Yet another Jewish Command to America

It is getting monotonous with the Holocaust psychos coming out the woodwork to tell America what to do, how to spend its money, who to love, who to hate, who to avoid talking to, who to bomb, how and where to pimp for Israel, and just about everything else.

The latest to join Nikki Haley doing the Salome Dance on the UN stage, is Anne Bayefsky whose contribution this time came under the title: “U.N. Human Rights Council –– Get Out of the Quicksand or Drown,” published on February 26, 2017 in National Review Online. Her first sentence is to the point, expressed concisely and whorishly as follows: “The Trump administration should withdraw the U.S. from the Council”.

Bayefsky tries to build her case by accusing former President Barack Obama of this: “Pitting minorities against each other was, after all, an Obama specialty.” So then, what does she do to prove her point? Well, she mentions Barack Obama eleven times in the article, trying to drive a wedge between his administration and the Trump administration. In case you missed it, this is proof that to accuse others of what they are, is a Jewish disease that is so ingrained in their religious culture, the practitioners not only refuse to correct their stance when the hypocrisy is pointed out to them, they double down on it – with pride.

The philosophy behind the fury which erupts the volcano in Bayefsky's belly at regular cadence can be summed up as follows: The United Nations did the right thing when, in the name of humanity, voted Israel into existence. But now that Israel is here, it must be held above the law because it is the home of the Jews who are the favored children of God. Consequently, any criticism of Israel by the humanity that created it can only mean that this same humanity has gone mad, and is ganging up on Israel. Do you know what else it means? It means that the whole world is evil and Israel is saintly.

To explain that point to a human race that's way past redemption, Anne Bayefsky begins by calling the Human Rights Council of the United Nations “the most anti-Israel, twisted bastion of moral relativism in the U.N. system.” If you don't see the logic in this, my friend, let me explain it to you. Relativism is the opposite of absolutism. Because Bayefsky's morality is based on the absoluteness of Jewish supremacy, she cannot stand a Council that passes judgment on Israel for the crime that is the continued occupation of Palestine. She gets uneasy because Israel's infractions are measured relative to those committed by others. And when you put 'absolute' and 'relative' in the same argument, you double the eruption in Anne's belly.

Together with North Korea, Israel is the entity that has disobeyed every Council resolution passed against it during the past six or seven decades. When the nations that she accuses of abusing human rights are hit with a similar resolution, they acknowledge their transgression, vow to improve their performance, and take measures to alter their conduct as well as that of their subordinates. This is why the Council does not need to keep reminding them of their transgressions the way that it does Israel. Bayefsky cannot be made to understand this.

Because the Jews do not accept any kind of criticism leveled against Israel, they want it banned at the UN in the same way it is banned in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, CNN, Fox News, and everywhere else in the Grand Old Democracy that is still America but no longer a genuine democracy. And so, when criticism is leveled by the Human Rights Council against Israel in the form of a resolution, the volcano in Bayefsky's belly erupts ferociously, and she lashes out at all of humanity … including the former President of the United States.

Two moves (she expects the Council to make in the session that just started) gall her more than anything. One has to do with the blacklisting of companies doing business in Jewish settlements built on occupied Palestinian land. The other has to do with the occupation of Syria's Golan Heights by the Israeli military. If anything, this kind of outburst by Bayefsky and the other Jews who write on the same subject, demonstrates that these people are consumed by one thing only: stealing land from their neighbors. They feel it is their religious duty to do so, and they try to practice it as frequently as they get down to pray.

What brought the situation in the Middle East to this point was the Jewish promise that if the United Nations gave the Jews a home in Palestine, they would behave because they suffered long and hard to play the tricks that brought pogroms and holocausts on their heads time after time. They lied. And the mistake that humanity made was to believe them despite their long history of treachery, cheating and double crossing.

Don't blame the United Nations for working to mitigate the effects of its mistake seven decades ago.

The one-sided Escalation America pays for

The word “escalation” is ordinarily used to describe a quarrel between two parties – call them A and B – that take turns to increase the intensity of the blows they deliver to each other. Such blows can be verbal, physical or they could involve firearms.

What applies to individuals also applies to gangs and to nation-states whose relations can deteriorate to reach the level of war or something close to it. This is how things tend to evolve naturally but like always, there is an exception to the rule. And more often than not, the exception turns out to be an activity that's related to the Jews or to Israel.

You can see an example of that when you go over the article that came under the title: “The Problem of the Lebanese Army,” written by Elliott Abrams and published on February 23, 2017 on the website of the Council on Foreign Relations.

At its core, the issue that Abrams is discussing involves Lebanon and Israel. These two are the A and B of the story. Ever since the decade of the 1970s when Israel used the real or imagined excuse of Palestinian indiscretions in Lebanon to invade that country and steal its water and farmlands, a set of parallel activities has escalated not between A and B, but between A and C.

In this case C represents the United States of America. And while the invasion of Lebanon has involved military activities, the activities that Israel has unleashed on America involve a collection of other moves. To understand this part, we need to recall the reality that Lebanon is a small country that never had a military to speak of.

When Israel invaded it, the Lebanese civilians found themselves without the protection of the state, and without the means to defend themselves. They did what they could to stay alive but vowed that never again will they be caught defenseless and disarmed in the face of an enemy whose savagery made the Palestinian indiscretions – whatever they were – look like heavenly endeavors.

The outcome of that vow was the formation of a Lebanese militia defense force. Calling itself Hezbollah, that force recruited young men and women eager to defend their country. The force armed them with the weapons it could procure on the black market, or whatever it obtained by other means from anywhere. In terms of destruction, however, what these weapons could do was negligible compared to the destruction done by the weapons Israel received from America on a regular basis.

With the passage of time; with the deepening of Hezbollah's involvement in Lebanese political and social life, and with the repeated Israeli incursions into Lebanon, Hezbollah took on the role of being the legitimate and effective military force capable of mounting some kind of defense to protect the country's civilian population.

Hezbollah being Israel's creation it dreads the most, Israel did what the Jews do in such circumstances: it ran to the American congress for the mentally challenged, and got it to stand behind labeling as terrorist – not Israel, the deliberate killer of Lebanese and Palestinian children – but Hezbollah, the deliberate defender of Lebanese and Palestinian families. Go figure.

This done, Israel continues to escalate the demands it makes on the United States. Thus, while the excuse for continuing its activities is the relation it says exists between it and Hezbollah; the escalation it continues to pump-up, is that between it and America. As can be seen in the Abrams article, Israel is never shy to make new demands on America regarding Hezbollah, and America is never reluctant to deliver what Israel wants.

Abrams asks: “Should the United States be giving military assistance to the Lebanese Armed Forces?” He cites the amount of $221 million, which is a drop in the bucket compared to the $38 billion that Israel has received from the same United States. He also calls Hezbollah a terrorist organization, and complains that Lebanon has failed to control it despite a Security Council resolution that so stipulates. Of course, he did not see fit to mention the numerous resolutions that Israel continues to ignore with regard to its occupation of Palestine.

What irritates Abrams more than anything is that he guesses the following: “cooperation between Hezbollah and the Lebanese Army may be increasing.” And so he reaches the conclusion that “the United States should demand that this trend be reversed,” or the American aid to Lebanon will have to be halted, he suggests.

This is what happens when a superpower loses so much self-respect that a little mouthy fart – member of a foreign mob of bloodsuckers – can tell its legislators when they can give money to Israel and when they must withhold it from Lebanon … when they can make love to their spouses and when they cannot.

If there is something called moral pornography, the system of governance in America defines it.

The American Habit of self-Emasculation

If you want to see a stark example of a joker advising his country's leaders to emasculate themselves and their country to benefit Israel, read the two articles that appeared on two consecutive days in two different publications on two continents.

The first came under the title: “Egypt Desperately Needs a Friend Right Now” and the subtitle: “Al-Sisi requires more than a phone call with Donald Trump to get his country on stable footing.” It was written by James Stavridis and published on February 24, 2017 in (the American) Foreign Policy. The second article came under the title: “Egypt emerging from the doldrums,” written by Sunanda K Dayya-Ray and published on February 25, 2017 in the (British) Free Press Journal.

If you can imagine Israel as the scalpel that keeps slicing off Uncle Sam's manhood – as seen by the Arab and Muslim societies if not the whole world – you'll understand how horrendously idiotic it is for James Stavridis to have written an article pretending to advocate the building of a beneficial relationship for the United States when in fact, the article is a deceptive piece meant to use Egypt to rescue Israel from an economic sudden death.

What makes the article even more asinine is that the author submitted the thing to Foreign Policy for publication. Try to imagine the animal impulse that drove the editor of that rag to choose the headline that he did, and you'll know why some animals never evolve to become human.

As to the message of Stavridis, he says that Egypt has done a few good things for itself, but then adds this: “It has yet to plot a realistic long-term trajectory.” Well, it is obvious that the man has no idea what plans have been drawn in Egypt, and how much of that is currently being implemented. To make a long story short, you design an economic plan beginning at the end and working your way backward.

The end is where you calculate the amount of electric power you'll need to run the kind of economy you planned. You then start constructing the stations that will supply what you have envisaged. And you know what, my friend! From 30 gigawatts of capacity on the Egyptian grid two years ago, another 10 gigawatts planned for this year have started to come on line, and there will be 5 more soon thereafter. The idea is to reach 60 gigawatts by the end of the decade. This will put Egypt at rough parity with the European countries. Given that household consumption is close to saturation at this time, most of the extra generation goes to fuel new industries – producing heavy machinery to hi-tech products – going up at a breakneck speed in the country at this time.

So then, what does Stavridis want to see happen? Before saying what he wants, he begins with a lie. He says that Egypt is “partnering with Israel in technology.” No. There is no technology in Israel worth partnering with. The Israelis conned the people on the NASDAQ for a long time before they got kicked out of there. They tried their luck in Canada but were warned not to try anything funny, or else. And now, they are trying to pull a fast one on the Egyptians, so they called on James Stavridis to pave the way for them. Shame on him.

Here is how Stavridis is pushing for a relationship that will cut-off what's left of Uncle Sam's manhood, turning him into Aunt Samantha: “First and foremost, we must ensure a good working relationship between Israel and Egypt.” He goes on: “Egypt's interests intertwine with America's as a crucial partner for Israel.” Hogwash. Only brain dead zombies like those populating the American congress would want to partner with a blood sucking leech like Israel. Get off Egypt's case and get lost if you can't behave like the Brits.

To see how the Brits are behaving in this case, we turn to Datta-Ray's article. He says: “as if to repudiate this column's gloomy comments about Egypt last week, the country is celebrating 'Egypt Petroleum Show' with over 40 British companies participating. The show indicated that Egypt's economy is beginning to emerge … the best news was that foreign reserves rose to $26.4 billion”.

He goes on to reveal that the Brits are investing $13 billion in Egypt's oil and gas industries alone, expecting the country to become an energy superpower. He asserts: “Britain isn't the only country to be optimistic about Egypt's future … The country has restored the confidence of foreign investors and institutions through reforms that showed a 76 per cent rise in the stock market over the last year, relying on financial and economic policies and implementing an appropriate legislative framework”.

So while the Jews are turning Sam into Samantha, the civilized world is turning Egypt into a superpower.

To have Standing is more than a legal Concept

If you have two neighbors A and B, and if you tolerate A but detest B, you cannot sue B for mistreating A because you have no standing to do so. Only A can sue B, and if he or she will not do it, you can only watch from the sidelines and wonder all you want.

Having standing is a legal concept that was fashioned not from thin air. Rather, it was shaped from real-life observations that demonstrated it was wise to intervene only when someone mistreats a defenseless human child or even an animal. In our society, intervening means having recourse to the legal process unless the situation is time-critical. But if two adults are locked in a dispute with one constantly having the upper hand and misusing it, you cannot intervene to defend the underdog unless asked to do so by the victim. If you take the case to court on your own, the court will reject your suit on the grounds that you have no standing.

Because what is true in the law was inspired by real life, we find that even if our natural impulse is to side with one party or another in any dispute that we happen to witness, we tend to stay out of the quarrel because another natural impulse forces us to respect the need to have standing before intervening. These two impulses create inside us a tension that pulls in opposite directions.

All in all, most people tend to stay out of somebody else's quarrels because that is the natural order of things. However, some people are drawn to intervening in every case they see, thus make matters worse for the others or get hurt themselves. The worst part is that they often discover they sided with the wrong party because they judged the situation by its appearance and not through understanding or analysis. Still, instead of learning their lesson, and staying out the next time, these people repeat the same mistake each time they witness a new dispute. What could be their motivation?

To explore that question, we may review the article that came under the title: “Iran's ominous alliance with Russia,” written by Abraham H. Miller and published on February 23, 2017 in the New York Daily News. What we see in this article are two trends of the kind we almost never see expressed by one author in the same breath. What makes Abraham Miller unique is that he is an extremely fanatic Jew, thus sees life through the Zionist lens. At the same time, however, he is attuned to the echo-chamber through which he keeps in touch with his peers, thus could not avoid being colored by them.

As a fanatic Jew, Miller chose Barack Obama to represent the evil incarnate around which everything that is destructive to Israel and the Jews, has gathered. Thus, he sees that the mainstream media are not doing their job of revealing the danger that Iran poses because such work would expose “Obama's Iran deal as the worst fiasco in history.” In addition Obama has allowed “the growing alliance between Russia and Iran which has ominous consequences for Israel”.

He names Obama seven times, accusing him of helping Iran so much; you would think that in the eight years of Obama's tenure, Iran got more than Israel ever did in seven decades of American pampering. But instead of following in the footsteps of Israel by pursuing a benevolent Jewish agenda, Iran is carrying on with a Muslim evil agenda ... according to Miller's logic.

As to what Miller is doing in response to the influence that the Jewish echo-chamber has on him; it is that he takes up the cause of others whether or not they like it; whether or not he or Israel have standing. What follow are three examples of this kind of performance:

First, Miller says that Iran has hegemonic ambition, thus tries to counter Turkish influence in the region. Second, he says that a rejuvenated Iran has embarked on fulfilling its dream of a Shiite crescent, thus endangers the communities between Iran and the Mediterranean Sea. Third, he says that the Gulf Sunni states are worried about Iran's rise.

This view of the two parts that represent Miller's character, tells us what his motivation has been all along. He only cares about Israel, always Israel and no one but Israel. The reason why he, at times, invokes the welfare of others, is to buttress his argument. In reality, he could not care less about anyone else.

The same holds true with the people who, in everyday life, interfere in the disputes they witness. They do what they perceive to be in their interest … until reality proves that they sided with the wrong party.

Managing America's Democracy from afar

There has been a change in America, and the Judeo-Israeli cabal is adjusting itself to take control and assume full command of the new situation there. Members of the cabal have been at it for a long time, and despite the occasional mishap, had enough successes that they can teach the Russians a thing or two on how to influence and micromanage the American democracy from afar.

There was a time when Benjamin Netanyahu, prime minister of Israel and head of the cabal, used to remind his troops that “we know how to do these things.” The problem, however, is that he did very badly while Barack Obama was the commander-in-chief, elected to run the country. And so, like the wolf that has not eaten in eight years, Netanyahu's appetite for devouring the seat of power in America, has grown to a size that dwarfs the Milky Way galaxy.

Replacing Obama, the newly elected man in the White House being of the kind that will not let a handful of congressional bimbos of either gender blackmail him, the Judeo-Israeli cabal has realized that to play the old game without alteration will not work as well as it did before Obama's tenure. And so, instead of working on the congress to gain its confidence with words alone, the cabal is adding images to the words. That is, instead of telling the bimbos: 'believe us when we say the Arabs are bad and we are good,' they are telling them: 'I was in this Arab country, I saw some things ... and boy, do I have images and impressions to throw at you!”

You can see the effect of this new approach when you go over two articles that came out on two consecutive days in two different publications. The first came under the title: “The kingdom, the power and the oil,” and the subtitle: “Saudi Arabia wants to become an authentic nation.” It was written by Clifford D. May and published on February 21, 2017 in The Washington Times. The second article came under the title: “Egypt Looks for an Expanded Role in America's Foreign Policy,” written by Seth J. Frantzman,' and published on February 22, 2017 in National Review Online.

To give himself an air of credibility for doing something he never did before, Clifford May begins by slapping the eyes of his readers with this: “Saudi Arabia is changing.” Now that you know Clifford May is changing his ways for no reason other than Saudi Arabia is changing, you should stop wandering. May's credibility thus cemented, the American Congress will most certainly believe whatever he'll say, and build-up the courage to confront the new guy in the White House.

This done, May tells the reader that what he is about to say concerning Saudi Arabia, is of utmost importance because that country is “the heart of the Arab and Islamic worlds.” Without specifying that the heart is different from the rest of the Arab body, the author describes a country that is as socially different from Lebanon or Egypt or Tunisia as North Korea is politically different from South Korea. May's intent is to make the readers believe that all Arabs are generally worse than the worst impulses of the country at the bottom rung.

And so, he explains that because the Saudis have realized that their oil wealth will not last for ever, they are diversifying their economy, a move that will lead to the creation of a private sector, which in turn will lead to a country where “people will be freer –– which is not to say they would be free.” To wit, up until last year, the Saudis had a religious police force that enforced a dress code, gender apartheid and mandatory observance of prayer times. The force is still there but can only observe and report to the regular police who take it from there.

As well, “Jews and Christians continue to be denounced from some Saudi pulpits … the textbooks used in schools have not been completely purged of passages intended to inspire animosity toward non-believers. [By] 2030, Saudi Arabia may become less brutally repressive compared to most Muslim nations in the Middle East.”

That is, Clifford May is saying that Saudi Arabia is not there yet. It may or may not get there by the year 2030, but the other Muslim nations will never get there, he says. But the truth being that most of the other nations are ahead of Saudi Arabia, May's lie proves to be as large as the size of his appetite and the size of the Milky Way put together.

As to Seth Frantzman, he studiously avoided mentioning the glowing reports which are coming from every direction … all describing the good times to which Egypt and its economy are heading. Instead of doing that, the author dredged out the falsehoods that people of his ilk used spread while yodeling the refrain: The end is near for Egypt.

Having suppressed the vision that's forming about the future of Egypt, Frantzman said this: “It is a country in waiting, worried about what the future brings, and deeply rooted in the past.” He then cherry-picked the difficult moments of the past six years and described them as if they were unfolding in the present.

This done, he makes the point that Egypt can still be useful for something. It is this: “Cairo could play a role in regional security frameworks, sometimes dubbed 'Arab NATO,' that could confront Iran and other terror threats.” Evidently, he would be happy to see America nudge Egypt in that direction.

But what about Israel? Was it not supposed to be doing this job? After all, it received a billion dollars for a fictitious something called the “Iron Dome,” and a pledge for 38 billion more, milked out of the school lunch program that used to feed the children of America, and given to the Israeli military that kills the children of Palestine.

The time has come to bring sanity back to America's system of governance.

America's Enemy: its so-called closest Ally

In an effort to help the Trump Administration and the general public understand what's happening in the world today, Zbigniew Brezezinski and Paul Wasserman wrote an article that came under the title: “Why the World Needs a Trump Doctrine,” published on February 20, 2017 in the New York Times.

What the authors do basically is describe the current situation as they see it, and then make a strong plea for President Trump to come up with a Doctrine, “any doctrine more or less,” as they call it. They want it to calm the world and reassure the allies. And on their way to making that plea, they tell of their fears with regard to a situation in which the “world is sliding into disorder with no structure that's capable of handling the problems; and chaos among the major powers that could generate disastrous consequences”.

Without getting into specifics, the authors contend that the world needs clear thinking and an optimistic America that displays leadership and inspires progress. They want the President to lay out his vision in a speech telling the nation and the world he “is on watch, is actively engaged and has a sense of historical direction [also] why America is important to the world, why the world needs America, and what America expects from the world”.

They impress upon President Trump the reality that the United States, China and Russia are three dominant military powers whose cooperation will be necessary to support stability in the world, and generate long-term solutions. They suggest starting with a dialogue between America and China; one that would lead to a strategic Sino-American understanding. They see an invitation going to Russia after that to come and partner with them, and forge a more lasting understanding.

So far so good. But where the article seems to miss something is in what comes next. And what come next are the potential problems that America might face going forward. First, the writers warn that China and Russia could form a strategic alliance. To make sure that America does not provoke such a happening, they advise that the “United States must not act toward China as though it were a subordinate.” There is no doubt this is good advice. But while necessary, it is not sufficient.

Here is where the deficiency of the argument becomes apparent: “More immediately worrying is the problem posed by North Korea.” To diminish the trouble that might come from this direction, the two authors want to see increased cooperation among the United States, China, Japan and potentially Russia. But there is a hitch in this idea, say Brezezinski and Wasserman.

In fact, there are two problems: The conduct of North Korea and that of Russia. They both seem to disrespect the rule of law which, in the view of the two authors and that of the United States, is central to the international order. If America is to work with Russia on curbing North Korea's excesses, Russia itself must understand that “there has to be a framework of acceptable conduct,” say the two authors. They explain that unfortunately, such framework “does not exist at present”.

But why does it not exist? That, in fact, is where Brezezinski and Wasserman fall short. Look what they say: “A superficial show of better relations must not be a cover for deception, maneuvering or violence against weaker neighbors.” But this is exactly the game that the democracies play both nationally and internationally when they feel like disrespecting the law, and getting away with it.

In fact, the two millstones that form the albatross around America's neck are (1) North Korea's view of Israel's nuclear arsenal whose existence America continues to countenance even if the world knows it does not exist. And (2) Israel's continued occupation of Palestine, which America does not verbally countenance but finances, arms and protects with the veto at the Security Council.

So you have North Korea using the body language of nuclear detonation and the launch of missiles to tell America: Mind your own surrogate or take a hike, America! And you have Russia using the body language of green men, tanks and armored vehicles to tell America: Mind your own surrogate or take a hike, America!

In practical terms, this means: As long as America will continue to carry the Jewish albatross around its neck, it will be laughed at by the big and mighty, as well as the small and meek.

The Problem is clear, so is the Solution

Look at it this way: After half a century of Jewish horror, the Palestinians still cannot see the light at the end of the tunnel because the Jews who occupy their land got themselves into a quandary from which they cannot extricate themselves, and neither can they be extricated by the Americans. So the question to ask is this: How did the quandary come to be in the first place?

Well, in real-life situations among civilized people, when someone embarks on the wrong path – deliberately or inadvertently – they get a warning signal long before they reach the point of no return. They back off or correct their path to avoid a situation in which the options from which they must choose will all be bad options. The Jews must have seen such signal, and yet did nothing to avoid an outcome they knew was coming. But why did they not act appropriately early on?

There are two answers to that question: one that is religious at its core, and one that is crass any way you look at it. As to the first answer, the Jews believe that God is on their side. They “heard” him say that if they covet something, it automatically becomes theirs ... no question about that. If someone gets in the way of them taking it, they must continue to forge ahead and never back off because God will come to their rescue eventually.

As to the second answer, knowing from the experience of having suffered countless pogroms, and at least one holocaust that God will not help them like they have been fantasizing, the Jews perfected the art of creating a 'virtual god' each time they needed one. They had Joseph Stalin, Anthony Eden and Guy Mollet, help them at one time or another, but then quickly backed off. Subsequent to that, the Jews created the American virtual god, and he turned out to be the gift that keeps on giving.

Using the bribe and the blackmail – a version of the carrot and stick weapon, fashioned specifically to work in the democracies – the Jews turned the federal congress of America into a crass bordello where every male and female whore plays the role of concubine obliged to please the Jewish Johns. In addition, each concubine plays the role of pimp in charge of starting a franchise in another state of the union.

To that end, the congressional whores recruit governors and members of the legislature in those states, and teach them how to be loving whores to Jewish clients that crave love as much as they do a prolonged orgasm. Moreover, in the competition to be named the most perfect whore, some of them prostitute themselves so hard; they win the prize of representing America in world forums, like the United Nations, for example.

This is how the quandary came to be. It is why the Jews first took the chance on a God they knew will never come, and then created the American virtual god, making him as docile as a pussycat.

The result of the Judaic disorder they created becomes apparent in the article that came under the title: “The Two State Solution: Does Trump's Indifference Matter?” It was written by Jonathan S. Tobin and published on February 16, 2017 in National Review Online.

Here is a condensed reference to the quandary: “Trump upset both sides. Palestinians think his unwillingness to work for a Palestinian state ... By the same token, Israelis worry he doesn't care if Arabs outnumbered Jews, thus ending the Zionist experiment”.

And here is a sample of the quackery they utilized to impress the once honorable ladies and gentlemen of the Congress before turning them into male and female political bimbos: “Hamas's goal is one state in which the Jews would be massacred or expelled. As to the Fatah Party, its ideology centers on the denial of the Jewish right to any part of the country, and the hope for a state where Arabs will dominate”.

This is what Jonathan Tobin accuses the Palestinians of trying to do. But the fact is that no one knows this. Meanwhile, what's observable is that the Jewish settlers in the West Bank are the ones massacring or expelling the Palestinians from their own properties. At the same time, the government of Israel is expelling Palestinians out of the country in which they lived since the beginning of time.

As to who wants to dominate the land, it is the Jews who incessantly blow their entrails out of their bellies, crying out the necessity for Israel to remain predominantly Jewish.

Now that all this is clarified, we must face the bitter reality of what's there, and fashion a solution around it. The Jewish quandary was created by Jews who played the role of a parasite that ballooned to a size beyond belief while feeding on its American host; one that was taught to suppress its own people to indulge the Jewish parasite.

The solution, therefore, must be to stop feeding the parasite. Even though the President of the United States has the Constitutional power to do so, he will be met with stiff resistance from the brain-dead whorish zombies that populate the congressional cesspool of abomination.

But the current president has something that no president had before. He has the means to reach out directly to the American people who are paying the price that keeps fattening the Jewish parasite. He can tell them the true story, and they will descend on the likes of Ed Royce, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz like a ton of bricks … and put an end to this half-century lunacy.

How the Jewish Influence diminishes America

A perfect example of how the Jewish influence on America's political and cultural life diminishes the country, is provided by Jackson Diehl whose latest column demonstrates how the Jews prevent America from evolving, even cause it to devolve in some areas.

He wrote: “Trump has a new idea for Middle East peace! Except it isn't new at all.” It was published on February 19, 2017 in the Washington Post. In line with what the mob of Jewish pundits and their echo-repeaters are doing these days, Diehl wrote about the conundrum that the Jews created for themselves by grabbing something that isn't theirs and getting the American suckers to pay for their crime in blood, treasure and standing in the world.

Parroting those who preceded him, Diehl's point is that the status quo regarding the military occupation of Palestine by Israel is fine the way things stand now. But if President Donald Trump wants to do something around this issue, he can try his hand at coaxing the Arab countries to sell-out to Israel. The idea is to allow Israel to ethnically cleanse the West Bank and then annex it without the Arab nations objecting to the crime. The ultimate Jewish vision is that if this could be achieved, Israel will withstand the objections that will most certainly come from many places around the globe.

The difference between what Diehl is saying now, and what those who preceded him had said, is that he could not avoid raising the matter of the Arab initiative on the table for a decade and a half already. That's because when his predecessors ignored it, the reaction was such that he was forced to break ranks with them to avoid seeing his column thrown into the trash can. He had no choice but to mention the Arab initiative.

And this is where the degenerating effect of the Judeo-Yiddish culture on America comes into full bloom. Look how Diehl brought up the matter: “...a proposal by Saudi Arabia for relations with Israel in exchange for its withdrawal from occupied territories was adopted by the Arab League. That it has gone nowhere since then is telling: Arab governments are not prepared to negotiate on behalf of the Palestinians, much less endorse terms for a settlement that Abbas would reject”.

But the truth is that the Arab initiative went nowhere because the Jews refused to trade the West Bank for normal relation with the Arabs, or anything else for that matter. Previous to that, the Jews were constantly nagging America to coax the Arabs into having normal relations with Israel. When the Arabs said they'll do that if Israel kept its promise and withdrew from Palestine, Israel rejected the offer. That's where things stood for fifteen years till suddenly; the Jews saw an opportunity with the rise of Iran and the advent of Donald Trump. They thought they could get America to coax the Arabs into having normal relations with Israel without them asking the latter to withdraw from Palestine.

But how does that affect America? To answer this question, we review what Diehl said about the Arabs. Instead of admitting that Israel rejected the offer, he says that the Arabs would not be prepared to negotiate on behalf of the Palestinians. But the fact is that they did; they began to negotiate by making an offer. Instead of responding the way things are done in any civilized give-and-take, Israel turned around and ran like a scared savage.

Jackson Diehl went on to say: “much less endorse terms for a settlement that Abbas would reject.” And this, my friend, is where he demonstrates both the inferiority of the Judeo-Yiddish culture, and its contagious effect on the American politico-Journalistic culture ... which in turn, infects the general culture. First, Diehl pretends to know before the start of the negotiations what the ultimate terms of the settlement will be. Second, he pretends to know that Abbas will reject a settlement that hasn't been negotiated. Third, he pretends to know that the Arabs will be reluctant to endorse terms that were never spelled out. Well, you must give it to this guy because never before has so much logical junk been compressed in such little space.

A normal culture runs on the logical determination by its adult population of what is possible and what is not. What you see in the performance of Jackson Diehl is the logic of a mind that has not reached that level of maturity. It is the product of a logic that relates to the norm in the way that a child relates to an adult. This makes it an inferior culture emanating from a brain that's functioning at a level well below par.

The trouble is that the child has mastered the art of influencing what used to be a mature American culture, and dragged it down to its level. Try to figure that out while watching the performance of the United States Congress.

Solo Haggling to maintain the Status quo

Whereas a Zen saying affirms that one hand cannot clap alone, the same does not apply to Jewish haggling. In fact, David Makovsky is demonstrating that a single Jew – absent an interlocutor – will take it upon himself to haggle a subject to death so as to maintain the status quo that he and others like him worked hard to establish.

The author takes the solo flight in an article he wrote under the title: “Beyond 'One State'” and the subtitle: “Preliminary conclusions from the Netanyahu meeting,” published on February 17, 2017 on the website of the Washington Institute for Mideast Policy. On the surface, the article sounds aimless and pointless. It is that in fact to some extent, but something holds it together internally; and you'll get a sense of what it is when you become acquainted with the backgrounder that follows.

David Makovsky, and a number of other “soloists,” found it necessary to pull off this kind of performance having been alarmed by an exchange that took place during a joint press conference between President of the United States Donald Trump and Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu.

What led to that specific moment was Trump's assumption that a problem created by Jews would be based on rational reasons, therefore resolvable like any normal problem. He thought that in the matter of the Jewish occupation of Palestine, the way to end the occupation would be for Israel to withdraw its troops, in which case there will be two states. Alternatively, Israel might wish to annex Palestine, in which case there will be one state.

And so Trump advised Netanyahu that any choice would be acceptable to the United States if it were acceptable to the Palestinians. Evidently, Trump could see that either plan would be easy to negotiate between the parties and easy to implement … thinking that the Judeo-Israeli culture were rational enough to lead to such outcome.

Unfortunately this was never the case. Like all matters handled by Jews, the situation in Palestine was contorted like a pretzel that received a few extra twists. Citing the fake excuse of security, Israel started building homes for settlers in the occupied territories decades ago. When told this was illegal under international law, Israel assured the world that what goes up can come down, and will. It promised that as soon as a peace treaty was negotiated with the Palestinians, the settlers will vacate the West Bank.

Instead of this happening, however, the number of settlements kept increasing, and the peace accord kept getting more elusive. Unable to continue with the con game of reassuring the world that the settlers will eventually evacuate, Israel finally admitted that the settlements were a fait accompli that shall be made permanent with or without a peace accord.

That's when the question arose as to what will be the fate of the Palestinian population. Because the Jews want the West Bank more than anything that anyone can offer them, they plan to keep it come hell or high water. Because they cannot maintain the Palestinian population under occupation forever, they will have to give the Palestinians full citizenship, in which case Israel will cease to be majority Jewish. This being something they will not countenance, they are probing a third alternative they call the “situation.” It is a demonic scheme they will not discuss publicly because it is as depraved as it is criminal under international law.

The plan is a wild fantasy brewing in the heads of sick people who scheme to turn the West Bank into a place so unlivable, the Palestinians will flee it “on their own accord.” By the time very few Palestinians or none at all will be left in the territory, Israel will annex it, expecting to suffer minimal opposition internally, and minimal condemnation from abroad.

This is what's expressed in the Makovsky article. It is done in a way that's so subtle; no one is expected to sound the alarm. For now, the author is advocating the maintenance of the status quo, which entails the open construction of new settlements under what he calls the George W. Bush formula.

While this is going on, illegal settlements will be allowed to rise elsewhere with the understanding that the government of Israel will legalize them retroactively at some point in the future. In fact, the government did so not long ago with hundreds of settlements deemed illegal by a local court. And Israel will play the game again and again for, this is the Jewish way.

If not the Crucifixion or the Protocol, then what?

Three articles appearing on the same day in three different publications discuss the rise of anti-Semitism in America. They used 2,170 words between them to name a new set of culprits for the phenomenon, and they suggested a number of ways to solve the problem. But not one word was uttered to ask what should the Jewish leaders do, or what role they should play to alleviate the situation.

The day was February 17, 2017 when Jonathan S. Tobin asked: “Who's Encouraging Anti-Semitism?” in an article that was published in National Review Online. On that same day, the editors of the New York Times asked another question and responded to it in this manner: “Donald Trump's Answer to Anti-Semitism? You don't want to know.” And then there were the editors of the New York Daily News who cried out: “Speak up, Mr. President,” telling their readers that: “Trump needs to find his voice on a wave of anti-Semitism in America”.

Perhaps Tobin is not old enough to remember a time when the vogue that was raging among the Jewish pundits was to blame anti-Semitism on Christianity for maliciously perpetuating the “myth” that the Jews crucified Jesus. And they blamed anti-Semitism on Pope Pius XII whom they accused of not speaking against the mistreatment of Jews during the Second World War. They also blamed it on the Protocol of the Elders of Zion which, they complained, describes the Jews as conspirators plotting to control the world. And they blamed it on William Shakespeare whom, they lamented, callously wrote the Merchant of Venice.

Tobin mentions none of that because he is a member of the cabal that mutilates history and/or rewrites it to suit the moment. The new vogue being to blame the ills of the Jews on the Left and everything associated with it, he made a list of these people and those things, and came down on them like a ton of bricks. He begins by absolving Donald Trump of the anti-Semitic charge that was leveled against him, and then attacks the “liberal Jews and the Anti-Defamation League” who accused Trump of “harboring Jew haters” in his administration.

Having said that Trump was no worse than being “tone-deaf” at times, Tobin trains his big gun on the “Islamists and the leftist anti-Zionists who seek to single-out Jews and supporters of Israel for opprobrium and violence.” He claims that “the BDS movement has been directly responsible for an increase in anti-Semitic incidents on college campuses.” He also claims that “support [for anti-Semitism] comes from the Democratic party,” which is why he urges the readers to “look at Representative Keith Ellison – the leading candidate for chair of that party.” And he goes after Senator Robert Menendez whom, he says, used to be a stalwart friend of Israel but then “raised the specter of dual loyalty for American Jews,” prompting his name to be added to the list.

As to the editors of the New York Times – considered to be of the Left – they do not blame the Left for the rise of anti-Semitism in America, but blame none other than Donald Trump himself. They make the point that anti-Semitic incidents increased in America because the fear mongering that's done by his right-wing administration was encouraging xenophobia and racism. In addition, instead of condemning those incidents, Trump says nothing about them because: “He lacks the principles and moral understanding that most Americans want to see in their presidents,” say the editors of the New York Times.

And there are the editors of the New York Daily News. They argue that “there is little doubt that coincident with Trump's rise, Jew hatred has come out of the American woodwork from the Right and from the Left.” But despite the fact that “it is the duty of any American leader to condemn any upsurge in hate crimes,” the editors of the Daily News complain that Trump “made not a single statement saying that anti-Semitism is repulsive”.

So now we are expected to know and retain – until further notice – who was responsible for the scourge of anti-Semitism before the rise of Donald Trump, and are expected to know and retain who is responsible for it after the rise of Donald Trump. The responsible are everyone and everything except the Jewish leaders who are always in the forefront blaming everyone and everything except themselves.

And yet, it is because the Jewish leaders are of this mentality that we know, and have retained who the real culprits have always been. They were the Jewish leaders and no one else. But because they are the problem they pretend to solve, the problem will never be solved. And the consequence shall continue to be what it has been for thousands of years. It will be pogroms and holocausts for the innocent Jews who have no idea what their leaders are doing to them.

The persistent Fantasy of a decaying Mindset

Lest you believe that the “outside-in” approach to resolving the occupation of Palestine is something new, be advised that this assumption is false. In fact, the idea has been around for a long time except that it took different forms depending on who advised it, and when the advice was given.

The main difference between the early years and now is that back then, the Jews nagged the Americans, asking them to nag the Sunni Arabs about the necessity to nag the Palestinians to give the Jews what they wanted. But now that a falling out has occurred between the Sunny World and the Shia World, the Jews are thinking that America may not need to nag the Arabs anymore. Many don't even bother asking for something from the Palestinians because they know that Israel has taken all that can be taken. Even the Jews are beginning to see the wisdom in the old saying: You cannot draw blood from a stone.

Thus, what the Jews are doing at this time is implement an idea they call the “situation.” Essentially, it entails the slow motion ethnic cleansing of the West Bank – an operation that should unfold over a long period of time. They are starting to enforce the plan by making life unbearable for the Palestinians who live on that patch of land. Their goal is to make the Palestinians decide “on their own” to leave the place and go somewhere else.

For this depravity to succeed, however, the Jews will need to have an Arab World that will pretend not to see what's happening in Palestine. And so, the Jews fantasize that if they play their cards well, they can get America to woo the Arabs enough, and accomplish this feat for the Jews. When completed, they will be in a position to give their middle finger to those in Europe, America and the other places in the world from where voices of condemnation will most certainly rise.

So the question that the Jews are asking is this: how to get there? And as usual, the mob of Jewish pundits has rushed to offer ideas. A well known mobster of Jewish punditry is Elliott Abrams whose ideas – no matter how badly they stink – are taken seriously in some Washington quarters. He wrote: “A big Deal?” an article that also came under the subtitle: “Netanyahu comes to Trump's Washington.” It was published on February 17, 2017 in The Weekly Standard.

Abrams answers that question in a typically Judeo-American fashion. That is, he tries to rally the rank-and-file around the idea of the “situation” so that they be ready to invade the American politico-journalistic system and work on those who are prone to succumb under pressure and agree to work for the benefit of Israel at the expense of everyone and everything else. Of course, Abrams is not telling the rank-and-file what the full plan entails; he is telling them a story about the Arabs suddenly discovering they have an enemy that also happens to be reviled by Israel.

To that end, Abrams starts on a cheerful note: “What a difference an election makes. Netanyahu found himself warmly embraced in the Trump White House … Trump has a theory of how to get there [path to peace]––the 'outside-in' approach that starts with the Arab states.” To motivate his troops and get them to work as hard as they can, Abrams tells them this: “No doubt the Israelis would like to see 'the big deal,' because it would mean normal diplomatic and economic relations with the Gulf Arab States".

What he is not telling the troops is that an Arab package to that effect has been on the table for more than a decade, and the Israelis never took it because it specifies full economic and diplomatic exchange with Israel in return for the end of the occupation. The offer is still there; it is still open – and as shown by Abrams's performance – the Jews don't even mention it because they want the West Bank more than peace, commerce and diplomatic exchange put together. But now that Donald Trump is in the White House, you see Elliott Abrams and people like him fool themselves into believing they will be able to con Trump and the Arabs into allowing Israel to have it all: The West Bank and the Arab package.

Is there any sign that the Jews plan to do that? Yes there is. Here is the first clue: “Perhaps the administration can improve Israeli-Arab relations and cooperation even if a final peace deal is elusive”.

But why would the administration want to do that? What can the Jews tell Donald Trump that would motivate him to stab the Palestinians in the back? No, that's not the approach the Jews will take because they have a formula that worked for them in the past. What they will do is engineer a failure and blame it on the Arabs. Here is how Abrams is paving the way for this to happen: “Cooperating with Israel is risky for the Arab states”.

This will be the cover under which the Jews will pull off the failure that will sink the peace deal. But since Trump and the Arabs may become discouraged and feel like ending the effort, Abrams tries to give them a false hope: “[a success] would improve the lot of the Palestinians”.

To make sure Trump will not give up, Abrams plays on his ego: The Arabs are likely to continue the effort “if a strong and reliable American president presses them to do so over and over again”.

To make sure Trump will stay with it till the West Bank is cleansed of Palestinians, Abrams adds this: “Arab leaders do not yet know if they have a strong and reliable president who will make this regional peace deal a major goal he will purse over time”.

This, my friend, is another example on how the Jews never give up doing the things they believe will fulfill their destiny. They fulfill their destiny alright; but it is never what they hope for, as they pay a heavy price each time they cause a calamity trying to do what will never be done.

Love your Rapist to end the Rape

The more I read the New York Daily News, the more I am convinced that the late Eric Sevareid was on to something when he expressed a thought whose development can only lead to this conclusion: The extreme emotional attachment to an idea makes the human brain produce a substance that can alter the genetic makeup of the individual that's attached to the idea.

Sevareid was complaining about the Mafia being a hereditary profession, transmitted from parent to child not by nurture but by the natural process of inheritance through gene duplication. What makes me believe he could be right is that I see his thinking at work in real life when I read the writings of the editors behind the New York Daily News. That's when I find it difficult to escape the conclusion that the desire of the Jews to be loved more intensely the harder they rape someone, has turned them and their offspring into genetically inferior organisms.

To see how these principles unfold in real life, you may read the piece that came under the title: “How to get to two states,” an editorial of the New York Daily News that also came under the subtitle: “Netanyahu shines a bright light on the obstacles to a lasting peace.” It was published on February 15, 2017 in the Daily News.

The editors say the following: “Netanyahu delivered a bracing articulation of the true obstacles to a lasting agreement.” They agree with him that Israel must not end the half-century occupation of Palestine because despite the savagery and animal-like behavior that the Jewish settlers are heaping on the Palestinians, the latter still have not come around to loving the Jews.

And that's not all because on top of hating the Jews by not loving them, the Palestinians do not appreciate living under the perpetual crime against humanity that the beastly Jews are inflicting on them. This is why Israel must not end the occupation at this time, says Netanyahu. And this is why the editors of the New York Daily News are parroting the sayings of Netanyahu.

I know what's going on in your head by now, my friend. You're saying, this is so unreal, you want to see a more comprehensive explanation, and proof of what I'm saying. And I reply, you're right; I should do that. And so I begin by directing your attention to an article that came under the title: “Jews, Be Wary of Trump,” written by Bernard-Henri Lévy, and published on January 19, 2017 in the New York Times.

I discussed levy's work in a piece I wrote under the title “The Genius the Jews can do without,” published on this website in January of 2017. I said that Levy has convincingly demonstrated that the Jews have a religious belief they and they alone must be loved unconditionally by all of humanity. Those, like Donald Trump, who manage to get a large number of people to love them are rivals representing an existential threat to the Jews, and must be exposed as such. Also, the masses that fail to love the Jews because they love someone else must be labeled antisemitic, and their leaders prosecuted for defying the divine will.

Acquainted with this backgrounder, you should now go over the editorial of the New York Daily News to see for yourself what Netanyahu is saying about the lack of love that the Palestinians are showing for the Jews despite – or is it because of? – what the Jews have been doing to them.

Because the editors of the Daily News do more than report the sayings of Netanyahu (they lie to embellish their stories) you must check their claims when you see something suspicious. For example, they claim that the Palestinians have not recognized Israel. But the fact is that even though the Jews continue to deny the Palestinians their own state, the Palestinians have recognized Israel.

The Jews also lie when saying that the Palestinians call for Israel's destruction. But the fact is that no one ever conducted a poll to find out how many Palestinians – if any – wish to see Israel destroyed.

And the Jews lie when they claim that the Palestinians refuse to recognize Israel “in any boundary.” But the fact is that, having recognized Israel, the Palestinians asked the Jews to define Israel's boundaries. But guess what happened. The Jews refused to define Israel's boundaries. Do you know why, my friend? Because they believe that Israel is boundless. It is their religious belief that the entire unbounded planet is God's gift to them.

Thus, the shocking promise that the Jewish rape of the Palestinian motherland will continue till the latter learn to love their rapists, and stop asking for the end of the rape.

Between the Daydream and the Reality

President of the United States of America, Donald Trump and Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu held a news conference on February 15, 2017 during which they answered questions relating to the Middle East, especially the situation in occupied Palestine.

A number of realities came out of that conference; and it would be interesting to compare them with the pontifications that were made by the Jewish mob of pundits which pronounced itself on the matter in the preceding days. A high profile member of that mob is Benny Avni who wrote a column a day earlier under the title: “Trump-Netanyahu meeting couldn't come at a better time,” and published it in the New York Post.

After a short introduction, Avni begins the discussion with this: “Though both leaders will be discussing a range of issues, the only one that really matters is Iran … The Palestinian issue will be on the agenda, and media eggheads and others in the peacemaking industry will study every word for signs of change or continuity”.

Having elevated the Iran question to be the important issue, and having dismissed the Palestinian question as a non-issue, Benny Avni went on to discuss what it is that the Jews fantasize about – at this time. Quoting the infamous Dennis Ross, Avni posited the following: “Israel's new relations with Egypt, Jordan and other Sunni Arab states open new opportunities”.

Avni then switched to howling about Iran's danger to the region, ending with a return to the Sunni Arab situation like this: “Who knows, maybe America's old Arab partners, now also Israel's new secret friends, will start pressuring the Palestinians behind the scenes. It would be a double diplomatic coup –– and for both leaders, couldn't come a moment too soon.” And so we look to the press conference to see what has transpired with regard to the three issues: Palestine, Iran and cooperation with the Sunni Arabs.

With regard to the Palestinian question, President Trump began with this: “Our administration is committed to working toward a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians … something we want to do … As with any successful negotiation; both sides will have to make compromises.” He then looked at Benjamin Netanyahu and with a non-too-subtle smirk on his face asked: You know that, right? Annoyed that Trump divulged they had a discussion on this matter and were in disagreement about it, Netanyahu gave the only reply that could have mitigated his embarrassment: “Both sides,” he stressed.

Then came a question about the settlements, causing Trump to address Netanyahu directly: “I'd like to see you hold back on settlements. We'll work something out but I would like to see a deal be made … Bibi and I've known each other a long time. I think we're going to make a deal. It might be a bigger and better deal. That's a possibility so let's see what we do.” Embarrassed once again, Netanyahu could only reply with a terse: “A start,” to which Trump observed: “Doesn't sound too optimistic but good negotiator”.

As to the question of the one-state or two-state solution, and the question of moving the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, Trump had this to say: “I like the one that both sides like. I can live with either one … If Israel and the Palestinians are happy, I'm happy with the one they like best. As far as the embassy moving to Jerusalem … we'll see what happens”.

Netanyahu took it from there and gave a long and rambling lecture in a helpless attempt to show that aside from the fact that the Jews made a mess of their lives in Europe throughout the centuries – earning the various pogroms and holocausts – they have a legitimate right to push the Palestinians out of the way, and take their places and properties. In essence, Netanyahu was trying to make this point: the Chinese come from China, the Japanese from Japan and the Jews from Judea.

Hearing this, a number of heads must have exploded because this is a guy who would not compare a Chinese apple with a Jewish apple, and would not compare a Japanese orange with a Jewish orange, yet here he is comparing the Chinese ethnicity, as well as the Japanese ethnicity – not with the Hebrew ethnicity but with the Jewish religion.

An important concept Netanyahu omitted is that Americans of Chinese or mixed races who might feel a mysterious connection to China – do not go there, chase out of the way or kill Chinese families that never left the land, and take their places. The same applies to Japanese Americans.

And of course, there is also Trump's son-in-law, daughter and grandchildren who are as much of the Hebrew or Semitic ethnicity as I am of the unicorn species. In short, Donald Trump could not see his family go to Bethlehem, machine-gun a Palestinian family that lived there since before Jesus was born, and take its property … all of that just because someone suddenly felt some kind of mysterious connection to something. This is more than spooky; it's a mental illness that brought the planet close to World War III on several occasions.

As to Iran, Trump deliberately avoided talking about this issue. Thus, in response to a question, Netanyahu was careful not to draw a rebuke from Trump. And so, he said this: “You asked about Iran. One thing is preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons, something that President Trump and I – I think – are deeply committed to do. And we are obviously going to discuss it”.

As to the role that the Arab countries might play in the resolution of the occupation of Palestine, the two leaders were wise enough to avoid turning a non-situation into something that can backfire. Benny Avni and the mob of Jewish pundits notwithstanding, Donald trump and Benjamin Netanyahu said very little that's worth mentioning – and that was the wise thing to do.

End the Peace we love; keep the War we hate

They unleashed a thousand barking dogs to chant in unison: End the peace process we dearly love. But why end a process they say they love so dearly?

Let me tell you why. They are the Jews who talk like this. That's because they are religiously programmed to attribute to themselves the virtues they see in others … and attribute to others the sins they see in themselves. Since they love calamities of biblical dimensions – especially those caused by wars – they see this as a sin, and attribute it to others. Also, because peace-loving is a virtue they see in others, they attribute it to themselves.

And so, when the Jews ask to end the peace process they claim to love, they mean what they say about ending the process, but lie about loving the peace. The reality is that the Palestinians are the ones seeking peace if only because they live under a savage occupation, suffering at the hands of merciless human animals. This is what the dogs have been barking at President Donald Trump, trying to convince him that the Palestinians are evil because they do not want the peace that the Jews are trying to end. Go figure.

But how can the Jews sell to someone an upside down logic that is glaringly upside down? They can by playing a game that may be called the double-upside-down logic. It entails beginning the conversation by telling the listener that if he'll come to doubt what they will say to him, it's because he is himself upside-down, and must straighten up by doing a vertical 180. The aim is to make the listener subconsciously turn everything he hears upside down, believing that this will straighten the thing. Also, when given a logic that is upside-down to begin with, the listener will think it is right side up and take it.

An example of this game is played out under the title: “Is Trump Heading Down the Rabbit Hole of the Middle East Peace?” It is an article that was written by Jonathan S. Tobin and published on February 14, 2017 in National Review Online. This guy Tobin must be in a hurry because he begins the conversation by clobbering his intended victim, Donald Trump, hoping to intimidate him right at the outset. This is how he does it: “If he [Trump] thinks he can solve the puzzle … he's setting himself up for failure”.

Now that Tobin has told Trump: “Forget the idea of negotiating a peace accord between the parties or you'll fall flat on your face,” he doesn't want Trump to think he is a warmonger. And so, he rushes to attribute to the Palestinians the sin he sees in himself. He does this: “The Palestinians' national identity is inextricably linked to the continuation of the conflict”.

But those who know anything about the various identities that arose in the region are familiar with the content of the Old Testament where the culture of blood and gore is attributed not to the Palestinian identity, but to the Jews whose beginnings were drenched with the blood of the children of Egypt they murdered to inflict pain on their parents. And the story of the Jews continues to be told in their Book where page after page, their history is written with blood and nothing else.

Having started this portion of the discussion with a lie, Jonathan Tobin discovers that he can build on it only by creating more lies and weaving them together. His ultimate aim being to tell Trump what to do, he gives this advice: “The strategy Trump may pursue is the opposite of his predecessor's.” He explains that instead of pressuring Israel to make concessions, Trump must pressure the Arab nations to pressure the Palestinians to make concessions.

This is absurd on its face given that the Palestinians are completely dispossessed, and have nothing that they can concede. But Tobin has another reason to revive the absurd notion. It is that more than a decade ago, the Arabs called the Jewish bluff. Because the Jews were saying they want normal relations with their neighbors before ending the occupation, the Arabs agreed and put on the table a plan (called Saudi Arab initiative) so generous, even the Jews could not find fault with it.

Well then, guess what the Jews did to reject it. Here is one example of what they did: “The Saudis' Arab Peace Initiative – there is no reason to think either the Palestinian Authority or Hamas [will want] to make peace with the Jewish state”.

Instead of saying, we the Jews don't want peace; he says there is no reason to believe the Palestinians want peace. And that's why the peace process has remained dormant all these years.

Satloff to Trump: Come join the Gang Rape

Robert Satloff of the Washington Institute for Mideast Policy gave a speech the other day, parts of which were published on the website of the Institute on February 9, 2016 under the title: “The Trump-Netanyahu Meeting in the Context of Emerging U.S. Middle East Policy”.

Satloff says that Netanyahu will soon be in Washington, and will meet with President Trump at which time the two will discuss the Middle East. He promises to draw on the President's record and “identify four strategic objectives in his U.S. Middle East policy.” One of the objectives relates to the Israeli occupation of Palestine. But guess what Satloff does the moment that he mentions Israel. He breaks his promise. Instead of telling what Trump may be thinking, he tells what he thinks Trump ought to think. Look at this condensed passage:

“For Israel, the new relationship is certain to be robust; it has the potential to develop into the sort of friendship enjoyed by Clinton and Rabin. But the paradox is that Israel's strategic need from Washington goes far beyond the bilateral relationship. What Israel really needs is a reassertion of American leadership. Is President Trump willing to be a captain of a team that entails deepening U.S. involvement in the region?”

If you're surprised to see Satloff ask America to get deeply involved in the Middle East when the Jews were telling it to buzz off not long ago, you should know that the Israelis have gone through this cycle many times before. When they get into trouble, they want America to come and protect them. When they feel confident, they tell America to buzz off. Now that they want America back, what are they worried about?

The short answer is that the Jews are worried about Iran. But there is something else – the occupation of Palestine – for which they want America back in the region. First, let's see what Satloff says about Iran: “The top priority for Netanyahu is to educate the president on the priority of confronting the Iran threat and to focus US-Israel cooperation on that effort. The challenge is to do this without confronting the president's commitment to prioritize the destruction of IS”.

Second, now that Satloff has educated the President, let's see what he says about Palestine:

“A priority for Netanyahu is to reach understanding with trump on the peace process and settlement activity … To meet the political objectives; an agreement would need to allow Netanyahu to return to Israel with a victory so he can withstand the pressure from his right wing to approve settlement plans whose intent is to prevent a peace accord. George W. Bush and Ariel Sharon reached such an agreement. It would require the Trump team to draw on historical memory and diplomatic expertise they may not have on staff”.

What Satloff has done is admit that the settlers who are gang raping the Palestinian motherland have always intended “to prevent a peace accord” from happening. Netanyahu is so beholden to them – for whatever reason – he needs Trump to give him a victory he can use to placate those primitive savages. As to the kind of victory Netanyahu needs, there is nothing to it, says Satloff, because George W. Bush and Ariel Sharon had one. Is that so? Well then, why do they need another one? And by the way, what did the first one accomplish? Did they get the peace accord they are promising now? Or is this another Jewish promise to get something they intend to pocket and then bite the hand that gave it to them?

And of course, there is also the matter of Jerusalem. To persuade Trump that he should help Netanyahu there too, Satloff begins by classifying the rape gangsters he is confronting as (1) the ordinary ones he just talked about and (2) the “more extreme members of his coalition.” He says he wants the American embassy moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and promises that doing so will benefit America too. How is that, you ask?

Well, can you imagine George Orwell falling into the rabbit hole and trying to send a message to the real world above? He would sound like this: “An embassy move would likely be accompanied by a US expression of appreciation for Israel's agreement that the permanent status of Jerusalem will be determined in negotiations, the outcome of which the United States will support.” I kid you not; this is Satloff's message to Trump.

And there is the typical Jewish sending of a fake distress signal. Hurry, hurry, hurry, he cries out. Here are his words: “The timing of a potential embassy move is crucial. If the president is committed to implementing it, he should probably do so quickly”.