, hate and revenge. But despite all this, a few good things have managed to get through the Jewish filter. And that's when the Jews got to work again, trying this time to take down what may be the last pillar in America's foreign policy apparatus.

You can see how they go about doing this in two articles that were published on the same day, May 27, 2016 in the same publication, the Weekly Standard. One article came under the title “The selling of the Iran Deal” and the subtitle: “Lies on top of lies,” written by Mark Hemingway. The other article came under the title: “Wendy Sherman Defends U.S. Human Rights Record in Iran” and the subtitle: “Despite lack of sanctions on human rights cases there since nuclear deal,” written by Jenna Lifhits.

The Iran nuclear deal is a political and diplomatic sausage that was negotiated between seven nations comprising Iran and the five permanent members who sit on the Security Council of the UN, plus Germany. It was signed, sealed and delivered after two years of intense negotiations during which time the Jews attacked it with the ferocity of a school of piranhas. For the Jews to continue attacking it can only signal that they wish to remain out of step with the human race. That's how they lived since the day they came into being, and that's where their leaders wish to maintain them.

Doing something never done before while describing this kind of international endeavor, the Mark Hemingway article tells how the sausage was made, and how it was communicated. He calls the process “a disturbing picture of how the Iran deal was sold.” You understand the source of his discontent when you see what stands out in the article, hence his preoccupation. It is the heavy emphasis he places on the Judeo-Israeli angle of the story. Here is a montage of that:

“...including commentary from Stephen Walt, coauthor of a book that claims Jewish interests dictate American foreign policy … the emails were riddled with antisemitic conspiracy theories … pro-Israel Christian groups were secretly funded by Mossad … bombing of the Jewish center was a false flag operation by the Argentine government to cover up its complicity with the Nazis”.

And then came the inevitable coup de grace that the Jews always deliver when they part company with those who helped them. Look at this demonic treachery: “Michael Doran, a member of the NSC in the George W. Bush administration … proposed that Congress cut the size of the NSC by limiting its budget and putting tight restrictions on the number of detailees it can borrow from other departments and agencies.” That is, Michael Doran is advocating that the NSC be restructured so as to better serve Israel, always Israel and no one but Israel … not even the American people.

As to Jenna Lifhits, she reports that on the question of violating the nuclear deal or violating human rights or violating the ban on supporting terrorism, Iran has remained as clean as a whistle. However, she is not happy because America did not retaliate against anything since the signing of the agreement with Iran.

Lifhits does not say what America should have retaliated against, but that's a minor detail that should not have prevented America from hitting Iran for something … anything that may have happened or may not.

This thing has a name; it is called quintessential Jewish logic.

He straightens out the Circle into an Arrow

Charles Krauthammer has an intriguing theory about the unfolding of history, but messed it up when he tried to expand on it. This happened because he let his political preferences get in the way.

He wrote “The arrow of history,” a column that was published on May 26, 2016 in the Washington Post. The piece seems to begin smartly, though we notice that the seeds of its future demise were already sown right there at the start. We see them grow larger the deeper we burrow into the article, such that by the time we reach the middle, we discover that the theory had succumbed to their weight.

It is obvious that the objective of the author from the start had been to draw a distinction between the political Left and the political Right using a device known as analogy to help him illustrate his point. This is a legitimate course to take, but where he went wrong is in the fact that he overused the device. He did so by creating several layers of analogies that confused his message rather than clarify it.

The problem is that Krauthammer constructed his piece on several levels that did not interweave too well. On one level, he drew a parallel between idealism and realism. Layered on top of it is a parallel between optimism and pessimism. Layered on top of that is a parallel between the cyclical nature of history and its directional nature. And finally, layered on top of that is a parallel between the liberal viewpoint and the conservative one.

Having argued that to conservatives: “history is an endless cycle of clashing power politics ... the best we can do is defend ourselves ... expect no alteration in the course of human affairs,” he sets out to contrast these sayings with the liberal stance – that which he says aspires for “something more humane and hopeful.” But that's where Krauthammer balks because he is a neoconservative, and he just made the liberal stance sound loftier than that of the conservatives. What to do now? There was only one thing he could think of: correct history.

This is how he does it: “What is usually overlooked is that this hopefulness for achieving a higher plane of global comity comes in two flavors – one liberal, one conservative.” Alas, this is where the readers become confused. They do because the author has just demolished the notion of history being “an endless cycle, promising no alteration in human affairs”.

To repair the damage and make his theory work again, Krauthammer is compelled to go beyond correcting history – he distorts it, even mutilates it. His new objective being to avoid creating the impression that the liberals are fixing the world whereas the conservatives are hunkering down in fortress America, he invokes the already circulating mother of all lies, and liens against it for support. Here it is: “Because in the end, democracies are inherently more inclined to live in peace.” And this is a falsehood that goes beyond grotesque.

The truth is that no one can wage a sustained war without the support of the population he governs unless he is a Third World tinpot dictator that's manipulated and financed by a foreign power. These nobodies aside, you'll find that for a reason that may be legitimate or illegitimate; moral or immoral – the initiators of wars have come from such places as Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Democratic India, and successive American and Israeli administrations; all of whom got elected by promising to wage war.

With this in mind, let it be known that war is the highest item on the populist causes. If you want proof as to the validity of this statement, look what's happening in Europe and America these days. It's as if the “Western” world was clamoring for the ships of state to be run on time as well as Mussolini made the trains run on time.

Now that Krauthammer has killed the idea of history being cyclical, he tries to show that the conservative arrow of history is superior to the liberal arrow. To this end, he says that the liberal variety, which depends on global institutions, is inherently flimsy and generally powerless ... whereas the conservative variety relies on the sturdiness of democracy to bring about the sought after international harmony.

Is that all? Is democracy the only remedy the author says will save mankind from itself? Not on your life – not to Charles Krauthammer, the neoconservative. His mouth may sound like that of a dove, but his heart beats like that of a hawk.

Lucky for him, he discovers that Obama was forced to suspend his idealism and adopt realism – or so he believes. To contain China, says he, President Obama returned the American military to the Philippines, and has allowed the sale of weapons to Vietnam. And this, my friend, is what makes a hawkish heart flutter with joy.

That's old style containment, says Krauthammer; “it is raw, soulless realpolitik.” For this reason, he believes that Obama will leave a double legacy: one that is from the liberal realm, and one that is from the conservative realm. Well, better half a loaf than no loaf at all.

Soluble Problems and intractable Problems

Why is it that some problems lend themselves to an easy resolution and others do not? Why is it that some problems remain confined to the two parties involved in a dispute, and other problems spread out to encompass several more parties? Why is it that Jews have a high propensity to interfere in the affairs of others, thus mess up the stage for everyone in the process?

Believe it or not, the best approach to answering those questions is to borrow from economics the principle of supply and demand, and adapt it to social and political situations. The economic principle boils down to this: When the supply of a commodity exceeds the demand for it, the price of the commodity falls. In contrast, when the demand exceeds the supply, the price rises. Thus, the ideal condition is to strike a balance between the two.

When that principle is adapted to social and political situations, it can be said that if the opportunity for the advancement of an individual or an institution or a nation, is clearly seen to be equally available to everyone, tranquility will reign. If, on the other hand, one party believes – rightly or wrongly – that it is kept from attaining its full potential because the system is rigged against it or rigged in favor of someone else, trouble will begin to brew, and the situation will acquire the potential to get out of hand. Thus, to have an ideal condition, one must begin by devising a system that treats all sides equally, and then maintain the impartiality of that system.

However, because we are human beings and not an abstract economic or social concept, we have both the inclination and the ability to seek a compromise to disputes we may have with someone. We sit with other people, talk to them, explain and clarify our position, iron out our differences and reconcile with the position of the other … all in the name of peace and tranquility. Having an impartial mediator moderating the give-and-take between the sides can also be a welcome addition at the negotiating table.

When we are in that frame of mind, and we read the latest article written by Clifford D. May, we recoil at the approach he is taking to parse that same subject-matter and flesh it the way that he does. The article came under the title: “National security reforms for the next president” and the subtitle: “The best we can do is make some educated guesses.” It was published on May 24, 2016 in The Washington Times.

Clifford May says the following at the start of his presentation: “National security can be stated quite simply: We have enemies. What do we do about them? This is a matter of life and death.” May is a Jewish leader, and that is an unmistakable signal from him affirming that Jews have a high propensity not to resolve differences they may have with other people. In fact, they are always at loggerhead with them.

As well, the rest of the article demonstrates that the Jews go out of their way to interfere in the affairs of other people if only to ascertain that differences between them are not resolved, and that reconciliation is never attempted by any of the parties.

After that opening, the author discusses the position taken by each of the two leading candidates now running to be president of the United States. Every step of the way, he makes no secret of his disappointment at both candidates because they appear to him “like a box of chocolates: We don't know what we're gonna get”.

Instead, he would have liked to see that “both candidates understand: America has enemies. They are serious, ruthless and lethal;” a situation that the current President, Barack Obama, has rejected according to the allusions that the author makes, pointing to the resetting of relations with Russia the administration carried out.

From what he says, Clifford May also displays the tendency that the Jews have drummed into the head of a former President. It is the tendency that prompted the latter to say: “If you're not with us, you're against us.” It’s that in the mind of this president and the mind of all those subjected to the same treatment, the world is divided into two factions: There is the good, which is us and all those who are allied with us; and there is the evil, which is them and all those who are allied with them.

The reality is that in a world such as this, there can be no compromise, no discussion to resolve differences between the parties, and no attempt at reconciliation. There can only be war; the kind that goes on at perpetuity or until one side is vanquished for good.

The above paints a picture of what the rest of the world sees when looking at America today. It is different from what the world used to see half a century ago; a time when America was the go-to nation that all the other nations looked up to and wanted to befriend.

The change happened when the Jews monopolized America's foreign policy, making it so that the foreigners can now only see the horrific face of Jewish America. It is a face on which the word soluble is crossed out, and the word intractable is highlighted. What a shame! What a shame!

He says douse the Fire pouring Fuel on it

Look what happened:

1. The late President Ronald Reagan worked hand in hand with Osama Bin Laden to create a force of Mujahedin driven by an extreme form of Islamic fanaticism. They were given the task of defeating the “godless” Soviet Union occupying Muslim Afghanistan at the time. Mission accomplished, the force called itself al-Qaeda, turned against the America that abandoned it, and executed the 9/11 tragedy.

2. The former President, George W. Bush listened without question to the advice of a bunch of Holocaust psychos, and attacked Iraq even though the psychos were known to be driven solely by the fanatic desire to get back at humanity for allowing the Holocaust to happen, an event they say was responsible for their relatives being gassed and incinerated.

3. The current President, Barack Obama bowed to French pressure inspired by Jewish fanaticism, and participated in the attack on Libya under the pretext of saving that country from itself … but failed to do so. In addition, the attack resulted in large chunks of the country being grabbed by the Islamic State known as (ISIL), an offshoot of Bin Laden's al-Qaeda.

Now this question: What does that say to anyone who has at least the IQ of a monkey? It says that whenever America listens to the fanatic voice of a Jew and does as he says, something extremely bad results. It is as if America's intervention were the fuel that's poured on a brush fire, turning the thing into a hellish inferno that ends up consuming the forest.

Those realities clarified, it may now take the IQ of a human being to reason that the way to manage the current fires is to keep America at bay. To extinguish them will take time and a great deal of coordinated effort among many players. To make sure that such thing never happens again, will require that everyone say to America it has a Jewish problem that needs fixing, and then suggest a way to do it.

We can identify the specifics of the Jewish problem in America by combing the article that came under the title: “Thanks to Obama, the terrorist cancer is growing,” written by Marc A. Thiessen and published on May 23, 2016 in the Washington Post. The first thing we notice about the Jewish method of advising how to solve a problem is that the Jews attack the person that's trying to do just that.

In fact, Marc Thiessen did that … he did even worse than that. Look at this passage: “White House noted that in Iraq 45 percent of the populated area previously controlled by ISIL, and 20 percent in Syria have been retaken … That's like a patient who ignored a cancer diagnosis, bragging that he reduced the tumor – glossing over the fact that he let it metastasize. Had he attacked the Islamic State early, he could have stopped it from spreading in the first place”.

Well, let me tell you something Marc. Before you write another thing, you'll need to get yourself a monkey that will teach you how to write a logical piece. Do you realize what you just did? You accused Obama of ignoring a problem in the same breath that you said 45 percent of the problem in Iraq and 20 percent of it in Syria were resolved. That's an intolerable contradiction. If you still can't see that, ask the monkey to explain it to you.

Moreover, you went on to lament that Obama could have done what George W. Bush did when told that the Bin Laden cancer can be stopped if America invaded Iraq. Well, W. did that at an earlier time, and look what the unintended consequences did to the Levant. In case you forgot my advice, Marc, you'll need that monkey to keep reminding you that madness is defined as doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

No wonder Thiessen has ended his presentation like this: “When it came to terrorist networks, the George W. Bush administration had a mantra: We're going to fight them over there so that we do not have to face them here at home. Obama abandoned that mantra. And now the danger is getting closer to home with each passing day.” And that, my friend, is a lie of biblical dimensions.

The truth is that 9/11 happened under George W. Bush, not Barack Obama. Later, many terror attacks were attempted under Obama but very few succeeded. Most were stopped before they could cause any harm. For Thiessen and those like him to start paving the way for the next president to revive the Bush approach and return America to a state of perpetual war is to engage in the criminal betrayal of their country. They do it by inciting others to do what they cannot do themselves.

Get a monkey to keep you under control, Marc. Or get rid of your fanaticism and you'll be cured automatically. If you do this, you'll be human again or at least able to act like one.

A Lesson for America's military Brass

They don't need me to tell them this; they know it already. I just chronicle what I see and let the chips fall where they may … today and tomorrow.

There is no doubt in my mind that America's military commanders have learned the lesson that when the group of national security advisers is made of Jews, the military commanders and their units will find themselves at the mercy of a bunch of nobodies whose military doctrine is modeled after that of the Masada suicidal group they read about in Jewish mythology. In fact, this is why America is today in the pickle where it finds itself.

Details of how the game is played have now been revealed. It shows the moves that lead to events such as the invasion of Iraq, and the resulting holocaust … like the one that's engulfing the Levant at this time. The account bearing those details is fleshed out in a column that came under the title: “Netanyahu Against the Generals” and the subtitle: “A case pits Israel's faith in democracy against the views of its military brass,” written by Bret Stephens and published on May 24, 2016 in the Wall Street Journal.

On the surface, the story that Stephens is telling, is about the Israeli military and not the American. But those who follow this pundit and others like him know that these people have so conflated America and Israel, when they speak about one, they speak about the other. In their mind, America is but a province of the worldwide Jewish Caliphate that's governed by a clique issuing orders to a network of hustlers operating globally.

What happened in Israel recently is something that came close to what happened in America in the early 1990s when a bunch of Jewish civilians – calling themselves children of Holocaust survivors – put together a plan through which they sought to take control of the American military at a future date. That time came ten years later when George W. Bush was elected president, and Dick Cheney was his vice president. The latter staffed his office with members of the Jewish bunch that had the plan, and gave them complete authority to do as they wish. Little did he know they were so mental, normal people referred to them as Holocaust psychos.

We now know that the aim of these Jews was to use the American military to destroy Iraq and other Arab countries … which is what they started doing. The difference between that time and what's happening in Israel today is that the American commanders sucked it up, saluted and obeyed the commands issued to them from the desks of the Holocaust psychos. By contrast, the Israeli commanders rejected the unlawful orders issued to them, and gave their middle finger to Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister and psycho-in-chief. Why is that?

It could be that the American commanders – sitting at the top of a military that's second to none – did not question the Jewish orders because they did not fear being dragged into a Nuremberg style criminal court. The situation being different for the Israelis, we can see why their commanders – who see the sword of justice come closer to them day after day – chose to revolt and be out of a job rather than spend the rest of their lives in the slammer or stand in front of a firing squad.

But how can a democracy of the size and power of America be taken down the path of ruin by a handful of Jews in such a short period of time? Well, the Bret Stephens article offers an answer, provided you remember that he and those like him used to side with the military when it was sitting on the hawkish side of the equation, being restrained by civilian masters who used to sit on the dovish side. Look how Stephens has now changed:

“At stake is the question of civilian-military relations, where Israel's military leaders are dead wrong. A security establishment that feels no compunction about publicly telling off its civilian masters in on the road to becoming a law unto itself in the service of leftist goals … It was Israel's security establishment, led by former officers such as Yizhak Rabin and Ehud Barak, that led Israelis down the bloody cul-de-sac formerly called the peace process … those who believe that Israel must remain a democracy have no choice but to take Mr. Netanyahu's side”.

Knowing that when one pundit writes something he'll be echo-repeated by everyone that's like him – you can imagine the kind of lobby group they make together, and the kind of pressure they are able to put on society as well as the government, forcing them to see things their way and to act accordingly.

This manner of doing things has been the secret of Jewish success not only in America but in every place where they went. The trouble is that when the locals understood what game the Jews were playing, they reacted in such manner, no one sane would want to emulate. And yet, here they are, Jews led by the likes of Bret Stephens marching toward the familiar abyss one more time.

The lesson to learn from this episode is clear. How to respond not to fall prey to a bunch of Jewish psychos is something that everyone will have to work out for themselves. But here is a suggestion: start by educating the zombies of America’s legislatures, the Federal and those of the States.

Scared into pretending being Happy

I remember a few things since the days long ago when I was taking a course in Japanese films. One of those things being that in the effort to give us a wide perspective, the professor saw fit to include other Asian films in the curriculum; a number of which were Chinese films.

What we got from China – be they short documentaries or long features – had to do with the Cultural Revolution that unfolded a few years prior. Even though they were supposed to represent realistic situations or were a dramatic representation of life in China, the films looked and sounded like happy musicals. Whether the people were depicted on the farm or in the factories or in the mines, they sang like joyful children on their way to spend a day with the Wizard of Oz. The entire repertoire was a display of collective happiness the likes of which none of us students had seen before.

Of course, we understood what that was: the people of China were so regimented at the time, they were frightened into acting happy or risk being sent to a labor camp where they will spend the rest of their lives. That got me thinking of other places where a similar form of regimentation or a different one may be imposed on the people. I did not have to go too far looking for an example. It was right there under my nose in the editorial pages of all the newspapers. These were missives written by Jews saying the same thing over and over, day in and day out. Their message was this: You're biased against Israel; cancel my subscription. This was not collective happiness; it was regimented wrath.

Needless to say the disease spilled over to the audio-visuals. They too were coerced into shutting up when it came to telling the truth as they saw it. In fact, that moment was the start of the Jewish drive to monopolize the media. It happened when attorneys of their lobby fired off cease-and-desist orders to the outlets that did not comply with the shut-up order, threatening them with multi-million dollar lawsuits for slander. The media got the chill and froze into place only to see the Jews escalate their demands. They were now asking the media to “balance” things out by telling positive stories about Israel. They got what they wanted at a time when they were running around slandering the Arabs who were by then blacklisted and prohibited from responding.

That was not the only form of regimentation displayed by the Jews in those days. The natural tendency of ordinary people in Israel at the time was to shout: “kill the Arabs, kill the Arabs.” When they were told that the habit looked bad on the screen everywhere in the world, they changed. When Israeli leaders of Eastern European origin talked like Avigdor Lieberman, saying things like “we'll break their bones,” someone told them to tone down the rhetoric, and they did. When the army started to stick gas masks to the faces of toddlers in a gesture to remind the world of the gas chambers, those responsible were told to stop the madness because audiences around the world were getting sick of them. It was further explained to them that contrary to what they expected, no one was expressing sympathy for them. So they stopped using the toddlers as propaganda props.

Is there something else that the Jews could have done under the rubric of regimentation? Yes, there is. In fact, two habits can be highlighted. One is a modification of an old habit; the other is a nascent thing. The old is the fact that those who grew up in the climate describe above and then pursued a career in journalism, picked up the torch and took it a step further: They created the echo chamber whereby they all repeat the same thing over and over. As to the nascent habit, you can see an example of it in the article that came under the title: “In defense of the Tribe,” a piece that was written by Brian Stewart, and published on May 23, 2016 in National Review Online.

Brian Stewart discusses a new book that was authored by Sebastian Junger in which tribal life is explored. Stewart mixes Junger's views with the findings of a newly published survey indicating that the Israelis are a happy people. He tries to explain what looks like a paradox created by the fact that the Israelis seem to live at a perilous time, yet say they are a happy lot.

Make what you wish of his explanation but the observed fact is that a record number of people are emigrating out of Israel. This cannot be happening because they are happy to live there. Yes, there are Jews who seem less happy to live in Europe, and choose to go live in Israel. But it is hard to believe that these people become happy the moment they arrive in Israel. The notion simply defies what is known about the experience of new immigrants in welcoming countries.

That leaves only one explanation as to why the people who were surveyed, said they were happy to live in Israel. It is that they were regimented to respond the way that children would have if taken on the yellow brick road going to see the Wizard of Oz.

Simply put, that survey is a fantasy designed to attract new immigrants to Israel so as to replace those who leave.

Two Surprises unsettle the ordained Paradigm

If you are a student of history interested in how the Jews infiltrate a nation – such as America, for example – and manage to dismantle its culture from within one brick at a time, and then remake the nation in their image to serve them at the expense of the indigenous population, you should mark May 19, 2016 as the day when abundant light was shed on the tricks that the Jews are using to pull such feats in America, and have been using to pull similar feats throughout time everywhere they went.

On that day, Reuel Marc Gerecht published an article that came under the title: “Done Deal?” and the subtitle: “Barack Obama's disastrous Iran legacy,” printed on the website of the Weekly Standard. Also, Paul Pillar published on the same day an article that came under the title: “Israeli Hardliners Harden Further,” printed on the website of the National Interest.

The fact that Gerecht, who is a senior fellow at the so-called Foundation for Defense of Democracies, ended up recommending the election of Hillary Clinton of the Democratic Party to be President of the United States over Donald Trump who is of the Republican Party, is a bombshell that will be talked about for a long time. Also, the fact that the National Interest saw fit to print an article which practically declares Israel's dealings with the United States to have been a 50-year ongoing fraud, is another bombshell that will unsettle the long established paradigm according to which Israel was thought to be the trusted ally America could rely on to tell it the truth. Now you can imagine how much that fraud has contributed to diminishing the standing of America in the world.

The Gerecht article is almost 6,000 words long but you don't have to read it all – if you don't want – to get the gist of what it's about. In fact, much of it is a rehash of the Jewish talking points concerning the Iran nuclear deal. The first paragraph which is almost 250 words long contains all that is of interest to this presentation, including the author's recommendation to elect Hillary Clinton. The last paragraph reiterates that recommendation.

You'll know why Gerecht ended his piece recommending Clinton over Trump when you see how Pillar ended his piece. Here is that passage: “One of the two nominees speaks of taking U.S.-Israeli relations “to the next level” – and it is safe to assume she doesn't mean imposing consequences for the continued occupation. The other nominee caused nervous moments in the Israel lobby when he talked about being impartial.” This says that {Israel, always Israel and no one but Israel} is the one issue which interests the Jewish voters in America … Well, to be accurate, it's the one issue that the Jewish leaders want the rank and file to consider when they vote.

Look now how Gerecht gently draws the readers into a fantasy world where every marker of the real world is reproduced, given a different shape and a different color so as to convey a singular Jewish message:

“All administrations are short-sighted. Even the brightest can develop tunnel vision when they join the NSC or State. When the president becomes obsessed with one issue, he will not appreciated the consequences of his actions … it's possible he failed to see how the agreement would circumscribe American action … if the next president intends to restore American primacy, she will have to watch the Iranians walk away from the nuclear deal. Downing the Islamic State is impossible so long as Washington is held hostage by the accord”.

In other words, Gerecht has adopted the quintessential Jewish approach of telling America to dismantle what it has done for itself and replace it with something that will serve Israel because if you don't do that, the Islamic Shiite Republic of Iran and the Caliphate of the Islamic Sunni State in Iraq and the Levant will prevail.

It is that American approach which singles Israel for preferential treatment, that makes the superpower not only an accomplice in the crimes committed against humanity, but makes American officials look like brainless tools constantly used by the Jews to commit heinous crimes on their behalf while they hide from view and remain protected from legal liability.

Here is a stark example of that. While the Jews push America's legislators to make laws that punish families whose children attack the Jews that invade their properties and loot them, Israel's leaders do this: “An Israeli soldier was caught shooting in the head a Palestinian man who was wounded and lying on the ground, already subdued and not a threat. Lieberman expressed support for the soldier [who may be prosecuted] and Netanyahu visited the soldier's family to express sympathy”.

And the world looks at that, and spits in the face of America's legislators. The trouble is that the spit always lands on America's face … that which increasingly comes to resemble the Jewish face that's remodeling it.

Whitewashing an Ass caught with Pants down

When an individual, an institution or an establishment is caught with its pants down, you see the people connected to it scurry like chicken that had their heads cut-off, all trying to whitewash the ass or asses that became exposed for all to see.

Getting caught with their pants down is what happened to two Israeli individuals: Benjamin Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman; two institutions: the Israeli military and the Israeli intelligence apparatus; and the Tel-Aviv/New-York Jewish establishment of disinformation. And what you see scurry, trying to whitewash those asses, are the headless residents of the Jewish/New-York-Times chicken coop.

Their spokesman – or rather their keyboard banger – is Ronen Bergman who wrote: “Israel's Army Goes to War with Its Politicians,” an article that was published on May 21, 2016 in the New York Times. What happened is that a number of realities concerning the above mentioned players came to light, and this prompted the residents of the chicken coop to come out in force, and whitewash those who made an ass of themselves.

What leaked out for all to see were the following facts: (1) France and Egypt launched an initiative to help resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. (2) Netanyahu responded by appointing to the cabinet Avigdor Lieberman who wants to throw the Palestinians out to sea and into the desert. He also threatened to bomb the Aswan Dam if then President Mubarak of Egypt continued to refuse visiting Israel. (3) Fearing prosecution a la Nuremberg trials, Israeli generals started to realize that they and their society cannot keep behaving like Nazis and be excused just because Jews were gassed and cremated by the Nazis long ago, somewhere else.

So damaging were the declarations of Avigdor Lieberman in the eyes of the world that the first priority of the New York Times chicken coop was to lie about what he actually said. Thus, Bergman decided to misrepresent what happened in this file, but waited till the end to do so. In the meantime, however, he worked on setting the stage to paint a picture of the goings on in the Israeli establishment as being no worse than a normal feud inside a normal family that’s living a normal Jewish life – which means doing things opposite of the way it's done elsewhere.

So, he starts the article like this: “In most countries, the political class supervises the defense establishment and restrains its leaders … In Israel, the opposite is happening.” He goes from there to narrate the details of the story as it has unfolded around the various players … and then asks the question: “What caused the army and the intelligence agencies to become doves while the politicians have become hawks?” And he answers that it was the specter of a Nuremberg-style trial.

Throughout the narration, Bergman makes sure to thoroughly whitewash the military and the intelligence apparatus – after all, he firmly believes that Israel's existence depends on them … and them only. Since this necessitated that he should paint most political people, especially Netanyahu and Lieberman, as being the arch-villains of this saga, he does not hesitate to do just that. But there is a caveat.

Because the responsibility of the pronouncements and actions initiated by politicians, falls on the shoulders of the entire nation – even a simple entity like Israel – Bergman felt compelled to whitewash what Lieberman had said about the Palestinians and Egypt's Aswan Dam. And so, he came up with the following passage:

“What would the army and intelligence chiefs do if the new minister [Lieberman] issued instructions, as he has done in the past, that Israel assassinate Hamas leaders if they do not return the remains of fallen Israeli soldiers, or 'conquer Gaza' or 'bomb the Aswan Dam,' as he has said Israel would do if it ever faced war with Egypt”?

And that, my friend, is the sort of noise that the Tel-Aviv/New-York Jewish establishment of disinformation – led usually by the likes of Thomas L. Friedman of the New York Times – puts out to suppress the truth by smothering it with noisy garbage.

The fact remains that Avigdor Lieberman said he wants to UNCONDITIONALLY throw the Palestinians out to sea and into the desert. And he threatened to bomb the Aswan Dam if then President Mubarak of Egypt continued to refuse visiting Israel. That was the condition, not the possibility of facing a war with Egypt.

Grinding an already mutilated History

The one thing you can be certain of when it comes to interacting with Jews, is that if you give them a finger they'll go beyond the known saying, and will demand more than just the arm.

They'll want the whole body and then some. After that, they'll want still more … and then more and more to infinity unless they are made to visit the proverbial gas chamber before they get there. And that's an occurrence that happened to them again and again ever since they appeared on the scene.

So then, what do you expect they'll do if you allow them to mutilate history? They'll want to do more than just mutilate; they'll want to grind it, puree, liquify and evaporate it. In fact, this is what Lee Smith has started doing with the history of the Levant. You can see it in the article he wrote under the title: “Zone Defense” and the subtitle: “Sykes-Picot at 100,” published on May 19, 2016 in the Weekly Standard.

It becomes apparent at the end of the article what he intends to accomplish with this project. He wants to show that the Jews have the right to rob the Palestinians of their Palestine. And he wants to establish that Jewish America has the right to make decisions for the Levant. To get there, however, he needs to get past mutilating history. For now, he gets down to the business of grinding it.

Smith tries that but because he is fixated on the ultimate goal, he makes early mistakes that end up demolishing his project. Speaking of the effect that the Sykes-Picot agreement had on the Levant, he makes a first mistake saying this: “Lebanon would go to France; Mesopotamia would fall under British supervision; and Palestine would be under international administration.” Bingo. The man just admitted there was a Palestine long before the Jews paid the likes of Newt Gingrich to deny it ever existed or that the Palestinian people did.

Here is his second mistake: “Now, according to a diverse body of opinion, from the leader of the Islamic State to the Israeli defense ministry, Sykes-Picot has finally fallen apart.” Bingo number two. The man just admitted that beside organizing and training terrorist groups, Israel makes common cause with those that spring up on their own and model themselves after it, the mother of all terrorist entities.

And now the third mistake. In his attempt to show that it's okay for the Jews to rob the Palestinians of their Palestine, he says this: “All borders are artificial … The borders within the area that Sykes-Picot dealt with were agreed upon by Paris and London … the Ottoman Empire lost; the French and the British divided parts of its holdings in keeping with how empires have [operated] throughout the ages … The imperial tradition dates back millennia.” Bingo number three. The man just admitted that the Zionist project is the revival of a primitive imperialist construct; one that was dismantled by modernity.

In an effort to show that it is acceptable to beak-up the Arab countries, Smith attributes Arab cohesion to a nationalism that proved to be “fanciful by the sectarian and ethnic onslaught underway in Iraq and Syria.” He then quickly backpedals to hedge his bet saying this: “If there is a thing as the Arab nation; it is a nation at war with itself.” Well yes, what's happening in Iraq is called a civil war. What's happening in Syria, however, is more of an interference from abroad (including from Iraq) than it is a civil war.

The truth is that the Arab countries of the Levant have lived an exemplary life after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. Theirs was a place where the sects, ethnicities and tribes lived in harmony for a long time. Later, the savage destruction of Iraq by Jewish America created the idea that Iraq was inevitably going to be split. This inspired the young hotheads on both sides of the divide to fight each other and lay claim on what's left of the country as much as they can.

In addition, a handful of thugs with whom Israel saw fit to make common cause – as shown earlier – turned against the Christians and the other minorities. Other than that, the rest of the Arab world, warts and all, does no better and no worse than anyone else on the Planet. And all those, like Lee Smith, who keep spinning the events and doing wishful thinking with regard to the future of the Arab World, will be disappointed when the future will come because nobody can predict how history will unfold.

To drag mainstream America into the mix, and place Jewish-America at the controls of the foreign policy vehicle that deals with the Middle East, Lee Smith invents a canard about America, and falsely attributes the invention to the Arabs. He says this: “according to the Arab nationalist reading, the United States was the great colonial power … Actually, that wasn't far from the truth. The reality is that the Europeans were irrelevant … The peace that the region enjoyed was thanks to postwar American power.” No, that is not Arab nationalist reading; it is newly minted Jewish fantasy.

Smith goes on to trivialize the depth of the Arab-Israeli conflict and takes this discussion off the table. He replaces it with one about Obama's rapprochement with Iran. He says that the White House wants out of the region … but this is bad policy, he warns. It is bad, he explains, because America will not be there to ensure stability and protection of American interests. And that – with an exception – is what he was after all along.

The exceptional problem is that he made three early mistakes which say, in effect, nothing on his mind is meant to protect American interests. In fact, what he cares about has everything to do with protecting only Israeli interests. That's why he could not identify a single American interest in his closing statement. And this is why he ends the article on a melodramatic note he plucks from thin air. Here it is: “The region will pay the price, as will the rest of the world, including America.” No, this prediction does not make a prophet out of him.

The reality is that America will be better off with the Israeli monkey off its shoulder, and the Israeli albatross off its neck. You don't need a prophet to tell you this; it's that a parasite is never a good thing to live with.

A Pretzel-like Set of Comparisons that confuses

I wonder what Victor Davis Hanson was trying to accomplish when he wrote the article that he did under the title: “How Barack Obama's Foreign Policy De-Stabilized the World,” published on May 19, 2016 in National Review Online. He begins by making a comparison between what he says is the current situation in the world, and the events of the late 1930s as he understands them. But did he miss something?

Look here, my friend ... the purpose of writing an article of this kind is to say: these are the good guys and these are the bad guys of today. Also, these are the good guys and these are the bad guys of yesterday. You then proceed to show that the bad guys of today are acting like the bad guys of yesterday. As well, you show that the good guys of today are responding as did the good guys of yesterday. This done, you conclude that today's good guys will win the confrontation because the good guys of yesterday did.

Now we ask: Who are the good guys, and who are the bad guys today. As well: who were the good guys and who were the bad guys yesterday according to Victor Hanson? The answer is that in today's world, the good guys are America and its allies, whereas the bad guys are Russia and its allies. In the Hanson comparison, they correspond to Britain and France who were the good guys then; and to Hitler's Nazis who were the bad guys then.

Okay, we get it. This leads us to the next question: what did the good guys do yesterday? They warned Hitler of serious consequences if the did something stupid. Great! So now, we draw the comparison. Who warned whom today? According to Victor Hanson, the Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians and the North Koreans did the warning. Whom did they warn? They warned America. Pow! Phew! Drum roll please. Here it is in black and white; according to Victor Davis Hanson, the Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians and the North Koreans are today's good guys whereas America, together with her allies are the bad guys.

But wait a minute; did Hanson really mean to say that? No, he did not. What he did, however, was to begin the discussion along a line that would have logically led him to the above conclusion … but only if he followed a straight line of thinking. He did not do that, however, choosing instead to follow a pretzel-like path.

For that contortion to work, Hanson built a case based on two premises. The first consists of attributing very bad things to the bad guys, thus make them look really bad. The second consists of demonstrating that America – which is today's good guy – was the first to issue a warning. It did so to Syria, a bad guy that is allied with Russia. The problem is that America did not follow through with that warning, thus lost both credibility and deterrence. This has been Hanson's point all along. Put simply, his logic goes like this: Don't blame America for the fiasco, blame Barack Obama who warned Syria then failed to bomb the thing into the Stone Age.

And here is how Hanson made the bad guys look really bad:

“Such apocalyptic rhetoric follows months of Russian bullying … harassment of U.S. ships and planes, and constant threats to the Baltic States … China's artificial island and military base plopped down in the sea to control international sea lanes … Iranian leaders threatening to close down the Straight of Hormuz. North Korea upping its usual unhinged bombast to new levels … All saber-rattling to sound like the boasts and bullying of Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan, and Nazi Germany”.

What comes out of all this is that the world is not just full of bad guys; it is full of dangerous guys who would destroy it if we let them, says Hanson. That is, all that will happen if America weakens to a point it can no longer maintain order. We are close to living this situation, he says, because Barack Obama let it happen. He did so by insulting America's traditional allies, and resetting things with her traditional enemies, says Hanson.

To buttress this view, he creates mythologies; one being that Israel has formed an alliance with longtime enemies in the Persian Gulf. This is a fantasy because the reality is that Egypt, which has a peace treaty with Israel, proposed to mediate a new round of peace negotiations between Palestine and Israel. So how did the latter respond? The current government brought into the cabinet Avigdor Lieberman, the nut case who says he wants to throw the Palestinians into the sea and the desert, and wants to bomb the Aswan Dam to flood Egypt and kill millions.

This is the kind of world that Victor Davis Hanson wants to live in because what will happen otherwise, he says, is that the bad guys will reason that if Donald Trump were to be elected president, they will not know what he'll do next. Because of this uncertainty, they will try to cash in on their good luck under Obama rather than wait and be surprised next year.

Thus goes the Hanson logic: Trump is not to blame for the consequences of the uncertainties he creates; Obama is. And if you don't get this logic, you need to go back to school and have it drummed into your thick skull.

They lose there and try to win here

You know the Arabs are doing well when the Jews panic and run around trying to strengthen their control of America. And you know they are doing just that when you see them revert to the tried and proven formula of pointing a finger at invisible anti-Semites they claim are hiding under every desk.

That's what the Jews are doing now, pretending to see anti-Semites or anti-Israelis everywhere they look; from North America to South America to occupied Palestine. Three articles appearing on May 18, 2016, each in a different publication, attest to the mental state of the self-appointed Jewish leaders who – by intimidating friends and foes alike – try to force them into dropping what they do and pay attention to the eternal wail of the Jew.

The first article came under the title: “Trump's Anti-Semitic Supporters,” written by Ben Shapiro and published in National Review Online. The second came under the title: “Vilifying Israel, ruining Venezuela,” and the subtitle: “How Nicolas Maduro's regime is spreading anti-Semitism abroad and abusing its power at home,” written by Diego Arria and published in the New York Daily News. The third came under the title: “The Anti-Israel Poisoning Starts Young,” and the subtitle: “Palestinian schools honor the killers of my father, a teacher. This would break his heart,” written by Micah Lakin Avni and published in the Wall Street Journal.

The point that Shapiro makes is that he always thought anti-Semitism in America was confined to the leftist movement of the universities. He did not believe the stories his grandparents used to tell of the anti-Semitism that existed in the country-clubs, or that which came from the backwoods. But he now realizes that the evil sentiment exists at the Right as well. What happened is that real life events corrected him, he says. Things came to his attention when “Donald Trump's nomination drew anti-Semites from the woodwork,” he adds.

Here is the funny part, however. This guy Ben Shapiro – who just said he never thought there was anti-Semitism on the Right but learned about it only lately when Donald Trump refused to distance himself from supporters that exhibited the evil sentiment – now wants you to believe he developed a comprehensive theory on right-wing anti-Semitism, the roots of which, he says, go back to Charles Lindbergh at the start of the last century. And he wants you to believe he absorbed all that history in the blink of an eye.

He figured that “modern American anti-Semitism springs from conspiratorial soil.” If so, who might be the conspirators in the eyes of both the Left and the Right? They would be the Jews who control the finances of the country and its foreign policy, says Shapiro. He explains that to Sanders (who is a Jew) and Trump (who is the father-in-law of a Jew and grandfather of another Jew,) the average American suffers because those who operate on Wall Street (most of whom are presumably Jews) garner the wealth of the nation, and send much of it abroad, helped by a corrupt banking system.

The Wall Streeters do that sort of business, he says, when America's boys and girls are not fighting abroad on behalf of a foreign power, like Israel for example. The proof that things are bad in America is that Trump refuses to say he would take the side of the Israelis in their dispute with the Palestinians, says Shapiro. Never mind that America professes to play the role of honest broker between the two parties … to be even-handed is to be anti-Semitic; that’s all there is to it. And if you don't grasp this logic, it's because you are doubly anti-Semitic.

As to Diego Arria who was Venezuela's UN representative in the old regime, he said something that made him sound foolish. It must be he is unaware that Israeli generals – mindful of the Nuremberg Trials and the Hague Criminal Court – have warned that Israeli soldiers and 82 percent of the Jewish population are thinking and acting like the Nazis of an earlier era. And yet, this is what Arria wrote: “In making the comparison between Israel and the Nazis, the [Venezuelan] delegate engaged in blood libel – accusing the survivors of the Holocaust of having turned into the same monsters who exterminated millions.” That is it, kid. That's what's happening.

In addition, Diego Arria seems ignorant of the fact that most of those who go to Israel at this time are American Jews that failed to make it in America. They go settle in occupied Palestine … a place where American gambling moguls pay them to hunt Palestinians and rob them of their possessions. If you want to know, this is a habit the Nazis did not develop, most likely because they felt it was too cowardly to be like that.

As to Micah Lakin Avni, he says that his American father was caught in the war zone that's the occupied territory of Palestine, and was killed in a crossfire that erupted when young Palestinian commandos of the resistance appeared on the scene and tackled the armed guards who were accompanying the group.

Instead of lamenting the cowardly habit of the Israeli government which sends foreigners into a war zone knowing that they risk getting killed, Micah Avni laments the fact that the Palestinians do what all armies and all resistance groups do when they lose one of their own: They honor him or her.

Avni calls such act, poisoning young Palestinians … as if every Memorial Day and every laying of the wreath anywhere in the world were meant to poison the mind of children. Still, he goes on to explain that this is at the root of the Palestinian anti-Israel sentiment. It is not the occupation, he says, not the checkpoints or the daily humiliation or the privation or the deep yearning to be free. No, Palestinians fight the occupation, he says, because they are being poisoned.

Now you know why the American people, both on the Left and the Right, are beginning to see there can be no coexistence with an ideology as perverted as that of the Jews. And you know why the Jewish leaders are getting louder in their accusation that everybody is harboring anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli sentiments.

The Mountain that begot a GAO Mouse

There is this old saying about the mountain that went into labor and begot a mouse. You can say the same thing about the Judeo-Israeli effort to nudge the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to issue a report that would be so damning of Egypt, it will rupture the relations between the two countries. But the report did nothing of the sort as can be seen in the document that the GAO issued on April 12, 2016.

It is not that the authors of the report were biased in favor of Egypt; on the contrary, they adopted a harsh tone in the instances where they suspected that American equipment was used to suppress local dissent. Other than that, they noted that the investigations were conducted at a time when Egypt was undergoing a revolution. For this reason, a number of procedures were delayed somewhat, and others were left incomplete ... but nothing more serious than that.

Indeed, compared to what happens in any military, this is the equivalent to paying for parking your car an hour, and returning ten minutes too late to find that you've been ticketed. Yes, the Egyptian infractions were that small when compared to those which are often committed by say, the American military. These are the kind for which high ranking officers are reprimanded and/or discharged.

That's not to mention the long list of horrifying incidents which are regularly committed by the Israeli military. Start with the bombing of the American spy ship called Liberty during the 1967 Israeli sneak attack on the Sinai. Fearing that the Americans would alert the Egyptians of an upcoming attack, the Jews “took out” the American ship and its crew.

Look also into the selling of blueprints for the stealth warplane to the Chinese, an example of the billions of dollars worth of intellectual property that China gets from America free of charge … except for the payments it makes to the Jews and the Israelis “America's strong ally” in the Middle East.

And study the raiding of the American weapons depot in Israel during the Gaza War. That's the time when the Jews looted the ammunition that was stored in it, and used it to bomb UN schools filled with the Palestinian women and children that had fled their homes to spend the night where they thought was a safe place. Subsequent to that, the Israelis compounded their crime by telling the world that ammunition donated by America for the purpose was used in the attack.

What's behind all that? Well, at least three patterns have converged to make this moment possible. (1) The GAO report was requested by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen who is known to favor poisoning America's children with contaminated water, and killing millions of Muslims rather than deny Israel a single request, no matter how trivial it may be. (2) The witch-hunt for potential Egyptian infractions was conducted under a provision known as the (Patrick) Leahy Laws. (3) Netanyahu of Israel bragged to his entourage that “we know how to do these things”.

So the question is this: How did the Jews and the Israelis do it? The answer is that things began to happen during the decade of the 1990s when the self-appointed leaders of the Jews determined that Israel's Arab neighbors were getting rich, modernized and powerful while the Palestinians who were (and still are) under Israeli occupation, were getting restless. And so, the Jewish leaders decided to shake things up. When they conferred with the Israelis, someone whispered in their ear not to worry because in Israel “we know how to do these things,” a refrain that was later repeated loudly as a bragging right by Netanyahu.

To that end, the Israelis began to float the idea that America should perhaps end the Camp David provision under which both Egypt and Israel receive military assistance from America. It was a satanic ruse of the kind that only a Jew would dream up. The fact is that the Israelis never intended to relinquish what they were receiving. In fact, they wanted more of it as it is now clear from the request they made for 50 billion dollars in aid. What they had in mind, however, was to kill the Camp David provision, and destroy the Egypt-America relationship.

When that did not work, Netanyahu's vision to the effect that “we know how to do these things” proved to be losing vigor. And so, the Jews came up with something else. They called on their prostitutes in the congress, one of them being Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and put her in charge of commissioning a study they could use to argue cutting ties with Egypt.

Since the woman needed a tool she could use to start the process, the Jews looked for a way to fabricate one. As it happened, Patrick Leahy had been reelected Senator a while back when he confidently criticized Israel for its conduct in the occupied territories. Since that time, the Jews had been hounding him, and continued to do so to the time that election fever was again filling the air.

That's when the Jews closed in on him and said he must “balance” things out or else. He asked how he could be of service to them, and they told him to target Egypt. He devised the law that the treasonous Ileana of the House of ill-repute used to commission the GAO report.

This is how America is run these days. It is run by traitors that make banana Republics look like models of good governance.

Roots of America's bipolar Culture

Those who suffer from a bipolar disorder are known to go from euphoria to depression and back for a reason … or no reason at all. Believe it or not, the disease can also infect more than just individuals. In fact, a healthy culture can be infected by the disorder and be as debilitated. As well, a new culture can spring out of nowhere and stand solely on its bipolar principles.

The American culture used to be optimistic and forward looking but caught the disease and began a downward spiral. It happened when the Jewish culture – that started life as a bipolar entity and so remains to this day – infected the American culture in the way that a virus infects a healthy body and sickens it. This event resulted in America going on a nosedive, leaving observers with no way to predict how far it will go before something serious happens.

What is known is that the immediate consequence of a culture turning bipolar is that it becomes polarized. That is, the people and the institutions split into two extreme camps – call them a Left and a Right – leaving the moderate middle almost depopulated. When this happens, as the example of the American Congress demonstrates, virtually nothing of the nation's business gets done, and the nation itself begins to sink.

It must be said that a jurisdiction as big as the United States exhibits a more complex pattern than just going from one extreme to the other. That's because the Left can have its own cycle of euphoria and depression; and the Right can have its own cycle of euphoria and depression. Sometimes the two cycles coincide, sometimes they oppose each other diametrically, but most of the time, each side goes its merry way regardless of what the other is doing. This creates a blend of moods that end-up confusing most observers. Thus, someone looking at the scene from afar may not detect the bipolar disorder as would an observer that's near the action, for example.

The nature of the Jewish disorder that's at the root of all this is in full display in an editorial that came under the title: “Cash and Kerry” and the subtitle: “The Secretary of state acts as treasury secretary for the Iranians.” It was published on May 16, 2016 in the New York Daily News.

Behold the euphoria with which the editors begin their presentation: “It is simply delightful to hear Iran complain...” This is how the Jewish leaders expect their supporters to react, and how they wish the American people would react. But they will not verify to see if that's the case because they don't want to be shocked by the reality that most Americans don't know what the stakes are, and could not care less.

As to the Jewish editors of the New York Daily News, they will continue to savor the sweetness of knowing that “Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif professes to be disappointed.” Why? Because the sanctions “crippled the country's economy,” they say, and there seems to be no relief in sight for the Iranians. The disappointment of others being the measuring stick by which the Jews determine how happy they can be, Zarif told them they can be very happy, and so they were. The situation called for a celebratory editorial, and they delivered.

Afflicted by the bipolar culture that's weighing on them; the editors could not be satisfied with only the windfall that came down like manna from the sky. They did what Jews always do, which is to add icing on the cake. That is, they speculated on something that must have tasted like sweet desert to them. Here it is: “Iran seems to have expected hand-over-fist commerce,” and did not get it. To inflate this claim even more, the editors exaggerated something they did not bother substantiating: “banks and businesses see downsides to opening up shop in Tehran.” What's the evidence? How serious is the situation? No explanation there.

While they are at it, the editors of the Daily News activate another feature of the Jewish bipolar state. They go full throttle into the speculative mode. The following is a montage of that:

“What self-respecting U.S. corporation would want to sully its good name by trading with [Iran] … FATF continues to, in effect, give Iran pariah status … The FATF remains concerned about Iran's failure to address the risk of terrorist financing … banks that have been hit with large fines in the past are wary of getting ensnared in prosecutions”.

And they adhere to the very Jewish thing they must do at the end of every encounter. They knife their benefactor in the back to say thank you and goodbye. Here is how they did it this time to America's man, John Kerry: “So, Kerry has become a pitchman who looks both absurd and desperate”. What can be more Jewish than that?

Even a hyena would not have bitten the hand that feeds it as hard as this.