How Jewish Haggling can kill a Democracy

If you wonder why there exists a paralyzed superpower called America that's run by a paralyzed political apparatus that's made of two paralyzed political parties, wonder no more my friend, because you'll now have answers to all your questions.

Actually, you have Elliott Abrams to thank for that. He does more than answer the questions pertaining to that situation; he plays the role of the lowlife scoundrel who might have participated in the fifty-year-old exercise to haggle America's democracy to death. He plays the role so well, in fact, that you'll come to think he's not acting, but that he is the real McCoy … or maybe not. Well, see for yourself.

Abrams wrote: “The New State Department Assault on Israel,” an article that was published on July 28, 2016 on the website of the Council on Foreign Relations. What the State Department did that caused him to accuse it of hostility toward Israel, assault on Israel, and display of sheer ignorance – is that the Department voiced “concern by reports that the Government of Israel has published tenders for 323 units, following [a previous] 770 units” in occupied Palestine. And this was enough to bring a ton of Jewish bricks on the Department's head.

How can something like this happen when Israel lives by America's charity, and could not exist for a day without the generous help it receives on an ongoing basis? To answer this question, we need to take a quick look at some history. When the Jews tried to take and keep the Sinai, the late President Nasser of Egypt said what was taken by force will only be returned by force. He started preparing Egypt for the fight ahead but died before completing the job. Anwar Sadat took over, and was the one to kick the Jews out of the Sinai.

When the Jews tried to take and keep the Golan, the Syrians fought back and managed to retake half of it. When they tried to take and keep South Lebanon, Hezbollah fought back and kicked them out. When they tried to take and keep Gaza, Hamas fought back and kicked them out. But when the Palestinians tried to kick the Jews out of the West Bank, the latter went crying to America and haggled their way into convincing a Congress of zombies that America must do what's necessary to prevent this from happening.

The congress agreed, and that's when America started sliding down the slippery slope … all the way to a cistern full of mythological beasts called Jewish haggling. These are creatures whose diet consists of preying on democracy twenty four hours a day. It is fair to say that the congress had no clue what was going on, anymore than a far gone drug addict realized his wife and children were out in the street hustling donors and offering favors for a handout that helps them eat and maintain a roof over their heads.

So the question is this: How did Jewish haggling suffocate the democratic process? To answer the question, we look at one example. Without saying why the Palestinians had 'shut down' on negotiation with the Jews after 50 years of occupation and 20 years of fruitless talks to end it, Elliott Abrams cites history by quoting words that were written in an Israeli newspaper, itself quoting a Jewish American of Australian descent who apparently had said: “Netanyahu moved to the zone of possible agreement. Abbas for his part did not show flexibility.” This would be the hearsay of hearsay of a hearsay that no one but the likes of Elliott Abrams takes seriously.

So now you want to know what the 'zone of possible agreement' was. And you find a passage in the article that gives an indication of what it may have been. Here is a condensed version of that passage:

“The position of the U.S. has been under Clinton, Bush and Obama that Israel and the Palestinians should engage in land swaps … Swapping for what? Swapping for major Israeli settlement blocs such as Maale Adumim, population 40,000. Same for Gilo and Har Homa. In 1997, the United States vetoed two UN Security Council resolutions demanding that construction in Har Homa stop … the president at that time was a democrat , and the husband of the current Democratic nominee … One might wonder if the Department has no other matters to concern it these days. It seems nothing is as dangerous to the world as Jewish settlements”.

He asks: Swapping for what? Well, swapping lands is what the UN and America have been insisting on since 1967. It is what Clinton, Bush and Obama reiterated several times. When the Jews promised they will take the settlements down at the end of negotiations, America swallowed this crap and vetoed UN resolutions demanding that the construction activities stop. The Palestinians knew that the Jewish promise was crap and 'shut down' after 20 years of giving the Jews the benefit of the doubt. So now, Abrams is rubbing the crap in America's face, and blowing his entrails out of the belly crying out: But you vetoed two UN resolutions, you vetoed them, you vetoed them. Now you change your mind. Why do you change your mind? Why? Why? Tell me why.

Can this sort of behavior – when repeated over and over again for half a century – paralyze a superpower and bring it to its knees? Yes it can. That's because a democracy relies on intellectual honesty and mutual trust. The Jews, on the other hand, view these qualities as a weakness. And so they fashioned an ideology that takes advantage of the people who live on honesty and practice mutual trust.

When a country becomes infested with that ideology for the first time, it gets paralyzed as if stung by a scorpion. Anything can happen after that, ranging from overt antisemitism to full blown holocaust. America is in the paralysis stage at this point in time, and no one knows how far things will go, or how they will be resolved.

Suffice it to say that when the Nazis realized the Jews had killed their judicial system, they killed the Jews. What will the Americans do when they realize that the Jews are killing their liberal democracy? Time will tell.

Murdoch's Pornography as bad as Ailes'

Roger Ailes is no longer at Fox News and for now at least, Rupert Murdoch is said to run the show … whether in actual or titular fashion. Thus, Murdoch bears responsibility for what goes on at that network.

And if there is a remedial action that needs to be taken, Murdoch better not fail taking it at once lest he cement the notion that he is as much an “easy profit” predator as Ailes is accused of being a sexual predator.

One of the most cowardly acts of pornography that the politico-journalistic crowd has the habit of inflicting on its chosen enemies of the day is to make them vanish from the public arena. And this is what happened at Fox News during the fourth night of its covering the Democratic National Convention.

What happened was that the Muslim parents of an American-born army captain had walked onto the stage to tell the convention and the nation about the heroic act that was made by their son … the result of which was that he saved the lives of the men under him but died in the process. As to the act of pornography committed by Fox News under Rupert Murdoch; it was that the moment the Muslim parents appeared onto the stage, the network cut to a series of commercials.

When it returned from that mode, the father of the dead captain was telling what his son had done; an act for which he was awarded the Bronze Star and Purple Heart posthumously. Instead of going back to the stage, and letting the audience see and hear a true story of Muslim heroism, Fox News conducted an interview in the studio. It did so and maintained this act of pornography till the Muslim family left the stage. Only then did Fox News return to the convention, leaving a home audience with no idea that Muslim American soldiers do sacrifice themselves so that their buddies may return to their families.

This is not the first time that the filthy hand of the Jewish Hate And Incitement Machine (JHAIM) made people vanish. It has been vanishing them for 50 years in the English speaking world … among the victims being a former president of the United States. The Jews also did it to the Egyptian Secretary General of the UN, Boutros Ghali. And they tried to do it to the head of IAEA, Mohamed Baradei, also an Egyptian.

But the most insidious of their acts, is what they did on two occasions in Canada. One act took place during the 2004 Olympics when during the opening ceremony of the games, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation would cut to a commercial each time that an Arab team appeared, not to return to the parade till the team had moved out of sight. Thus, anyone that didn't know better would have thought there were no Arabs on this planet … except for the awful Sudanese who were accused by the show’s politicized hosts of doing bad things in the province of Darfur.

The other act is one that came to my attention only recently. Having checked several sources, I am confident there is enough truth in what I heard to publicly reveal what I know. It was a time when the Jean Chretien team and the Paul Martin team (both Liberal) were knifing each other in the back to have their man or woman elected next prime minister of Canada. The Jews in the Chretien camp approached Paul Martin and told him that for a price that will not cost him or his faction a penny they would ditch their own team and help him become prime minister.

He asked what they wanted in return, and they said that President Sarkozy of France was planning to invite Egypt to join the G -7 meetings. They wanted to kill the idea, and the best way to do it, was to create another group containing 20 jurisdictions other than Arab or African. Well, they would not mind South Africa, they said, because it had received much acclaim already, and one more was not going to make much of a difference. And Paul Martin said: Yes Master Jew, I hear and I obey.

And so, while the Jews worked to ditch Jean Chretien and make Paul Martin prime minister, the latter started to work on implementing the Jewish orders to the letter. This is how the G -20 came into being. It is also why China has moved to remedy the horrible situation created by the Jewish messing of democratic principles.

Those were the principles in Christian hands that created greatness in the past; these are the tools in Jewish hands that create pornography now. How much the world has changed! How heavy a price the Jews will pay for what they do!

Speculated wishful Thinking they live by

Because people who commit violent acts are usually of the quiet and discreet type, the remark often heard is that they should have been spotted and fingered by their friends or relatives because something about them must have changed that those who are close to them would have detected.

If this is so with regard to an individual, can the same be said about a group of people that marches to one and the same drumbeat even when the members are not of one and the same association? The answer seems to be yes if we judge by Benny Avni's article that came under the title: “Why Palestinians are on the verge of civil war,” published on July 27, 2016 in the New York Post.

There is nothing strange about Benny Avni writing strange things. Also, there is nothing strange about the editors of the New York Post choosing funky titles for the articles they publish. And there is nothing strange about Avni attacking a prominent Palestinian figure for something he said that puts Israel in a bad spot. What is strange is that you find all of that and more in a single Avni article. This is what we find in the latest of his creations; a work that tells us something is in the offing.

In fact, clues abound in the article that point to what’s worrying these people at this time. The writer begins with an attack on Hillary Clinton, Tim Kaine, Bernie Sanders, Hank Johnson, the idiots who burned an Israeli flag, America's progressive left, and guess who else: Benjamin Netanyahu … but only because he is considered a usual suspect.

This done, Avni reveals the name of the Palestinian figure on whom he unleashes a vitriol so ferocious, you'd think the man is responsible for the sun rising in the East instead of the preferred West. That man “is none other than the president of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas,” says Avni. Calling him Mr. Yesterday, he chides him for “launching a battle against the Balfour Declaration.” Not to forget his foreign minister who “blamed England for the mess in Palestine and asked for help in suing the British government.” What's the world coming to? You'd think only the Jews can ask for compensation, now you see the Palestinians do it too.

To denigrate Mahmoud Abbas, Benny Avni unfurls the usual litany of insults that even he realizes will do little to diminish the stature of Abbas. And so he pulls the big one on him. It is the regular Jewish trick of adding insult to injury by blaming the victim for failing to deflect a crime inflicted on him by a powerful criminal. Just look at the following stomach wrenching piece of intellectual dishonesty, and marvel at the brazen fashion by which the Jewish brain tends to function:

“Abbas has already raised a Palestinian flag at Manhattan's First Avenue UN headquarters and received blessings for a Palestinian state in places like Geneva, Sweden, Mauritania and the back pages of the US party platforms. Yet he has proved completely useless in creating a state on the West Bank”.

In essence, Avni says that despite the success achieved at the UN as well as Geneva, Sweden and Mauritania by the civilized Palestinian leader, his success pales when compared to the criminal acts which are committed by the savage Jewish settlers who team up with the American equipped Israeli army of occupation, and frustrate every Palestinian effort to create a viable state in the West Bank. Because of this, Abbas is useless, says Avni.

Is that it? Is that the only thing brewing inside the heads of Benny Avni and those who march with him to the sound of the same drumbeat? Or do they all worry about something bigger; something that preoccupies them so much, they are forced to act strangely even by their own standard?

Well yes, there is something bigger. It is that the month of September is approaching. This is the time of the year when the bigwigs of the nations gather in New York for the annual General Assembly event that keeps legitimizing the Palestinian cause, and keeps delegitimizing the fake Jewish claims to a piece of Palestine, if not the entire Palestinian piece.

Benny Avni does not mention that reality because Jews do not speak the language of reality. Instead, he does the Jewish thing of speaking the language of speculated wishful thinking, which is how he ends his article: “Israel will continue to flourish.” Maybe he believes that another compensation handout for Israel is in the offing.

He wants to double-down on Failure

You cannot try a medicine on a patient, and when it proves ineffective or detrimental, decide there was not enough of it and administer a higher dosage. That doubling down on failure would be the most reckless thing you can do to a patient. What you should do instead is go back to square one and rethink your entire strategy.

This is exactly what America should be doing concerning its relations with the rest of the world. That's because from the beloved Republic that the world used to look up to, America has squandered all that goodwill in a period of time considered a blink of an eye in the lifespan of a nation. And the worst part is that some people continue to counsel America to do more of what hurt it badly in the first place.

An article will help us shed some light on this matter. It came under the title: “The dark dilemma of modern globalism” and the subtitle: “Neither globalist nor isolationist understands effective world engagement.” It was written by Clifford D. May and published on July 26, 2016 in The Washington Times. May uses the issue of globalism as a springboard to discuss America's role in the world. He runs the discussion in such a way as to flesh out both the conservative and the progressive sides of the debate while hinting that he is a centrist, standing between the two extremes.

However, he suddenly takes a sharp turn to the Right and starts articulating a point of view considered to be of the extreme Right. Here is how he does that: “I can't imagine any conservative calling himself a globalist.” And he proceeds to expand on the talking points that make up the conservative narrative. This includes President Obama's decision to withdraw from Iraq, which he criticizes because it had tragic results, he says. To prove it, he cites the false evidence that “al Qaeda in Iraq had been decimated by the [W. Bush] surge”.

He repeats that assertion without saying how it was arrived at. What he omitted saying, in fact, is that wars that last several months or years go through cycles of intense fighting followed by lulls. And so, the people who claim that the surge had worked, point to one of the lulls and say: “See; the surge has worked.” In saying so, they try to give the impression that the temporary period of quiet meant the war had ended.

And these people don't stop here because they go on to say that Obama made the mistake of withdrawing from Iraq. They say this much despite the fact that the natural thing to do at the end of a war is to pack your gear and go home. The way they see things, however, is that Obama should have kept the troops in Iraq to play the role of peace keepers and nation builders.

Is there a parallel to that? Do they point to a precedent that might reassure the world and the American public they know what they are talking about? Yes, they do point to precedents. Look at Korea, they say; don't we have a beautiful situation there? And the listener is stunned by this logic. Undeterred, they go on to explain that there is also Afghanistan – apparently not bothered by the fact that this war has gone through hundreds of cycles over a fifteen-year period, and there is no end in sight. Still, Clifford May and those of his ilk would have loved to repeat in Iraq the scenario of a perpetual war in which building the nation proves to be an impossible task.

President Obama was wrong, he says, and there must be a better way for America to proceed in the world. He explains the way he has in mind with these words: “It recognizes the need for American engagement and American leadership … The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for Americans to persuade themselves that what happens abroad doesn't concern them”.

It is not surprising that the writer has reached those conclusions despite the obvious reality that everywhere America has meddled in the affairs of others after the Second World War, things went horribly bad. Vietnam was a disaster that the French handed to America because they wanted someone to do the work they would not do themselves.

As to America's interventions in the Middle East, they came about as a result of Jewish insistence that there is a need for American engagement and leadership in that region. To that, they add a flattery to the effect that what's necessary for evil to triumph is for Americans to be unconcerned with what happens abroad.

What is urgently needed is not for America to double-down on failure, but to go back to square one and rethink her entire strategy.

Name that Civilization to save it

Is it a smorgasbord, a minestrone or a bouillabaisse? Look at it anyway you want but these are the images that come to mind when you read the latest installment by Bret Stephens. It is a column that came under the title: “Is Europe Helpless?” and the subtitle: “A civilization that believes in nothing will ultimately submit to anything.” It was published on July 26, 2016 in the Wall Street Journal.

The author's point is that Europe is not doing what it should to protect itself and preserve its civilization. And so he gives that assembly of nations the standard Jewish advice of looking to Israel for guidance. To elaborate on the points he makes – by which he arrives at his conclusions – he cooks up an assortment of arguments that frankly, would require the stomach of a bear to digest.

What is not new in his approach is that he says Europe ought to live in fear of the Muslims and remain on guard at all time. This is steady Jewish diet; a system of managed hysteria; an approach that the self-appointed leaders of the Jews have used to maintain control over their followers since the beginning of time. It is also how they manage to maintain control over the American Congress at this time. And it is how they brought leaders of other nations under their control till such time that the public discovered what they were doing and responded by unleashing the pogroms that chased the Jews away.

As to what is new in his approach; it's that he used the steady Jewish diet as a foundation upon which to construct an argument that warns the European countries they are risking the destruction of their civilization. And that's where things go from bad to worse – where the argument degenerates from being a smorgasbord of useless ideas to a bouillabaisse of rotting fish.

His weakness lies in the fact that he wants to believe civilization is based on identity. From where did he get this idea? It is that Netanyahu is promising America there will be instant peace in Palestine if only President Mahmud Abbas agreed to call Israel a Jewish State. And so, Netanyahu drummed into the heads of those who run the Jewish propaganda machine – Stephens among them – that they must believe in the principle of a Jewish identity that will be born with the recognition of a Jewish state. He wants them to believe that when this happens, they will all become citizens of a rising new civilization; one that will grow so powerful, it will conquer the world.

But is that true? Is civilization based on identity? Or is it based on a shared vision? Well, America did not come into existence because there was an American identity that the early pilgrim were eager to be apart of. It came into existence because people of different identities shared a single vision; that of religious freedom. When they came together and worked together to make a living and make life bearable for themselves and their offspring, a byproduct of their shared vision started to take shape. In time, that byproduct became the now recognizable American civilization.

It follows that a civilization can be altered by altering the vision underlying it; or be killed by vanquishing that vision. When you accept this and you see what Stephens is proposing to “save” the European civilization, you understand how and why the Jews have been eroding the American civilization while pretending to enhance it, even save it.

Look what Stephens says about Europe: “Can the decline be stopped? Yes, but that would require unlearning the mythologies on which Europe was built: that the Union is the result of commitment to peace; that there is no such thing as a military solution; that one's country isn't worth fighting for; that tolerance is the supreme value”.

As can be seen, all these points have nothing to do with identity, and everything to do with a shared vision. Thus what the European Union did was forge for itself a shared vision that now forms the foundation of its civilization. And this is the foundation that Stephens wants to vanquish in order to save a civilization he mistakenly believes was originally built on identity.

He does not have a name for that identity, so maybe he'll call on Mahmud Abbas to name it, and call on the American Congress to threaten Abbas if he does not come up with a name. This whole Jewish enterprise is that silly.

A good Analysis but missing a crucial Point

Ralph Peters wrote a good piece under the title: “Terrorism as therapy” and the subtitle: “The takeaway from Munich,” published on July 24, 2016 in the New York Post.

It is a serious analysis of what motivates youngsters of all races, religions and political persuasions to commit terror knowing that they will die in the process because someone will kill them or because they will take their own life. Peters identifies three categories of terrorists, and discusses each separately.

Looking at the Munich occurrence, he put it in a category that no one talked about before in North America. That is, no one talked about it publicly until now for a reason – though the whisper and the hush talk were all around us. It is that the analysis points an accusatory finger at the media. And so, whereas the media made it a point not to discuss its own shortcomings, Ralph Peters mustered the courage to describe the Munich shooter as follows:

“He seems to have been the sort who, in the past, might have committed suicide in a corner. But violent headlines about mass killings obsessed him. Today's loners want company when they go … The pervasiveness of terror, magnified by the media, provided the shooter with an example of how to go out in a blaze of glory and the sense that 'everybody's doing it'”.

This is good work, but is it missing something? Yes it is. There should have been a parallel discussion as to why the various media outlets do what they do. Normally, a brief mention of the adage: “if it bleeds, it leads,” would have explained it all, but not this time. So the question is this: Was Peters aware of something he did not wish to stir up at this time? Well, he seems to know there is something in that he writes: “There was no indication that Islam was a factor.” But why did he stop here?

The reality is that the media, especially the cable networks, have ceased to operate as news outlets, having turned themselves into propaganda mouthpieces for one dogma or another. The exception is when the dogma is bipartisan – such as the Judeo-Israeli causes, for example – in which case all outlets bark from the same song sheet. And one of those sheets has come with an exotic title: Allahu akbar.

What happened during the Munich occurrence is that the shooter had a lengthy conversation with other people at which time he made it clear he was born in Munich, he considered himself a German and he hated the Turks because they are foreigners whose presence defiles his perfect country. This incident was broadcast throughout the world, and was known to CNN and to Fox News.

And yet, those two networks deliberately committed the hate crime of lying to their audiences, saying that the shooter yelled Allahu akbar before he started shooting. That was totally false. Wolf Blitzer of CNN knew it; Bret Baier of Fox News knew it, and yet the two purveyors of hate propaganda committed what amounts to perjury with the obvious intent to incite and promote terrorism.

This reality clearly shows that to vanquish the modern phenomenon of terrorism, it is not enough to seek remedies for the mental deficiency of youngsters. It is more important to shut down the activities of the Judeo-Israeli propaganda machine whose task is to brainwash new hires to the publishing industry, and transform them into mouthpieces that will promote the causes of Israel, always Israel and no one but Israel.

For the machine to work efficiently, those in charge of the propaganda have discovered that the game is a zero-sum game, which means that to score for Israel, someone has to pay a price. As it happens, the price often comes at the expense of the Arabs and the Muslims, and also at the expense of America. That's because the propaganda works well when it motivates the mentally deficient to go out and commit acts of terror.

The obvious lesson that comes out from all the above, is that if you put an end to the activities of the Judeo-Israeli propaganda machine, you'll find that the problem of the young – mentally deficient or otherwise – will be mitigated, and will tend to solve itself in the long run.

What is needed, therefore, is for people to rid themselves of the fear of telling the likes of Blitzer and Baier they are incubators of terror and copycat terrorists.

Understand the Problem you try to solve

Charles Koch wrote: “The Closing of the American Mind,” an article that also came under the subtitle: “There are dangerous signs that the U.S. is turning its back on the principles of a free and open society that fostered the nation's rise.” It was published on July 22, 2016 in the Wall Street Journal.

In making his points, Koch quotes Matt Ridley who described the fusion of ideas that engender innovations as “ideas having sex.” He did so without adding the caveat that the species having fun must be the same or be close enough for fertilization to occur. Otherwise, the different species can be seminal all they want, and still end up producing neither fish nor fowl.

And yet, this is exactly the kind of insemination that Charles Koch has tried to perform. Here is the passage that tells where he went wrong: “Despite our enormous potential for further progress, a clear majority of Americans see a darker future. Some 56% believe their children's lives will be worse off than their own … I empathize with this fear. The U.S. is already far down the path to becoming a less open and free society”.

This says that the view of the American people is of one species, and the view of Charles Koch is of another species … and the twain is not conjugating well. It is that the people believe they are losing their industries and the future of their children to foreign societies which are less open and less free than America because of reasons which are different from what Charles Koch is implying.

On one hand, the public believes that the captains of America's industries – such as Koch and others – have determined they can make more profit relocating their businesses to those countries. And so, they used the openness and freedom of America's system to do just that … and they are getting away with it. On the other hand, pointing to the false intercourse he effectuated, Koch has tried to convince the readers that the American people accept his hypothesis so well, “promoting a free and open society ought to be the great moral cause of these times.” But these are two different species and the intercourse produced not even a stillborn.

Still, having made those arguments, Koch goes on to describe the kind of system he wants to see implemented in America. He makes a number of recommendations, among which is this one: “Government, which often has strong incentives to stifle the revolutionary advances that could transform lives, may be the most dangerous.” And this is how he displays his true colors. They boil down to showing that in the tug of war between big business and big government, he sides squarely with big business.

But he has a problem. It is that he says something at the very beginning of the article, and something at the very end of it which, when put together, demolish the point of his core idea. Here is what he says at the beginning: “I was born in the midst of the Great Depression.” And here is what he says at the end: “The transformations in my days have been astonishing, with marked improvement in well-being for all Americans.” Those transformations included the introduction of Social Security into the system.

The reality is that several opposing, even contradictory ideas have been generated in the debates that tackled the Great Depression, but two ideas were accepted by all sides. One pertains to the fact that the Depression was caused by the extreme laissez-faire climate that existed at the time. The other is that another depression was never repeated thanks to the Social Security and the general welfare systems that were instituted in response to it. That is, the Depression was caused by unregulated business. Calamity was averted by the intervention of government.

This tells us something we must always keep in mind when discussing the system of governance in relation to economics. When during a debate a participant takes the extreme position that business ought to be completely unregulated, or the extreme position that government ought to be in complete control of the economy – that debate should fold at once, and everybody go home. This is because the suggestions are too far removed from reality to be of any use.

The fact is that an economy is made of two parts: the production part and the consumption part. The economy functions at optimum capacity when the two are in equilibrium. Because many factors work at all time to upset that equilibrium, measures must be taken to restore it. This means, there are times when you'll have to favor business, and other times when you'll have to favor government.

It follows that to be useful, a debate on the subject must restrict itself to identifying the problem and prescribing a remedy that will favor which side; favor it by how much and do so for how long.

To have a permanent remedy that will address a problem inherent to international trade; I have argued that competition between nations ought to function like sport and not like war. The difference is that in sport, the loser does not die the way he does in war.

Consequently, there must be an international agreement allowing the nations to protect the industries they deem important to them – up to a certain percentage of consumption ... say, 30 percent or thereabout. The balance can be subjected to cut-throat competition, which is good for efficiency.

The creation of a mechanism that removes anxiety while retaining the incentive to compete should be considered seriously by those who seek solutions rather than adherence to dogma.

Lies more virulent than a thousand deaths

One senseless death is painful not only for the loved ones by for all of humanity. It is even more painful when committed by terror. But that's not the worst that can happen. When someone tells a lie that can result in multiple deaths, the pain is compounded proportionately. When the lie is committed by someone in a fiduciary position, it is compounded exponentially.

Unfortunately and painfully so, this is the kind of lie that Bridget Johnson has committed. As a contributor to the publicly funded National Public Radio (NPR,) she has fiduciary obligations that go beyond those of commercial broadcasters. As a fellow with the Hayman Salomon Center and PJ Media, her obsession is Israel, always Israel and no one but Israel. This means she will tell any lie, cost America any price and cause any number of deaths if that will serve the interests of Israel. Is this a conflict of interest? You judge and let NPR know.

All of that comes out clearly from reading the article she wrote under the title: “Is ISIS 'on the run'? If so, it's no comfort,” published on July 23, 2016 in the New York Daily News. Her point – which is that of the Jewish establishment – is that the Obama administration is saying the wrong things. And this, my friend, is reminiscent of the Jewish expression: You are antisemitic for saying 'Jewish lobby' instead of 'Israeli lobby,' and you are antisemitic for saying 'Israeli lobby' instead of 'Jewish lobby.' How can that be, you ask?

To see how it happens, we need to recall what the Jewish establishment has been saying all along. It’s been saying that if you mobilize enough American troops and send them to destroy the bases of operation used by the terrorists; you destroy the core of those operations and diminish the appeal of the terror groups. Consequently, they will not be able to recruit new members, and this will bring an end to them. Well, that's what the Obama administration has done, though it did not mobilize as many troops as the Jews would have liked to see.

So now that this mission is nearing completion with apparent success, guess what Bridget Johnson is saying. She is saying she is not comforted because what counts, she argues, is not that ISIS is on the run from something, but that it is running toward something. And that, she says, is the result of a miscalculation committed by the Obama administration.

But did she offer an alternative? Not on your life. Jews do not counsel anything that would end or win wars, they only counsel how to start them … and they leave it at that. On second thought, amend that to say, she could not help but take a mocking shot at the administration on her way out. Here it is: “But does the threat really get more diffuse the further away it is from some imagined core”? As you may have observed, whereas the core was the be-all and end-all, it is now only an imagined core. But she is not saying who was imagining things.

And here is how she ends her article: “Rather than hyping where terrorists are running from, America's greater focus should be on where they are running to.” What she says here is this: Stop making empirical observations with regard to what happens on the ground, and start speculating as to what the terrorists may be thinking, and where that will lead them.

She says this much because in Jewish philosophy, it is a sin to tell the truth based on what you observe. Also, it is a virtue to wish something, to speculate that it will happen, and then convince those who will listen to you that your speculation will come true. If you do that, you elevate yourself to the level of a rabbi. In fact, this is how the Jews – rabbis or otherwise – convinced the American Congress of brain-dead zombies that Israel taught America how to design and produce drones, and that it made the Palestinian desert bloom.

Why all this? What is Bridget Johnson after? What is the Jewish establishment trying to achieve? Well, they are laboring to expand the current war and turn it into a perpetual one. They are terrified by the fact that ISIS is taking a beating in Iraq and Syria. They are also terrified that the Horn of Africa, West Africa and North Africa have quieted down considerably. And they are terrified that the only instruments left to root for the “strong horse” of bin Laden are the Jewish publications – which include NPR.

They want to put an end to the successes being scored by the Obama administration because they speculate that the next administration will see the world the way they see it. Adhering to their religious philosophy, they believe that their speculations will materialize and become reality. When this happens, they envisage being handed the world to govern as they see fit – in fulfillment of the divine promise made to them in their dreams.

The Iran nuclear Deal one more Time

The editors of the Pittsburgh Tribune are at it again, returning to the subject of the Iran nuclear deal as if to signal there is more to say about this topic.

They wrote an editorial under the title: “The Iran deal” and the subtitle: “A disaster grows,” published on July 21, 2016 in the Tribune. The only thing new this piece of work is adding to the debate is that it says something about its authors and those who follow them.

They began to reveal themselves in the first sentence where they spoke of the “prattle from the Obama administration, which insists ad nauseam, that the world is safer today...” But the fact is that the Obama administration, like all administrations, gives out little or nothing till pestered by the media types who fear they will not put food on their table till they are given something to write about.

But when the media suckers are given a bone on which to bite or run away with, they do more than tell their readers what they “scooped” from an administration that was not smart enough to keep the information from them. What you see them do is descend on a single bone like a pack of hungry coyotes, and munch on it interminably so as to make their idle talk about nothing sound like a find that deserves undivided attention.

But where did they get the idea to tell their readers that the Obama administration nauseates them? To be honest, I have no idea. So maybe the editors of the Tribune should write one more editorial on the subject and explain this mysterious point. Meanwhile, I have something to say about the subject of nausea. It is not a true story, but one that's based on real life experiences.

Suppose you live in a quiet residential area of town where apartment buildings and houses stand side by side. The house next door has a dog that does not like the headlight of cars. It happens that four or five times through the night a car may drive by and the dog barks at it. You wake up but are able to go back to sleep after he does it once or twice. If it happens again, you stay up all night tossing and turning and feeling nauseated at neighbors you deem to be sociopaths too obnoxious to deserve living in densely populated areas.

Well, my friend, this is the closest analogy that can be created to parody the Jewish editors who shout the first bark on a subject, and get their echo-repeating dogs going. As to the latter, they keep going in a never ending cacophony of noises that nauseate the good people as much as the barking dog that keeps the neighborhood awake all night. Maybe this will help to clarify the mysterious point that the editors of the Pittsburgh Tribune have not bothered to explain.

To be fair to them, it must be said that they tried to explain why they believe that Secretary of State John Kerry is seized by a cockeyed optimism about the Iran nuclear program when “intelligence sources do not share [that] optimism.” In fact, they cite three occurrences that amount to nothing serious. So you want to know what they contend is the problem.

To formulate a theory as to what might have happened, we first look at the three points they cite. First, they say that Iran is acquiring nuclear and ballistic technology and equipment. Second, they say that Iran is shopping for carbon fiber, which is required to build centrifuges for uranium enrichment. Third, they say, there is a secret deal that allows them to enrich uranium sooner than previously revealed.

Looking at those points, you can tell what must have happened. The first two revelations must have come from what the editors say are intelligence sources. Fine. But these sources did not say that what Iran bought violated the nuclear deal, whereas the IAEA said it did not. As to the third point, it is an assessment that was made by a news agency whose credentials in such matters remain suspect. But even if true, the point means nothing as shown in the two previous articles published on this page.

Looking at the tsunami of literary toxic waste that the Jewish publications have poured during the two years it took to negotiate the nuclear deal, and the year that passed since it was signed, you wonder what could possibly be motivating the Jews to show so much ingratitude with such ferocity toward a country that did more for them than it did for its own people, and still does. And then your eyes fall on this passage: “Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps … threatened Israel with more than 100,000 missiles”.

So that's what it is. Mention Israel, and watch these guys charge like a bull that’s shown a red towel. The trouble is that time after time, thousands of Jews and their barking dogs threaten Iran with “all American options are on the table,” and when Iran responds once in a while, the Jews go apoplectic and start bashing the American administration for not exercising the option on the table.

And there is nothing you can do to civilize these characters, so you give up on them.

A new Oxymoron: Regimented Democracy

From extreme regimentation on one side of the spectrum to extreme chaos on the other side of it, there exists a mid-point we may call human free will.

The closest analogy to regimentation in the natural phenomena would be Newtonian Mechanics. In fact, you can launch a probe into space and pinpoint where it will be a thousand years from now. As to the closest analogy to chaos, it must be the string of unpredictable digits that give pi its value. And it is between those two extremes that lays human behavior. It is rational enough to be predictable, yet capricious enough to confound.

We call freedom the ability of an individual to choose to behave one way or the other. When in a given set of circumstances a group is allowed to choose between possibilities, it becomes difficult to predict how the group will respond because each individual will make an independent decision. This situation is called democracy; a way to organize society … but also a way that renders it unpredictable.

It happens that the brain, which allows us to make free choices, has determined that more good can be had when individuals give up some of their freedoms and accept being regimented to act collectively like a group. It must be said in this regard that as a species, we have accomplished more than any other because organization has allowed us to exceed the sum of our individual efforts.

And then a complication began to manifest itself. It turned out that unlike the other species who know where to stop when they have enough of something, many of us humans do not know where to stop when the going is good, and there is nothing to prevent us from grabbing more of what's there. This is called greed, a human trait that has caused the demise of great achievers.

Wisdom has been defined in many ways; one being that you do not let greed take control of you. Some of the cultures that accomplished a great deal have learned that lesson early enough and heeded it, which is why they persisted. Others did not learn it till it was too late, and so they perished. And then, there is one culture that never learned the lesson despite the fact that it perished many times throughout the centuries, and was resurrected in a different form each and every time, but always retaining greed as its main characteristic.

That culture calls itself Judaism, a constantly shifting concoction whose many demises came about as a result of its inability to stop exploiting the host cultures that allow it to live off them as a parasite. Its current host being America – a country that prides itself on being democratic – Judaism has exploited this democracy to the point that America is about to buckle under the weight of a burden it cannot begin to fathom. The thing is painted the colors of democracy but is in reality a monstrous toxic load that is Jewish through and through.

You can see how that combination works when you look at the editorial which came under the title: “The Iranian side deal” and the subtitle: “Obama's hocus will come back to poke us,” published on July 19, 2016 in the Pittsburgh Tribune. Nothing in this piece is different from what came in the editorial that was published under the title “Aiding and abetting Iran in getting nukes even faster,” on July 20, 2016 in the New York Daily News. That editorial was discussed yesterday by yours truly on this website in an article that came under the title: “Ignorance is not Bliss but a Curse”.

The significance of these two editorials coming at about the same time is that they are but two echoes from among the dozens of others that were repeated over and over again. What is deceptive in all of this is that democracy, which relies on the will of the majority, has been distorted by the Jews who organize artificial events to give the impression that a majority of the people wants what a minority of Jews wants for itself. This trick renders the outcome of such events predictable, and that's a characteristic that runs contrary to what democracy is all about.

Having taken the American system close to the brink of collapse, the editors of the Tribune had the gall to comment on the explanation that was given by the administration, like this: “Consider it cold comfort from an administration that couldn't tell the truth.” Well, someone should tell these editors that no one in the administration risks being gassed or incinerated. The same cannot be said about those who come up with editorials as asinine as theirs.

Ignorance is not Bliss but a Curse

The editors of the New York Daily News have added their voice to those who decided to perpetuate a big lie and a massive deception with regard to the Iran nuclear deal. They made their point in a piece they wrote under the title: “Aiding and abetting Iran in getting nukes even faster,” published on July 20, 2016 in the Daily News.

The lie is that “the pact [nuclear agreement] came with a hidden side deal.” In fact, this is a false assertion because everything about the agreement was made public prior to signing it. As to the deception that's being perpetuated by the editors and their cohorts, it has to do with the significance they attach to the rate at which Iran will produce nuclear fuel.

Without naming who the Associated Press experts might have been that came up with the presumed assessment, the editors of the Daily News quote the news agency as reporting that instead of the promised 15 years, Iran will be able to “enrich [uranium] at more than twice the rate” it is now doing, and will reach that level after only 11 years ... which is 4 years sooner than expected.

As a result of this discovery by the Associated Press, and the real or fictitious interpretation of what the numbers mean, the editors of the Daily News have allowed themselves to run wild with speculation regarding what the Iranians will do with the shortened time frame. Here is what they say: “Iran is playing a waiting game to nuke Israel and wipe the Jewish state off the map”.

It is obvious that those who believe these words can only be mental cases. That's because the Iranians have been around for thousands of years and have built a magnificent civilization, therefore cannot be so mental as to be this reckless. If they were, most of them would have been gassed and incinerated by now, and the few that survived would have trouble getting along with anyone on the planet. But looking around, we notice that this is a Jewish reality, not an Iranian one. Thus, it can be explained that the attempt to divert attention by the Jewish editors of the Daily News, is but a trick to project onto the Iranians what they see in themselves.

Since we have deduced that the Iranians are normal as normal can be, we must take it that they are not pursuing a nuclear program to build a bomb and use it to destroy Israel. Therefore, we are obliged to conclude that they are pursuing a nuclear program to generate electricity – which is what they say they are doing.

This being the case, we do the math to see how much nuclear fuel the Iranians might need, and compare that with what they plan to produce. In fact, such detailed calculations were done in an article that was published on this website in May of 2014, and can be accessed in the archives at the right side of this page. The article came under the title: “Pompous Impotence of the Obstreperous”.

What I do here is go over the same concepts without doing the math. Think how much fuel goes into the tank of a car. Now imagine the car getting involved in an accident in which the tank catches fire and explodes. Can you visualize how big an explosion that would be? Now think how much fuel oil goes into a house to heat it during the winter months. Can you visualize how big an explosion it would create if that tank exploded?

Well, it takes a lot more fuel than that to run the kitchen appliances, the living room electronics, the light bulbs in every room, and everything else that runs on electricity in a house. And if a fraction of that fuel was detonated in a single explosion, it would destroy not just the house but the entire neighborhood. The point is that in order to service a city with electric power, a nuclear plant will use enough uranium to raze not only the city but the entire country – if that uranium were turned into weapons.

Thus, to argue about how fast Iran will be able to refine how much uranium, and do it at what rate, is to engage in the kind of Jewish haggling that has paralyzed the American congress, has killed the American democracy and has turned the superpower into a loud mouthed exceptional buffoon. Stop this hair splitting and get serious if you want to save America.

Somebody should tell America's Jews they are strangling the goose that has been laying the golden egg for them. If they don't stop, the goose will die and they will die with it. They may think they are the smartest thing in the universe but they are as ignorant as hell. And that's a curse, not bliss.

It is the Islamo-Christian West vs. the Jews

Dennis Prager wonders why “Few in the West Are Serious about Islamist Terror,” and I have an answer for him. It is that there is no such a thing as Islamist terror. He made his views known in an article that came by that title, a piece that was published on July 19, 2016 in National Review Online.

If the most terrorizing act in life is to stone a woman for committing adultery, the West and the rest of the World have learned that this barbarity is a basic tenet of the Jewish religion, and never has been that of Islam or Christianity. Whereas the Christians and the Muslims have said “let he who has never sinned throw the first stone,” the Jews have been throwing stones left and right as if they were as sinless as a child that's living in a world as sinful as the savage Jewish settlers who terrorize the Palestinians in their country, in their towns and in their homes.

And while the Jews say they adhere to the law that says an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, they practice the rule that says this must be the minimum pain they inflict on those they suspect to have hurt them … whether or not guilt is established. Thus, the Jews regularly engage in sprees to gouge as many eyes as they can, and pull as many teeth as they have the strength to do … as long as the world will let them.

This being Judaism, Dennis Prager provides proof that you cannot cure a Jew of it anymore than you can cure a Nazi of his Nazism. Here is what he complains about now: “The universities teach students the falsehood that there is no moral difference between Islam and Christianity or Judaism.” It is his way to stress the point he has been making over and over again, to the effect that Judaism stands supreme over the other religions. And here he is, placing Islam at the bottom of the ranking system he devised.

That's bad enough, but does not in itself designate Dennis Prager as equal to the Nazis. What takes him there is what he says next. Here it is: “to deny there is something Muslim about the theology of those who commit atrocities against 'infidels' is to deny an important truth about Islamic terror. It therefore prevents the only solution to Muslim violence”.

With that, Prager alludes to the fact that Christianity, as an institution, was as brutal as some of today's Muslim kids. The point being that because Christianity was reformed, it is now a more gentle religion. And so, he makes clear that once we stop denying that Islam needs to be reformed, and the Muslims get on with the business of reforming it, Islam will become as gentle as Christianity. Okay. But what about Judaism? It has been around for something like 15 centuries longer than Christianity, and something like 20 centuries longer than Islam? Has it reformed? Can it be reformed? Or is it impossible to reform Judaism as it is to reform Nazism?

Dennis Prager does not come close to answering those questions, but makes arguments that reveal which way he leans. He does so by blaming the bad behavior of the Muslim kids on America's Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, as well as Angela Merkel of the European Union. He complains that Obama refuses to blame Islam for what a few Muslim kids do. He also complains that Clinton wants to take Syrian refugees into America. And he complains that Merkel took many refugees into Germany already, and plans to take even more.

But these are the qualities of mercy that separate the noble people from the Nazis. They also separate the world of Christianity and Islam from the world of Judaism. If this is a harsh assessment of the Jewish character, consider what Dennis Prager says at the end of his article: “Most people in the West do not share its elites' broken moral compass”.

What he is alluding to is what the Nazis were saying. They believed that human compassion was a weakness of the moral compass that kept many a nation from progressing. For this reason, the Nazis exterminated the weak in their midst and distributed the resources that were allocated to them, among the remaining strong. And this, my friend, makes it imperative that Dennis Prager should come out and clearly explain if he wants to exterminate the compassionate Europeans the way that the Nazis exterminated the weak among them.

The way things look now is that he believes the nation can stay strong only if the public will maintain its moral compass intact. And the way to do this is to rid the population of compassion.

Dennis Prager is an archetype of the modern Nazi, and he calls himself a Zionist.

Okay mister; you made your Point. What now?

Imagine you're an entrepreneur who deals with complex matters at home and abroad. You retain a consultant to advise you on how to execute difficult transactions so as to score maximum success while creating the least amount of animosity for you and your enterprise.

But every time that you ask the consultant to give you an assessment of how things are going, and how else you should proceed, he does one of two things. Either he says you need to get tougher when dealing with others – without elaborating as to how you can do this – or he laments that you're doing so badly now, he will say no more. Undaunted, you instruct him to think constructively and come up with workable solutions, but he proves incapable of breaking out the mold in which he was cast.

Well, if you can imagine America being an enterprise, and the opinion makers in it being consultants, you'll have no trouble seeing that the above narrative represents the story of Ralph Peters who came up with yet another article that's as useless as most of those he has written. The latest came under the title: “Bastille Day attack shows how Islamists score their victories for pennies,” published on July 17, 2016 in the New York Post.

The article makes no sense till you reach the end where you see that it is signed by Ralph Peters, Fox News' strategic analyst. This explains the opening sentence of the article, and sheds light on the approach that he adopted for this article and for most of what he has written. Here is the current opening sentence: “The most important quality an intelligence officer can possess is the ability to escape his preconceptions to see the world from the enemy's perspective”.

Seeing this, you instantly understand what is happening because you know that Fox News is not an American network presenting the world from an American perspective; it is a Jewish network pretending to be American, and presenting the world to those who watch it from the perspective of World Jewry.

All of that helps to clarify what Ralph Peters says next. Speaking of the tragedy in Nice, he offers this point of view: “Our analysis failed miserably. Instead of measuring the terrorist success, we diminished it … terror triumphed in Nice.” Indeed, this message of abject failure in everything that America does is the message that Fox News has been throwing at the American people from the moment that the Jews became aware that Barack Obama will not be the puppet who will say or do what they command him to say and do.

In fact, the Jews view the President of the United States as being the enemy they must defeat in the same way that the American people view terror as being the enemy they must defeat. And so, you constantly see the likes of Fox News and Ralph Peters inflate the exploits of everyone in the world while deflating the work of the American administration.

These people go that far and do this much because it is the easiest way to exploit America's democracy and tolerant habits, to erode the public's confidence in their administration. In addition, the more that Fox News, Ralph Peters and World Jewry fail to persuade the electorate to reject this administration, the more they paint the President as being America's number one enemy. It is not al-Qaeda anymore, it is not ISIS either … rather; it is the President of the United States that's the enemy of America.

Look how the author describes what is happening, how he says America is responding to it and yet, he fails to offer an alternative. Here is a montage of his sayings: “We're trapped in American thinking … We'll spend a million on bombs to kill a single jihadi … Islamists score their victories for pennies … They slaughter us for pennies and bathe in our blood. And we belittle them”.

In fact, it is with the last two sentences that he ends the article. This prompts you to cry out the obvious question: Okay mister, you made your point. Now what?

But don't expect him to tell you what now because it was never a part of his mission. He is paid by Fox News and the New York Post not to tell it like it is, but to try and maneuver the electorate into handing America to the Jewish lobby, and in the process, turn themselves into Palestinians in their own country.

America fought to liberate itself from British colonialism only to see the Jews try to colonize it anew.

Reject the Quack of the wild Goose

In an article that came under the title: “Getting smart about crowdsourced terror” and the subtitle: “What the U.S. should learn from Nice,” Michael Chertoff wrote a few things that make sense, but they are by no means exhaustive. His article appeared on July 17, 2016 in the New York Daily News.

The article is made of three parts. First, there is a description of the current situation. Second, there is an analysis of it. Third, there are recommendations as to what society should do to counter terrorism. Well, it must be said that the description of the situation is thorough and adequate. What is lacking is a good analysis of what's happening, which leads to an incomplete set of recommendations.

Chertoff began the analysis correctly in saying that no two terrorist attacks – of the current variety – are alike, but instead of explaining this part adequately, he went on to say: “which is why they pose such a challenge.” He made a distinction between the way that al Qaeda used to operate 15 years ago, and what terrorist activity has morphed into now.

He says in this regard that the new form of terrorist expression “includes widely distributed, small-scale and often homegrown attacks against soft targets and public spaces.” This is different from the way that hierarchical and centrally managed Al Qaeda used to operate, which is why it was possible to frustrate its activities then, and nearly impossible to confront those of ISIS now, he says.

And this is the point at which Chertoff misses the opportunity to make the most important point of all. It is that the new form of terrorist expression was not invented by ISIS. Rather it is a tendency that is as much an American phenomenon as the fusion of jingoism and the Second Amendment. In fact, such activities are not new to America; being around since the days of the Wild West. The truth is that people have been killing each other on this piece of real estate in that manner since the European invasion of the continent.

What is a serious addition to the mix is not that ISIS “has moved toward encouraging individuals to carry out acts of violence on their own;” it is that the cable channels give more massive coverage to the most massive of murders, and to the most mysterious of motives. This is what gives big ideas to those who gave up on life, and seek to depart it with a splash.

Many of these people have learned that when they shout “Allahu akbar,” they get the Cadillac coverage that even a dead president does not get. They learned that Allahu akbar is the quack of the wild goose that gets the analysts to probe for weeks on end the possible motives that made them act the way they did.

This is just fine with characters that love to go with a smile on their face, thus communicate to the next set of geese how to get chased a wild chase by idiots, and be granted not just fifteen minutes of ordinary fame, but fifteen days of sensationalized fame in the world of cable television. And there will be a spot for them in the annals of history … even if it will only be a footnote.

Thus, beside the three steps that were suggested by Chertoff to combat homegrown terrorism, we must add the need to curtail the coverage of such occurrences by the cable companies. We must also clarify and expand on some of the points that he made.

For example, we must be mindful of the possibility that to say something when you see something is to embark on a slippery slope that can easily lead to the kind of snitching which used to plague the Communist world. It was one of the reasons why the governments of these places lost the confidence of their people.

Otherwise, Chertoff is correct in suggesting that family and community members will speak up “only if we can demonstrate that we will respond constructively, and not punitively.” He is also correct in suggesting that it is self-defeating for “leaders to demonize whole communities”.

When this is done properly, everyone will be encouraged to debate the issues pertaining to the subject matter, including the spot that the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights should occupy in the future.

The dark Sky and the silver Lining

In a zero-sum system, one man's dark sky can be another man's silver lining, and vice versa. In a winner-take-all system, the loser dies a sudden death. In a system that's equitable, everyone gets a piece of the pie commensurate with the effort they put into the shared enterprise and the nature of their contribution.

When civilized people sit down to negotiate over an issue, they have equity on their mind. What they do, therefore, is seek to apportion the duties and rewards that each participant will receive for an enterprise they plan to undertake jointly. In the event that they have already participated in an enterprise that took place without prior agreement, they negotiate to distribute as equitably as possible the gains and the pains that came of it.

This system has worked so well for humanity through the ages, we were able to go from the Stone Age to the Space Age in less than 10,000 years or a mere 400 generations. But this does not mean that all human beings were in harmony with each other all the time. On the contrary, our ascent to civilization was paved with all sorts of conflicts, many of which were so savage; we behaved at levels below those of wild animals.

Unfortunately, we have not completely freed ourselves of such tendencies. There are people among us who continue to believe in the Nazi creed that war – and all that comes with it – is the highest form of civilized conduct. At no time do you hear them counsel that “the other” may deserve to be treated well, or be spared. That's because these people are permanently seized with the idea that every conflict must be intensified till one side undergoes sudden death.

An example of how these people go about expressing themselves on such matters has come under the title: “Kerry's Syria Offer” and the subtitle: “The Secretary of State has a new sweetener for Vladimir Putin,” a piece that was written by the editors of the Wall Street Journal and published in their paper on July 16, 2016.

The editors tell the story of John Kerry's trip to Moscow where he presented the Russians with a proposal to end the 5-year old civil war in Syria. And right away – before anything else – the editors offered an opinionated piece of speculation that sounds more like a wish than a well reasoned out theory. Here it is: “Too bad another bad deal with Russia isn't likely to achieve that goal”.

These people wish to see the political if not the real sudden death of Syria's President Bashar Assad. It is an old wish that remains the driving force behind everything they say and do. They show this tendency in the editorial despite the effort they make to appear like they softened their stance in that matter.

Having rejected Kerry's initiative offhand, they go on to describe how he and the Russians may conduct negotiations over his proposal. They reveal that in the short term, America wants Assad's air force grounded in return for cooperating with Russia in the field of intelligence. In the long term, America wants Assad out of power. The editors call this a reasonable bargain, but shoot it down immediately, the way that Jews always do these things. Here it is: “...if only Putin had any record of abiding by previous commitments”.

This behavior points to the fact that Jews view life as a zero-sum game. They consider everyone that's not with them to be against them, which makes it so that what they win, the opponent loses and vice versa. This is why they can never bargain in good faith, and why they accuse others of doing what is known to be their trademark. Look what they say about Putin: “Russia will pocket U.S. intelligence while continuing to press their advantage.”

The truth is that there is no proof at all Russia behaves in that manner whereas Israel's negotiations with the Palestinians has been nothing but that. The truth is that Israel never reciprocated after pocketing the concessions that the Palestinians said they would make if Israel reciprocated. What happened time and time again is that the Jews kept their cake even after they ate the Palestinian lunch and ate their cake too.

So then, where does that leave the world? The Journal editors suggest that Putin might want to see an end to Western sanctions against his country, and recognition of Russian gains in Ukraine. They suggest that Putin should be hopeful this will happen because there has been a shift in American and European attitudes in this regard. They don't like it because the conflict has been averted in the short term. But they remain hopeful that there will be a bigger conflict in the future for, they remain as bloodthirsty as ever.

Tweedledee and Tweedledum have gone Zombie

If you wonder why a burlesque showman was able to dispose of two pillars from the Jewish establishment that's in control of America, look at Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio who are members of the chamber of horror known as the Senate of the United States.

On the first anniversary of the nuclear deal with Iran, each of them wrote a piece that was published on July 14, 2016 in National Review Online. That of Ted Cruz came under the title: “Iran Tries Again.” That of Marco Rubio came under the title: “One Year of Obama Failures on Iran”.

The two characters (call them Tweedledee and Tweedledum) must have consumed a hefty doze of the Judeo-Zionist Kool-Aid, the reason why they went brain dead and tried to navigate their way to the White House like a couple of zombies. They met the showman on their way there, as he was out trying to have some fun on a full-mooned night. Seeing them, he kneecapped them to amuse himself, thus made them as leg-less as they were brainless. And so they gave up on the idea of completing the run to the White House.

The two are back now, fueled by the Kool-Aid that is still in their systems. They are calling to ditch the Iran nuclear deal; something they promise they'll keep doing to eternity if they must … a la Jewish tradition.

The excuse that Ted Cruz is giving for doing so is that in the speculative mode to which his brainless skull has been switched, he determined that Iran will cheat on the deal. And so he speculates that: “enriched by the deal and emboldened by their engagement with the international community, the Mullahs will accelerate their nuclear ambitions, enhanced by their ability to make good on their threats against Israel.” It's all about Israel, you see. It is Israel, always Israel and no one but Israel.

Cruz goes on to list the things he says Iran has done wrong during the past year. Study them and you'll determine that none comes close to what the American cops do when murdering their fellow citizens in cold blood. And neither do they come close to Israel's continuing occupation of Palestine; a most heinous crime against humanity that any group of thugs can ever commit.

And to think that all the horror is financed, armed and protected in world forums by America, makes you wonder how much bigger the stain on that country's record will get. It is a record that's already soiled by the near extermination of the native population on the continent, and by the slavery that followed.

Mindful that he played the speculative trick very badly, Ted Cruz uses another trick the Jews taught him to employ when in a bind. It is to impugn bad motives to the opponent. Thus, he spoke of what he says are Iran's attempts to procure banned material in Germany. He put it this way: “The problem is Iran's ongoing attempts to do so.” He mentions Pakistan and North Korea, and then goes back to playing the speculative trick: “why would they [the Iranians] not turn to more agreeable trading partners?” The reality is that we cannot escape the conclusion Ted Cruz has become as hopeless as his Jewish masters.

As to Marco Rubio, he begins his article by citing the customary litany concerning the naughtiness of the Iranians. He then gets into the matter of America selling passenger jets to Iran, which is the latest preoccupation to consume the Jewish establishment. Rubio complains: “At every opportunity, Secretary of State John Kerry and others have encouraged foreign companies to do business with Iran … a recent concession was allowing Boeing to sell aircraft to Iran”.

Unable to come up with something smarter to say, he addresses his Jewish masters to tell them what he did and what he'll do next to please them: “I have joined with colleagues in the Senate to pressure Iran. We have introduced crushing new sanctions on Iran. We made clear that Congress will block allowing Iran to access the U.S. financial system. We are working to ensure that taxpayer money will not be used to finance Boeing's deal with Tehran. We have also targeted Hezbollah, making it more difficult for that group to fund its activities”.

He closes with this: “The Iranian threat has not disappeared … Tehran has exploited the nuclear agreement to expand its nefarious activities, including provocations against Americans and Israel.” It's all about Israel, always Israel and no one but Israel, you see. And the world has grown tired of it.