The Need to always reveal the intrinsic Truth

Look at this sentence: “Visit the college of entrepreneurship in King Abdullah City and it feels like being on the Google campus.” What's wrong with it? Nothing really when you look at it in isolation.

You could also say that nothing is wrong with it in the context of the article in which it appears. This would be the one that came under the title: “The path to a new Saudi Arabia,” and the subtitle: “Where the new crown prince wants to take the critical Gulf state, and the obstacles in his way.” It was written by Dennis Ross and published on June 29, 2017 in the New York Daily News.

When you evaluate the sentence in the context of the wider debate surrounding the subjects relating to that article, you find plenty that's wrong. No, what's wrong is not with the sentence itself but with the fact that its content was deliberately hidden from the public for a long time. To make sense of all this, we define content as the intrinsic truth that would have been relevant to the wider debate had it not been hidden.

In his article, Dennis Ross introduces the readers to Saudi Arabia's newly appointed crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman. He makes it clear that the prince is expected to modernize his country. There is some truth to this, but that's where the incongruity between the reality on the ground and the picture that's painted of it, is shockingly out of whack. However, neither Ross nor his article is responsible for the incongruity. The problem dates back to decades of distortions that were so egregious, they effectively transformed into new realities. They became what's referred to as fake news in today's parlance.

Here is the crux of what constitutes an error in logic. Mohammed bin Salman was appointed to his new position only a few weeks ago. He could not have (in that short period of time) waved a magic wand and created a college of entrepreneurship that feels like a Google campus. This is a project that took years to think about, plan for, work on, get going and populate with waves of students who went on a learning journey year after year for several years before graduating … and make room for new waves of students.

If this campus and others like it are symbols of Saudi Arabia's rise to modernity, you cannot attribute this movement to a prince that just came on the scene. The intrinsic truth, therefore, must be that the movement to modernize Saudi Arabia started long ago. Moreover, when you realize that the prince is only 31 years old, you can say with certainty that the movement started at least when he was a toddler, if not before he was born. That makes him not the instigator of the country's drive to modernize, but its beneficiary as well as its product.

Thus, the title of the Ross article which refers to the path of a new Saudi Arabia is misleading because what it claims to be new was started a long time ago. What the crown prince will do is not start something that wasn't there, but make sure that the country will remain on a path that was taken before he came on the scene. The only thing he might do that's different is accelerate the process of modernization.

The lesson to be learned from this episode is that every situation has within it an intrinsic truth. It can be a short and simple truth, or it can be a long and complex one. The situation discussed by Dennis Ross is of the second category. That is, the move to develop and modernize Saudi Arabia started earnestly in the 1970s when it became apparent that oil is a national wealth, but that it is finite.

This was the time when it was decided that the wealth generated from the sale of oil today, will be used to put down the infrastructure that will create the wealth of tomorrow when oil will have been depleted. But very little of this set of truths was told to the consumers of news and commentaries in the English speaking world during all those decades.

On the contrary, besides telling an occasional half-truth, the operators of the hate-the-Arab propaganda machine, dumped on their audiences tons of omissions, distortions and outright lies about Saudi Arabia, and more generally about the Arab world.

The consequence has been that the Arabs lost a little in terms of new investment from the Anglophile countries. At the same time, however, the English speaking countries lost out to other European and Asian investors. But the Anglophiles then realized what was happening and rushed to invest in the Arab countries. They did it to cash in on a high rate of growth that's hard to find anywhere else.

Mugged by fifty Years of Jewish Delusion

This is the story of Jews and the antics they pull on the playing fields where ideas are meant to flow freely and clash to produce more complex ideas and more valuable concepts.

The trouble is that leveled or not, the fields have been monopolized by the Jews for a long while already with no sign they intend to ease their grip and allow opposing views to be expressed ... lest they clash against theirs.

To have it both ways, the Jews commission and pay surrogates to come and impersonate opponents that regurgitate what they are coached to say. They pretend to play hard against the Jews, yet lose every round they play. And when the Jews cannot find someone to commission, they set-up a thought experiment and play against an invisible ghost they call 'opponent.' As expected, they win each and every round.

With all the encounters against enemies they never encountered, the Jews were able to cash in on all the winnings they never won. And yet, they managed to convince many suckers to pay for winnings they never witnessed but only heard about from the Jews. And so, as time moved on, the suckers moved away one by one.

Eventually, America was left standing alone, paying for services that the Jews called: protecting America against serious or imminent threats. But these threats turned out to be as fictitious as the Jewish winnings that were never scored. In some cases, the threats proved to have been engineered by the Jews themselves.

That is not to say the Jews did not make a contribution battling ghosts on the playing field of ideas. Absent real push-back from real opponents, they managed to convince the Americans that the Middle East was not the Garden of Eden it was reputed to be. They argued that America could use the Jews of Israel and turn the region into the real Garden of Eden it was meant to be.

In addition to that pile of fantasies, the Jews further promised that huge benefits will accrue to America ... like for example, a dollar a barrel of oil, absolutely free natural gas, and all kinds of base and precious metals at cost price. These would have been gifts to America in addition to the strategic locations where America could station troops and keep the Communist enemy contained.

In the same way that there was no push-back against the fantasies of the Jews, the Americans were convinced there will be no push-back against their embracing the Jewish promises. Unfortunately, America bought the entire Jewish argument, and waited for the promised benefits to accrue at a time when the Jews were waiting for Godot to come and produce a miracle. Alas, neither Godot nor the benefits materialized, and the Americans realized they had been mugged continually for fifty long years.

The result is that the security situation in the world has deteriorated. Unmistakable is the reality that the closer you get to Israel (the eye of the swirling horror and the center where Jews are concentrated) the greater the apparent destruction and the suffering of innocent people.

And yet, despite this verifiable reality––observed by everyone in the world as well as the Americans––you see Jewish pundits such as Benny Avni hop on the field and continue to demand that America take the advice of Jews. The pretense is the same old one; that the Jews understand the situation better than anyone. They promise to fix what ails the world, and there are suckers in America who continue to believe them.

Avni put his thoughts in the form of an article that came under the title: “Why Iran and Israel may be on the verge of conflict – in Syria,” published on June 27, 2017 in the New York Post. He describes the current situation as follows:

“Control of the road is key for the Syrian army – even more so for Iran. By capturing this road they can establish a land corridor from Iran, through Iraq, to Damascus and Lebanon … and Iran's dream of a 'Shiite crescent' comes true … So where is America in all this? Trump is quietly organizing a regional conference, but administration officials will surely hear a lot about the need for America to take a clear stand against Iran's expansion”.

That's what the Jews want: an American-Iranian war. And there will be those in America who will say amen to that.

Mother of all Confessions by Elliott Abrams

It had to happen and it did. They got tired hearing the sound of their own voices and those of each other regurgitating the same venomous lies over and over again. Finally, after more than three decades of wait, Elliott Abrams saw fit to write a piece that does not say the Palestinians hate peace and that the Jews love it, but chose instead to say the following:

Please Mr. American President, don't inflict peace on us. We are Jews after all, and you should know what we've been doing to peace makers since the beginning of time. In case you don’t, here is the truth: we've been crucifying them. If you don't believe me, ask a fellow named Jesus, and another one named Jimmy Carter. So stop inflicting peace on us, Mr. President, because we cannot live without the sight of blood flowing like a river or the sound of people groaning in pain or the smell of human entrails ripped by speeding bullets and blowing their content out in the open.

Actually, in the interest of accuracy, it must be said that Elliott Abrams did not use those words to say all that. But he implied it – more or less. He did it in an article he wrote under the title: “The Downside of the Middle East 'Peace Process,'” published on June 26, 2017 on the website of the Weekly Standard. He departed from the old formula of dressing the antagonists in a way that made them appear as good Jews and bad Palestinians. Instead, he started his latest article by dressing the two sides with cuts from the same cloth.

Here is how he put it: “Among Israelis and Palestinians, there's little optimism about renewed efforts to negotiate a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian peace deal … Officials, journalists, and policy analysts expect the same [old] outcome from the Trump administration. There is [however] more optimism in the Trump White House”.

On the surface, this looks and sounds like a monumental confession. But look carefully at the Abrams statement and you'll know that the confession is without remorse. Therefore, it can only be a fake one. You know this to be the case because it lacks the honest display of contrition that must accompany a confession of this magnitude.

In fact, you'll find that this fake locution (you may continue to call it a confession if you want) is actually a trick used by the writer to disarm his readers. He does that to start a new round of gamesmanship to suit the new circumstances; a round he plans to play differently this time.

The key word in the Abrams statement is “comprehensive.” Its presence indicates that the author does not reject negotiating a deal; he only rejects seeking a comprehensive deal. This means, he wants the talks to continue, but he wants them to go in a time-consuming direction; one that will lead nowhere. In fact, Elliott Abrams wrote nearly 1,300 words to tell why he thinks it is a bad idea to pursue a comprehensive deal. And he uses the last three sentences at the bottom of the article to tell what he ultimately wants. Here is that passage:

“Don't pass up opportunities to make small gains, to get undramatic and almost invisible advances, to set in motion changes that will take a long time to bear fruit. The odds of getting a complete peace deal are very small. It would be quite enough to be able to say, in four or eight years, 'You know, we really made things better'”.

This time, the key words in the passage are these: “in four or eight years.” It happens to be the American election cycle. By inserting this idea in the argument, Elliott Abrams reveals that the Judeo-Israeli conspiracy – and that's what it is; a full-blown conspiracy – to keep using American power in the service of Israel and the other Jewish causes, is still on and still in the full force mode.

The goal of the conspiracy is to maintain and reinforce America's habit of inflating Israel no matter who is in the White House. To this end, the scheme is redesigned every four or eight years to take into account the style of the new occupant, and to tailor-make an approach that will make him feel more comfortable the more he takes from Americans and gives to Israelis.

One more thing needs to be said. Because Elliott Abrams has always been the heart and soul of the Judeo-Israeli establishment, he faithfully emits the vibrations produced by the New-York/Tel-Aviv axis. In so doing, he reflects the condition of the establishment in real time. Moreover, those who know his style cannot help but detect a reversal in the approach he used in this article.

There is only one way to infer the cause of that reversal, and one way to interpret what it means.

Connecting the dots produces the picture of a Jewish establishment that's trembling in its boots. It sees an American electorate hungry for its leaders to develop the courage to say “no” to the never ending Jewish demands. The establishment also sees a man in the White House that can down a dozen Jewish tricksters in one gulp, and go after a dozen more.

Senior members of the Jewish establishment sense that the new President will not allow himself or America to be exploited by a Jew ever again. They know he'll go over the congress of 29 standing ovations like a merciless steamroller to keep in America what belongs to America no matter what the congressional zombies will say or do. And he'll have the entire electorate – not just his base – cheering him on.

Elliott Abrams who threw a tantrum like a tiger seized with apoplexy when Obama authorized only 38 billion dollars in aid to Israel, has now seen the Trump steamroller and learned to behave like a kitten begging for a few drops of milk and no tantrum.

Doctrinaire Philosophy cannot be sustained

What is doctrinaire philosophy? Can it be sustained?

A doctrine is a self-imposed set of rules on how to handle a given condition. The rules are not legally binding but are adhered to rigidly by some people, and less so by others. The doctrine is usually formulated when circumstances show the need to have a road-map that can serve as guide on how to respond when the stated condition requires restoration.

For example, the president of a superpower might say: “freedom has worked well for us; therefore we'll do what we can to help the world become as free as us.” This is the kind of doctrine that will forever carry his name. He may or may not have the time to implement it before leaving office, but the doctrine will not be forgotten. For a long time after him, academics and politicians will debate the doctrine, and will advocate rejecting it outright or ignoring it or implementing it the way they understand it.

The discussions that ensue will expose an infinite number of possible permutations because each new case in world affairs will fall on a point between the extremes of two spectra. There will be the spectrum of substance which will range from the corner of the purist to that of the tolerant. And there will be the spectrum of execution which will range from the threat of military action to that of friendly persuasion.

When it comes to substance, the purists will consider being free only a system of governance that replicates the one under which they live. The tolerant will consider being free any system that allows the citizens to elect a government even if it rules like a benevolent authoritarian. As well, when it comes to enforcement, there are those who advocate regime change by military means if necessary, and those who advocate persuasion and the use of economic and developmental aid as leverage.

In the middle of the 1940s, America emerged as the undisputed winner of the wars, having fought against dictatorships both in the Pacific and the European theaters. The world was lucky that America was governed by an Executive and a Congress that stood generally in the middle of both spectra. They were mildly tolerant of other systems, but also clear-eyed as to what needed to change. And they were inclined towards using persuasion rather than coercion to bring about change, but were also firm when negotiating with others. This attitude worked well for America and the world, the proof being that considerable progress was made globally during the two decades that followed the end of the Second World War.

Things changed after that and continued to worsen in that America itself became polarized. Most people fled the middle of the spectra to huddle at one extreme or the other, both on the substance and the execution of the doctrine. The interesting part is that the change touched not only America's dealings with the world, but also its dealings with itself. It is that the culture had changed in such a way that the scenarios pitting America against other nations were replicated and let loose on the local scene. They pitted the various extremes against each other, thus paralyzed the nation and prohibited the moderate voices from rising.

What you have now is a younger generation that's growing up at one extreme of the spectrum or the other not knowing there is something worth considering in the middle. By and large, its members see things in black and white – be that in matters relating to the local scene or those relating to the world stage.

You can see an example of this sort of situation in the article that came under the title: “Europe's Free-Speech Crackdown” and the subtitle: “Punish Anti-Muslims, Ignore Terrorists,” written by Noah Daponte-Smith, and published on June 23, 2017 in National Review Online.

The writer espouses a doctrine of free speech as extreme as any. He argues that the dilution of the doctrine happens when the need to suppress free speech “interacts with decisions taken or not taken in other domains of policy and public debate.” His point is that dragging other domains in a discussion robs it of its purity. This is why he chooses to be an absolute purist.

But is he really that pure? Look what else he says:

“Those who yearn for an America that looks more like the orderly, regulated, universal-health-care systems of Western Europe should keep this fact in the back of their mind always”.

There it is. Unable to sustain a one dimensional stance for long, the young man dragged the subject of health-care into a discussion about free speech to buttress his point. But in doing so, he violated the inscription on his forehead that says: I am a purist.

We can only hope that as the younger generation matures, it will come to realize that we, human beings, can at times be as sharp as a robotic algorithm written to perform a one dimensional task. But we must always revert back to being the multi-dimensional, fuzzy-thinking creature that has asserted: I think, therefore I am.

Can they say this is American Thinking?

Let's think up a little story that could well involve you. A gang of thugs breaks into your house, pushes you and your family into the woodshed that's out in the backyard, and takes over the house with all its content.

The neighbors who have known you and your family for generations – going back to the beginning of time – do not like what they see, thus call the police and tell them what they believe is going on. A group of law enforcement officers and legal experts arrive and tries to figure out what the problem is, and what to do.

After talking to the neighbors, the legal group talks to the gang of thugs, asking it to bring you and your family into the discussion. A woman steps forward, identifies herself as an American thinker and says her name is Shoshana Bryen. She gives the police a terse “no” to the request that you and your family be included in the discussion. The legal experts advise the gang they cannot talk to it without hearing the other side of the story directly from you, the other party to the litigation.

Well, you'll know the rest of the story, dear friend, when you read the article that came under the title: “Does Trump Get the Israel-Arab Problem?” It was written by Shoshana Bryen and published on June 23, 2017 in the publication of non-thinkers calling itself The American Thinker.

After an introduction as to who the players are in this unfolding story, Bryen cuts to the chase and unveils the obligatory scene. Here it is in her own words: “The parties to the dispute are Israel and the Arab states, not Israel and the Palestinians.” In other words, she says that you and your family will stay out of the property's site because from this point forward, you'll have no say in the matter. The gang of thugs will only talk to the legal experts, telling them to impress upon your neighbors that the property belongs to the gang. You have no valid claim to it whatsoever, and they better get used to the idea.

To explain her reasoning, Bryen quotes Machiavelli as having said that peace is “the condition imposed by the winner on the loser of the last war.” She makes it clear she embraces this idea, and wants to say that Israel won the war against the Arab states, therefore it can impose its peace on those states. This means they must agree to give Israel what it wants even if it is Palestine, which is not theirs to begin with. Try figuring this out.

Aside from the whole idea being a Machiavellian abomination, Bryen created two serious problems with her reasoning. As stated, one problem is that the Arabs cannot give away what is not theirs anymore than W. Bush could. In fact, the Jews tried incessantly to pull that same stunt on him, and so (to get them out of his hair) he responded by giving them a meaningless letter. They tried to interpret it as saying that Bush gave them the go ahead to plunder Palestine, and sang this song for years till someone told them to shut the (bleep) up. And they did … for now.

The other serious problem created by Bryen for herself is that Israel never won a war fighting an Arab state. It scored a temporary success in the initial surprise attack it launched against Egypt in 1967, but kept losing after that till it was kicked out of the Sinai in 1973. The same thing happened when the Gazans kicked Israel out of Gaza; when Hezbollah kicked it out of South Lebanon, and when the Syrians kicked it out of East Golan. This is why Israel is no longer in those places. It is out not because it won those wars, as fantasized by delusional Jews, but because it lost them.

So then, what do you think Shoshana Bryen did to justify embracing the Machiavellian concept? She did what the Jews always do; she mutilated history with this saying: “The crux of the dispute is the continuing refusal of Arab states – the losers of all the wars – to meet the central requirement of UN Resolution 242.” Oh gosh! The woman just shot herself in the foot like a six-year old playing with a loaded gun. And in so doing, she created yet another problem for herself.

Maybe she should sit with someone of the Alan Dershowitz or John Bolton age. They'll fill her in on the history of Security Council Resolution 242. Briefly stated, this is the resolution that started the Jewish tsunami of insults against the UN. It is what prompted Dershowitz to dedicate 50 years of his professional life, hollering that accepting the resolution will mark the start of Israel's retreat not to the borders of 1967, but to those of 1948. In fact, this is what Israel is legally entitled to, and no more. And that's what provoked John Bolton to advocate blowing up a good part of the UN building.

What all this indicates is that the Judeo-Israeli propaganda machine is running out pundits willing to commit journalistic suicide defending the indefensible. Like every organized mob, the machine of infamy is now recruiting child foot soldiers to carry on with the fight to the bitter end.

Intellectually, Shoshana Bryen's level of thinking – no matter her real age – has proven to be no higher than that of a child soldier … whether she calls her thinking Jewish or American.

How they turned the Delusion into Reality

It's not going to happen in the lifetime of any of us alive today that a time machine will be built to take us 40 or 50 years into the past so that we may witness how some things appeared at the time.

But, you know what, my friend; maybe we don't need to build such a machine. It's because there are people alive today who would remember the era in question. And there is enough printed and audio-visual material that would bear witness to it. We can find out what it was like at the time by studying this material and by consulting with those people.

What's useful to study is how something that seemed impossible four or five decades ago – was even called a far fetched delusion – is now considered the new normal, and appears to be the inevitable outcome of how it was treated then, and how it was handled throughout its evolution. That thing is the control that the Jewish lobby has managed to establish over America's foreign policy. It did it by first establishing a near total monopoly over the U.S. Congress, a branch of government that supposedly has no constitutional right to regulate the country's foreign policy. Go figure.

Four or five decades ago, there were people like yours truly who saw the meticulous engineering that was done by the Jewish organizations in their quest to take America over – and we sounded the alarm. We were told by smart and well adjusted people to relax and not think as much as we do. They said we were too cerebral for our own good, and that we needed to get a life. Other people who were not as smart or as well adjusted, accused us of catering to our antisemitic sentiments by renewing the McCarthyism that had died and was buried a decade or so ago. And so they launched a cowardly and slanderous whispering campaign against us.

Well then, where do things stand now? They are at the crossroads. The reality is that the world is changing, and so is America. For this reason, the Jews find themselves in constant need to reinforce and refresh their grip on the State Department no matter which administration is in the White House, and who is Secretary of State, representing America to the world.

You can see how the Jewish lobby plays the game in the article that came under the title: “Trump Is on a Collision Course with Iran” and the descriptive subtitle: “The United States cannot defeat the Islamic State without first reckoning with Iran's nefarious role in Syria.” It was written by Dennis Ross and published on June 20, 2017 on the website of the Washington Institute.

What comes out clearly just from reading the title and subtitle of the article is that America's current priority is to deal with the Islamic State. So here comes Dennis Ross – at a time when America is near to accomplishing its goal – and says: No, no, no ... America, you cannot accomplish that goal without FIRST reckoning with Iran. Do you realize what this means, dear reader? It means Dennis Ross is telling America to stop everything it is doing, including finishing off the Islamic State, and go after Iran.

Why is that? Because Iran is Israel's chosen nemesis at this time, and the Jews want America to do the dirty work for Israel by checking Iran. To that end, the Jewish lobby has devised an argument that's being picked up and echo-repeated by all members of the Jewish mob of pundits. When you look closely at the argument, you find it to be reminiscent of the Vietnam era Domino Theory. Whereas the fear used to be the spread of Communism in Southeast Asia decades ago, it is now the fear of ISIS spreading its ideology in the Middle East and beyond even after its defeat in Raqqa and Mosul.

Here is a montage of how Dennis Ross has developed that argument:

“Regrettably, if the Trump administration cannot do more to counter Iran's actions in Syria, it is not likely to be able to 'demolish' ISIS and prevent its return … What's going on? Iran is actively trying to create a land corridor through Iraq and Syria to Lebanon … The administration wants to keep the focus on ISIS and not get in a conflict with the Iranians [but] it also needs to convey another message: We will not acquiesce to Iran's effort to create a land bridge through the Levant … Surely, Trump, having accused Obama of being responsible for the rise of ISIS, will not want to see it re-emerge on his watch”.

And Dennis Ross ends his article with this: “Sometimes, clarity can have a power all its own.”

Yes indeed, it does. In fact, it is becoming increasingly clear why the Middle East is in such a mess right now.

That was the handiwork of Dennis Ross who pretended to represent America while masquerading as mediator between the Arabs and the Jews. In reality, however, he was representing the most beastly interests in the American-Israeli syndicate for the rape of Palestine and the looting of its people.

Dennis Ross is trying to add the icing on the cake, and hand Netanyahu a splendid gift from America.

One Question, one inquisitive and one Devious

The print publication was one and the same: The Washington Post. The date of publication was one and the same: June 22, 2017. The question was one and the same: What is going on?

After that series of sameness came the divergence. It's that the question was asked by two authors. One is Charles Krauthammer who asked the question at the start of an article titled: “The Great Muslim civil war –– and Us.” The other author is Fareed Zakaria who asked the question at the end of an article titled: “The United States is stumbling into another decade of war”.

Zakaria is baffled at what he sees unfolding all over the world. He writes as if to express the lament: That's not how it was supposed to be. Nevertheless, he tries to make sense of what's out there by looking at the past and cataloging the events that may have led to the current situation, but he's not sure he's got it right. And so he ends the article by asking the question: What is going on?

As to Krauthammer, he never gave up on the idea of a Jewish dominated Pax Americana taking control of the Middle East, and make it serve the interests of Israel. After a hiatus that lasted a number of years, he now sees a new window opening for the realization of that dream. He looks at the latest clashes involving the major powers in the Middle Eastern conflict, and sees a future that's brighter than it has been for a while. He ignores the past and any lesson that could be learned from it, and asks the question: What is going on?

He asks, not to be told what is happening; he asks to turn around and tell what is happening. To that end, he answers his own question by lecturing to the audience. He tells it he knows what other people think, and how they will respond to events as they unfold in the future. In fact, he makes it clear he can peek into the future. He is so confident of that, he speaks with the certainty of a prophet that just had an audience with God who filled him in on future events.

Realizing that he doesn't have all the answers, Fareed Zakaria asks a number of questions in this vein: “more troops, more bombings, more missions. But what is the underlying strategy?” He also makes observations of this kind: “US forces have been initiating attacks, resulting in a sharp rise in civilian deaths in Iraq and Syria.” And he offers commentaries such as this: “If Assad gets weaker, the opposition forces will get stronger. US troops could find themselves on the ground in Syria”.

And then, looking at the history of America's involvement in recent wars, Zakaria reminds the audience of the following painful reality: “In almost every situation that US forces were involved, the solutions were more political than military.” The not-so-subtle message is that the wars were a waste of time, of lives and of treasure.

As to Charles Krauthammer, he predicts the end of ISIS ... what many have been predicting for a time now. He goes beyond this, however, and offers the view that “the [winning] parties are maneuvering to shape what comes next.” He also tells who the dominant players are: The United States and Russia, he says. And he tells who their surrogates are: The United States has the Sunni Arab states on its side. As to Russia, it has Iran, Syria and Hezbollah on its side.

He goes on to opine that the leaders of Iran wish to re-establish the old Persian Empire by creating a Shiite Crescent that will extend from Iran to the Mediterranean. It will encompass Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, he says, thus become the hegemon of the region the way things were 2,300 years ago.

Conscious of the fact that this will negate the establishment of Pax Americana, and will deny Israel the spoils of the effort, Krauthammer describes that outcome in frightening terms. Here it is:

“Imagine the scenario: a unified Syria under Assad; Hezbollah, tip of the Iranian spear, dominant in Lebanon; Iran, the regional arbiter; and Russia, with its Syrian bases, the outside hegemon. Our preferred course is different: a loosely federated Syria, partitioned and cantonized, in which Assad might be left in charge of an Alawite rump. The Iranian-Russian strategy is a nightmare for the entire Sunni Middle East. And for us too”.

If someone still doubts that the Jews will never give-up on the old colonial dream of partitioning and cantonizing every major Arab country, they should read the old Krauthammer columns. He was saying then what he says now and will say tomorrow. The more things change the more they remain the same.

Creating Leverage over America from nothing

It happened that a report was released not long ago by the Defense for Children International (DCI) detailing how the Israeli policy of ethnic cleansing occupied Palestine, is using the method of murdering Palestinian children to pull off the ghoulish crime.

This is an ongoing horror story that keeps getting worse year after year, especially when you consider the fact that both the Israeli soldiers and the settlers they protect commit the murders, and get away with them.

And so, in a typical Jewish response to such reality, Benny Avni has seized the story of Jared Kushner, now visiting the region to try and broker a peace deal – and told his readers about the Kushner story by first mentioning another story. It is that of Palestinian teenagers who caught an Israeli member of the occupation force on their territory, and dealt with the matter as would any people living under armed occupation – be they teenagers or adults.

The odd thing, however, is that Benny Avni called the Palestinians––not the freedom fighters that they are––but terrorists. And he described the Israeli member of the occupation––not as the fully armed home-invading thug that it was––but a victim of bad reporting by the “BBC, Reuters and others”.

Benny Avni's article – where the aforementioned oddity and a few more can be found and studied – came under the title: “Jared Kushner's falling into a trap on Mideast peace,” published on June 21, 2017 in the New York Post. Throughout it, Avni adopts the mentality of painting everything Jewish or Israeli as models of perfection even when they commit the most horrific crime of mass-rape you can think of: the occupation of another country and the subjugation of its people.

He also paints everything Palestinian as models of imperfection, thus accuses the Palestinian leaders of responsibility for hindering progress towards peace. He does that shamelessly even as he composes an article that fits the decades-old pattern––adopted by the Jewish mob of pundits––of incessantly calling for the ditching of the peace process.

Here is what Avni says is wrong with the Palestinians:

“Palestinian infighting could frustrate any attempt to get the two sides talking again. Abbas recently stopped paying Gaza's electric bills. Gaza's suffering won't end unless Hamas stops being Hamas. For now, Hamas leaders won't use their own coffers. All that makes peace seem far away. The contours of a final agreement have generally been derailed by boneheaded provocations and impassable stalemates over issues like prisoner releases. Palestinian inability to take steps for state-building has also been a roadblock to solution”.

And here is what he says is right about Israel; about the Jews and about the American Congress … without betraying a hint of apology for their shortcomings:

“Americans, increasingly, won't stand for it [Palestinian resistance]. Congress is preparing legislation to cut US aid to the Palestinian Authority. Then again, Netanyahu's political dependence on right-wing political partners isn't helping either. His cabinet approved building Amichai, the first new West Bank settlement in 25 years. Will Palestinians deal with a leader who's intent on building in the West Bank? Will Trump?”

Now, my friend, study the following passage, and marvel at how Benny Avni grabs a handful of nothingness from thin air, and constructs a monument the size of the Great Pyramid at Giza:

“The president has said that unrestrained settlement activity is not helpful to the peace process … Amichai, it seems, went beyond the tacit agreements on settlements that Trump had reportedly reached with Netanyahu”.

What is verifiable in all of this is that the president said “settlement activity is not helpful to the peace process.” What it means is that settlement activity – and not the Palestinians – is responsible for hindering the peace process. But because Avni did not want to leave it at that, he came up with a trick to change the meaning. What do you think he did?

To find out, isolate the three expressions: “It seems”, “the tacit agreement” and “reportedly reached.” What do they have in common? They mean nothing concrete. They are abstracts plucked from thin air. But their inclusion in the passage makes it sound like Trump and Netanyahu had a chummy discussion during which they both agreed on a protocol for building new Jewish settlements in occupied Palestine.

The world is not going to analyze everything that's written by the Jewish mob of pundits in such detail; it has better things to do than spend time tracking the mob. At the same time, however, the sheer volume of the trash that the mob produces, will eventually have the desired effect. It will make the world believe that America nudges Israel to commit all those crimes against humanity.

The net result will be that the Jews will come out of this unblemished; America will come out tarnished.

Theory of the Evil Instinct taking command

Why would Marco Rubio – currently employed in the dishonored profession of being a United States Senator – call on nine other legislators to sign a letter he sent to President Donald trump? He did so knowing that the letter will further expose him as a not-so-secret weapon controlled by Israel's Likud party to operate inside America's Congress on advancing Israel's interests.

The answer to that question is not easy to come by, and so we must think of a new theory, then check to see if it will explain the observed facts. First, we note that the letter informs the President of the concerns that the signatories have with regard to what's happening to human rights and civil society in Egypt.

The event that brought all this to light is a law that was debated for several years in Egypt; was passed by parliament 7 months ago and signed into law a month ago by el-Sisi, Egypt's president. During all that time, not one word was uttered by Marco Rubio or any of Likud's mouthpieces in America.

But now that it has been revealed the Anglophiles of the world are pouring investment money into Egypt, you see the Rubio-like weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Jews, come out in the open. They fight to take command of the American ship of state intending to aim its big guns at Egypt. We must, therefore, ask the question: What's the mechanism that makes the Jewish machinery of pure evil operate in darkness with such destructive zeal?

We attempt to answer the question by making three observations:

First, since his start as legislator, Rubio's effort has centered on emptying America of its treasures; even starving the country's school children to send the money to Israel. That money is then used to maintain the most hideous kind of mass rape you can imagine. It is the Jewish occupation of another country (Palestine,) and the mass looting of its population.

Second, Rubio who is of Cuban descent and of the generation that wants to establish good relations with the country of its roots, has joined those of another generation who are so full of hate, they advocate continuing the boycott of Cuba. They do so under the false pretext that this will force the ruling class to liberalize the country, knowing that the policy has failed for decades. It failed, in fact, because it punishes the people of Cuba for not rising to overthrow the regime. The reality is that the hate-filled people dream the illegitimate dream of “opening” Cuba – not to benefit its population – but for them to exploit it.

Third, nowhere on this planet is there a show more horrific when it comes to human rights violation than what's seen in America today. It is the spectacle of White police officers shooting Black men for alleged traffic violations, and being acquitted in a so-called court of law. The only thing that comes close to that, are the Israeli soldiers who murder wounded Palestinians in public, get praised by Netanyahu also in public, and being met with public and private silence by the Rubios of this world, and by the mouthpieces of infamy.

Each time that the police shoot a Black man in America, you look for one legislative finger to rise and do something about it, but find none. There are 5,350 fingers in the Congress, 1,000 of them in the Senate, and they all sit idle or lazily twirl. What they do is wait for new orders to come out of Israel's Likud boiler room, instructing them how to look and sound indignant. They must play this game of pretense, they are told, to protest the Egyptian government protecting its people from the weapons of mass destruction that call themselves “Freedom House” and such other misleading names.

And this prompts yet another question: How can we connect all those dots, and come up with a theory that will explain them and explain other related phenomena? The answer to this question is that, to do so, we must think of a hidden undercurrent that's common to all the factors. It is something we could call the “Evil Instinct”.

To make sense of all that, we bring into the inquiry another piece of evidence. It is the apparent double standard of accusing the Syrian authorities of killing their own people, but not outing the American authorities for doing the same thing. It is also the double standard of expressing indignation at leaders who kill their own people while rewarding Netanyahu with billion-dollar bonuses when he kills the Palestinians of Gaza; a group he refuses to call his people; also refuses to cut ties with them for treating them as foreigners.

But what's the purpose of having that double double-standard?

To answer the question, we note that a call for the West to intervene accompanies every accusation that a foreign leader is killing his people. Well, rest assured my friend, this is not a case of the Jews observing the killing thus calling for intervention. It is that they had been dreaming of the intervention all along, and then used the fake accusation to call for it.

On the surface, this may look and sound like the Jews are just as bad as any who care not about the people they say they wish to protect … but the truth is even worse than that.

Consciously or subconsciously, what the Jews are doing is use human rights as an excuse to set the clock back, and revive the supposedly defunct colonialism. Their current machinations are but a manifestation of the evil instinct that has made them pariahs for thousands of years.

And they are not relenting.

Nasty Democracies vs. proven Whatchamacallit

Nobody is perfect but there are those who pretend to be, and those who strive to be.

So, how can you tell which is which? You ask them; it's as simple as that. But knowing that no one will incriminate themselves, you conduct an intelligent cross-examination and get to the truth in a roundabout way if you must. Yes, whereas this method can easily be used to get to the bottom of your inquiry when dealing with individuals, it is much more difficult to implement when gauging the truthfulness of a system, such as governance, for example.

The good news, however, is that there is a way to get to the bottom of your inquiry even in such difficult matters. It is that a system is made of institutions, and institutions are run by human beings. These are individuals that act as founders of the institutions; as their operators or governors, as executives or counselors to them, or what have you. They generate what's known as paper-trails that come in handy. That is, they formulate opinions, create descriptions, give advice, and generally leave behind a wealth of information that can be used as “testimony” to answer any question you may have while conducting your inquiry. You do not have to call up anybody or cross-examine them if you don't want to.

Okay. So how do we use this background knowledge to evaluate the legitimacy and usefulness of the current systems of governance around the world? Whatever they call themselves, these systems are grouped in two or three camps that remain at odds with each other, threatening to hurt humanity as severely as ever, and promising to set us back like never before.

The way to evaluate them is to invite them to the proverbial witness stand, and cross-examine them. The trouble is that one side is ignoring our invitation, saying basically that: 'We have nothing to hide. What you see is what you get. We do not pretend to be perfect, but we take pride in continually doing the best that we can for our people, and continually trying to do better still. Watch us and judge us by what you see.' These are what you might call autocrats, dictators, potentates, strongmen, etc…, etc…, etc...

As to their opponents, they are always prepared to respond to every invitation, boasting about their own superiority; their generosity, purity, tolerance and every superlative you can think of. They are also prone to spewing all kinds of calumny at their opponents whether or not they are asked to express an opinion on them. So the question we must ask is this: Where do we find the 'testimony' of these people?

We find it in three recently published articles. One came under the title: “The stakes in Syria now include US-Russia war,” written by Ralph Peters and published on June 19, 2017 in the New York Post. Another article came under the title: “Congress Needs to Take War Powers Back into Its Own Hands,” written by Daniel DePetris and published on June 19, 2017 in the National Interest. The third article came under the title: “Can Trump Bring Peace to Israel and Palestine?” and the subtitle: “The odds for any administration are low but his quest for personal glory might motivate him.” It was written by Lee Smith and published on June 20, 2017 in the Weekly Standard.

The Ralph Peters article clearly demonstrates that despite the author heaping an avalanche of insults on the Russians, he could not hide the fact that to him – as it is to all democracies – winning is the important thing. As long as the cost is paid by someone else, they'll take any measure to win the game, pretending to be angels and accusing the opponents of being devils.

As to the Daniel DePetris article, it shows that the concept of “rule of law,” which the democracies claim is the foundation upon which their system stands, has become just a show; and a fake one at that. Here is how DePetris put it: “The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) has served as a legal crutch to fight the war on terrorism without the hassle of going back to Congress for additional authority. What's good for the executive, however, hasn't been good for the legislative branch or the country as a whole.” And no one is trying to change this murderous situation.

Finally, the Lee Smith article shows how the so-called democracies paralyze themselves. Smith interviewed the Israeli Nathan Thrall who explained that despite the desire of the Palestinian and Israeli peoples to see a conclusion brought to the occupation of Palestine, this is not happening because the entire American government has been ossified into a dinosaur-like state.

This happened because a handful of lobbyists have more say in the matter of America's support for Israel than the millions of American voters who put their so-called representatives in office.

The voters would rather have clean water for their children to drink than support the criminal occupation of Palestine with their tax dollars … but they can do nothing because democracy is not working for them.

Wasting 7 trillion worse than wasted 6 trillion

Before and after his election, President Donald Trump kept reminding the public that presidents who occupied the White House before him wasted 6 trillion dollars in the Middle East and got nothing in return for America or anyone else for that matter. This was a wise thing for him to have said because it was true.

During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump also promised that if elected, he'll see to it that the terrorists are rendered ineffective, thus free the world from their nefarious activities. And this was the honorable thing for him to have said regardless as to its feasibility.

The trouble, however, is that both the reminder and the promise have now clashed. It happened because the President is trying to be truthful to both sayings at the same time. The news is that he is sending more troops to Afghanistan to finish off the terrorists, which is what other presidents did before him, and wasted 6 trillion dollars, like he says, with nothing to show for their effort. They got nothing in return for America, according him, and there is no reason to believe he'll do better.

That situation, therefore, begs the question: When will President Donald Trump realize that the war in Afghanistan is a lost cause? Will it be after he spends another trillion dollars fighting it? Or will it be after he spends 6 trillion more dollars?

Two authors took up that subject, and did an excellent job parsing it for the readers who want to know the unbiased, unvarnished truth of what's involved in the Afghan operation. They are A. Trevor Thrall and Erik Goepner. They wrote: “Trump's massive Afghanistan mistake,” an article that was published on June 18, 2017 in the New York Daily News.

The authors begin with the premise that the Trump administration wants to terminate the existential threat that's menacing the Afghan government. And so, they remind the readers that the United States has been trying to do just that for 16 years, and made little or no progress. Thus, they offer the opinion that this is a bad thing to try again. They go on to say, it is even worse to contemplate sending more troops to do the same old thing under the same old strategy.

Trevor and Goepner say that the people who advocate sending more troops to Afghanistan advance two arguments to make their point. They claim that fighting the terrorists in Afghanistan prevents the latter from committing terror in America. They also claim that sending more troops to Afghanistan will prevent the Taliban from ending the country's experiment with democracy. And so, they set out to debunk both claims.

They say that Al Qaeda has been weakened so badly in Afghanistan, that country represents little threat of terrorism. In fact, Al Qaeda and its offshoots have gone to other places around the globe, they assert, and if America wants to continue fighting them, it should do so where it can find them.

As to the desire of shoring up the democratic experiment in Afghanistan, the writers inform the readers that in the long run, America will not be able to control that country's political outcomes; the effort will come to naught. This is so true, in fact, it can be attested to by anyone that tried to guarantee the outcome of an election.

At this point, the writers resurrect a bitter truism; one that was learned during the Vietnam War. They adapted it to the current situation like this: “Eventually, the U.S. will leave. The Taliban will not.” And they lament that the Taliban now control more territory than they ever did since 2001. All this, they say, despite the large number of deaths that occurred during that period of time, including 3,500 civilians in 2016 alone.

They end their presentation by revealing something that's as poignant as it is tragic. Here it is in their own words: “The honest reason for America's enduring military commitment is that no President wants to be the one who 'lost Afghanistan' … W. Bush and Obama maintained just enough of a military and rhetorical commitment to avoid getting blamed for losing the war”.

And they conclude that President Trump inherited a war he never liked; a conundrum that forces him to choose between keeping his promise at the risk of losing the war, or going against his grain while expending more lives and more treasure by emulating two predecessors he endlessly criticized. How much worse can it get!

But why not reject the second choice out of hand, and put the whole thing behind him?

Well, Trevor and Goepner have a theory about that. They hint that President Trump finds himself in a no-win situation but has a third alternative. This is why they believe he “gave Mattis the authority to handle the Afghan strategy from the Pentagon. That way, when things go south, Trump will have someone to blame.” Wow!

Does Mattis know any of this? Should someone whisper it in his ear?

When Apoplexy reaches the high Point

Is there a surefire way you can employ to determine how Egypt is doing? Yes there is, and it has been around since the early 1950s.

This was the time when Egypt got serious about transforming itself from an agrarian society to an industrial one. The move prompted something like a dozen pirate radio stations to spring up and do nothing but spew propaganda created by haters who did not want Egypt or anyone in the neighborhood to progress. The goal of these terrible people was to cause the population to rise and overthrow the government.

Despite the apoplexy accompanying the inciting arguments that was advanced by the pirates of the airwaves, the population of Egypt did not rise up. And President Gamal Abdel Nasser lived long enough to preside over the construction of his pet project, the Aswan hydroelectric station that kick-started the industrialization of the country. With it came the dam that produced a reservoir large enough to hold three times the average annual flow of the Nile. And this, in turn, protected the country's agriculture against the year to year vagaries of that flow.

And so, the answer to the earlier question about determining how Egypt was doing – is to look for the apparition of the haters of Egypt, and gauge the intensity of the propaganda they spew. The more numerous they are, and the more severe their attacks, the more you know that Egypt is doing well. What's happening now is the apparition of haters more numerous than a star produces neutrinos, and they spew propaganda more intensely than the explosive power of a supernova. They are at the highest point of their apoplexy.

Identified as a member of the “Next Eleven,” Egypt is ready to assume the role of industrial tiger. It is worth recalling that the first phase of the tiger series was started by the Asian Tigers who were replaced by the BRICS who are being replaced by the Next Eleven. The surefire thing has therefore materialized in the form of hate propagandists who, like their predecessors, want no one in the neighborhood to succeed. But their method of attacking Egypt was modified to suit the times.

They are no longer using pirate radio stations to spread their message. Instead, they use the internet to propagate noise, fake news, distortions, misinformation and disinformation. Because they have considerable influence in the editorial rooms of most Anglophile media, they manage to get a great deal of that filth picked up and published by the mainstream print and audio visual outlets.

Though they still hope it will happen, they no longer count on the population to rise up and overthrow the government. What they wish to achieve instead, is scare potential English speaking investors from investing in Egypt. Out of pity, someone should tell these knuckleheads that their efforts are wasted considering that the biggest foreign investors in Egypt are the Brits. They are followed by the Americans. As well, the Australians are not far behind, and the Canadians are catching up.

An example that shows how the knuckleheads go about doing their business came under the title: “Sissi's Egypt Is Falling Apart. Will It Explode?” an article that was written by Tom Stevenson and published on June 15, 2017 in World Politics Review. The writer started with a short introduction in which he mentioned a small demonstration that was staged to protest the price hikes that resulted from the devaluation of the currency. Stevenson used that incident to make a mountain out of a molehill, and went on to talk economics under a rubric that says “Economic Decay”.

To make his point, Stevenson uses the sayings of two people. One is Ahmed Ghoneim who is professor of economics at Cairo University. The other is David Ottaway who is a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center's Middle East program. The most salient part of what Ghoneim has said is this: “There appears to be lack of coordination between the Ministry of Finance and the Central Bank.” The most salient part of what Ottaway has said is this: “The regime has done little to bring supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood into the political process … You can't close off the safety valve and not expect an explosion at some point”.

With regard to the Ghoneim saying, it is not clear if this professor of economics is advocating that instead of dealing with each other at arm's length, the Treasury and the Central Bank should work together and formulate a joint approach to the fiscal and monetary policies of the country. I would be happy to learn that's what he means because, as far as I know, I was the first to make this suggestion decades ago … and everybody ignored my suggestion. Maybe someone will listen now.

As to the Ottaway saying, the fact is that the governing party made it clear it governs in the name of all Egyptians, and remains open to all of them. In fact, the signs are plenty that many, who voted for the Brotherhood in the past, are now supporting the government. They are not wearing their old stripes on their sleeve because they don't need to. And the least they worry about is that David Ottaway wishes to identify them but cannot.

Diplomatic Crybabies and those advising them

On June 15, 2017 Anna Borshchevskaya appeared before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa to tell the Congress what to do with Russia's Putin. Those of us old enough to remember the 1970s and 1980s can only say: Here we go again!

That was a time when heads of business associations, such as steel, appliances and electronics, used to stream endlessly in front of Congressional committees, and whine about the absence of a level playing field when it comes to competing against foreign imports … which they claimed were dumped in the American market.

But the truth is that the world was changing at the time, and while Asia was progressing industrially, the American manufacturers were too smug to believe they could be challenged by foreigners. They refused to embrace new technologies, new designs and new approaches till the moment they realized that the foreigners were outselling them abroad and in the American market. Instead of doing what was necessary to catch up with the times, the Americans blamed their regression on foreigners.

The Congress took measures to help, but despite all that, manufacturing in America kept falling behind at a time when several studies were showing that most manufacturers, especially the auto and steel industries, were losing ground, not because of foreign dumping – which did not exist – but because the Americans were inefficient, uncompetitive and lacking the will to modernize.

The Congress stopped helping when it could do no more, and the critics who were hiding up to now, finally came out of the woods and told it like it was. They said America's manufacturers have been spoiled for too long, and now that they met real competition, they started to cry like babies. The critics called them crybabies, and this proved to be what the business leaders needed to hear. They got up, dusted themselves off and modernized. The result was a steel industry that came back strongly, as did the auto industry.

Well, the same can now be said about America's foreign policy apparatus because the world – especially Russia's Putin – is doing to America's foreign policy what the foreign manufacturers once did to America's industries. And the reality that should alarm everyone is that so-called experts such as Anna Borshchevskaya are showing the makers of America's foreign policy – not how to grow-up and compete in a world that's becoming multi-polar but – how to whine about Putin's foreign policy successes, seeing him do what's good for his country. And what is suicidal about the counseling of those experts is that they tell the Congress and the diplomatic corps how to administer the coup de grace to America.

Here is a sampling of Borshchevskaya lesson on how to whine about Putin:

“Vladimir Putin chartered Russia's return to the Middle East. He did so in the context of zero-sum – for Russia to win, the United States must lose. He wanted to restore Russia's superpower status, and wanted the United States to recognize Russia as an equal. He did so by regaining political, diplomatic, and economic influence, using increased cooperation and diplomatic exchanges. Russia's Foreign Policy Concept defined Moscow's priorities as 'to restore and strengthen Russia's positions, particularly economic ones.' Putin visited several Middle Eastern countries. He also received high-level Middle East officials. For example, he visited Egypt in 2005, and traveled to Saudi Arabia and Qatar in 2007. Russia's economic ties with Turkey and Egypt grew”.

And here is a sampling of Borshchevskaya recommendations on how the foreign policy apparatus can finish off America in the Middle East:

“US officials should limit contact with Putin to military deconfliction. Conciliation will backfire. Putin responds productively only when American officials act from a position of strength. In Syria, Putin understands his limitations, and a direct confrontation is not something he seeks. The US cruise missile strikes showed that in the end Russia could do nothing but complain. Therefore instead of enticing Putin with incentives, Washington should demonstrate that his embrace of Assad brings tremendous costs to Russia. Putin's Achilles heel is exposed when US policymakers reclaim leadership with moral clarity”.

It is clear that Borshchevskaya sees the face-off between the US and Russia in the Middle East as a conflict between them, and of interest to them only.

She totally ignores that the people of the Middle East, whose hearts they both try to win, have a stake in what the big powers bring to their region. These people want a say in what's happening to them, not lectures on how to behave to better serve the interests of America.

So while Putin will work to win those hearts, America will scheme to establish its upper hand on the region … and do so no matter how much it will cost the people who live there. Imagine!

With friends like these advising you, who needs a demon on your shoulder?

Surprise! Someone at Hudson makes Sense

Fellows at the Hudson Institute are notorious for being wrong a hundred percent of the time when discussing political or religious subjects.

Thus, it came as a pleasant surprise that a fellow at the Hudson wrote an article which makes sense. The subject matter that's tackled is neither political nor religious, however, but is a scientific summation of the existing defense capabilities against a missile attack.

The writer is Arthur Herman who wrote: “Boost-Phase Intercept Is Still the Best Defense against the North Korean Nuclear Threat,” an article that was published on June 15, 2017 in National Review Online. The writer's focus is the situation in the Eastern Pacific. I am not adding or subtracting a thing to what he says. I'm simply highlighting the scientific facts he brought to light, and applying them to a couple of other regions on the globe. These would be Europe and the Middle East. What follows is a compilation of the pertinent passages in the Arthur Herman article:

“Effective ballistic-missile defense is a boost-phase-intercept (BPI) system using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) equipped with conventional interceptor missiles. Anti-missile systems such as THAAD, AEGIS, and Patriot only shoot down a missile as it re-enters the atmosphere. Destroying the missile in its earlier, 'boost' phase halts it during the slowest, hottest phase of its launch. Our Agency is working on a BPI system using UAVs equipped with high-energy lasers, but the lasers don't yet exist. A (BPI) system located outside North Korea would not protect South Korea against a missile fired at Seoul, but it could prevent a launch on Japan or the U.S.”

To appreciate what's involved in intercepting and destroying an incoming missile, it is necessary to understand the stages through which the missile goes before reaching its destination. From rest, a missile that's fired begins to ascend at a low speed, but then accelerates at a rapid rate for a few minutes. Depending on how far it is destined to go, its average cruising speed will reach anywhere between half a mile a second and three miles.

The early period, called the boost phase, is when the missile uses a great deal of fuel; and this makes it easy to detect with heat sensors stationed even hundreds of miles away. It is also the point at which the missile – most likely using liquid fuel – travels at its slowest speed. It is therefore the easiest time to chase after it, intercept it and blow it up with a faster traveling rocket that uses quick-starting solid fuel.

The question, therefore, is this: Where is the best place to station your intercept rocket? And the answer is: As near as possible to the missile's base. But there is a caveat. If the missile is aimed at you, the chances are very low that you'll intercept it before it destroys your station … whether or not you have completed the launch. That's because, to hit an incoming missile, you must intercept it head-on, a difficult thing to do. And here is why:

Suppose a missile is launched from North Korea, and determined to be heading toward California. It happens that intercept rockets are stationed in Hawaii. Is it better to launch a rocket westward trying to intercept the Korean missile head-on? Or is it better to wait till the missile has come almost above Hawaii, and launch the intercept rocket to go in the same eastward direction as the missile, accost it to almost touch it, and blow up, thus destroy it while traveling at the same speed?

You can see that the second proposition is the best because two vehicles approaching each other at more than 30,000 feet a second are more difficult to intercept than hitting a bullet head-on with another bullet.

When you understand all that, it'll be easy to see why the Eastern Europeans would be unhappy to have American interceptors stationed on their soil to defend against presumed Iranian missiles. The truth is that the interceptors will defend Western Europe but not those hosting them. Worse, they will invite the Iranians to hit them first and take them out before launching a follow-up volley toward Western Europe.

As to the Middle East, it is easy to see that the only way to defend Israel against a missile attack is to station land based interceptors as far away as Iraq and Saudi Arabia, or station them at sea in the Persian Gulf, which is what the Israelis hope the American navy will do for them. Thus, any talk about the existence of a system – such as the fictitious Iron Dome – defending Israel, is a big lie that serves to siphon off money from America.

A massive Quackery built on shaky Grounds

Like a mosaic, society is made of communities that come together with each of them projecting a small part of the society's overall image. For example, you'll find that the communities come under headings that spell business, medical, sports or what have you ... each having both a culture and a subculture of its own.

An example of the difference which exists between a culture and the subculture it produces as a byproduct is that of athletes projecting the image of impeccable role models for youngsters to emulate. That's because the athletes get in front of the camera and speak a language that's fit for public viewing. But they also have a locker-room discourse that uses a language so foul, no parent would want their child to hear.

Depending on the cultural preferences, each society chooses to define itself under different headings. For example, a religious society might emphasize the religious components of its mosaic whereas another might emphasize its secular bent. Because America started as a place of refuge harboring those who fled religious persecution, it remains largely a religious society. But it also avoids favoring any one religion by banning government sanctioned religious expressions in public places. This duality has allowed the Jewish community to develop a discourse that's fit for public viewing and another that's used for internal consumption.

The difficulty has always been to figure out what the Jews were saying to each other in private by analyzing what they said in public. This situation has now changed thanks to Lee Smith who wrote an article that sheds light on the matter. The article came under the title: “The Real Story Behind the Diplomatic Crisis With Qatar” and the subtitle: “It's not the principled stand against support for terror that it seems to be,” and was published on June 14, 2017 in the Weekly Standard.

What you see in that article is how the Jews take an insignificant occurrence, blow it out of proportion, assign to it meanings they pluck from thin air, and draw false conclusions in support of their point of view. Thus, you see Lee Smith start with the desire to make the argument that Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain and Egypt were motivated by crass considerations, and not by the noble principle of acting against terror. But as he proceeds to make his point, he forgets he is writing for public viewing, and gets into the mode of mouthing off a locker-room style pep talk as if he were behind closed doors talking to junior propagandists, here to prepare for the journey ahead.

The following is an assertion you encounter early on in the article: “The crisis splitting the GCC isn't really about extremism. It has nothing to do with larger issues. It's just Abu Dhabi waging political warfare against Doha to get the United States to move its military base from Qatar to the UAE.” So you want to know what evidence Lee Smith has which prompts him to make such an assertion, and write a column about it.

The following is what you find, believe it or not: “The UAE's ambassador to the U.S. told reporters that the Trump administration should move the base. He explained that the UAE hasn't told the U.S. it should relocate, but is willing to have that conversation. The problem with Qatar, he says, is that it has supported and sheltered extremists. It's high time that Qatar decides whether it is 'all in' – or not – in the fight against extremism and aggression.” Wow! Look here! He said it himself; it's not a crass act, it's a noble act. He engaged in Jew-talk, something worse than Orwellian talk, thus unmasked himself as an intellectual fraud.

Sadly, our Jewish author believes he presented solid proof that Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt were motivated by crass considerations, and not by the noble principle of acting against terror. In addition, he omitted mentioning a number of other countries that joined the boycott of Qatar – presumably because they too are so ignoble, they wish to see the American base moved from Qatar to the UAE.

Now, my friend, you want to know what motivates a Jew to dive to the bottom of a cesspool and scrape its bottom for a piece of filth he can stick to people that did nothing to hurt him. And you find this declaration: “Hypocrisy is a natural and necessary component of competent statesmanship.” So very Jewish!

In their zeal to project to the world an impeccable image of themselves, the Jews discovered that the easiest way to do it is to earn credit by discrediting others. And so, they developed a culture that portrays them as paragons of perfection, at the same time as they whisper slander against those who refuse to toe their line.

And that's the first thing a Jew is taught to do upon learning to turn on a computer.