Finally, a Definition for Alternate Universe

Let's say 99.9 percent of the Planet's population is more preoccupied with its condition here on Earth than what's out there in empty space. And so, when we speak of the universe, we usually refer to what we go through as we live our daily lives in the here and now.

This gives the term “Alternate Universe” a meaning all its own, and there are many examples that define it. You'll find that from time to time, people who disagree with the way that the cultural or artistic prizes are awarded, create alternative awards to established prizes like the Oscars, the Pulitzer and the Nobel, for example. Such conceptions are meant to draw attention to what their creators believe has gone wrong with the existing setup.

Most of these moves are considered to be protest activities that have a limited life cycle. In fact, they are maintained for as long as they make waves, and then allowed to whither away, having left a lasting mark or having failed to change a thing. But could it happen that someone who joined a protest movement, have a change of heart and flip to join the setup against which he was protesting? The answer is yes; it happens all the time.

It happens but the one thing that does not happen is for someone to be in both places at the same time. That is, be for something and against it simultaneously. This is like trying to have it both ways, which is something that nobody does. What? Wait a minute. What was that again? Nobody tries to have it both ways? You wouldn't say that if you knew how the Jews operate. Wait till you see what they do in the field of human rights.

When it comes to human rights, there is no document on this planet or anywhere in the universe that is as vile, savage and perverted as the Jewish Old Testament. And yet, this is the bible that the Jews spend a lifetime studying to live by and treat others accordingly. Every word in it being the antithesis of a Bill of Rights that's attached to a Constitution anywhere in the world, it is horrifying to learn that the Jews stand with one foot in the text of the Old Testament, and one foot in the principles of human rights enunciated by the United Nations.

The result of that ambiguous Jewish reality has been a proliferation of Jewish organizations that whitewash the savage treatment of Palestinians in occupied Palestine, and urge the personal destruction of people everywhere else in the world who disagree with them, treating them according to the hellish tenets of the Old Testament.

At the same time as that, the Jews demand that they and Israel be treated according to the most liberal interpretation of the most liberal Bill of Rights you'll find anywhere in the world. If this sounds like trying to have it both ways, it's because it is. In fact, it is the approach that the Jews seek to incorporate in everything they do.

You'll find an example of this insanity in the article that came under the title: “China, Cuba, Egypt, Iraq, Malaysia, Russia, Rwanda, and Saudi Arabia Should Not Sit on the U.N. Human Rights Council [HRC],” written by Javier El-Hage & Roberto Gonzales – both lawyers representing the New York-based Human Rights Foundation – and published on October 28, 2016 in National Review Online.

The lawyers begin the discussion by making an error of logic that would shame a twelve-year old kid. Here it is: “history repeats itself at the United Nations, as abusive regimes work to hide their own records.” If these two characters know there is an abusive record, it means the record is not hidden. And if it is not hidden today, it will not be hidden tomorrow or the day after. What happens, in fact, is that the countries they mention hide nothing but explain what they do to balance the need for security on one hand, and the rights of the citizens on the other.

Unlike the Jews whose biblical ideology made it impossible for them to develop well enough to have a nation of their own (were thus given an artificial one by the UN,) the countries said by the authors not to deserve sitting on the Human Rights Council, lived by ideologies that guided them through thousands of years to where they are today. The way they operate has evolved with them, was legitimate all the time, and remains legitimate today.

Unlike the Jews, these countries do not see the necessity to establish outfits that tell others how to respect human rights, and they do not incite the big powers to meddle in the affairs of others. That's because unlike the Jews, they do what they do knowing that their actions are justified. Being reasonable people, however, they are willing to debate their stance and modify it if convinced they should do so. This is how and why their cultures withstood the test of time.

By contrast, the Jews who remain as infamous as ever by the murderous activities they undertake in Palestine, and by the criminal harassment they practice against anyone that disagrees with them anywhere in the world – are the ones who suffer the disease of trying to hide what they do.

It is not surprising, therefore, that – in the same way the Jews vanish the people who do not toe their line in the so-called democracies of invisible dissidents – they got themselves two inferior lackeys to advocate vanishing from the HRC the nations that will not let them spread the Jewish disease among their people.

Jockeying for Position to fight the next Battle

The Israeli operators who handle the politics of the Zionist machine in America follow a predictable pattern each time that they feel the paradigm is about to shift in the Washington Beltway and/or in the minds of the Jewish American rank-and-file.

This time, the shift they fear is not just the old idea of a two-state solution, but that America has finally realized that the way to achieve any solution to the occupation of Palestine, is for America to step aside long enough and let the rest of the world help formulate a solution that's not dictated by political lobbying or blackmail. To frustrate any such attempt, the Israelis started jockeying around, looking for the best position from which to fight the upcoming battle and weaken the blowing winds of change.

To maintain the status quo that has worked for them like a charm since they took control of America's politico-journalistic setup, the Zionist operators always invited to Israel someone like Roger Cohen who is respected and trusted in America – and told him what to do. The instructions boiled down to laying out a plan that injected a dose of relaxant into the body-politic of America, calming things down till the urge to cause change had dissipated. Each time, things got back to the normalcy of the status quo more or less.

The Israelis did it again, this time commissioning Cohen to try and explain: “Why Israel Still Refuses to Choose,” which is the title of a lengthy article he published on October 28, 2016 in the New York Times. The formula the writer uses to craft his message is simple, elegant and deceitful. While avoiding the use of harsh rhetoric, he paints the Palestinians (not as the highly civilized people which they are, living under a savage Jewish occupation and doing the best they can to get by one day at a time) but as a hopelessly divided people who lack the cultural wherewithal to get their act together.

At the same time, he paints the Israelis (not as the depraved perennial losers who discovered a thoughtless giant in America willing to help them brutalize a militarily weak society, and rob it of its possessions) but a pluralistic society where a variety of haggled out opinions they call democracy, is flourishing.

This done, Cohen finds someone to interview who does a mea culpa on behalf of Israeli Jews. With apparent humility and the pretense of a soft heart, he fakes contrition for what the Jews have been inflicting on the Palestinians because – he admits – they occupy their land, and have not been considerate enough in the way they treat them.

While advancing that notion, Cohen and his guest promote the principle for which this whole charade was staged in the first place. Here is the principle: The two state solution is dead, should not be revived, and will never work. In fact, Cohen makes a declaration to that effect at the start of his discussion: 'In the Holy Land, there is near unanimity that a two-state solution is an illusion sustained by lazy thinking.' He could not be more definitive than that.

To fulfill the promise that is suggested in the title of the article, Cohen now explains why Israel still refuses to choose. Even though he tactfully avoids being too abrasive with what he says, he could not be subtle enough to prevent the astute reader from recalling the eternal Jewish chant: I conned you, I conned you, ain't I smarter than you? Here is how he recounts what Israel has been up to all along:

“Next year it will be a half-century since the occupation of the West Bank began. More than 370,000 settlers now live there, up from about 249,000 in 2005. The incorporation of all the biblical Land of Israel has advanced too far, for too long, to be reversed now”.

Why is this a half-century of criminal deception? It is criminal because an occupying power that alters the facts on the ground commits an internationally recognized crime. It is deceptive because the Jews told the Americans not to worry about the settlements. They promised that what goes up today will be taken down tomorrow, and the Americans were so naïve as to believe them.

The Americans bought the Jewish lies for half a century despite the fact that Moshe Dayan had put it bluntly this way: “America offers us money, arms and advice. We take the money, we take the arms, and we decline the advice.” Before him, David Ben-Gurion made clear what the Jews had in mind: “When the matter is dragged out – it brings us benefit”.

So now, Netanyahu can look the Americans in the eye and chant: We conned you, we conned you, ain't we smarter than you? And America is forced to live with a criminal albatross wrapped around its neck.

The best way to get rid of that albatross before it turns into a criminal indictment is for America to shift the paradigm far away from itself, and let the rest of the world share the burden of finding a solution to the situation in Palestine.

It can be done. It must be done.

Yankee Toy Soldiers for the Neocon Empire

I may have missed it but I don't think I did because I know I looked for it everyday and saw it nowhere.

The soldiers whose dead buddies are celebrated continuously by the Neocon controlled media for the ultimate sacrifice they made to defend others, were about to be stiffed because they stayed alive. Luckily, something happened at the last minute that put a temporary restraint on the ongoing madness.

It happened to the wounded veterans that had a hard time getting the care they needed and deserved from the Veterans Administration (VA), and it happened to the soldiers who were offered a financial incentive to re-enlist, but were later informed of a clerical error that forces them to return the money they don't have anymore, having spent it a long time ago.

At a time that the veterans are so desperate they commit suicide by the thousands every year, you would think that a publication such as the Weekly Standard, which updates its website on a daily basis, would have said something about the matter. But not once, as far as I know, did this happen. Eventually, President Obama's Secretary of Defense Ash Carter directed the Pentagon to halt the process of trying to collect from the soldiers.

Meanwhile, during all the time that the VA story and the alleged clerical error were unfolding, the Weekly Standard did not see fit to appoint someone to go on that beat and crack it open. The publication could have helped the wounded veterans get the attention they needed to stay alive before dying and getting praised. Instead of doing its job, the Standard appointed Jenna Lifhits to roam the Congress and sniff for anything she can use to serve Israel, always Israel and no one but Israel.

Whether she tripped on a big piece of news or a small one, Lifhits was trained to frame what she finds in such a way as to make it sound like the American Congress was doing something hugely important for Israel. The upshot of her writing has always been that a game-changer was introduced in the Middle East, and the ultimate outcome will be a more glorious future for Israel.

She relies on a handful of characters to help her inflate the non-stories of the Congress into blockbuster-size bombshells. Among the characters helping her are Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Mark Kirk and Tom Cotton who would sell their own mothers to a Jewish whorehouse, and then turn around and give the money to the Jewish settlers whose profession is to kill Christian and Muslim civilians in occupied Palestine, and rob them of their possessions.

Jenna Lifhits's latest effort in that beat came under the title: “Lawmakers Urge Opposition to Another U.N. Measure Denying Jewish, Christian Links to Jerusalem,” published on October 24, 2016 in the Weekly Standard. To her and to the editors of the publication, something happened overseas that's more important than the plight of America's wounded veterans who continue to live the horror of war and will for the rest of their lives. What happened that's so horrible, says Lifhits, is that a document was written at UNESCO mentioning a historic site in Jerusalem by its Muslim name and not its Jewish name.

This prompted the normally hibernating Congress to jump to its feet, she says and do something about it. The move was led by the same Ted Cruz who fires off op-ed pieces to various publications promoting the causes of Israel, always Israel and no one but Israel, but never anything on behalf of America's wounded soldiers. Lifhits says that Cruz teamed up with Ros-Lehtinen and other lawmakers, and sent a letter to UNESCO telling the folks down there what the Congress thinks of them.

As well, Ted Cruz chided the Commander-in-Chief, Barack Obama, for not dropping everything he was doing on behalf of the veterans … to “seize this opportunity” instead, and do something good for Israel. The mentally challenged lawmaker says he is confounded by Obama's attitude.

As it happened, this was not the only story that unfolded this week on that front. A face-off between the notoriously backward Mark Kirk, and amputee veteran Tammy Duckworth who is vying for his senatorial seat – saw him quip a racially charged remark that earned him widespread contempt.

This was not a slip of the tongue; it is indicative of the mentality behind those who view America's military personnel not as human beings, but toy soldiers employed in the service of the Empire that the Neocons are trying to establish.

To these characters, a good American soldier is one that dies for the cause. Those that get wounded and manage to stay alive are a nuisance and a drain on the military budget. This is why the dead are praised, and the wounded are trashed.

End Ambiguity to save Israel from itself

The most glaring example of Jewish ambiguity is the pretense that Israel has an arsenal of nuclear weapons with which it can wipe all the Arabs and Muslims from the face of the Earth but will not use it because America is in the Middle East defending it. Why fight your fight if a willing bodyguard is there protecting you?

That's the glaring example. But when you look at everything else that Israel and her supporters are doing, you'll find that ambiguity exists everywhere in the Judeo-Yiddish culture. This is reality because the Jews are incapable of producing as much as they like to consume. Thus, it is imperative for them to deal with others on the basis of having it both ways each time they can pull it off. They succeed most of the time because they adopted a policy of ambiguities.

And while the glaring example is there for all to see, it is not the most consequential one. In fact, the important example is not a visible one because it stands for something that should have happened but did not.

It has been 68 years since the United Nations recognized Israel as a state and yet, the Israelis never even contemplated having a constitution. Why? Because a constitution defines a people as to whom they are and where they are – an identity and a place that the Jews are ambiguous about because they want to have it both ways. They established in their own mind the rule that what they grab from others is theirs and theirs alone, and what belongs to others may not so remain.

This is an ideology as depraved as anything you'll find in the worst of the Nazi and Fascist doctrines. It has survived in Israel, however, because the big powers that fought against the Nazis and the Fascists protected it in Israel not knowing what they were doing. This happened because the Jews were adept at playing the ambiguous game. They got what they wanted for decades without being detected by the Europeans or the Americans. And then it happened that what was not seen began to stink, and the smell spread throughout the planet.

The Europeans ended their support of what they came to realize were Israeli crimes against humanity. Even though the Americans realized the same thing at the same time, they were unable to extricate themselves from the insanity because their political system had become the very definition of insanity. And this is why a movement arose on the university campuses to do what the political system was unable to do.

There remain two questions: How did the Jews pull it off for such a long time in America? Will that change anytime soon? We can find the answer to the first question in the article that came under the title: “Is Obama preparing a parting shot at Israel?” written by Charles Krauthammer, and published on October 27, 2016 in the Washington Post. As to the second question, everyone that reads the article will have to make their own guess.

You'll see how the Jews did it when you read the article because Krauthammer is trying to pull it off one more time. He begins by groveling and asking for pity: “The UN approved a resolution condemning Israel,” using language that denies the Jewish connection to the land. This done, he makes the Jewish grievance a Christian one so as to widen the support he hopes to get: “It makes a mockery of the Gospels … what happens to the very foundation of Christianity?”

To show the depth of the threat that Israel faces, he ties that event to the worldwide BDS movement which he says seeks to delegitimize Israel. That's where Western Universities, Protestant churches, the American Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton's campaign personnel have joined the movement, he explains.

These are big developments in his eyes, but they are “mere pinpricks compared to the damage Israel faces in the final days of the Obama presidency.” Indications are that “Obama might unveil his own final status parameters of a two-state solution” that would lead to the recognition of a Palestinian state, he goes on to say. To show how bad this will be for Israel, he creates scenarios, speculations and prophesies of the kind that has been discredited many times before.

And then he admits his real reason to oppose such move: Israel will have to end the occupation of Palestine or face the charge of “criminal occupation of another country.” To stop this from happening, he implores Hillary Clinton and her supporters to commit Obama not to tie her hands should she become president.

But why would she want to do that? Because Obama's reason to do what he is about to, is not that it is good for the people of Palestine; for the Middle East, the World, America and the Jews who might finally write their own constitution. No. Obama's reason is that he detests Netanyahu, and wants to deliver a devastating parting shot to him and to Israel before exiting the stage, says Krauthammer.

Let's see if Hillary Clinton will buy that crap.

Turning a billion Chinese into North Koreans

If you're doing well as a nation, but for some weird reason wish to get a rope with which to hang yourself, the way to procure such a rope is to take the advice of Jewish pundits and/or advisers.

You don't have to be an expert in national security or geopolitical machinations to see how truthful that statement is. All you need is a little common sense through which to analyze the Jewish mentality that's out there incessantly inciting America to get the proverbial rope and use it.

One such call to America came under the title: “Stop Iran by Stopping North Korea,” an article that was written by Josh Gelernter and published on October 22, 2016 in National Review Online. When reading the article, two relevant facts come to mind.

First, when Russia felt that it had overextended itself by federating with too many republics, it decided to let some of them go. This done, Russia negotiated a deal with NATO according to which the latter will not actively pursue a policy to beckon those republics into joining it. But America violated that agreement, and the Russian President, Vladimir Putin responded in a manner that was not agreeable.

Second, during the 1973 Middle East War, the Israelis threatened America to assemble a dirty nuclear bomb and use it on Egypt if the Americans did not rush to rescue them as they were going down to a crushing defeat at the hands of the Egyptians. The Americans rescued Israel, but instead of making sure that the little thing will never again resort to the crime of blackmailing them or anyone else, they made it an American doctrine to protect the Israeli crime. They did it by covering for Israel when it pretended to have a nuclear arsenal, and they continue to do it by vetoing every attempt that's initiated by the countries of the region to turn the Middle East into a nuclear free zone. If this is not an example of American criminal insanity, what is?

Now, think of North Korea as being to China what Israel is to America … except that the parallel is not a perfect one. The reality is that the relationship between America and Israel is one of coercion whereas the one between China and North Korea is that of two unequal sovereigns. The fact is that the political system in America allows for a foreign entity like Israel to have agents live in America – enjoying the full rights of citizenship – while being loyal to Israel and only Israel. Whether someone sweeps the floor or runs to be vice president of the United States, he is allowed to use the vast array of America's resources to further the Israeli agenda at the expense of the American people and the American interests.

Thus, while the government of the United States has no control over its relationship with Israel, the government of China has full control over its relationship with North Korea. The consequence is that China finds itself in a good position to fully exploit that insane setup. Whatever the Jews say or do that America cannot control, the Chinese allow the North Koreans to say or do an Asian version of it. China's goal is a simple one; to send a signal to America that says: You better get out of our neighborhood before things get even worse.

Think about it; the Americans are incapable of grasping the simple reality that the more they try to encircle and squeeze Russia, the more that Putin responds in a manner that tries to break the encirclement – come hell or high water. Now imagine how dumbfounded the Americans must be in the face of Asian realities whose workings are infinitely more complex than those of Putin's mind.

This brings us to the Gelernter article which is meant primarily for an American audience, but is also read by those in Russia and Asia. Look how the linear thinking of a Jew can create a storyline that would most certainly bore an Asian kid by its simplicity, but marvel an American foreign policy apparatus that's full of simpletons.

Oblivious of the possibility that a foolish American response might motivate a billion Chinese to feel like they are all North Koreans, he Gelernter storyline goes like this:

“Deal with North Korea, and this will take care of Iran. There was a time when we could have destroyed North Korea's missile and nuclear infrastructures, but we didn't, and it is too late to do it now”.

“What we must do, therefore, is not to issue press-releases denouncing North Korea, but implement a strong, substantial response; one that will kill two birds with one stone. It will impede the North Korean progress and remind Iran that the United States is not to be trifled with”.

“What exactly such response should be, I haven't a clue. I'm only a Jew, after all. I talk, talk, talk, say nothing useful and get paid. That’s why they mistake me for genius … and that’s fine with me, America”.

Pathetic Performance Defending Democracy

Suppose someone came to you and said: “I am the best qualified to advise you, and this is why you should hire me.” So you ask: “What are your qualifications?” And he says: “I am a Jew, and I have no idea what I'm talking about.” Would you hire him?

You think I'm making a joke, don't you my friend? Well, let me tell you this is not a joke. It's what has happened time after time with the American government repeatedly hiring from the swarm of Jews who, after getting the job, gave one and the same advice time after time. With this kind of performance, they sent America deeper and deeper into the Jewish cesspool from which there was never an exit strategy or a plan B to fall back on.

But what could be the advice that the Jews gave time after time? It was this: “Attack here, attack there, attack everywhere.” Wow! And the attacks failed, or produced nothing good as I understand it. Well then, what happened after the fiasco that each attack produced? If you want to know, you better sit down, wrap a bandana tightly around your head to prevent it from exploding, and hear the answer. This was the answer given by the Jew: I'll remind you of what I said that was correct, America; of what you did that was wrong; and why you should hire me again for the next assignment.

If you're still in one piece, my friend, let me tell you where you can go to verify what I'm telling you. In fact, you won't have to go too far because you'll only need to Google The Washington Times. That's where you'll find an article published under the title: “The Battle of Mosul” and the subtitle: “The Islamic State will take a beating, but the 'tide of war' will not recede,” written by Clifford D. May and published on October 25, 2016.

In case you don't know, this guy Clifford May is the one who founded the comical troupe “Foundation for Defense of Democracies,” an outfit he put together right after the 9/11 event, he says. He never explained why he thought he could defend the democracies, or why he needed to do this work. He has been at it for fifteen years now, always inciting America to attack one Arab country or another, one Muslim country or another. He has been musing about each fiasco after it happened, and has been advising on what America should do next. In fact, this is the content of his current article.

He starts the discussion by admitting: “It is probably only a matter of time before Mosul is liberated” and he ends it with his usually pessimistic viewpoint: “While the Battle of Mosul is likely to be a military victory, it would be unwise for him [Obama] to claim that the 'tide of war is receding.'” Between the start of the discussion and its end, he tells of events that unfolded over the years. These would be events he never predicted correctly no matter how much he tried to connect the fake dots of his imagination. And not once in this discussion does he demonstrate the inclination to say he was wrong at any time in all those years.

In fact, he refuses to take ownership of any fiasco to which he contributed a little or contributed a substantial amount. He does that to let it be known he wants to remain in the driver's seat, intending to keep giving advice to America on what to do past the Obama victory. Thus, he begins this part of the discussion with the supposition: “Imagine that the Islamic State ends up with little or no territory under its control”.

He takes it from there and puts down all kinds of speculations (like the bad old days,) to create all kinds of fake dots which he connects together (like the bad old days,) and comes up with all sorts of fake scenarios (like the bad old days,) to then make the suggestion: Attack here, attack there, attack everywhere (like the bad old days.) Here is how he put his philosophy in words:

“The peoples of the world are in for an extended conflict, one that will have to be fought on multiple battlefields. Perhaps the next American administration will develop a serious strategy to defeat our enemies”.

Did you get that, dear reader? Here is the founder and head honcho of an outfit dedicated to the defense of democracies wondering if the next administration will develop a strategy to defeat “our enemies.” It is the sum total of what he can do to defend a billion people living under democratic rule.

Now you know why people think of his outfit as more of a comical troupe than a so-called think tank.

A Thirst for Power that is never quenched

If you search for the individuals who held the most powerful positions in history, you'll find them to be not those who sat on the throne and uttered commands in full view of their subjects. Rather, you'll find them to be the unseen individuals who whispered in their ears when no one was watching, and no one was hearing what's being said.

Yes, there were a few individuals, such as Niccolo Machiavelli and Grigori Rasputin, who held a public position in addition to being advisers to the sovereigns they served, but they were a rare exception. Most of the others preferred to remain anonymous as far as the general public was concerned, and remain mysterious in the eyes of the sovereigns that employed them.

They asked for and were given a place they quickly shrouded in mystery and called it sanctuary. They went into it alone, and let it be known they performed secret rituals that put them in touch with a supernatural force that revealed the future to them. They claimed that this relationship gave them the knowledge and wisdom that made them indispensable to the well-being of the sovereign, and to the security of the empire ruled by the sovereign. They thought of themselves as the anointed inviolables, and wanted the world to know it.

By the time the Age of Enlightenment had reached Europe – around the seventeenth century – that position was officially taken off the rolls. But the sovereigns and everyone below them remained as superstitious as the people of ancient times … as indeed, many people are to this day. At the time, the people did not have a system of horoscope like what we have today, but they had the seers who looked into the stars and told those who paid them what the future held for them and their families.

Eventually, education developed to such an advanced stage that society did away with the supernatural force said to inform the anointed. Society replaced the force with books that were put at the disposal of anyone who cared to read them and learn about the things that interested them. From that point on, knowledge and wisdom were no longer monopolized by the few.

Still, human nature being what it is, there are charlatans even today, who pretend to have special gifts that make it possible for them to connect dots and see the future better than anyone else. The sad part is that some people believe them and contract them to tell the future. In reality, however, the charlatans do more than get paid for their quackery; they weave their own agenda into the fake message they deliver in fulfillment of the contract.

You can see an example of that in the article that came under the title: “By All Means, Take Mosul but...” and the subtitle: “ISIS, like the matador's red cape, distracts from the truly mortal danger – a nuclear Iran chanting 'Death to America.” It was written by Mark Helprin, and published on October 24, 2016 in the Wall Street Journal.

To see what Helprin is getting at, it is useful to recall the historical context in which his current discussion was forged. The year was 2003, and America had just destroyed Iraq according to a plan that was drawn a decade earlier by agents of the Jewish establishment. Actually the plan included the destruction of Syria and Iran too, but this part remained an aspiration only because the pretext that led to the invasion of Iraq proved to be a baseless Jewish fabrication.

The Jewish dream never died, however, being the very thing that Helprin is expressing in his article. Actually the Jews got part of their dream fulfilled because the events in Iraq metastasized and spilled into Syria, destroying it as badly as Iraq. What remains to be destroyed for the full dream to be realized, is Iran. The irony is that for every pound of loss suffered by Iraq and Syria, there has been a corresponding ton of gain made by Iran. The reality is such that some people already describe Iran as a superpower that's getting stronger by the day.

In fact, this is what Helprin is doing in his article besides urging America and its allies to destroy Iran before it will be too late to do so. Here, in condensed form, is what he says in that regard:

“Much more befitting of the power and history of the U.S. and its allies would be to sever and destroy the bridge that Iran has built from Afghanistan to the Mediterranean … This entity will have the oil wealth of Iran and Iraq; ports on the Mediterranean, the Persian Gulf, and Indian Ocean … If this power turns its eyes south to Jordan and Saudi Arabia, the Middle East will be entirely transformed”.

This is the articulation of Helprin's Jewish agenda, woven into a set of predictions made to look like the scholarly work of a learned man.

The fact that something like this can still be done is why we need a new Enlightenment Age to descend on this planet and make of charlatans like Mark Helprin, a sad memory that will never be repeated in a civilized society.

Survival not to the Fittest but the Adaptable

There used to be a disease called 'Can't Havitis.' No one is sure when it was first observed, but it could have started in a schoolyard with a boy that went after a girl he can't have, or a girl that went after a boy she can't have, and so they suffered the Can't Havitis blues.

Well, my friend, you don't have to be a kid to suffer from the disease; some grownups are showing us they are capable of catching it too. Do you remember a time when the echo chamber of the Jewish swarm used to reverberate with calls to America not to pivot to Asia because America's place was in the Middle East where Israel (the center of the universe) resides? Well, guess what. Now that America appears it Can't Have Asia, the same swarm is suffering the Can't Havitis blues, and mourning the loss out loud.

Benny Avni tells us all about it in an article he wrote under the title: “Why Asia is 'pivoting away' from the US alliance,” published on October 24, 2016 in the New York Post. The writer begins by identifying the villain in this drama. He is President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines who “can cause all this consternation – and then some,” says Avni.

From all that Duterte has said and done since he was elected – some of which is described in the Avni article – it is evident that he has a tall agenda he wants to implement for his country. How well he will do remains to be seen, but what is certain is that he explains his agenda clumsily. Domestically, he launched a war on drugs, and was criticized for the severe measures he adopted. He was also criticized for his stance on foreign policy because of two reasons. First, he seems adamant on changing the status quo. Second, he seems to waffle on his relationship with America.

Calling Duterte mercurial and loose-cannon-in-chief, Avni says that the man first announced he wanted to separate from the United States, and wanted to enter into a new alliance with China and Russia, but then walked back on his separation bid. That, however, does not mean he'll walk back on the idea of forging stronger ties with China at least.

Avni explains that “the underlying dynamics in the region are strong … Duterte may be nutty but bowing to China may not be irrational for his country.” And he gives the details: China is using its economic prowess and growing military might to coerce the neighbors and dominate the region, says Avni.

But where does that leave the United States? Avni says that America conducted naval exercises with regional allies. He makes it a point to explain it was meant “to remind Beijing we're still the superior power.” What came of it was a shrug from China, which prompted America to tell the allies they must now turn to international arbitration. So much for the virtual pitting of America's military against that of China.

What else is there to do? Well, there are the economic considerations. But here too China seems in a good position to shrug off the might that America could bring to bear. In fact, “China is emerging as the big new boss on the block; its neighbors have no choice but to deal with it,” says Avni.

There might have been a chance for America to do something in this field, he goes on to say, but that is lost now because the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) that Obama negotiated with the Pacific allies is all but dead. This happened because both candidates in the current presidential election campaign have rejected it.

Now, my friend, guess what happened to our author near the end of his article. You won't believe it but he performed a mental somersault that will undoubtedly raise the hair of a million Neocons. Do you remember a time when those who adhered to that ideology would not say one good word about an opponent without running to the sink and wash their mouths?

Look now what Avni is saying about Hillary Clinton: “Pivot to Asia is still a good idea … Addressing that will be high on the next president's to-do list … Clinton, the apparent front-runner, showed an ability to pivot from difficult questions. She'll need to marshal her disdain to rigidity, pivot back to Asia and repair our shaky relations”.

The Neocons used to preach the doctrine of survival to the fittest. But they looked down the abyss and realized they cannot survive a fall this far down. And so they adapted to the new reality. There is hope they may evolve enough to become human, after all.

Different Folks have different Priorities

When it comes to matters of national security and survival, every country has its priorities. History, geography, culture and current circumstances determine what these priorities are, how to live by them, and how to defend them if and when it becomes necessary to do so.

Israel's number one priority, for example, is to find a host whose blood it can suck like a rapacious parasite till there is no more blood to suck, at which point Israel shifts to another host and starts the cycle all over again. This is known as taking advantage of the host that showers pity on the parasite, and carries it till it runs out of blood, or gets so fed up, it kicks the thing out of its system.

A recent sad example is that of Israel which got a 38 billion-dollar gift from foolish America, and went looking for another sucker to take advantage of in case this one dries up, as it will sooner or later. What is not considered taking advantage of America – or of someone else for that matter – but is accepted as the sovereign right of every nation, is the set of priorities that nations set for themselves. Among the ones that continually update their priorities, and do it legitimately are Russia, China, Iran and North Korea.

The definitions given here for the expressions “taking advantage of” and “sovereign right” match what you'll find in a dictionary. But you'll be surprised to know that Benny Avni has something else in mind. Instead of describing what the four nations do as exercise their sovereign right; he accuses them of taking advantage of America. In addition, he ignores Israel's activities, even though it is the blood sucking parasite that's feasting on America like a leech with an infinite appetite.

Avni lays out a rationale to explain his contorted logic in an article he wrote under the title: “Hostile nations are taking advantage of Obama's final days,” published on October 23, 2016 in the New York Post. Here is how he says each of those nations is taking advantage of America:

Russia sends warplanes to buzz American warships that sail close to its territory. China warns of consequences when America's warplanes and warships come close to its territory. Iran says it does not like American warships coming close to its territory and sends speedboats to buzz them. North Korea says it does not like America exercising war-games near its border, and arms itself to deter any American or South Korean aggression.

It is obvious that the American military does not consider the sayings or doings of those nations provocative enough to merit a response that might lead to further escalation and possible war. But when an American warship that was sailing nowhere near those countries, came under rocket fire, America responded by destroying the radar installations that made it possible for the rockets to be fired.

So then, what does Benny Avni think of that? Well, he complains that Washington officials described the American response as “measured” and “limited.” He calls this attitude a manifestation of “eight years of retreat” that the Obama administration has been displaying. And this is why, he goes on to say, the Yemeni proxies of Iran launched the rockets, thus picking a fight with America.

To him, measured and limited responses are not good enough because when you couple that with the fact that America has been advising its allies to take their case against China to international arbitration, America and its allies appear to offer “not much resistance.” The result, says John Hannah, a former adviser to Dick Cheney (quoted by Avni) is that America's deterrence will begin to wear down … and that is dangerous.

As to what should be done, he suggests that “the next president must demonstrate that there's a new sheriff in town, starting by significantly upping military budgets”.

He also quotes James Jeffrey, a former Ambassador to Iraq, who said: “Washington should warn Iran that the response to such provocations will not be a strike against proxies but against Iran's own Revolutionary guards”.

What's wrong with all that? Well, it must be said that America got itself involved in many wars since WW II. It went to war when victimized such as the day that Pearl Harbor was attacked, and the day that 9/11 happened. America also went to war because it thought of itself as policeman of the world, such as the time when it got involved in Vietnam and in Iraq.

What America never did was confuse those two conditions because a policeman never plays the role of victim. Thus, America has always been one or the other but never both simultaneously. And yet, this is what Avni and those like him want America to be.

They want to empower anyone that wishes to start a war between America and Iran to do so by shooting at an American warship. The result they want to see is a Washington that feels so victimized, it will not respond in a measured or limited fashion but respond massively against Iran … and damn the consequences.

In fact, this is how Israel has lived because it knew that when things turn bad, America will come to the rescue. But who will come to the rescue when things turn bad for America?

The Jews wish to remake America in the image of Israel, but there is no host that's big enough to feed a parasite the size of America?

You're on your own America because the Jews cannot help you swim; they can only sink you.

Saying something, having nothing to say

In a conference held by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, held on October 19, 2016, Tom Malinowski, who is Assistant Secretary of State, gave a 3,500 word speech in which he practically said nothing. The address was printed on the website of the Institute under the title: “The Future of Arab Reform: Beyond Autocrats and Islamists,” on October 20, 2016.

Malinowski began by saying that this being the post-Arab Spring era; he was asked to reflect on democracy and human rights in the Middle East, and to answer the question: “How can we revive progress on this vital front?” Of course, there is only one answer to that question. It is this: If America, especially Jewish America, keeps its nose out of the region, things will work out as well as they have for 7,000 years … as opposed to the calamity that has been inflicted on the region for the last 70 years – since America started poking its nose there. But that's not how Malinowski saw things.

He began the discussion with a notion he borrowed from then Secretary Hillary Clinton who, in 2011, said the following: “the greatest single source of instability in today's Middle East is not the demand for change. It is the refusal to change.” Of course, Clinton did not come up with that notion herself, it was bandied about for decades, since Shamir of Israel went on American television and blurted out: “Zey know nossing about za damacracy”.

That's when the swarm of Jewish pundits began to harp on the notion that 'regime change' was urgently needed in the Middle East. It is when the Holocaust psychos of America – calling themselves children of Holocaust survivors – began to plot the destruction of Iraq to change Saddam's regime; something they achieved a decade later as they worked in the office of then Vice President Dick Cheney … enjoying his full protection.

This Judeo-American demonic act is the event that led to the horror now unfolding in the Arab Levant. It had nothing to do with the single event that sparked a revolution in Tunisia and spread to Egypt. This movement was nicknamed the Arab Spring, and might have inspired a similar one in Syria. But the full scale horror that developed in the Levant overshadowed the Syrian Arab Spring, coming as it did in the wake of the destruction of Iraq and the breakdown of authority that regime change brought to the country. This is why the events that unfolded in North Africa do not come close to resembling the horror that's unfolding in the Levant at this time.

The subtle differences between the two situations – as well as other subtleties – are the fundamental realities one must recall when analyzing what's happening in the Middle East North Africa (MENA) region. But the sad part is that nowhere in the analysis developed by Malinowski do you see mention of these realities. Instead, he mentions the changes that occurred in some of the places, and goes from there to talk, not about what is necessary to heal the region, but what will be “in our cold, hard national interest”.

As it turned out 'democracy by regime change' that was supposed to be in America's national interest, proved to be no better than “something that threatens us today more than the turmoil in the Middle East: cynicism about democratic government. Our adversaries are trying to undermine confidence in these values. And we've seen how fragile their foundations are.” Having made this confession, what does Tom Malinowski now recommend?

His answer is the same as that given by the insane wino who thinks he can cure his hangover by consuming more wine. Malinowski is saying let's do more of what brought us to this point and maybe the result will be different. Here are his words: “We have to keep standing up for our values. We do it for our own sake. If we quit defending our convictions, if we were seen by the world as giving up, imagine how dispiriting that would be to people around the word who share our values? Imagine how empowering that would be to authoritarian leaders”.

Of course, this amounts to saying nothing. However, this kind of nothingness is not without consequence. Look at his words: “We must stand up for our values,” but he just admitted that, “we've seen how fragile their foundations are.” He goes on to say: “We do it for our sake, defending our convictions,” but he just admitted that, “cynicism threatens us [because] our adversaries are undermining our values.” And what can be more cynical than creating another Iraq-Syria horror “for our sake”.

Which leads us to this: When will you learn your lesson, America, and stop hiring one-dimensional simple minds to direct your foreign policy? You need people with an IQ that equals at least that of your opponents. Can you not find someone this developed intellectually in America?

Invitation to White House not an Honor

There might have been a time shortly after WW II when an invitation to the White House was viewed as an honor by the guest that's receiving it. But by the time the Vietnam War in Asia had ended, and the Watergate Affair in America had followed it, an invitation to the White House became as valuable as visiting the museum of political and diplomatic relics.

But like everything else, there is an exception to the rule. Rejected by the human race for all the time they have existed as a group, the Jews continued to relish the idea of being invited anywhere at all, especially the White House. Because of this universal rejection of them, and because their talent is restricted to the creation of make-believe theatrics, an invitation to the White House that's extended to one of their own, means the world to them. The reciprocal holds true as well in the sense that an invitation for their enemy to come and visit the White House is viewed by them as a bitter defeat.

Thus, you'll find that a good portion to the Jewish propaganda effort is devoted to staging the theatrics of what is known as photo-ops in which Jewish dignitaries are seen to visit the White House. The other side of the coin is for the Jews to do all they can to prevent the White House from inviting a foe such as Yasser Arafat, for example, and then trumpet the non-event for the whole world to see and hear … as they did during the W. Bush era when they practically owned the White House.

To get a sense of how important this is to the Judeo-Yiddish culture, it is worth recalling that Rahm Emanuel, who used to be White House chief of staff, exhausted his political capital, and staked his future employment at the White House to setting up one kamikaze act before exiting the stage. He managed to arrange, against all odds, for Netanyahu of Israel to visit the White House – getting him in through the front door – at a time that the latter was considered persona non grata in America and everywhere else in the world.

A variation on that theatrics involves the travels of the American President outside the country. Having visited Egypt and Turkey but not Israel, the swarm of Jewish opinion makers in America and Israel issued a deluge of opinions goading President Obama to visit Israel, promising that such visit will lead directly to a peace treaty with Palestine. Obama bought the lie, visited Israel where he engaged in a love-fest with his hosts. When the time came to leave, he was given a parting gift that was anything but a peace treaty. It was, in fact, the notorious Jewish shaft, sung as well in English as in Yiddish: I conned you, I conned you, ain't I smarter than you?

As certain as two plus two add up to four, the Jews who never stop doing the wrong thing, were bound to come up with another variation on that theatrics, and they did. Already known for going around the world asking the leaders of nations to be good to Israel because they own the American Congress of nincompoops, and can get things done for them by manipulating the brainless idiots who run the joint – the Jews are now telling the world they are developing the ability to get them invited to the White House if they so wish.

Michael Rubin was chosen to herald the good news to the world, and he did by writing, “Invite Egypt's Sisi to the White House,” an article that was published on October 21, 2016 on the website of the American Enterprise Institute. Up until now, no one had noticed the non-event of Sisi not visiting the White House which – in the view of most Egyptians and all Arabs and Muslims – is a blessing.

That's because these people do not mind dealing with the American public the way they do with everyone else. They also deal with America's business class the way they do with any other. But what they do not want to see develop is a close diplomatic relationship with America because they know this field is controlled by Jews who turn everything they touch into slime.

What happened that darkened the Arab view even more regarding the intent of Jewish America is the scandalous scheme that was hatched by the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute, and Freedom House, as the details of the scheme came to light during and after the Egyptian Revolution of five years ago. Is Michael Rubin ignorant of all that? Of course not, but what he's after is something else, and it comes out from this passage:

“The next administration might start by hosting Sisi in the Oval Office, a symbolic honor … Hillary Clinton espoused the value of dialogue. She reached out to the Taliban and to the Muslim Brotherhood. Her successor met with Hamas … Obama lauded Turkey's Erdogan and honored China's president … Mr. (or madam) President, invite Sisi to the Oval Office”.

Since none of those leaders came out singing the song of joy from a meeting they had with an American – be that in the White House or anywhere else – neither will Egypt's Sisi from a meeting he might have with an American in the White House or anywhere else.

We must, therefore, deduce that the reason why Rubin wants Sisi in the White House is because he wants to restore the influence of Jewish America in Egypt. Having lost that influence as a result of their scandalous behavior, the Jews hunger to get it back because their schemes never die, and they never give up doing the wrong thing.

Is Sheriff the same as Policeman?

Those of us, who spent a great deal of time and energy observing and studying the Judeo-Yiddish culture, knew it was going to happen, and have been saying so for a long time. We've been saying there is no such a thing as a Jewish friend or ally because that culture is devoid of both humanity and friendship, and those who are immersed in this culture just proved us correct.

Despite our warnings, America kept buying the claims put out by the Jewish swarm of opinion makers to the effect that America had no better friend and ally in the Middle East than Israel. And then it began to happen to America the way it happened to the Soviet Union, to France and to Britain at earlier times. What happened then was that Israel took from those places as much as it could, and stabbed them in the back each and every time before consorting with a new so-called friend. And then Israel embraced the United States of America, called it a friend and an ally, sucked its friendly blood for decades and stabbed it in the back.

Israel did that just days after receiving a written pledge from the American Administration to hand it a 38 billion dollar gift. And as usual, the Congress of brain dead rats jumped into action and gave Israel a verbal pledge to mug their American motherland and supply Israel with as much extra loot as it will ask for, and more. This done, Israel declared that it no longer views America as the policeman of the world but will take the money and run because now, it views Russia as the new sheriff – if not of the world – at least of the Middle East.

This is the story that Shmuel Rosner is telling in an article that came under the title: “Israel Knows That Putin Is the Middle East's New Sheriff,” published on October 19, 2016 in the New York Times. This being a story of backstabbing and treachery, Rosner was alert enough to realize it is better to tell it by first humoring the reader. And so, he relayed a short anecdote having to do with an encounter between Putin of Russia and Sharon of Israel who spoke Russian, and more recently between Putin and Netanyahu who speaks no Russian.

That literary trick also came in handy because the anecdote served as a substitute for a Jewish trick of another kind. The habit of Israelis had been to strike a “friendship” with other countries by whispering in the ear of their leaders a small pleasantry that went something like this: “You and us are so much alike, it's like we are meant to be friends.” Rosner modified the saying to suit the moment, and relayed it in this form: “Netanyahu seems to have found a common language with Putin … Necessity breeds friendship … the Kremlin became a necessity … To put it bluntly, Israel trusts Russia's intention more than it trusts the United States.” So much for the only kind of one way friendship the Jews are capable of forging.

Rosner who lives in Israel and writes for a publication in America, did not have to be in America to hear a chorus of American voices angrily swear: “What a bunch of dogs the Jews turned out to be!” And so, he responded in the typically Jewish manner of attributing to others what he was forced to see in himself. This is how he barked his response: “The arrangement was simple: Israel deals with the small dogs of the neighborhood, and the United States [deals with the] big dogs”.

Because he thought this may not be enough to convince the Americans that the Jews were justified to betray their American benefactor as they did, Shmuel Rosner gives more reasons to justify the betrayal. His ideas boil down to one concept: 'Russia has become more important than the United States.' And this is how Rosner phrased it: “What better sign is there of Russia's import when even longtime ally like Israel consults with Mr. Putin? Kerry tried to convene the Israeli and Palestinian leaders but failed. Putin can succeed, because Abbas and Netanyahu will find it hard to decline”.

And true to his Jewish character, Rosner ends his “education” of America by delivering the customary double-punch. First, he tells the political elites in Washington: Take this Jewish knife in the back and love it because it is a Jewish knife. Second, he tells them Israel still expects America to render it lip service the way that some Europeans do. Get used to it, America, lest you be labeled antisemitic.

The following are the words he used to express that thought: “This means that the next American administration will face a challenge in the Middle East. It will have to regain its influence. The next president [will need] to make the region more trusting and more fearful of her or him, than it is of Mr. Putin”.

Translation: We sucked up to you long enough to gain your friendship, America. Now you suck up to us to gain our friendship. Do it because now, we dance to the tune of Putin's Russia, the sheriff/policeman of the region.

A Stab at haggling more criminal Nonsense

Clifford D. May is at it again. Having gone through the full cycle trying to legitimize Jewish crimes in Israel by claiming that to reject them amounts to rejecting Israel and delegitimizing it – he is back at the starting point playing the notorious shell game which epitomizes Jewish dishonesty and moral bankruptcy.

He wrote: “A final stab at resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict,” an article that also came under the subtitle: “Obama must resist the temptation to tie his successor's hands.” It was published on October 18, 2016 in The Washington Times. To understand what the author is doing in this discussion, we need to know something about the shell game that Jewish hagglers play.

Once a Jew has gotten something from you by hook or by crook, and he is expected to return it, he'll insist on “negotiating” with a third party that might represent you or might play the role of mediator. The Jew will then haggle to death every session in which you'll be present till you get tired and walk away. This is when he'll initiate the shell game and play it on the third party.

What he would have done ahead of time was to make a list of the things he knows you'll never accept because they amount to surrendering the very thing for which you're negotiating. He'll pretend to conduct a normal negotiation till you indicate the willingness to give up a few things in return for getting back what he has that is yours. When all is said and done except for the signing of the agreement, he'll mention one of the things on the list, and make it a condition for signing the agreement. You'll refuse and he'll tell the third party you're to blame for the failure of the negotiations. This is so very Jewish, so dishonest and so morally bankrupt.

That is how two decades of negotiations have unfolded between the Palestinians and the Israelis under American mediation. Dennis Ross was the mediator some of the time – he who is the most extreme of the most fanatic of Jews you can imagine. He pretended to represent America when in fact, he only represented Israel, always Israel and no one but Israel. In this capacity, his goal was to sabotage the talks and set the stage to blame it on the Palestinians, something he did with the persistence of a monk dedicated to his calling.

And because Palestine is occupied and disarmed whereas Israel is fully armed by America, Israel went on to grab everything that the Palestinians indicated they might cede in return for ending the occupation. This done, the Jews justified what they did, saying that everyone knows they'll be getting these things if there is going to be a deal, so why wait for the deal to be done. They keep taking these things, they say, because it is the logical thing to do. That would be Jewish logic, you see, being so dishonest and so morally bankrupt.

So while the Israelis have been looting Palestinian properties during the time they were pretending to negotiate, they got Clifford May and a swarm of his ilk to say that Israel gave up many things whereas the Palestinians gave up nothing. Engaging in this kind of dishonesty has allowed these people not only to justify what Israel was doing, they also justified staying the course indefinitely.

In fact, maintaining the status quo is the reason why Clifford May wrote the current article. Like it says in the subtitle, he is calling on President Obama to “resist the temptation” of starting something that might help his successor end the looting of Palestine.

What worries the swarm is that America has come to realize that Israeli crimes against humanity are American crimes against humanity. Because America knows it will not escape responsibility for what it is enabling the Jews to do, it wants to back off before the situation gets even worse. And so, May writes that President Obama is contemplating “measures to discourage and/or punish those who support Israeli settlements beyond the 1949 armistice lines, and not vetoing a U.N Security Council resolution that would recognize a Palestinian state”.

The Jewish swarm also worries that when this happens, it will “give a boost to efforts to delegitimize Israel, notably the Boycott, Divest and Sanction, or BDS, campaign.” This is the Jewish way of saying let's not stop the gang rape and set the victims free because if we do, the world will know what we have been doing.

To justify that logic, Clifford May resorts to two Jewish tricks. One is to demonize the Palestinians; the other is to predict that horrible things will happen if the Palestinians get what they were negotiating for.

Well then, if this is what the Jews believe now, it is what they believed all along. It proves they were negotiating in bad faith, never intending to reach a negotiated settlement.

Yes, the Jews are not the first to negotiate in bad faith, but they are the only ones whose faith is so rotten, they negotiate to find out what else they can grab from you, and then do so under the watchful eyes of a naïve mediator … better yet, a mediator that is dishonest and in their pocket.

Will they consider human genome sound?

It's been nearly 4,000 years since the Hebrew tribes of the desert decided that their nomadic way of life wasn't going to sustain all of them, so they threw one of their own – whose name was Joseph – into a well that had dried up, and left him there to die.

Joseph was lucky in that an Arab tribe, known for its kindness, happened to pass by and saw him. The Arabs pulled Joseph out of the well and took him to Egypt, the superpower of its time, where he found a job, got promoted to better jobs and allowed to bring into Egypt members of his family as well as other Hebrews. They multiplied in Egypt over 400 years, and when they failed to infiltrate the seat of power as they were planning to take over the country, they murdered Egyptian babies, looted the homes and temples of their valuables, and ran into the desert.

They attributed their criminal activities to the advice of the god they imagined, one that was apparently an accomplished military general. His dictates became their religion – which they called Judaism – and when he said he'll take them on the conquest of a place called Palestine where they'll settle down and found a nation, they followed him. In time, they called themselves Jews – as in the people who adhere to the Jewish religion. And they made lust for the shedding of human blood the paramount tenet of their ideology.

If we go by the history they tell, the exodus from Egypt happened 3,300 years ago. It took them 40 years to get to Palestine where their god/general commanded them to engage in crimes almost as horrific as the ones they committed in Egypt. Eventually a powerful Roman Empire conquered the region, including Palestine, causing the Jews to effectuate another exodus. This time they headed for Rome where they thought they could infiltrated the Empire's seat of power and take it over.

They tried to do just that during the next 2,000 years, migrating from one country to another in Europe as they followed the seat of power that was itself shifting from one place to another. And each time that the locals discovered what the Jews were up to, they did not wait to be treated the way that the Egyptians and the Palestinians were. Instead, the Europeans took the initiative and did to the Jews what they knew the Jews were about to do to them. They pogrommed or holocausted them before the Jews could do it to them.

Eventually the Jews migrated to America, the superpower of its time, where they are close to taking over the country. They came this close because they used a simple weapon. It is that they had cultivated the notion humanity was driven by a defective gene called antisemitism. They said this was a disease that can be cured when you embrace the doctrine of mugging your own mother to please a Jew. And many in the American political establishment rushed to absorb the Jewish doctrine like a sponge. The result is that they competed to give away the store even before the Jews asked for it. Because America speaks English – the dominant language in the world – what happens in America reverberates throughout the nations of the world, especially the English speaking ones, not least of which is Britain.

That situation made possible the cross-fertilization of the American and British political cultures. What happens in one country now echoes in the other, including the attitude displayed by the elite and the masses toward the Jews. When the people in America began to realize what the Jews were doing to their country, they began to speak up, and so did the Brits. But instead of examining themselves to see what they do that so offends everyone, the Jews called that development 'antisemitism rearing its ugly head yet again'. By that, they mean to say the defective gene plaguing humanity has activated itself … the reason why the world is once again going after the Jews.

You can see how all of that is expressed in words when you go over two columns. One came under the title: “The Plot Against America, and the subtitle: “Donald Trump alights on the Compleat Conspiracy. Anti-Semites are thrilled.” It was written by Bret Stephens and published on October 18, 2016 in the Wall Street Journal. The other came under the title: “Anti-Semitic Anti-Zionism,” written by Roger Cohen and published on October 19, 2016 in the New York Times.

Stephens begins by quoting a passage from a speech given by Joe McCarthy in 1951: “A conspiracy on a scale so immense as to dwarf any previous venture in the history of man.” And he ends the column like this: “The McCarthy chapter might have ended differently, if McCarthy himself had been less buffoonish.” That is, seven decades ago, America came close to repeating the events that happened in Europe two decades before that.

As to Cohen, he begins his column with this: “It's no surprise that the leftist of Britain … should find common cause with the rightists of [America].” And he ends the column with this: “British and American politics have reached a new low that presents the greatest challenge.” That is, 4,000 years of Jewish machination trying to take over the superpower of the day, has brought the Jews nothing but failures. Things are today the way they were at the beginning of time … and nothing has changed.

And so you would think that Stephens and Cohen would ask their Jewish leaders to study what changes they might bring to their philosophy of life, thus put an end to Jewish hostility toward the human race. If this is done, it will be possible to raise Jewish generations that will live in harmony with mankind, and never again encounter someone who will seek to exterminate them.

Will Stephens and Cohen see the wisdom in this? Let's hope so.

They wish to unlearn a Lesson learned

Thousands were killed, tens of thousands were handicapped and trillions of dollars were wasted in the last decade and a half alone. This has been the direct cost to America for being so foolish as to still believe it can be the policemen of the world.

And this is not counting the hundreds of thousands that were killed in the countries that America tried to police, the millions of refugees it has created, and the staggering destruction it has caused everywhere it went. Add to this America's loss of standing in the world for being the agent of death and destruction and you can imagine how much hatred and contempt America has generated for itself around the world.

Is there a lesson to be learned in all of this? Yes, there is. It is that America should never again interfere in the affairs of other nations. Most of them were here and doing well long before America came into existence, and most of them will be here and doing well long after America will have ceased to exist in its present configuration. In fact, it looks like a good many Americans have learned this lesson, and they ask their leaders to devote time and energy to solve their problems rather than look for problems elsewhere.

But then there are princes of darkness who want America to unlearn the lesson and risk repeating the old mistakes. Two of the princes are David French and Benny Avni who wrote to flesh out their thoughts on the subject. French wrote: “Sponsored Links by America Has a Second Chance to Do the Right Thing in Iraq,” an article that was published on October 17, 2016 in national Review Online. As to Avni, he wrote: “A cheat sheet for the battle of Mosul,” an article that was published also on October 17, 2016 in the New York Post.

David French promises that the current offensive against ISIS in Mosul “will give America a second chance to do the right thing in Iraq.” By this, he means to say that America did the wrong thing the first time around. Be careful now, my dear reader, he didn't say that destroying Iraq was the wrong thing to do; he meant to say that not staying in Iraq after its destruction was the wrong thing to do.

But now that America was called back to Iraq to clean up the unintended consequence of its actions, it must do so and stay there, says David French. Why is that? “To forge an alliance” and “demonstrate a long-term commitment to Iraq's future,” he goes on to say. After all: “We'll need to keep sufficient forces on the ground to limit Iranian influence, and mediate the country's sectarian rivalries and conflicts,” he shamelessly asserts.

It is baffling how someone like David French can look at America's dismal failures to accomplish anything of the sort in China/Taiwan, North/South Korea, North/South Vietnam and Afghanistan, and still believe that his people can pull a feat of this kind in Iraq. Someone should remind him that the only place where a civil war raged, and reconciliation was achieved is Lebanon where America did not poke its nose.

As to Benny Avni, he does the very Jewish thing of speculating that if America does not remain in Iraq after the victory in Mosul, a long and dark scenario will unfold, according to which Iraq will turn itself and the whole region into a worse horror story than it is now. And so, he recommends that: “Obama [must] keep his eyes on the prize, defeating ISIS [and] insisting on keeping Iran from dominating Iraq's Sunnis.” To be sure, all this will depend on whether “Obama has learned from his mistakes. Remember: His withdrawal from Iraq allowed ISIS to take over Mosul. To avoid a repetition, he may have to accept a deepening America involvement,” says Avni.

We must now ask this question: Why do seemingly intelligent people keep making the same mistake time after time? The answer is this: There are two possible reasons. One may be called, addiction of a gambler. The other may be called, carelessness of the unaccountable.

Here is a backgrounder. While the “old world” was tearing itself apart during the first half of the twentieth century, America did well for itself playing the role of the policeman that was able to fix some of the problems. But like the player whose initial success gave him the idea he may be invincible, America became prone to making the mistake of trying to duplicate that success elsewhere.

Unfortunately, waiting in the wings were the old colonial powers of Britain and France who thought they could use America's power to implement their agendas. They pushed America to play their game, convincing it to fight their wars. America did that, and became addicted to the game despite the losses it suffered almost everywhere. You can see how the addiction has affected David French, and tell from that how and why the political elites in Washington embroiled America in endless wars that went badly.

And then there is Benny Avni who plays the game like a professional swindler in the business of gambling with other people's money. He is careless with it because he knows that if he loses, he'll personally lose nothing. On the other hand, if he wins, he'll personally win everything.

Being a Jewish pundit advising the American political elites, he plays with American blood and American treasure, neither of which is Jewish. And so, he takes liberty in pushing his luck past the limit of everyone's endurance, and thumbs his nose at anyone that considers him odd.

Despite the Avnis and the Frenchs of this world, the current Administration in America has learned its lesson the hard way, and has tried to avoid repeating it. Will the next Administration be as wise? Time will tell.