Baum: we're all Jewish except the Palestinians

When you say something poignant but omit mentioning a crucial part of the situation you're describing––be that deliberately or inadvertently––it means that the gravity of what you're talking about has escaped you. This applies to Devorah Baum who wrote: “We Are All Jew-ish Now,” an article that was published on September 29, 2017 in the New York Times.

What is poignant about the subject she discusses is that she casually, effectively and even humorously demolishes the galaxy of falsehoods, outright lies, noise, misinformation and disinformation that the formidable Jewish propaganda machine has been putting out for decades concerning the ownership of Palestine. Baum succeeded in doing all of that, intending to do something else. This is why she forgot to even mention the legitimate claim that Palestinians have on Palestine.

That whole chain of events happened because the Jewish propaganda machine succeeded to impress upon the born-to-be-ignorant political class of America that the moral thing for the superpower to do was to commit suicide defending the right of fake Jews from around the world to claim ownership of Palestine on the grounds that their right supersedes the right of the Palestinians who have lived on the land since the beginning of time.

That success has encouraged the Jews to work on dominating the American marketplace of ideas. This done, their leaders spent much of the energy they had, and used most of the capers in their bag of tricks to turn every dialogue in America (not only those about Palestine) into a monologue coming out the two sides of one and the same Jewish mouth. Call it the dialogue of one.

And like a contagious disease, the habit has spread throughout the land going at the speed of wildfire, thus killed the art of civilized discourse in that society. This left the Jews in near total monopoly of the marketplace of ideas, turning it into a marketplace that's bereft of any sensible idea. The flagship of this development being the much vaunted Congress of the United States; it became the much reviled institution in America.

Devorah Baum then appeared on the scene armed with her latest article. Whatever her reasons for writing that thing, she demolished, once and for all, every asinine pronouncement of the kind that was made by Netanyahu. It was the claim that proof existed to the effect that Palestine belongs to Jewish converts and not to the indigenous Palestinians.

But the proof Netanyahu produced was nothing more than to claim someone had seen the name Netanyahu etched on something discovered somewhere in occupied Palestine. And that – according to him – was proof positive that Palestine belonged to the Jews and to no one else. Some people laughed; others felt nauseated.

Still, Baum's arguments were useful in that they extinguished Netanyahu's claim and all such claims by demonstrating that the Jews are living an identity crisis, not knowing who they are. She also argued that the principle of “Jewishness” is becoming more diluted with the passage of time, thus reinforcing the point that the situation will only get worse.

Now imagine how shocked a Palestinian reading Baum's article will be by its content. What should he or she think when reading that because the Jews are suffering from an identity crisis, they feel funny? But given that the world has become globalized, everyone else is losing their identity and feeling funny, she says. This makes it so that: “We're not all Jews, but we're all becoming Jew-ish,” and feeling funny, she goes on to say.

No doubt, a Palestinian reading these words will ask: Does that include us? If the answer is no, where do we fit if everyone but ‘us’ will someday be Jewish? Will everyone have a claim on Palestine except us, Palestinians?

Unfortunately, the Palestinians will not find an answer to these questions in the article. But then, they were never given an answer to the questions they asked since the occupation. Yet, here they are reading a Jewish admission that those who steal their properties with American blessings do not believe they descended from the Hebrews they swear lived in Palestine thousands of years ago.

The Palestinians can also read in Baum's article that contemporary so-called Jews, especially those living in America, do not practice the religion in whose name they are being uprooted, and their properties confiscated.

All this is happening to Palestinians to make room for fake Jewish charlatans whose only skill is to incite America to commit the heinous crimes they would not themselves commit lest they be punished.

And none of that makes the Palestinians feel funny, regardless of Devorah Baum's assertion that “The other thing that feeling funny can lead to is fun”.

The Palestinians want their country back, but the Americans who are losing their own country cannot begin to process a request as legitimate as this.

I believe Bret Stephens must be deprogrammed

Bret Stephens wrote an article of the kind that Jews used to write in previous decades but stopped the practice because the articles produced no tangible results. They were nothing more than lists that piled small incidents, each of which having no bite to speak of, but capable of making an impression when used cumulatively.

Stephens's latest column––the one in which he revived the lost art––came under the title: “I believe Some of Your Best Friends Are Jewish,” published on September 28, 2017 in the New York Times. The topic that started him off is the Valerie Plame Wilson re-tweet that every Jewish pundit is writing or talking about these days. But Stephens did not dwell for too long on that subject because he only wanted to use it as a springboard. He went from there to produce an old style list about the things that bother him as a Jew.

Stephens did so, starting each listing with the solemn sounding but facetious declaration, “I believe,” and then mentioned the statement that was made by someone prominent, or mentioned the incredulous apology for making the statement in the first place. A representative example would be this: “I believe Valerie Plame when she says … she missed the article's more prejudicial elements.” Another example would be this: “I believe Hagel had nothing to apologize for … I believe Hagel's apology was sincere”.

Something happened inside the circuitry of my brain upon reading this article. It was something that did not happen in previous decades. Like two video clips running simultaneously on a split screen, I could see myself 45 years ago, working as a technician for a mining company in the Canadian North where I also wrote for the local newspaper. And I could see myself sitting in front of the computer, reading a dozen or so articles, selecting one or more to review, and post my analysis on this blog.

But what's the connection between the lost Jewish art that was revived by Bret Stephens, and the business of mining precious metals in the Canadian North, and writing this internet blog?

What they have in common can better be explained by using yet another metaphor. Imagine a fisherman who wakes up in the morning and goes to the sea. He looks at the vast body of water in front of him, knowing there are fishes in it he must pull out. In a similar fashion, the mining executive seeks to “fish out” the gram or two of gold dust embedded in every ton of ore. It is also what Jews, such as Bret Stephens, do when they look for something to moan about and make demands. And it is what I do when I search for and write about that which speaks of the way that Jews make themselves hated by humanity.

But why did Stephens re-adopt a style of writing that did not work for the Jews previously? To answer this question, we must first understand why the method did not work in the past. It did not because the old approach used to list the activities or sayings of one and the same person. He would be, for example, the President of the United States or someone of that stature. The writer would attack him, at time viciously, for harming the Jews or neglecting to help them. But no writer ever offered the explanation that would justify such attacks, and this was enough to turn off the readers.

In contrast, what Stephens has done this time, is that he spread the guilt among many personalities, impugning no malicious intent to them except that of benign hypocrisy. He made no demand to compensate for something, and asked for no proof that these people intend to change their attitude toward the Jews. He only listed the things that bother him as a Jew, and then did the equivalent of throwing his hands up in the air in apparent despair while hissing a tired c'est la vie!

We can only conclude from all this that Bret Stephens is suffering from a condition that needs to be cured if a cure exists. There is also the possibility that more Jews––having no way to play out their illness in public––are suffering as well, and need help. What can be done for them?

This disease is a form of Jewish group-think induced by the incestuous programming of young intellects, using a brainwashing technique that injects a substance called Holocaust Serum into the bloodstream of victims. And so, to cure these people, the practice must end at once to stop the spread of the disease. As to those who are already infected, they can be deprogrammed the way that victims of nefarious cults are. Good luck, Bret!

He advocated cleansing State of its Arabists

NOTE: First, let me amend a passage in yesterday's column. I received inquiries about my use of the words “twosome” and “threesome.” The inquirers wanted to know if I hinted at sexuality with the use of these words. The answer is no. What I mean by the passage is that the entertainment value of the debate will increase when a third debater will be added to the existing two. The confusion did not come from the use of the language; it came because the wannabe Freuds who never understood the original Freud see sex in everything.

NOW TODAY'S COLUMN: Upon joining the State Department, Dennis Ross openly advocated cleansing the State Department of its Arabists. Mind you, these were not Arabs, but red-blooded career-minded Americans dedicated to doing what's good for America the way they saw things, and only that.

Meanwhile, pretending to be an expert on the Middle East, Dennis Ross was hired to advise the government, but spent half his time pulling dirty tricks to get those who were not one hundred percent pro-Israel, silenced or pushed out of the Department. And he spent the other half of his time pretending to represent America in the ongoing Palestine Peace Process, but represented the Likud Party of Israel instead. He did all that while America was paying his salary and his travel expenses.

Dennis Ross is no longer at the State Department; he is going from one Jewish organization to another laboring as hard as he can to advance the Jewish and Israeli causes. One of the ways he does that, is by letting out the typical Jewish moan to complain about incidents so trivial, they happen to everybody all the time, and yet nobody mentions them even to friends ... let alone complain about them as loudly as do the Jews.

It would be bad enough if Ross did only that. But coming from him who spent a lifetime ruining the lives of countless innocent colleagues at the State Department because they did not love Israel with every fiber in their bodies, makes him look like a savage and gutless beast. You can make that determination yourself by checking his latest moan. It came in the form of an article he wrote under the title: “Memories of an Anti-Semitic State Department,” published on September 27, 2017 in the New York Times.

Here is the object of his moan as he stated it: “Valerie Plame Wilson shared an article on Twitter that said, 'America's Jews are driving America's wars: Shouldn't they recuse themselves when dealing with the Middle East?'” He went on to say this reminded him of an Anti-Semitic incident that happened to him while at the State Department – having moved there from the Pentagon.

He explains that if you were Jewish at the Pentagon, you could not work on the Middle East because you would be considered biased. He rebutted that consideration by drawing a contrast: “if you knew about the Middle East because you came from a missionary family or from the oil industry, you were an expert.” This means he did not like that the Jews were singled out.

As to what happened when he was head of the policy planning staff at the State Department; it is that he was visited by a security investigator doing background check on someone known to him. The investigator asked Ross: If this person had to choose between America's interests and Israel's, whose interests would he put first? Ross snapped back: Why do you ask? The investigator replied: Because he is Jewish. Ross asked: “If he was Irish and had to work on problems related to Ireland or he was Italian and had to work on Italy, would you ask that question?” The investigator realized that Ross was Jewish, and said nothing more.

The problem with the counterargument often used by Jews in response to measures taken by others to protect themselves from their destructive behavior is that the Jews paint an incomplete picture of reality, and demand to be treated normally. For example, the Irish never asked America to carry them financial forever or arm them to the teeth or protect them in world forums or bomb Britain to the Stone Age because of one thing or another. And neither did the Italians.

But the Jews do that incessantly, thus single themselves out. For them to turn around and ask that others refrain from singling them out is to ask others to lie to themselves and pretend not to see what they actually see. Well, some sissies in power may do that for a while, but the population will get it up to here eventually, and will explode. What comes after that can only be horrific.

Another thing that makes the Jews single themselves out is that they import their ancient and new conflicts into Canada and America. They do so by setting up watch lists of undesirables – Arabists and otherwise – after infiltrating the public and private institutions where they work to purge the individuals that refuse to toe the line. They also mount despicable operations such as Abscam, and incite the security apparatus of the country to go after innocent Arabs, Canadians and Americans.

In short, the Jews are the architects of their eternal misery, and there is nothing anyone can do to save them from themselves. They are doomed to fail, and one prominent factor in their upcoming failure will most certainly be Dennis Ross.

Standing on the Shoulder of Giants to do harm

Why is it that, advanced as we are in this twenty first century, we look up to people like Johann Goethe, Voltaire, the framers of the American Constitution, William Shakespeare and other giants, and seek guidance from the wisdom they left behind as they considered matters that seem unrelated to our current circumstances?

We seek their wisdom because we know what goes into a solid system of thinking; and we know that these people had it because we see it in their work. This is why we think of them as giants. What they do is begin with a single idea or a number of related ideas that form one tight concept … and they derive from such a construct the branches that, in the aggregate, make up the philosophy they espouse.

This approach for constructing the substance that goes into a philosophy prevents the branches from looking like unrelated tangents flying off in every direction, even if they seem far removed from the philosophy's core concept. The result is a single unit at the core bestowing solidity to the entire philosophy. If, in addition to the substance, the work of an author has a form that matters, that same unity must show up in the form as well. And this is where the genius of someone like Shakespeare is apparent. It is that the development of the storyline in each of his plays, flows naturally from the characters, making them and not haphazard, the drivers of the plot.

What can go wrong with a work as solid as this? Not much can go wrong with the work itself, but what usually happens is that lesser men and women tend to use the works of giants to build on them and create shabby works; even monstrosities that end up doing a great deal of harm. Examples are the works of Charles Darwin and Sigmund Freud which continue to be misused by charlatans to the point that new “Darwinian” and new “Freudian” theories are created – completely distorting the works of the original creators.

And this brings us to an article that came under the title: “The Problem with 'the Best of Intentions' Foreign Policy,” written by Robert D. Kaplan, and published on September 25, 2017 in The National Interest.

Of the giants: Hegel, Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, our writer Robert Kaplan uses Hegel's formulation of certain concepts––among them the definition of tragedy––to reach a conclusion with regard to the military intervention of America in foreign conflicts. This is what he says: “If we act early, the conflict between the interests of state and those of humanity can be lessened.” Fine and dandy, but did he really need to use Hegel's philosophy as a vehicle to reach that conclusion? To get a sense of what the answer might be, we follow his line of thinking.

Robert Kaplan begins with Hegel's example defining a tragic situation as “when a family duty is in conflict with a wider social or universal duty.” He goes on to say this could parallel “the interests of state in conflict with the wider interests of humanity.” In a case like this, says Kaplan, “both sides can have a claim on our sympathy [but] both sides cannot be right.” Well then, what do we do? Kaplan has no answer to this question, and neither does he say if Hegel had one. Instead, he offers that according to Hegel, we are elevated not by the destruction of one of the parties but by “the triumph of the truth which emerges”.

Kaplan uses that Hegelian view to draw a conclusion he seems to have settled on at the start. It was not only to repeat the ongoing view among the pundits of his ilk that it's okay for America to intervene in foreign conflicts as long as the intervention comes early, but something more. To explain this part, Kaplan begins by giving his own definition of tragedy. It is this: “one thing that tragedy can be about is the story of a person (or group), who, while right-thinking, acts wrongly. Such a person or group intends the best outcome, but ends up with the worst outcome.” Oh yes, what he has in mind has now become painfully clear.

Do you see it, my friend? Do you see what he was after from the start? He was after absolving all the horrors committed by America in the Middle East in response to Jewish incitements. This done, he went on to make a point that ignores Einstein's definition of insanity being the act of doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result. Kaplan's point is that you may do the same thing over and over, but if you do it early each time, you might get the result you expect. What a charlatan!

Darwin and Freud can now smile for; they will not spend an eternity alone. Courtesy of Robert D. Kaplan, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel will be joining them in their “exclusive” heavenly retreat. And finally, the boring disadvantages of their twosome will be relieved by the entertaining value of their upcoming threesome.

Something good came out of this, after all. Or did it?

They scheme a Repeat of South Sudan

Do you remember a story in the Jewish bible about a guy named Esau who traded his birthright for a bowl of lentils? Well, go ahead, study the history of the Jews and you'll know from where they got that story. It is their life story; the one they lived for nearly 4000 years, and keep reliving again and again even today.

The latest example of the Jews trading their birthright for something that's uncertain, is exposed by Ron Prosor who used to be Israel's ambassador to the United Nations. He wrote: “Trump Should Bet on Kurdish Independence,” an article that was published on September 25, 2017 in the New York Times.

If you define the Jewish birthright as the tendency to concoct and live by the “Big Deception,” you'll discover that time after time, the Jews traded the ongoing deception they worked hard to establish as birthright, for a new deception that may or may not bear fruit. And you'll find that they repeated the cycle over and over again, which is why they never accomplished anything worth keeping. It is also why you'll catch them always hungry for another bowl of something.

To see how the Jews develop a deception and keep adding to it till it becomes a birthright, we first note that their goal is to break up the Arab countries into cantons. They want them in small pieces to team up with those pieces or annex them. In fact, the Jews have managed to break up the Sudan but failed to team up with the newly created South Sudan.

However, they managed to snatch the Western Golan from Syria and they annexed it. They also repeated the crime with parts of Palestine, aiming to do more with the passage of time. Second, we note that the method they follow when playing the game, consists of using American institutions such as the Congress, the military, the financial institutions, the media, Hollywood and others – as tools and/or weapons to achieve their goal.

The readers who followed the events in the Middle East at any time during the last half century, will recall that in order for Israel to maintain the occupation of Palestine in the hope of finding a way to ethnic cleanse it of Palestinians and fill it with Jewish thugs from around the world, the Jews of America and Israel conspired to pull a masterful big deception.

It is that they impressed the American Congress of the brainless with a perpetually repeated argument to the effect that now was not the time to have a peace process for Palestine because there will be a better time to do so in the future. Alas, that future never came.

In fact, the Jews made a virtue of the idea of not doing today what can be punted to a future time when the region will be perfectly stable. They were so convincing – speaking of a perfect future stability – that the Congress put itself in the snooze mode, waiting for something or someone named “future” to come and wake it up. Alas, that future never came, and the Congress is still in the snooze mode.

This approach has allowed the Jews to turn the debate about maintaining the occupation of Palestine into a birthright that has been sustaining them for decades. So, guess what happened now, my friend. Yes, the Jews traded that birthright for the vision of another birthright they believe will yield a greater dividend. You'll see how they did so when you come near the end of the Ron Prosor article.

You'll see that in a reversal of the approach they have maintained for decades, the Jews are now telling America it must not wait for the thing named future to come and wake it up, but must act right away. The onus fell on Ron Prosor to relay this message to America, which he did with the proviso that the idea does not apply to the Palestinian issue. That's because they want this issue punted to a future that will never come.

Speaking about breaking up Iraq and recognizing the separation of Kurdistan from it, Prosor wrote the following: “If we wait for the region to be perfectly stable … we could be waiting forever.” That's the reversal, and if it sounds like the Jew has shot himself in the foot as usual, it may be that.

But it is also more than that. It is an example of the Jew shooting himself in the head. That's because this reversal represents a rejection of the existing birthright which the Jews have nurtured for decades. Yet, here they are, adamant about replacing it with the fantasy of an alliance they hope to establish with an Arab-hating Kurdistan. They must be seeing something in this possibility that no one else does.

In any case, that's what the Jews tried to do with South Sudan but failed. Why they believe they'll have better luck with Kurdistan is a mystery. All we can tell for certain is that they never learn.

Admit you're tainted and stay out, America

Michael Dempsey wrote an article about the future of Iraq, now that the Islamic State (ISIS) is on the verge of defeat. The article came under the title: “After Islamic State, Is There Still an Iraq?” and the subtitle: “Reconciliation is possible, but the country will have to overcome at least five major challenges.” It was published on September 21, 2017 in the Wall Street Journal.

This is a genuine article written by a truthful man who wants to see workable solutions applied to the multiple problems afflicting Iraq since America invaded that country and destroyed it under false Jewish pretenses fourteen years ago. The trouble is that Michael Dempsey seems unaware of the reality that the foreign policy apparatus of America is not made of people like himself. Or maybe he chooses not to know that no matter how America begins tackling a Middle Eastern issue, the effort will be taken over by the Jewish crime syndicate that's run from the boiler room of Israel's Likud party, and turned into a horror show.

When this happens – and it will as surely as night follows day – the form and the substance of America's effort will diverge, creating a mess like the one you see in the American Congress. That is, the facade and the rhetoric of the effort will look and sound like a well managed functioning democracy is in charge of the operation; but the substance of the effort will be geared to serving the wrong interests. This will happen because the pretense will be that the effort is geared, first and foremost, to serving the interests of Iraq, and secondarily to serving the interests of America in the region; but the reality will be that the effort will be serving Israel and only Israel.

Nothing that is good will come out of this arrangement because for every inch that Israel will gain, Iraq will lose ten, and America a hundred. You can see how a Jewish takeover of the American effort will make this happen when you study the five unresolved issues that Dempsey says Iraq must resolve to get back to normal. Of those five, the first two are of utmost importance because they will determine if anything will be done to prevent turning the good-faith American operation into a demonic Jewish scheme. Here are the two crucial issues:

The first is that of Kurdish independence. There is now a movement to make this happen, and it is opposed by everyone, including the United States, but not Israel or America's Jews. And so, you can safely predict that the American effort in Iraq, after coming under Jewish control, will render lip service to the unity of Iraq while at the same time undermining it by taking the measures that will fracture the country. And of course, there will be the avalanche of false excuses justifying such measures.

The second issue is that of the de-Baathification of Iraq's institutions. It must be said that this subject is important to Jews in Israel and America as any religious dogma they happen to believe in. That's because the Baath Party, which took roots in both Iraq and Syria, aims to bring about a renaissance in the Arab World by promoting science and technology. Iraq's contribution in this vein was the building of the civilian nuclear station that Israel bombed not because it was a military threat to Israel but because it was a cultural threat to the Stone Age beliefs and practices that Rabbinical Judaism relies on to control Jewish life as it has for eight centuries now.

For these reasons, the Jews of the world made it their policy to sabotage all advancements made by the Arabs, whatever the cost. To this end, they had one of their own steal the American secrets that helped Israel bomb the Iraqi station. Later, they fabricated false evidence about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, thus convinced America to go destroy Iraq. Ultimately, the Jews convinced the unthinking George W. Bush that Iraq must be de-Baathified the way that Germany was de-Nazified at the end of World War II, and this opened the door for the creation of the Islamic State, and the horror show that followed in the Levant.

With all this at stake, you can imagine what an American effort that's taken over and run by Jews will do to the idea of America trying to work in good-faith at helping Iraq get back on its feet. It will be like appointing a pedophile to run a kindergarten.

In short, what you'll have is not an arithmetic zero-sum game where the gains and losses are measured in the one-to-one ratio, but a logarithmic zero-sum game where the meager gains made by Israel will generate big political losses in Iraq, and bigger losses for America's stature and respect in the world.

This is why it will be a good idea for America to admit that its foreign policy apparatus is tainted by the presence of too many Jews in it, and stay out of Middle Eastern affairs till it has cleansed itself.

Kick Claudia Rosett out of the Women's Forum

When a cannibal knocks at your door and asks to play with your children, you ask the cannibal a few questions before letting him or her into your house. This is what the Independent Women's Forum should have done before taking Claudia Rosett into the fold as a fellow.

This woman was trained to hate humanity at the so-called Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a tank of unthinking fanatics dedicated to the destruction of the United Nations as a first step to ethnic cleansing Palestine of its Palestinian people, and replacing them with thugs from anywhere in the world as long as they religiously pledge allegiance to the demonic creeds of Israel's Likud Party. To wit, Claudia Rosett has been attacking the United Nations for doing its job, going as far as to write an article under the title: “The U.N.'s Grotesque Gaza Inquiry” when she was still with the foundation of fanatics.

When thousands of Palestinian women and their children are murdered as they sleep in their homes or in UN shelters by American-made precision bombs launched from warplanes and helicopter gunships supplied to Israel by America free of charge, an American women's forum is bound by moral imperatives to ask the burning question: Who the hell is the woman that came to seek bestowing legitimacy on her genocidal crusade against the people of Palestine, having labeled grotesque a simple UN inquiry into the repeated air campaigns that kill thousands of innocent women and children each time.

Ask that question and you'll have to conclude that from all appearances, the burning flesh of Palestinians is yielding enormous pleasure to the nostrils and the palate of this moral cannibal. And you'll understand that she will oppose any inquiry conducted by anyone because it might put an end to the burning of Palestinians in their homes; the people that have no means to defend themselves, relying instead on a public opinion articulated by citizens of the UN member states.

Despite the fact that her latest article is about North Korea and not Palestine, we must expect Claudia Rosett to eventually come around and start using her newly acquired status at the Independent Women's Forum to promote the genocidal views of the Likud Party regarding the people of Palestine. We can see in her latest article how she is already preparing for that day. The article came under the title: “Kick North Korea Out of the U.N.” and the subtitle: “Membership has its privileges––spying, money laundering and illicit procurement.” It was published on September 21, 2017 in the Wall Street Journal.

Having argued that according to the UN Charter, it is possible to kick a member nation out of the United Nations; and having argued that North Korea should be kicked out of there, Rosett has concluded that in “a bid to toss North Korea out of the U.N., the despot-packed General Assembly could balk … It's still worth a try. Success could confer a measure of badly needed redemption on the U.N. itself.” This says the woman has not changed her views regarding the United Nations; and it would be foolish to assume she altered her intent to destroy the UN as a first step to annihilate the people of Palestine.

Writing about North Korea whose only “sin” so far has been that it tried in the early 1950s to unify itself with South Korea in the manner that Vietnam handled itself successfully in a similar case, Claudia Rosett says this: “North Korea never met the U.N. membership requirements to begin with. The charter says membership is open only to 'peace-loving states.'” And despite the fact that North Korea never bombed anyone or occupied someone's territory, Rosett wants to see that country kicked out of the United Nations. She says this much while at the same time defending the right of Israelis to murder innocent Palestinians and steal their properties.

In fact, the Independent Women's Forum should contrast Rosett's views on North Korea with the dozens of attacks that Israel has unleashed on its neighbors, killing hundreds of thousands and causing untold damage. The contrast will highlight the double standard that is articulated by the forked tongue of this double-faced woman. And yet, she was admitted as a fellow in the Independent Women's Forum. What do you think, she plans to accomplish in that organization?

To get a sense of that, we comb her latest article and try to determine what belonging to a reputable organization means to her. We find an interesting passage in which she speaks about North Korea being admitted as a member of the United Nations: “The legitimacy and perquisites conferred by U.N. membership might have helped the regime survive.” Now think what legitimacy and perquisites Claudia Rosett expects to be conferred on her, on the Likud Party and the genocidal views they both espouse.

The least that the Independent Women's Forum can do now is kick Claudia Rosett out of the organization.

The multiple Layers of Lies and Deception

That poor fellow Benny Avni––if he keeps doing what he's doing––the Jewish pundits will want to kick him out of their mob. It seems that every time he gets on the keyboard of his computer, he produces not a symphony of words that serenade Israel, but a cacophony of jumbled thoughts that threaten the phony posture Israel is trying to project to the world.

His latest attempt at producing the masterpiece he thought will cement Israel's continued right to use America's military and financial muscles by which to bully its neighbors, has backfired again; and he doesn't even realize it. This time, he tried his hand over a two-day period to produce that masterpiece when on September 19, 2017 he wrote about the speech that was delivered by the American President Donald Trump at the UN; and the next day wrote about the speech that was delivered by the Iranian President Hassan Rouhani at that same forum.

Avni seems to have understood Rouhani's speech just enough to hate it, but misunderstood Trump's speech so badly as to believe it can be used to serve Israel's interests. That is, Avni latched on to the idea of Trump promoting the principle of sovereignty, and tried to make a big deal out of it, not knowing it can only hurt Israel. This happened because, like they say, a little education is a bad thing.

In fact, Avni says that Trump's “sovereignty” approach harks back to the 1940s, which is true. But this knowledge is incomplete in that it misses two things. First, another important expression used to accompany the word sovereignty: “territorial integrity.” Second, the talk about sovereignty and territorial integrity harks back not only to the 1940s when Nazi Germany was going on a rampage in Europe, but also to the 1960s when Israel was going on a rampage in the Middle East.

In the 1940s, this kind of talk was music to Jewish ears because the Jews did not have a sovereign nation of their own, and the United Nations gave them one they called Israel. Twenty years later, Israel had violated the sovereignty and territorial integrity of its neighbors, and most of the talk that arose at the time surrounded the reality that the land Israel was occupying beyond the boundaries of the 1948 lines, was a breach of someone's territorial integrity, and a violation of their sovereignty.

It follows from this that when President Trump speaks of sovereignty he is reminding Israel that it is in criminal violation of international law. This gives the aggrieved parties the right to defend themselves in the true sense of the words whatever method they use to do the job, given their capabilities and those of the aggressor. In these circumstances, Israel's complaints have no validity as long as it maintains its criminal posture.

As to Benny Avni's handling of President Rouhani's speech, it is an example of the layered levels of lies and deception that the Jewish propaganda machine is using these days. The operators of the machine found it necessary to resort to the multi-layered approach because people learned to look for the truth beneath the polished surface of lies that the machine was producing previously.

Two examples of the new method came early in the September 20, 2017 Avni article. Having accused Rouhani of seeing in other people his own faults, Avni took issue with him because Rouhani expressed pride in his country's armed forces and all those who defend the nation. But Avni said these were bad people because they created Hezbollah, and because Iran sends weapons to warring factions from Afghanistan to Africa.

First example: The truth is that Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in Palestine were created by Israel long before Iran had its eyes on the Levant. Israel began that process when Iran was embroiled in a long war with Iraq's Saddam Hussein.

Second example: When it comes to sending weapons to warring factions around the world, the only people caught selling weapons to both sides in a conflict were the Israelis. They were the Jewish merchants of death, caught red handed selling weapons to both the government and the rebels in Sri Lanka. They are currently suspected of doing the same thing in other places around the globe.

In addition, the people who look into Israel's finances know how much importance the central bank of Israel places on the export of weapons – much of which being American-made, and some of it containing secrets that America forbids transferring to potential enemies; a rule that Israel breaks routinely.

And so, it can be seen that the Jews who invented the trick of accusing others of the evil they see in themselves, now accuse others of doing that very thing.

In other words, when the world unveiled their trick, the Jews started accusing their opponents of practicing that very trick. That’s what Avni did accusing Hassan Rouhani of what is purely a Jewish habit.

But the new bent is so easy to detect, we are likely to see the Jews add more layers to it.

Lobotomy to erase Memories of Colonialism

The Security Council of the United Nations got busy dealing with affairs of the Middle East right after the 1967 Israeli sneak attack on Egypt. A number of related topics popped up in the debates that followed, one being the question of imperialism (then called neocolonialism) returning to Africa, Asia and Latin America. It returned, said the proponents of the idea, with the use of surrogates like Israel, and the use of mercenaries like those that invaded Cuba, as well as those that fought in Namibia, the Congo and a few other places.

Unaccustomed to hearing the West being accused of this kind of behavior by delegates of third world countries, pundits of the American mainstream media didn't know how to react, and so they didn't. But this was the time that small Jewish publications were beginning to make their presence felt in America, and their editors were enraged that the unimpeachable Israel was accused of something at all.

One publication suggested that lobotomy ought to be performed on those who revive the memory of times past when colonialism was a reality … but is no more. The mainstream media echoed that idea, and the trend became fashionable for a while. During that time, however, the opponents of the idea who participated in the debate, offered the opinion that colonialism was dead and buried, never to return in any form.

This sort of trend having a brief shelf-life, the talk about lobotomy died out quickly and remained buried for something like half a century. And then, like a zombie that just cannot stay buried, it came back to life again. But guess what, my friend, guess what! You'll find it hard to believe, but it is the West that's now accusing a former third world country of practicing “imperialism.” Unbelievable as it may sound, you have the opportunity to check it out yourself.

In fact, the trend was revived a short while ago, but surprisingly persisted to this day as you'll see when you look it up in The Washington Times. That's where Lamont Colucci published an article on September 19, 2017 under the title: “Assessing Chinese imperialism,” and the subtitle: “How China will use the One Belt, One Road”.

At no time does the article suggest that the Chinese are doing something that would be scary if done by say, Britain or Canada or Australia, for example. But what seems to scare Colucci – who apparently speaks in the name of all Western nations – is that China's natural development, and its willingness to live up to the full potential of its destiny, poses a threat to America and to the entire Western World.

What worries him is a Chinese project known as One Belt, One Road that will link China with more than sixty countries comprising two thirds the population of the planet. He does not say the project WILL threaten America or anyone else, but says it “COULD threaten American interests at every level,” also that “it COULD be the largest diplomatic, military, economic initiative of the modern age,” and that it “CAN coerce or cajole many of the third world interests”.

Colucci explains that the project will cost China between one trillion and eight trillion dollars, and will follow a land route as well as a sea route. He further explains that the land route will stretch from Singapore to Spain; and that the sea route will extend from Indonesia to Greece. What he did not mention is that Israel's leaders are doing all they can to persuade the Chinese to let the route go through Israel by building a rail line that will cross Israel to connect the Red Sea and the Mediterranean Sea.

And this is where we cannot miss the irony of Lamont Colucci complaining that the One Belt One Road project will be the backbone of a Pax Sinica representing “an alternate future where the Pax Americana is no more, and America retreats from the scene.” Why an irony? Because it was the Jews of Israel and those of America who concocted the idea of a Pax Americana. They wanted this project to be the weapon by which the Middle East could be re-colonized – this time under their dominance, as the new hegemon on the scene.

The Jews failed to achieve that goal, and now they beg the Chinese to make Israel a part of the Pax Sinica where it will be less significant than Dar-es-Salam or Djibouti or any place where the route will pass.

Perhaps those who advocated performing lobotomy on others, will now see fit to ask for lobotomy to be done on them. They'll need it to forget they once fantasized about having a Pax Americana under their control. This will be better than to live with the agonizing memory of a fantasy unfulfilled.

First the Yellow Peril, now the Persian Peril

Actually, there was one more peril between the Yellow and the Persian, which you see in the title of this piece; there was the OPEC peril.

First, the highly paid professional alarmists tried to scare the non-Asian world about a rising Asia that will turn the globe into a forced labor camp. This will be achieved, they said, with the coming together of the industrial might of Japan and the massive population of China. Hordes of them will conquer the planet, said the alarmists, as unruly as they are seen in action, participating in the Chinese Cultural Revolution that was unfolding at the time.

But then, it happened that by the time the Chinese phenomenon began to quiet down, and the Japanese economy was beginning to slow down, the OPEC nations were jacking up the price of petroleum. And so, the same alarmists got to work again telling the world that soon enough the entire planet will be working to produce petrodollars, and send them to the Arab Sheiks who will live in splendor while the rest of us will live in squalor.

But when the surplus money that the Arab Sheiks were making, selling their barrels of oil at a higher price, was deposited in “Western” bank accounts, the alarmists began to see that the peril might be someone else. Because these events coincided with the rise of revolutionary fervor in Iran, the alarmists found it convenient to point the finger at the rising Persian Peril.

That notion was steadily reinforced with the passage of time to a point where some alarmists now see the Persian Peril as the foremost peril in the world. In fact, this is the content of the article which came under the title: “The new Persian empire” and the subtitle: “Why American troops must not serve as Iran's expeditionary forces.” It was written by Clifford D. May and published on September 19, 2017 in The Washington Times.

The point that Clifford May is making begins with his denunciation of the actions taken by two former Presidents of the United States, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. The first destroyed Persia's archenemy Saddam Hussein, says Clifford May; the second withdrew America's troops from Iraq ... deployed there by W. Bush after the destruction of Saddam's forces. If by that, Clifford May is suggesting that America can never get it right when interfering in the affairs of other nations, it would be the one smart observation he made in a long time.

He goes on to say that America's blunders caused the erosion of Iraq's stability, opening the door for Iran to take its turn interfering with the internal affairs of Iraq. This happened, says the writer, when Iran's rulers started to twist arms in Baghdad. But take heart because all is not lost, he hastens to add, because the U.S. is back again “playing a key role in the defeat of the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq”.

But wait a minute; even Clifford May saw something wrong with that development. He put it this way: “If the territories taken from the Islamic State are bequeathed to Iran, American troops will have served as Iran's expeditionary forces.” And that's just the excuse he needed to segue to his favorite pastime: railing against the Iran Nuclear Deal. He says this was the American blunder that allowed the transfer of confiscated Iranian wealth back to Iran. It was a windfall, he says, that made it possible for Iran's rulers to bankroll the defense of Syria's regime, thus establish a foothold in Syria. Because of this, “Iran's imperial project is becoming a colonial project as well,” says Clifford May.

Without assigning the slightest blame to America's ill-advised activities or to Jews such as himself who provided the bad advice, Clifford May went on to make a number of false observations. He then built on them scary scenarios filled with speculations that assume the Persians are evil characters bent on hurting America. The writer began this segment of his argument with the following introduction: “Imagine what it will mean if Iran succeeds in becoming the hegemon in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen … imagine too if this empire goes on to acquire nuclear weapons...”

Having learned through bitter experience that no matter what argument he creates to support the advice that America must attack Iran, it will be demolished by a critic, he refrained this time from making a direct suggestion to that end. But he made a subtle one that went this way: “Iran's rulers represent the fulfillment of a dream of imperial rule, if the United States does not stop them, no one else will stand in their way”.

As critic, I have news for him: No one needs to anymore than did the Yellow Bellies or the Arab Sheiks.

The Road to WW III is paved with Speculations

When in the decade of the Nineteen Sixties, I started thinking seriously about the state of the world, I came across articles that were predicting the disintegration of the old Soviet Union. The consensus at the time was that if and when such moment will come, the world will go through its most dangerous phase.

The argument used to explain that reasoning went something like this: When the leaders of the Soviet Union will see their empire start going down the drain, they will not want to go alone, but want to take the world with them. Possessing the terrible weapons that they do, they will think about lashing out at the world with everything they got, and the chances are high they will do just that.

Well, it happened that a few decades later, the Soviet Union disintegrated, but its leaders did not lash out at the world as predicted. On the contrary, they asked the U.S. and Europe to help them restructure their system of governance, and specifically asked the United States to help them get over the difficulties that may pop up if they cannot secure the radioactive material they stored in many places around their vast empire.

Now, several decades later, I read an article that came under the title: “There's no easy living with nuclear-armed North Korea” and the subtitle: “Pyongyang's nuclear threat is built upon Russian and Chinese technology.” It was written by Peter Vincent Pry, and published on September 18, 2017 in The Washington Times. And so, I asked myself: Have we gone back in time?

The problem with people who come up with ideas such as these, is that they project onto others the evil they see in themselves. They speculate that the other guy will do what they would have done, were they in the shoes of that other guy. This is a reality that applies to situations on the world stage as much as it does in more mundane settings, such as the playing of office politics, for example, or the bullying that goes on in a schoolyard.

This kind of behavior has consequences that can get serious at times. It does not always happen that pressure put on someone by excessive speculation will motivate him to respond negatively, but it happens often enough that speculators must be told to cool it once in a while. That's because it can happen that the victim of speculation will become the evil he is suspected of being. If and when this happens on the world stage, the result can be catastrophic as when the allies distrusted Germany and imposed on it the Treaty of Versailles. The humiliation that resulted was such that Germany became the very thing the allies were trying to prevent.

From the available evidence, it looks like excessive speculation about North Korea has already forced that country to abandon the path taken by the Soviet Union, opting instead for the one taken by Germany. The question to ask before Korea is pushed over the edge, is how much influence the false prophets of doom, such as Peter Vincent Pry and others, will have on the foreign policy wonks and the military strategists in America?

The leaders of North Korea can still be pushed enough to decide that it is better to lash out now and be destroyed, rather than be destroyed having taken no one with them. If this will come to pass, history will place the blame on the leaders of North Korea but will not let the leaders of America off the hook either. History will most certainly blame the latter for precipitating the tragedy of war by cornering the North Koreans, giving them no alternative but to lash out at their enemies as well as those who supported them.

Doing their job, the historians of the future will try to figure how that situation came to be, and how it developed to become the tragedy that it did. They will find that the speculative streak is common to all of us, but like everything else, it can be abused and turned into a destructive tool by some of us.

Those historians will also find that endless speculation was mixed with the Jewish haggle to form a potent weapon the Jews have used to get things done their way in America. In time, speculation as a weapon was imbued so widely into the American culture, it began to distort it. The worst part is that the habit is so addictive, those that catch it cannot easily get rid of it.

This is what's working in the North Korean situation; it is also what the Jews are trying to apply to the Iran Nuclear Deal. Unless America gets back to treating humanity the way it used to see it, and not see it the way the Jews do, America will earn the “loser” label and join Israel in the pariah club of the world.

The Admission that can lead to a Peace Deal

If you ever wanted proof that when the Jewish leaders shed tears––talking about the Holocaust––they shed crocodile tears, check the meaning of the word “hackneyed.” It means (banal, commonplace, old-hat, shopworn, stock, threadbare, timeworn, tired, trite and well-worn,) according to the dictionary I consulted.

It is that Jackson Dielh, who is a columnist at the Washington Post, also happens to be a member of the mob of Jewish pundits, and an accurate reflector of the real Jewish mood. And so the best way to gauge the mood of the Jewish leaders is to catch Jackson Diehl when he has the pants of self-awareness down. And this is how you'll determine if the tears he is shedding at any moment are real, or they are of the crocodile variety.

Well, it happened that Diehl had his pants down on September 18, 2017 when he wrote his latest column; one that came under the title: “How Trump could save Palestinian statehood,” and had it published in the Washington Post. That's where you'll find him say––apparently unaware of what he was relaying––that the term “peace process,” which has been bandied about for something like two decades, expresses a “most hackneyed rhetorical theme”.

Well then, if two decades of saying 'peace process' to express the renewal of hope and the preservation of life, is hackneyed rhetoric to these people, what do you think saying 'holocaust'––a word that expresses despair and the gruesome loss of life––means to them? If it does not mean hackneyed rhetoric, it must mean something worse than that; something as offensive as death itself.

So we must ask the question: Why is it that the Jewish leaders never tire of using the 'Holocaust' word? And the answer is simple: they never tire because to shed tears over the Holocaust means the opportunity to ask for and collect compensation. In other words, talking about the Holocaust may cause them to shed fake tears, but collecting compensation afterward wipes the tears off their faces, and restores their smile.

Okay … this was easy to understand, but why is it that peace bores these people? The truth is that peace does more than bore them; it raises the specter of denying the validity of what they consider to be the essence of their religion. After all, Judaism was born the night that a group of beastly thugs murdered the babies of Egypt, looted the country and ran into the desert, aiming to repeat the performance in Palestine. Worse, the Jews say they behaved as they did because they were doing the will of God. And when you do the will of God, you are so absolutely correct; you do not even contemplate altering your behavior.

And now, thousands of years later, we find the Jews bogged down, and having to deal with the same issues that made them pariahs of the planet, and kept them in their miserable state ever since, and everywhere they went. In fact, that core issue happens to be the subject that Jackson Diehl is dealing with in his article. To make it easy for the reader to see what he means, he put it succinctly as follows: “No, this is not the time to fashion a Mideast peace deal”.

The truth is that he is only the latest pundit to say so. In fact, the order to that effect came out the boiler room of Israel's Likud Party a while ago, and the pundits have been struggling to say the same thing, each according to his or her stylistic formulation. That is, everyone was required to come up with an excuse as to why it would be a bad idea to forge a Mideast peace involving the Jews, now or in the foreseeable future … if ever.

And like the other pundits, Diehl came up with a bunch of excuses, some of which are so novel; he does not realize he shot himself in the foot suggesting them. Here is how it happened: After saying that President Trump will join the chorus of those who will declaim the urgency of settling the conflict, Diehl listed the reasons why this would be a bad idea. They are as follows:

“A Palestinian state can't happen now because neither Netanyahu nor Abbas is willing or able to agree to it. When Obama presented them with a peace framework, Netanyahu buried it in caveats and conditions, while Abbas simply refused to respond … Trump's notion to break this impasse involves using friendly Arab states such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt”.

Unaware that he had blown his case, Diehl dismissed the idea, saying that the two countries have their hands full with domestic issues at this time, and will not be ready to play their role for a long time to come. He thus recommended that Trump stop trying to broker a peace deal between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

He then added there is something that the Trump Administration can work on. It is this: Because Palestinian kids get shot to death when they do what kids everywhere do when pushed to the point of extreme despair, it is impossible to punish their dead corpses more than that. But because the hunger of Jews to punish is infinite, they want Abbas to collectively punish the parents of those kids by starving them.

Otherwise, says Diehl, the Jews will have the excuse to continue raping the Palestinian motherland like the savage and cowardly beasts they have been for half a century.

But President Trump can dismiss the Likud recommendations offhand because Jackson Diehl did what no Jew did before. He admitted that “Netanyahu buried [America's peace framework] in caveats and conditions”.

Given that peace was never attained because the Jews always torpedoed it, and blamed everyone else including the Palestinians, Trump can now use Diehl's admission to say to Israel: enough is enough. Get out of Palestine if you want America to continue talking to you.

A Historian in need of a History Lesson

Victor Davis Hanson is a historian of ancient times, so he could be forgiven for making a mistake or two when discussing the history of modern times. But when he writes an entire article based on a false representation of contemporary history, somebody ought to tell him he went too far.

Hanson wrote: “What if South Korea acted like North Korea?” an article that also came under the subtitle: “If China were threatened like America has been, war would have come already.” The article was published on September 13, 2017 in The Washington Times.

Apparently oblivious of the events that unfolded in North East Asia since the end of World War Two, Victor Hanson made assumptions and painted pictures that are absolutely false. He then constructed a theory based on those falsehoods, and put the onus on China to fix a dangerous situation he does not see as being the product––at least in part––of an American foreign policy that proved to be totally bankrupt.

To prevent us from getting confused as to America's motives, let us recall two trends proper to America which are separate from the current North Korean issue. First, succumbing to demagogic whispers from Winston Churchill, America feared the spread of Communism around the globe, and launched a program to contain the Communist world by encircling it with military bases. Second, succumbing to fantastic stories told by immigrants from Cuba, America gave the green light to invade that country. When this prompted the Soviet Union to protect Cuba by fielding nuclear missiles into it, America did not like being contained, and risked a nuclear holocaust (dubbed the Cuban missile crisis) to force the removal of the Soviet encirclement. Incidents such as these set the standard for other nations to emulate when they can.

We now look at the situation in Asia where two largely similar and almost simultaneous trends developed. Korea was divided into a Communist North and a non-Communist South. Also, Vietnam was divided into a Communist North and a non-Communist South. The French fought in Vietnam to prevent the North from conquering the South before handing the war effort to the Americans. As to Korea, it was the Americans who organized the world under a UN mandate to try and prevent the North from conquering the South.

The Americans lost the war in Vietnam and today, that country has become a unified model nation making giant strides at building a modern economy. As to the Korean theater, America managed to score a stalemate, after which it maintained a large contingent of troops in South Korea while the North remained Communist. Since then, America has been conducting military exercises that angered the North and brought the situation there close to a level approaching that of the Cuban missile crisis.

Having ignored all that history, Victor Hanson constructed what he calls a fantasy scenario in which the roles of North Korea and the South are reversed; and the roles of the United States and China are reversed. Like it or not, this is an accepted technique used by writers who want to make a point … provided they do something else. First, right after telling the story he created, Hanson should have mentioned that in the interest of having maximum effect, he ignored the real history of the region; something he did not do. Second, he should have avoided distorting the characters he created, a rule he violated so grotesquely, there was not the slightest resemblance between his fiction and the real world.

Were Hanson not a historian pretending to write history, he might have gotten away writing what would be considered a spoof on the North Korean leadership. But that was not his intention as demonstrated by the serious accusation he leveled to the effect that: “the truth of the North Korean crisis is not the assumption that China is the key to the solution, but rather that it is the root of the problem”.

Had Victor Hanson checked history before writing that article, he would have discovered a reality so startling, he might have written a different article and reached a different conclusion. It is that in the 1960s, disciplinarian North Korea looked as modern and developed as it does today, whereas permissive South Korea looked as bad as the worst slum you'll encounter anywhere in the Third World. It was estimated that the per capita income in the North was several times that of the South.

Aware that it was losing the propaganda war to the Communists, America poured billions of dollars into South Korea to build an infrastructure there, invest in manufacturing, teach its engineers and train its workforce, all of which helped the South achieve a level of industrialization that made growth in that country impressive and self-sustaining.

This done, America opened the doors of importation very wide to products made in South Korea. The result was that two generations later, the South had caught up with the level of the North, but with a difference. Whereas South Korea became a giant in the production of civilian goods, North Korea became a giant in the production of military equipment. And so, if you put a price on what the North has achieved, you'll find it to equal or surpass that of the South.

Consequently, the leaders of the North made it clear that because they are close to achieving the security they were seeking, they will devote their attention to making the civilian side of the economy grow as fast as they can.

Thus, we should now expect to see an economic miracle to happen in North Korea; one that will make Vietnam and South Korea look like purring pussycats compared to the ferocious tiger that North Korea will become.

America should be thinking of this when deciding on its next move.

Is it political Movement or organized Crime?

You can see in the latest article written by Shmuel Rosner a typical description of a crisis of identity. It came under the title: “What Anti-Semitism in America Looks Like From Israel,” but it is more than that.

The article is nothing less than the display of someone's agony as he tries to describe a mirage using terms that apply only to the physical existence of what the mirage is deceptively showing. Here, the agony is not that of the writer alone, but that of the Jews in whose name he expresses the mental torment. That article was published on September 16, 2017 in the New York Times.

A preamble of about 400 words in an article of about 1000 words sets the stage for the display of the confusion experienced by the Jews of Israel at the events which are currently unfolding in the United States of America with regard to the “Jewish” question. Buried deep in that preamble is where you'll find the key to understanding the source of Jewish misery, manifested as it was throughout space and throughout time.

The writer tells the story of Ben-Gurion explaining that “there were three types of Jews in the world before Israel was established: The Jews who lived among Muslims, who adopted Muslim customs; those of Europe who never considered themselves a part of the society in which they lived; and those of America who see themselves as immigrants like any other”.

Rosner goes on to explain that Ben-Gurion who was of European descent claimed that he never understood what he called “the Jews of the Arab world” or the Jews of America. Rosner then adds, “the truth is, even now many of us Israelis still don't.” But why is that? Well, what was wrong with Ben-Gurion; what is wrong with Shmuel Rosner and the other Israelis, is that they are looking at the mirage of a Diaspora that isn't a diaspora but a vision constructed by their imagination.

The fact is that a diaspora is made of individuals who are members of one and the same people. For example, all Vietnamese people outside Vietnam – whatever their religion or political affiliation – make up the Vietnamese Diaspora. Whereas the Jews of the Arab World were one and the same people according to that definition, the Jews of Europe were not. And they certainly were not the same as the Arab Jews.

Thus, to think of all Jews everywhere in the world as being one and the same people, is a confusion that was created by the likes of Ben-Gurion who deliberately pursued a line of intellectual dishonesty for a reason. You see a manifestation of that when you consider Ben-Gurion's saying: “the Jews who lived among Muslims, who adopted Muslim customs”.

The problem here is that Ben-Gurion refused to see all Arabs – Muslim, Jewish or Christian – as being one and the same people adopting an Arab set of customs. Instead, he chose to call the customs adopted by them, Muslim customs, and added he fails to understand why the Jews among them did not break away to adopt a “Jewish” set of customs; one that would have been alien to them. But why did Ben-Gurion want that?

It is that in order to legitimize the stealing of the national heritage of the Palestinian people (whatever their religion) Ben-Gurion was trying to replace the right of inheritance from going down the progeny – parents to children – with that of the inheritance going sideways along the line of religious conversion.

That is, because some of the ancient Hebrews were thought to be Jewish, Ben-Gurion wanted to make it so that the Land of Palestine ought to be handed to those who convert to Judaism and not to the offspring of the Palestinians who owned the land since the beginning of time. And this is the intellectual dishonesty which exposes so-called Judaism as being not a religion but something whose main preoccupation is no longer the adherence to a set of religious precepts. But if not a religion, what could present-day Judaism be?

Considering that there is an affinity we cannot deny bonding together many of the Jews around the world, we must accept Judaism as being a movement of some sort.

Considering that the Jews have a platform with planks which are amended to reflect the global situation as well as harmonize with local flavors, we cannot ignore that the movement resembles a political manifestation with local chapters that evolve in tandem with the local and the international situations as they change. We must, therefore, see Judaism as a worldwide political movement.

In consideration of all that, the choice for the Jewish leaders is to accept that reality, stop pretending they are a religion and operate like a political party, or humanity will consider them a worldwide organized crime pretending to be a religion and/or an ethnic group still trying to implement the hidden agenda that brought misery throughout time to those who carry the Jewish ID card.

Not only Israeli Leaders are disturbed

The editors of the Washington Post wrote a piece to say that “Israel's leaders are deeply disturbed.” They can say that again, but they should not have stopped here. They should have added they are themselves just as disturbed, but with a twist. Whereas the leaders of Israel are disturbed and ingeniously malicious, the editors of the Washington Post are disturbed and distressingly foolish.

These characters write for a publication called the Washington Post. That's Washington in the District of Columbia, located in the United States of America. It is not occupied Palestine-cum-Israel or even occupied America … at least not yet officially. But here they are; editors of the Post treating America as a subordinate to the Jewish masters who did something big in the Middle East so as to send a “wake-up call for Trump” that seems unaware the world is at peril, and he has the duty to do something to save it.

You can read all about this story in the piece that was written by the editors of the Washington Post under the title: “Israel's strike in Syria should be a wake-up call for Trump,” published on September 14, 2017 in the Washington Post, of course.

You'll see in that piece of work how a bunch of outgrown juvenile editors reveal themselves to be unprepared for the assignment they undertook. They did a lousy job because they lacked the natural talent, and because they neglected to gather the information that's necessary to complete the task at hand in a professional way. Here is a glaring example of a childish performance that would make a school teacher cringe, reading it in a student's paper: “Israel carried out an audacious bombing raid on a Syrian facility.” How backward!

Because terrorist organizations love to use words like “audacious” when describing operations carried out by those they train, the Israeli organization – known as the military that's in charge of carrying out hit and run operations – loves to attribute similar terms to itself. But because the Jews wish to maintain a state of deniability in case something goes wrong, they seek American jerks like the editors of the Washington Post to utter the forbidden words on their behalf. And while this goes on, Israeli officials “neither confirm nor deny” whatever garbage the jerky surrogates spew while Israel reaps the benefit of a propaganda it never pays for.

As demeaning to America as this may be, it is how the editors of the Washington Post have come to call “audacious” the non-confirmed rumors about the launch of an American-made air to ground missile, fired from an American-made warplane that was flying outside of Syria's air space, on a target said to be inside Syria. This poses an interesting question: Would a terrorist trained by the bin-Laden organization, call this operation audacious? Maybe a semi-trained teenager would, but not a fully trained professional commando ready to bring down a twin tower, for example.

Having described all that background in detail so that everyone will know who is master and who is subordinate in the Israel-America relationship, the editors of the Washington Post went on to tell America what it must learn about “Mr. Netanyahu's point of view.” They say that “the Israeli leader has spoken against Iran's steps toward turning Syria into a military base,” but nothing was done to prevent this from happening.

The problem, they say, is that “Mr. Trump has been slow to recognize that the United States has vital interests in Syria.” Perhaps, you say to yourself, but then ask: What are these interests? Out of curiosity, you comb through the article to see if there is anything linking Syrian affairs to American interests, but find no direct link at all.

What you find, however, is this: “By expanding into Syria, Iran is escalating the threat to Israel. Tehran has supplied Syria with an arsenal of up to 150,000 rockets. Adding more missiles to that and opening a new front along the Golan Heights could spark a direct conflict between Iran and Israel”.

For this reason, the editors of the Washington Post want the Trump administration to take “its own steps to block the Iranian entrenchment in Syria that Mr. Netanyahu spoke of.” And they add the standard Jewish staple: “Diplomacy might achieve some of that, but military steps should not be ruled out”.

Of course, those who know something about the history of colonialism know that the colonial powers siphoned off all the resources they could from the colonies and something else too. They drafted the boys and girls of the colonies to fight their wars for them. Well, this is what the Jews have been doing with their American colony, and that's what the editors of the Washington Post are telling Donald Trump he must prepare for.