Groping for a new Place under the Sun

Everyone has a place under the sun, and most everyone wants it to be a better place. That is true for individuals, for big and small clans; also true for big and small nations.

Of those that want a better place, some want it badly; others moderately so. What they all have in common, however, is that they constantly work on trying to better their lot, each doing it in their own way. Where the entities differ is in the set of goals each wants to achieve in the short term, as well as the medium and long terms. This makes it so that each entity ends up developing a specific method to get there.

Like everything else in life, a situation such as this creates interests for each entity that match those of others or compete against them. Most of the time, clans or nations find themselves forging complex relationships according to which they cooperate with each other in some areas, while at the same time competing against each other in other areas. At times, this creates such an awkward situation, the entities find themselves quarreling and facing the choice of settling their differences with a compromise or a confrontation.

Perhaps the most difficult situation an entity can face is that of seeing its rank on the totem pole of influence downgraded. The most difficult of all being that of the entity which used to be at the top of the heap, and now being forced to accept that someone else is forging ahead of it. In fact, this reality has been the norm throughout the history of our planet. From the ancient eras to modern times; empires rose to occupy a brilliant place under the sun only to face their own sunset, and take a lower ranking.

This is the situation that superpower America is facing at this time. It still occupies the highest position on the totem pole, but the writing is on the wall, made clearer everyday by those who jump the ship they no longer feel comfortable staying with.

An article that brings into focus America's current situation came under the title: “Is America Losing Its Credibility with the Middle East?” It was written by Amitai Etzioni and published on October 26, 2017 in the National Interest. Three days prior, Herbert London had published a piece in which he discussed the role that the Russian rival was posing. It came under the title: “Russia's ominous return to the middle East,” and the subtitle: “Putin seeks to drive a wedge between the U.S. and Egypt.” It appeared in The Washington Times.

Why has America started to decline only fifty years after its rise to the top? The short answer is that it was invaded by a parasite that took command of its functions, and has directed its resources to promote the interests of a foreign entity. Here is an example of how it happened: Speaking of America's decline, Amitai Etzioni – who is a Jew – says this: “The United States has found no way to stop this loss of influence in Iraq.” Moments later, he explains something about the Kurds, doing it in a way that reveals something he didn't mean to. Here it is: “They are the most reliable pro-Americans (next to Israel) in the region”.

That’s the way Amitai Etzioni expressed his distress that America was not treating the Kurds as well as it should. And so, he set out to give America's elites the parasitic kind of advice that promotes the interests of Israel at the expense of America.

Besides calling on America to side with the Kurds against Iraq (Israel's dream for decades) he says that for America to maintain its credibility in the world, “it should use all means available to it.” But to do what? Well, to pressure Pakistan, for example; also to use India as a means to contain China … and so on.

When the Jews first introduced this kind of ideas to America's elites, they sounded so fresh and “out of the box,” the Americans took to them, but then didn't know how to shed them when the ideas proved worse than ineffective – when they proved destructive to America's interests.

You can tell how destructive they have been when you decipher the message that's buried in Herbert London's article. The author describes the rapprochement between Egypt and Russia as “an astonishing development considering that Egypt and Russia opposed one another in Syria”.

This means that, unlike America – whose Jewish message to others boils down to “you're totally with us or you're against us,” – Russia does not seek to “marry” other nations; it only seeks to work with them.

In fact, Herbert London even quotes the President of Egypt as making clear that “Egypt's foreign policy would not be dictated by others.” But London goes on to make the mistake of suggesting that the Egyptians do not “understand Putin's willful deception,” despite the fact that “Russian ambitions are transparent”.

And so, in apparent repudiation of the saying that goes, “don't try to teach daddy how to make babies,” London proceeds to recommend that “it is incumbent on the U.S. State Department to convey [to the Egyptians] the real motives of the Russians”.

What will they think of next to compound their juvenile sort of self-deception?

Tears of Deception to resurrect Colonialism

Would you believe it if someone said that John McCain dreams of turning America back into a collection of colonies again? Most likely not, you'd say.

Well then, would you believe it if John McCain himself said he dreams of turning America into a collection of colonies again? You'd probably say he is joking, and dismiss the whole thing as a prank.

Well then, would you look into the various statements that John McCain has made orally and in writing over the years, and admit that he'd turn America into a collection of colonies if the evidence points in that direction? Show me, you'd say. Okay, I say; I'm gonna show you.

Recall, to begin with, that speaking as a matter of principle, John McCain came out in favor of the underdogs in Ukraine and Syria being given the right sort of weapons to fight those that have military superiority over them. But he never extended the same kind of principled sentiments to the Palestinians who are not just underdogs fighting an Israeli top dog equipped with the most lethal weapons in America's arsenal; they are like newborn puppies being crushed under the colossal wheels of a Jewish-ridden American-produced most lethal military technology.

Recall as well that not only did John McCain say he was speaking the language of principled morality, but also speaking the language of the heart because, as he often said, it broke his heart to see the children of Ukraine, Crimea and Syria suffer because those who defend them have not the means to protect them adequately.

However, John McCain never used the language of the heart when speaking of the Palestinian babies who were mutilated or annihilated when guided missiles – made in America and used by Israeli pilots – blew up Palestinian homes in the middle of the night while the babies and their mothers were asleep or engaged in breastfeeding or in changing diapers.

Look what else John McCain is saying at this time. You'll find his latest pronouncements in an article he wrote under the title: “We need a Strategy for the Middle East,” published on October 25, 2017 in the New York Times. You'll notice that the word “strategy for the Middle East” was used not just in the title, but several more times both at the start and the end of the article.

Do you know what that means, my friend? It means that John McCain has adopted the Judeo-Israeli approach of saying to America: “Keep your hands off the Middle East – specifically the West Bank of occupied Palestine – where Israel has the upper hand,” and of saying simultaneously: “Get back into the Middle East, America, where Israel has messed up so badly, you'll have to light-up the place ablaze so that the Jews may start the horrific cycle all over again”.

This time, John McCain is not shedding tears for the children of Crimea or Syria; he is shedding them for a Kurdistan that seeks to be born but will be aborted––as he and his Jewish puppeteers claim––by what they say is an abortionist named Iran. But how do they come up with ideas such as these?

The answer is that the early Jewish arguments designed to draw America into the Middle East with the accusation that the Iranians were seeking to establish a land bridge extending from Iran to the Mediterranean to annihilate Israel, had fallen on the deaf ears of an American public that's preoccupied with its own affairs more than Israel's colonial ambitions in the Middle East. And so, the Jews got McCain to sing a different song on their behalf.

To be sure, McCain continues to rely on the demagogic formula of scaring the public to get things done for Israel as you can see in the condensed passage that follows, even if he does not mention Israel by name:

“Anti-American groups are driving American influence out of the Middle East; doing so by supporting terrorists and militias, and deploying military technology that makes it dangerous for the US to maintain its presence. That's why Americans need to care about what's going on in the Middle East; why we need to stick with our friends, like the Kurds”.

Does he really believe that? No, he does not. What he's doing, however, is advocate the use of American power to implement Israel's twin goals of breaking the nations of the region into small cantons Israel could swallow in due course. In addition, he wants America to keep countries like Iran from frustrating Israel's neo-colonial schemes it has prepared for the region.

When you put it all together, you find that John McCain's tears are fake. You also discover that the only principle motivating him is the use of unprincipled arguments to help Israel implement its colonial ambitions in the Middle East.

Surely however – though unprincipled – John McCain cannot be so stupid as to miss the reality that every time the Jews have tried to implement a demonic scheme with American help, they failed abroad but succeeded to implement a similar scheme in America.

It means that the Jews will colonize America before they'll come close to colonizing any place in the Middle East other than the West Bank. In fact, if McCain is honest with himself, he'll see that America is already a colony more in the grip of Jewish hands than is the West Bank of occupied Palestine.

From welcome Policeman to coercive Bully

If at first it is difficult to discern how much hypocrisy exists in the sayings and doings of hustlers, it becomes easy to detect that hypocrisy as well as the ramifications that could resulted from it, when the hustlers lose the argument, and the scheme they were developing becomes unmasked.

In fact, a loss of this kind just happened to the hustlers that were pushing for another war in the Middle East under the guise of saving the region from a future they warned will be dominated by Iran. The real reason for the hustlers' warning, however, was that they feared Iran will deny Israel that privilege; a scheme they had been working on very hard for very long.

When the hustlers saw their scheme evaporate in thin air, they lamented loudly. In so doing, they exposed their dirty linen for all to see, and did something else. They blamed their loss on their opponents, unleashing a severe diatribe against them, which is the standard method used by hustlers to lick their wounds and console themselves while engaged in regret and self-pity.

You can see all that in the latest article written by Matthew RJ Brodsky – a piece that might entertain you – and you'll see something more important. You'll see clues as to how America was transformed from a welcome policeman of the world to a spurned coercive bully … all in the span of a half century. And that's something that will nourish your intellect. The article came under the title: “On the Left, the Missing Debate over the Iran Deal,” published on October 26, 2017 in National Review Online.

To transit from expressing Right Wing lamentation and self pity to attacking the Left Wing, Brodsky brought up the subject of President Trump deciding to remain in the Iran nuclear deal for now. He says this will diminish the probability that Mr. Trump will confront Iran, and blames the setback on the Left. He explains that the latter's opinion makers made it possible for Mr. Obama to squander the “leverage” America had to force Iran to change its ways. This encouraged the Islamic Republic to go forward with its scheme to dominate the region, he says, and there is nothing America can do now precisely because it no longer has the necessary leverage over Iran.

And there lies an important clue as to how America was transformed from being the welcome policeman it was in every neighborhood on the globe to being the hated coercive bully it is now in the eyes of just about everyone. “Leverage” being the modern code word, referring to the nineteenth century mentality of resolving foreign issues with the use of gunboat diplomacy, Brodsky mentioned “lack of leverage” six times to explain how in his view, the Left Wing handicapped America. The following is a compilation of those sayings:

“They claimed they reached the best agreement, having exhausted the limits of U.S. leverage … The agreement requires fixing, but 2015 was the time to do it – before parting with America's leverage … No, Obama didn't lack the leverage – he lacked the will to demand a better deal … America's lack of leverage today stems not from the ticking clock that started two years ago … America's lack of leverage today is a result of the decisions Obama made at that time … If the choice boils down to one between war and acquiescence because the U.S. lacks leverage, it will be a result of the bet Obama placed on a flawed deal of his making”.

And this is where you can see the mechanism by which America diminished itself in the eyes of the world. It embarked on a double-headed mistake; one being that America copycatted the method of colonial powers when, in fact, its own inclination was never to colonize another nation. Worse, America copycatted an anachronism that had been despised the world over, and rejected more than a century ago even by those who practiced it.

But who was it that transformed America from the welcome policeman that it was, to the hated bully it has become? Here – from Brodsky's article – is a reminder as to how this happened: “The approach was developed in the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), and it involves a strategy called 'decertify, pressure, and fix.' Mark Dubowitz of FDD recently wrote that the president's choice moved the debate from keep it or nix it to fix it or nix it”.

And you know what, my friend? Hundreds of this kind of shibboleths are developed all the time by the “New-York/Tel-Aviv Axis of Perpetual War” to stand as doctrines, and be fed to America's elites. In fact, FDD sits at the American end of that Axis. It sends American intelligence to the Likud party which sits at the Israeli end. In return, FDD receives instructions on what to do next. And the instructions are always: advocate war, war, war.

How Evil makes a Virtue of immoral Deeds

Only someone that's truly dumb––such as the leaders of the most backward of terror groups––would say they commit the terror they do because it pleases them, or because they feel they are better than those on whom they inflict their terror.

Everyone else uses the one excuse that's universally accepted for inflicting pain on someone else: the claim of self-defense against the evil deeds of others. This claim also extends to cover protecting those who cannot defend themselves against the attacks of a third party.

To illustrate all that, think of someone punching a neighbor in the face, and the latter complaining to the police. The puncher will not argue that he did what he did because it pleases him. He'll say he was defending himself against the neighbor's aggression, or that he was defending a child against the neighbor … whether or not the neighbor was threatening him or threatening the child.

In fact, something to this effect was the excuse once used by the Nazis, the Fascists, the Pol-Potists, the Rhodesians, the apartheid South Africans and now the Zionist Jews who live in Israel or elsewhere. They all said then, and the Jews continue to say that they are defending their people against attacks unleashed by others.

They all lost that argument eventually, including the Jews who were proven to be the aggressors in every case. In fact, they were not protecting themselves or someone else, but were killing and robbing peaceful neighbors, many of whom had not the means to defend themselves, let alone attack an Israel that's armed to the teeth.

When the Palestinians that lived under the heinous crime of occupation for several generations took their case to the United Nations where such matters are resolved, they met not with reasoned arguments as to why they must remain under Israeli domination, but collided against the inexplicable American veto that continues to keep them from enjoying the freedom everyone else in the world takes for granted.

The Palestinians studied America's behavior and learned the horrible reality that the Federal and State governments of the Republic are a world apart from the populations they govern. Worse, the Palestinians discovered that the politicians take their instructions, not from the American people, but from the Jewish lobby.

And so, the Palestinians did the logical thing of taking their case to the American people, asking them to vote with their pocketbook––as is the custom in healthy democracies––thus decide for themselves what must be done. The Palestinians did not ask for a resolution of the occupation of Palestine; they only asked the people of America to pronounce themselves on the matter of Palestinian slave labor being used to make product sold in America, thus produce profit for the Jews who own the businesses.

So, guess what happened, my friend. The Zionist Jews, working hand in hand with the Jewish lobby in America, did what others before them––namely the Nazis, the Fascists, the Pol-Potists, the Rhodesians and the apartheid South Africans––did. They commanded the State governments of the American Republic to pass laws that force the people of their states to live not the way they decide for themselves, but the way that the Jews tell them to.

Having lost the argument that such a move is meant to protect the Israeli people against the non-existent aggression of their enemies, the Jews came up with the notion that the move will protect the American taxpayers from their own decisions. Translation: The Jews know what's good for the American people more than the Americans know what's good for them.

You can read all about that in the article which came under the title: “The warped bias of anti-Israel boycotts” and the subtitle: “Why anti-boycott, divestment and sanctions laws are moral and constitutional.” It was written by Paul Miller and published on October 26, 2017 in the Washington Times.

Here is a compilation of the pertinent passages in that piece: “The states are saying, we don't have to subsidize your discrimination with taxpayer money. For a government entity, tolerating BDS is no different than tolerating racism, sexism or homophobia. The only thing the anti-BDS legislation does is protect the taxpayer from becoming complicit in hate speech and anti-Semitism”.

The problem with this argument is that “racism, sexism and homophobia,” were never opposed on the grounds that tolerating them amounts to being subsidized with taxpayer money ... because it is not. Instead, they were and are opposed on constitutional grounds because all those living in America are deemed equal and enjoy equal protection regardless of their race, gender or sexual orientation.

However, this protection does not extend to foreigners (Israelis) living in foreign countries (Israel and occupied Palestine). Thus, if an American politician decides, for whatever reason, that it suits him or her to stand with one side (Israel) or the other side (Palestine) in this foreign dispute, all they are allowed to do is spend their own time convincing the population to see things the way they do.

What a politician cannot do is use official time to work for a foreign entity that's embroiled in a dispute with another foreign entity. To do so is a dereliction of duty. To go further than that and use the instruments of government to force the American people to live according to the dictates of a foreign entity is a criminal offense that can rise to the level of treason.

Let these politicians resign their posts and campaign against BDS if they feel so strongly about it. Or let them spend time in jail to knock some sense into their heads.

And let these characters know that the sense their heads need more than anything else is this: If it is anti-Semitic to side with the Palestinians against the Israelis who claim to be Europeans of Caucasian descent; it is even more anti-Semitic to side with these European Jews against the Palestinians who are the most authentic Semitic Arabs alive today.

The Difference between Consent and Duress

Except in a small number of cases, almost all contracts entered into by two or more parties exclude mentioning that the agreement is entered into freely by parties of sound mind, all of whom consenting to every provision in the agreement. That's because it is assumed that such is the case.

The exception happens in cases like those of near-end of life for example, when a person transfers wealth or gives power of attorney to someone, and conditions exist that could cast doubt as to whether the transfer was done freely and not under duress, or when the donor was of sound mind. To give extra legal strength to such an agreement, witnesses other than the lawyers or the moderator involved in drafting it, are asked to witness it thus add to the credibility that it reflects the true wishes of the donor.

We need to keep these notions in mind as we go through the article that came under the title: “Move the Embassy to Jerusalem and Promote Peace,” and the subtitle: “Such a move would make clear that the U.S. supports Israel's claim to the city's Western part.” It was written by Daniel B. Shapiro and published on October 25, 2017 in the Wall Street Journal.

The reason why it is worth spending time discussing this article is that it was written by a former American ambassador to Israel who is currently a visiting fellow at an Israeli think tank. This means that, given Israel's manner of communicating with the intelligentsia as well as the Jewish lobby in America, this can only be considered a high level Israeli message sent to all those concerned. And the message that's reflected would have to be the maximalist position with which Israel's leaders are opening their argument. They are putting it out there to rally the troops and nudge them to pressure the Trump administration to accept the argument as is.

Of course, the Palestinians too will bring to the table their own maximalist position, and the give-and-take between the parties will begin, with the representatives of the United States acting as mediator, lawyers, witnesses, counselors and what have you. If and when this happens, it will not be easy at this time to guess how the overall discussion will go, or how the Jewish pundits in America will react.

But there is one thing you can be certain of. It is that the demand for the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state will cause a great deal of brouhaha. It will consist of empty talk using undefined terms to say nothing – and yet will accuse the Palestinians of not being serious negotiators. The reason given for leveling such accusation will be that the Palestinians refuse to acknowledge a harmless truth.

In fact, this is why I started the article by defining the word “consent.” My experience with Jewish debating habits tells me that the Jews will conflate the word “consent,” which means free will, with the word “duress,” which means coerce, and will accuse the Palestinians of negotiating in bad faith. Why? Because the Palestinians refuse to accept what they see as the plant of a Jewish booby trap in the agreement. The Jews will then pressure the Americans to coerce the Palestinians – under some kind of subtle threat – to give consent to a provision that no one has ever given under duress or freely or willingly.

Planting booby traps in legislation and giving the President the option to wave them on the condition that he reports to the so-called people's assembly, makes the Executive – not co-equal to the Legislature – but makes the President a faithful servant of the Jews and not of the American people. How so? It is so because the Jews plant booby traps in the law to extend to the Executive Branch the control they have over the Legislative Branch. That's because in every chain of command, the subordinate always reports to the boss.

Look what they did to the resolution on Jerusalem, the one on the Iran nuclear deal and the countless other resolutions which are Israel-specific. Now they wish to replicate this performance on the global stage so that they can control the world the way they do the American Congress, and hope to do the American Executive.

In consequence of all that, the United States of America as mediator and witness to the negotiations, must adopt the position that if the Jews have one or more specific things they want to accomplish with a provision in the agreement that has the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state, they should spell out those things. They will be debated one by one, and adopted or rejected, each on its own merit.

This must be the way to proceed with this matter rather than ask the Palestinians to accept a nebulous statement; one that will give the Jews the right to interpret it anyway they want, anytime they choose in the future.

To let the Jews have it their way would be like giving the key to your daughter's bedroom to Harvey Weinstein, and hope he'll behave the way that Mother Theresa would have.

Not a fat chance! Not a prayer!

What separates Civilization from Savagery

When you have two pathways for achieving the same goal; one voluntary and the other coercive, civilization will invite you to choose the voluntary way, whereas savagery will nudge you to choose the coercive way.

Of course, all cases are not so perfect as to offer a clear choice between the two possible pathways. For this reason, conditions, caveats and other factors are taken into consideration when weighing a decision as to which pathway will make the better choice. The following real life examples should help illustrate these concepts.

Example 1: Four Arab countries were unhappy with the conduct of Qatar, another Arab country. They asked the leaders of Qatar to change their ways but the pleas were ignored. And so, the four countries severed relations with Qatar knowing that this will make life a little more difficult for Qatar without troubling the population too much given that the country is extremely rich. It will provide the necessary goods and services for its people, though at a higher cost to the treasury of the regime.

The response of the four Arab countries to the conduct of Qatar is a classic example of Arab civilization in practice. The four countries warned Qatar and gave it a chance to remedy the situation. When Qatar did not respond favorably, the four took measures to pressure Qatar; a gesture meant to show they were serious. And they will maintain this posture as long as necessary to give Qatar the time to change its ways voluntarily, doing so gradually to save face by not appearing to capitulate under outside pressure.

Example 2: When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, the Arab League asked him to withdraw his troops, but he refused. Because it was clear there was nothing more they could do to convince him that he should withdraw voluntarily, they decided to employ a coercive method. To that end, they entered into a military alliance with the United States of America, and forced the Iraqi army out of Kuwait. This too was civilized conduct – even if coercive – because force was used as a last resort, was proportional to the offense, and did not go beyond pushing the invader back to his territory, stopping there despite calls to invade Iraq.

Example 3: Having learned his lesson, Saddam Hussein made sure not to violate any rule that would bring calamity on his country or his regime again. He also took all necessary measures to ascertain that the world knew he had nothing to hide, and the world was satisfied. The exception were the Jews of Israel; those of America and everywhere else in the world, who wanted to see the destruction of Iraq the same way that they want to see the destruction of every neighbor of Israel. To satisfy this insatiable hunger for horror, they pulled all the tricks they had developed over the centuries to convince America it must destroy Iraq. And America did.

The mentality powering the Jews who attacked unarmed Lebanon twice, attacked helpless Gaza three times, teamed up with France and Britain to attack Egypt, and convinced America to attack Iraq, is a savage and coercive mentality. It is proper to the Jews who do not seek to resolve conflicts they may have with others. What they'll do instead, is cower and play dead if they know they are outmatched. They'll maintain this posture till they can develop the means to crush the neighbor, or team up with a “friend” more powerful than they, and do the crime together. Better still, they'll try to entice the friend to go it alone and do the crime for them in exchange for a smile and a pat on the back. Just ask the American Congress.

These examples trace a clear demarcation line between the civilized Arab and the savage Jew. But things can get more complicated for someone trying to judge a situation involving an extra player. An example of this came in the form of an article written by Clifford D. May under the title: “The Kurdish test” and the subtitle: “Iran's mullahs are betting that trump, like Obama, will choose appeasement.” It was published on October 24, 2017 in The Washington Times.

The author makes his point in the first sentence of the article. It is this: “In a just world, the Kurds would have a state of their own,” and he sets out to develop the case. Our purpose being to judge which pathway – the civilized or the savage – Clifford May is using, we do not dwell on the merits of the case, but concentrate on the mentality that's reflected by his logic.

Here is what he says: “To make America great again requires demonstrating that America is the best friend and the worst enemy any nation can have ... It is essential that Mr. Trump make clear that any advance on Erbil will be met with stiff sanctions and, if necessary, force”.

The fact that he threatened force does not necessarily mean he chose the savage pathway of the Jews. What we must do, therefore, is try to determine if he had sufficient reasons to make that choice. And so, we comb through the article where we find the following:

“When Americans invaded Iraq, the Kurds greeted them as liberators. Nowhere in the so-called Muslim world will you find a people more pro-American. Iran's rulers are testing Mr. Trump. They are betting that, despite the tough talk, he won't have the stomach to do what is necessary to frustrate their ambitions”.

What is Clifford May saying here? He is saying that America should threaten Iraq and its ally Iran, with force if they don't let the Kurds breakaway because the Kurds seem to like America – at least for now. If America does that and gets away with it, it will become great in the eyes of others because they will guess that America has the qualities of being a generous friend or a fearsome enemy. And that is sufficient reason to “Shock and Awe” Iraq again, and do the same thing to Iran.

No, that's not the pathway of the civilized Arabs; it is the pathway of the savage Jews.

Impossible doctrinaire Positions sinking the US

What is glaring about America's repeated failures in matters of foreign policy is that following its military victories in the Second World War, America was taken advantage of by so-called allies whose purpose was to serve their own interests and nothing else. To make it look like their interests were America's interests; they formulated fake doctrines and turned them into catchphrases they dangled in front of America's naïve leaders.

First came Winston Churchill's description of the Soviet Union as “a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma,” which prompted America to set-up military bases around the globe to contain a dangerous behemoth it though was in the making. Then came the French “Domino theory” according to which the fall of Vietnam to the Communists would cause all neighboring states to fall like domino chips. Then came Yitzhak Shamir's cry: “Zey know nossing about za damacracy,” which prompted the Americans to bomb and destroy Arab and Muslim countries like a maniac possessed – not by one – but a full tribe of satanic warlocks.

The cumulative effect of these failures has been that generation after generation, people around the globe developed unflattering ideas about America. Little by little, they came to view the ills they were seeing at home and abroad as the result of American crimes. And despite the fact that America is innocent of committing the heinous crime of colonialism, the people that suffered under colonial rule continue to interpret every American intervention in their affairs as a colonial impulse.

Worse, the misconceptions about America became even more exaggerated when the colonially minded Jews took over the American information apparatus. This informal institution comprises the so-called free press, the government publications, the political pronouncements and the speeches given by all kinds of officials. Because the Jewish effort in this realm is thorough, no one on the planet escapes hearing an American – a Jew or a gentile – say something offensive, insulting or threatening to them.

An example of what appears in America's free press and noted around the world, is the article which came under the title: “The very good reason U.S. troops are in Niger,” and the subtitle: “That part of Africa is a hotbed of terror groups, and we need to confront them.” It was written by Bridget Johnson and published on October 23, 2017 in the New York Daily News.

This article is developed around the doctrine of “We fight them over there so that we don't have to fight them over here.” It was popularized by the Jewish speechwriters of George W. Bush who stuffed it in his mouth at every convenient occasion. But like everything that's authored by the Jews, the formulation of the sayings and what they meant to accomplish were two different things. In fact, the intent was to scare the American people, and cause them to acquiesce to American troops being deployed in distant lands.

The effect has been that youngsters in Europe and America––who didn't think they had “a skin in a game” they know nothing about––suddenly heard a different message. They heard the President of the United States tell them this was a global struggle, mounted by youngsters who do not like the way that the planet is governed, and wish to change the system everywhere. Think about it, my friend, what can sound more romantic to the ears of a kid that might have been contemplating suicide out of boredom? The result is that many decided to join the effort, the same way that youngsters of different eras joined WW I, WW II, the various Latin American wars, the Spanish War … you name it.

Now look how Bridget Johnson handled her article, beginning with a title that purports to explain why American troops are in Niger. She goes on to quote the head of Africa Command who said that the US forces are trying to ensure that terrorist groups do not move into the American homeland. Right there, my friend; right there – this is a powerful enticement to those in the homeland, who were never interested in the subject, to feel so challenged, they decide to prove that the general is dead wrong.

Adding fuel to the fire, Bridget Johnson reassures those tempted to join the fray that if they do, they will not be alone. Look how easy and exciting she makes her invitation sound to young ears: “There are the direct links between terrorism in Africa and operatives in the United States”.

Lest someone – anywhere in the world – believe they have to be born Muslim to qualify, she tells them they don't have to be Muslim to fight for the good cause. She even tells them they'll find proof to that effect in an ISIS video message that shows new recruits being drafted in the Congo, “which is only 10% Muslim but lawless enough to entice extremists”.

Finally, Bridget Johnson gets to reveal her intent, and makes her recommendation. Given that the current administration is inclined to squander less of its resources in foreign lands, devoting them to its people at home instead, Johnson tells the administration that, “extremism thrives in isolationism. It is foolish to assume that terror organizations can be contained if left to thrive a continent away”.

Translation: Continue to implement the George W. Bush doctrine because it has served Israel so well during all those years, it will be a shame to end it now.

A Frame of Mind fashioned in the Sewer

If you want a definition for what it means to have a frame of mind fashioned in the sewer, here is one:

While Israel is occupying a country named Palestine, Jews everywhere argue for America not to interfere, as it is trying to do with the effort to help forge a peace deal between it and the Palestinians. The reason given is that the idea poses a danger to the security interests of Israel.

And while this argument is repeated by the Jews over and over again, another parallel argument, also articulated by Jews, has it that America is obligated to interfere everywhere in the Arab and Muslim worlds without reservation. Why? Because this is in the security interests of Israel.

Now, my friend it is up to you to judge who has a frame of mind that is fashioned more deeply in the sewer. Is it the Jews who keep articulating such double standard positions for America to embrace? Or is it the American officials who listen to the Jews and incorporate their advice in the decisions they take, thus make the same fatal mistakes over and over again?

Now look at the latest example of Jewish advice to America, and be prepared to scream with rage. The example came in the form of an editorial written under the title: “Trump shouldn't repeat Obama's mistake in Iraq and Syria,” published on October 21, 2017 in the Washington Post.

You'll catch the editors moan in the first paragraph of the editorial about America not meeting the “complex challenges in Iraq and Syria,” and doing so “at the expense of the U.S. allies.” You'll also catch them groan that: “if there is a countering American strategy, it isn't evident.” And so, you want to know who may be the allies that the editors feel are worth groaning for and moaning about.

You'll find the answer in the last two paragraphs of the article where Israel and only Israel is mentioned – not once, but three times. And of course, when the interests of Israel are mentioned, no editorial writer in America escapes the imperative of warning that if Israel's needs are not met, there will be dire consequences. Here they are in the words of the Post editors: “A failure by the United States to defend its ally will lead only to more war, the rise of new terrorist threats and, ultimately, the necessity of more U.S. intervention”.

The obvious question to ask is this: Speaking for the Jewish establishment as they always do, what do the editors of the Washington Post mean when they say that failure by the United States to defend its ally will lead to more war? Taken at face value, this sentence makes no sense. That's because if we assume that someone will attack Israel, a state of war will have existed whether or not America decides to defend Israel.

But if we do not take the sentence at face value, and we assume that the Jews are warning America that Israel will attack someone to force America to come rescue Israel, the sentence begins to make sense. And there is a name for this kind of behavior; it is called blackmail. In fact, this is not the first time that Israel engaged in this kind of criminal behavior. It did it during the negotiations that led to the Iran nuclear deal when it threatened to attack Iran knowing how decisively it will be crushed, thus force the American Congress to howl the demand that the Administration rush to rescue Israel from annihilation.

Understanding this part of the logic behind the editorial sheds a great deal of light on what else the editors are trying to communicate. Look at this passage: “Left out of this new order is Israel, whose objections to Iran's entrenchment in Syria were brushed aside by Russia. While Trump's disavowal of the Iranian nuclear accord pleased Netanyahu, there is no sign of U.S. intent to arrest the Iranian threat to Israel in Syria”.

That is, when Netanyahu traveled to Russia where he met Vladimir Putin and tried to blackmail him in that same manner, Putin told Netanyahu to go suck an egg. Instead of doing just that, Netanyahu decided to take the American President for sucker, and set out to blackmail him using the method he told his followers helps Israel pull off these things.

Here is how the famed Netanyahu method was put to work on this occasion: Netanyahu recruited the editors of the Washington Post and gave them the task of leading the mob of Jewish pundits into echo repeating Israel's new demands … and keep at it till they get results.

So the question is this: Will President Trump fall into the Netanyahu trap, or will he escape it and save America from adding to its pile of Jewish fabricated woes?

Netanyahu is positing that if America does not bomb Iran, Israel's strategic interests will be harmed. But Trump knows that if he bombs Iran, America's strategic interests will be harmed. It is one or the other.

To quote a French saying: entre les deux mon coeur balance. And so the question: In whose favor will Donald Trump decide?

When Rapists ask for a second Chance

Do you want to know what it feels like when the tube that's carrying bile to your stomach is made to burst, and the entire load of acid spills into your system?

Do you want to know what it feels like when a pedophile rapist looks you in the eye and asks for the umpteenth time to be given a second chance to work on healing the wounds he keeps inflicting on his victims?

If your answer is yes to any of these questions, read the Washington Post editorial that came under the title: “It's time for the U.S. to make a fresh start in South Sudan,” published on October 20, 2017. You'll feel sick being reminded that these are the people whose mob and echo chamber worked relentlessly to bring about the horror that has unfolded in South Sudan, leaving a situation as dire as any hellish place on this planet.

These are the people who failed to pull off their brand of crime against humanity in Darfur, causing much suffering in the Western part of Sudan, but apparently not enough of it to satisfy their hunger for being entertained by the sight of human suffering. And so they turned their attention to both the Eastern part of the country and its Southern part.

They failed to make gains in the East, and so they called on their “big guns” at the Holocaust Memorial in Washington, and on their friends in Hollywood to help them do it to the South. They all went there, taking with them their pedophile sidekicks, and worked to arrange for the horror to take roots. They did so by planting false stories in publications of the Washington Post ilk, about Muslims being responsible for what the Jewish puppeteers of America and their Evangelical puppets were doing in South Sudan.

Having filled their hearts with the joy of being entertained by the horror, but fearing that the show is coming to an end, they started to plan for the cycle to be renewed and maintained for as long as possible. Thus, the same sort of people who publicly wished for the civil war in the Levant to go on forever, are now doing their part to see that the civil war in South Sudan will go on forever. What they want most is that they be entertained by the sight of blood and gore and human suffering in Africa. They want to engineer the kind of spectacle that sets off bombs of joy in their torsos and their bellies.

Because the people that brought you the horror of Libya are too busy trying to replicate it in Kurdistan, they found it necessary to delegate the task of fueling the civil war in South Sudan to the editors of the Washington Post and those like them in other publications. Thus, what you see in the Post's latest editorial is a lamentation – not that the civil war may start again in South Sudan – but that the civil war has abated.

Quick, quick, quick, they cry out to America. They ask it to get involved so that confusion may reign again, and puppeteers from the Jewish den of self-appointed murderous leaders, as well as their beastly Evangelical puppets will again find each other. They also call on the circus-like creatures of Hollywood to come and bring with them their pedophile sidekicks – so that all may stage another horror show in South Sudan.

Look what the demons of hypocrisy say in the first paragraph of their editorial: “Responsibility for this catastrophe rests on the shoulders of two men who led South Sudan to independence in 2011 and then squandered their legacy on war and enriching themselves.” No it wasn't the two Sudanese men (who later became President and Vice-President of the new country) that agitated for independence. They only served as tools in the hands of the Jewish puppeteers, the Evangelical puppets, the circus-like creatures of Hollywood and their pedophile sidekicks. And it was all of these that advertised, financed and led the breakaway movement.

The civil war is over because the faction that followed the Vice President lost, and he fled the country. Instead of giving a detailed account of what happened that brought the situation to a much appreciated end, the editors of the Washington Post pinned the war on the two men and called on America to intervene. But intervene now that the war has ended? Intervene to do what?

Well, the editors want the mischief makers out there to concoct a reason to bring the loser back into the country, and give him a chance to restart the civil war. Unlike those who expressed delight that Arabs were killing each other in Syria, the editors of the Post are not saying they loved the spectacle of the civil war, or that they want to see it restarted. Instead, they say they want to save Sudanese lives.

And they are as credible as a pedophile rapist looking you in the eye and asking for the umpteenth time to be given a second chance to work on healing the wounds he keeps inflicting on his victims.

And you feel like calling on mamma grisly to come and practice the art of reloading.

But being the civilized person that you are, you don't call on mamma grisly. Instead, you express your rage – not by kicking the cat – but banging on the keyboard of your computer.

Railroading the US to the Quicksand of Haggle

All we could do up to now when studying America's predicament at being caught in the never-ending quicksand of haggle that keeps it paralyzed, was to reverse engineer each situation and try to make an educated guess – going backward – as to how the process might have started.

Lucky for us, we now have an example that shows how the process actually starts. It deals with a situation that the world wants to see resolved but the Jews want to see paralyzed. The example came in the form of an article written under the title: “The U.S. Role in Palestinian Reconciliation: Three Scenarios.” It was undoubtedly authored by a committee of Jews, but was signed for the collective by David Makovsky. It was published on October 20, 2017 on the website of the Washington Institute.

The blurb, written in Italic, at the head of the article summarizes the purpose of the article. It begins with “for now...” and goes on to blame the Palestinians for something they did not do but the Jews wish they did. It goes like this: “For now, Palestinian officials will likely [note the adjective] pursue half-measures rather than a true unity government...” Don't expect to see a definition for the terms “half-measures” or “true” in the article.

Still, the Makovsky writing committee goes on to suggest what Washington must do next. Here it is in its own words: “Washington may find limited value in a formal statement.” Translation: Why don't you, America, forget about the whole thing, and go play golf or something. Well, this is the first indication that, true to form, the Jews want to paralyze the current situation and maintain it where it stands.

But what was it that put the Jews in this frame of mind, anyway? Here is Makovsky's answer: “Following the Fatah-Hamas reconciliation talks, the Trump administration reiterated its commitment to the 'Quartet principles' of 2006.” The quartet being the United Nations, the European Union, the United States and Russia, the Jews have realized that their only chance to scuttle the initiative would be to convince the Americans it is not worth pursuing this specific initiative. In addition, if they cannot make Israel provoke a situation that will cause America to walk away from the initiative, they want at least, the ability to place America on the rail track of perpetual Judeo-Yiddish yakety-yak.

Despite the fact that rail tacks have only two rails, Makovsky and his committee set out to contrive three possible scenarios for the Quartet to choose from. Even if the three were suggested by Jews, the author of the article tattles to blame the Palestinians for the outcome that may result. Here is how he does that: “The U.S. position would be relevant if Abbas and Hamas actually want to create a coalition government. This seems unlikely; other scenarios bear considerations”.

Makovsky goes on to discuss the three scenarios, putting each one under a rubric of its own. They are: (1) “Abbas wants to govern, Hamas wants the 'Hezbollah model.'” (2) “Neither side is serious.” (3) “Neither breakthrough nor breakdown.” And then there is the 'Conclusion' which is the one most preferred by Jews. It came under the rubric, “Washington Waits,” hopefully for an eternity.

So you want to know what's in those scenarios, and the answer is absolutely nothing worth knowing. They are piles of name-dropping, conjecture and the attribution of false motivation to Palestinians. In short, they are the stuff that interminable Jewish haggling is made of.

But they all have one and the same purpose. They are a desperate, last minute Hail Mary attempt, to convince America it must not even make the first step of participating in the initiative aimed at bringing peace to Palestine. So here is how each scenario ends: (1) “A U.S. statement on Palestinian reconciliation efforts would lose much of its punch. (2) “A U.S. statement would not be impactful.” (3) “A U.S. statement would be tangential to this scenario.” In simple English, this means: Whatever happens, America, don’t work for peace because to us, Jews, peace is more painful than crucifixion.

Under the pen of David Makovsky, the Judeo-Israeli committee that’s writing the article concludes its presentation as follows:

“The United States will likely [again that adjective] wait to see which of the above scenarios materializes … More Broadly, these considerations suggest that the U.S. will not be putting forward any peace plan or engaging in high-stakes Middle East diplomacy until the Gaza situation is clarified … As for the long-term peacemaking, U.S. officials have indicated that the Cairo talks will keep any U.S. effort on a very low flame for the time being.” They hang on to any straw that gives them hope America will not work to bring peace to the region.

The presentation by Makovsky and his committee of Jews boils down to telling America: don't put out a statement about the new peace initiative; don't come up with a peace plan of your own; and don't get into high-stakes diplomacy because the effort will be futile. Instead, wait and wait and wait…

Is Mike Pompeo Netanyahu's Boy at the CIA?

If you've been watching the activities of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, you'd know it is an Israeli outfit disguised as an American foundation.

It is located on American soil, playing the role of a suction pump's mouth plugged into America's blood stream, sucking everything in sight and sending it through the umbilical cord to Israel. Having secured the financing, the military equipment and the diplomatic protection they wanted for Israel, the operators of the pump are currently working on securing one more obligation for Israel. It is the raw intelligence that's gathered by America's formidable spy network operating at home and abroad.

Knowing all that happens in America and the world will increase Israel's ability exponentially to play America on the world stage like a joystick. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan: if you liked the invasion of Iraq, you'll love what the Jews will do for an encore once they get the CIA safely tucked in their back pocket. And the Foundation has found the right guy to make that dream come true. He is Mike Pompeo.

For Mike Pompeo to go to the premises of that Foundation in his capacity as head of the CIA; for him to say the things that he said and make the promises that he did, is like a drunken fool dragging Mother America into Netanyahu's Weinsteined bedroom, ripping her clothes off, and proudly telling Netanyahu: She's all yours. In short, that man, Mike Pompeo isn't good enough to walk the dog of North Korea's Dear Leader. And yet, here he is at the helm of the most sensitive and dangerous job, piloting America in the direction of total ruin.

To get a sense of what can be done with information, recall that a Jew who swore allegiance to America, stole from the navy information that pertained to the civilian nuclear power station that Iraq was building, and gave it to Israel. The latter used the information to bomb the Iraqi power station. Realizing that the way to get away with murder in this world is to be a friend of America, Saddam Hussein decided to befriend America.

He asked how to become a friend of America, and was told that any bastard can be the friend of America by being the enemy of its enemy. Since Iran was the enemy of America, Saddam attacked Iran and became instant friend of America. Buoyed by this new relationship, Saddam thought he could get away with invading and swallowing oil-rich Kuwait. He did so and almost got away with it. Enter the Saudis and the other Arab nations who convinced America's George Bush (41) that this was a bad move. And so (41) teamed up with the Arabs in a coalition that ousted Saddam from Kuwait without having to invade Iraq.

Trained in the art of playing on the guilt feeling of the immature, the Jews convinced George Bush (43) that his father was remiss because he did not “complete the job,” having neglected to invade Iraq. Crushed by this fabricated sense of guilt, Bush the son invaded Iraq, destroyed the country, and implemented every directive the Jews gave him after that. Among the directives was the de-Baathification of Iraq, and act of utter stupidity that led to the rise of ISIS. The result has been the horror story we see unfold in the Levant at this time.

Now, my friend, think about it. One stolen piece of information in the hands of Israel's Jews led to that horrible chain reaction. Now imagine what Israel will be able to do when Mike Pompeo will put the entire content of the CIA vaults at the disposal of Israel.

To help you get a full sense of the danger that's looming over America and the world, read the article that came under the title: “Al-Qaeda-Iran Connection an 'Open Secret'” and the subtitle: “When he was in the House, the CIA director criticized Obama for downplaying the ties.” The article was written by Jenna Lifhits and published on October 19, 2017 in the Weekly Standard.

Bear in mind that when an “enemy” has something going for him, and he believes it is a secret that's known to no one––but you actually know about it––you have the tool to crush that enemy the moment he decides to do something that might hurt you; and he wouldn't know what hit him. Now look what Lifhits says Pompeo did:

“Obama drew criticism from Pompeo for seeking to obscure ties between Iran and al-Qaeda … The yet-unreleased files documenting the Iran-al Qaeda relationship are being withheld. Pompeo said [to] the Foundation for Defense of Democracies: The Iranians have worked alongside al-Qaeda. They've cut deals so as not to come after each other. He added that the intelligence community is still monitoring those ties”.

Pompeo just told every potential enemy of America out there that the CIA knows what they are doing. And he promised to tell them even more. He did all that to please his Jewish masters in America and his boss, Netanyahu, in Israel.

Given these realities, you pass your own judgment, my friend. And while you're doing that, feel free to ask: How many dogs the North Korean Dear leader has, that need to be walked?

Making a Jewish style political Bouillabaisse

One of the things I looked forward to when I lived on campus a long time ago was the festival of foods from various countries that the university's main cafeteria used to organize. I still remember the East Indian day, the German day, the French day and the Israeli day.

What I remember the most about the Israeli day was how I was surprised to learn that falafel was not an Arab dish (actually a pita sandwich of fava beans and sometimes chickpeas) but an Israeli dish. I had been eating that thing before Israel came into existence. Also, my parents and their grandparents were eating it centuries before that, not knowing that the dish had not been invented in an Israel that did not yet exist. I asked the festival organizers if the Jews were eating falafel in Europe before going to Palestine but no one knew the answer.

To be sure, I did not develop an obsession about the foods of Israel, but I became curious about what the Jews claimed were Israeli dishes and pastries – ranging from the sausage (or salami) to the cheesecake. I discovered that according to those I spoke with, everything was invented in Israel, except the French bouillabaisse which is made with fish … and the Jews do not generally eat fish.

All that and more came to mind when I read Clifford D. May's latest column which came under the title: “Trump's third way” and the subtitle: “Repairing Obama's nuclear deal with Iran is now within the realm of the possible.” It was published on October 17, 2017 in The Washington Times.

I said 'all that and more,' because it is the “more” part that triggered the chain of memories which brought me to the French bouillabaisse you see in the title of my column. Here are May's words that brought all this to the fore: “French President Emmanuel Macron now appears willing to go to Iran's rulers and say 'We have to get along with that cowboy in the White House, so why not make a few minor adjustments?'” Can you believe this?

For my part, I can swear I heard the French President scream in my ear: “Quelle bouillabaisse!” upon hearing what happened in Washington that created this situation. The scream means “What a mess!” a French cry of despair that has a vulgar Italian equivalent going like this: “Che bordello!” and that needs no translation.

But what's so messy, anyway, about the political sausage-making in America which threatens the security of the planet? And how did things get so messy? The answer is that we are again facing the Judeo-Yiddish method of starting something which creates all kinds of problems for all kinds of people. When things get intolerably haywire, the Jews present themselves as the experts who can deal with the situation. They take control, and start the perpetual haggling treatment. An example of this is the American Congress that's paralyzing America.

Ever since the Jews secured a decisive triumph in the battle for the soul of the American Congress, they have been trying to use the resources of the country in the quest to secure a similar triumph on the global stage. They seized upon the issue of the Iran nuclear deal to try scoring the “sudden death” goal they believe will give them the victory they have been dreaming about for thousands of years.

They saw that the way to score that goal was to force Iran to make a mistake, or make a move that could be interpreted as a mistake. This would have given America a reason to bomb Iran, thus start a war of the religions – their desired goal. But since the Iranians did not make a mistake, the Jews rejoiced when President Trump started a process that can lead to that outcome.

Here is how Clifford May put it: “Why not scuttle the deal as Iran hawks have been urging? Iran's rulers would have cast themselves as victims. Other nations would have taken their side. [Thus] Mr. Trump declined to recertify the deal but didn't abrogate it – for the present”.

They hope that this will put in place an open-ended haggling process. It will give them the time and opportunities to concoct something by which to claim that Iran scuttled the deal, thus call on America to bomb Iran.

Clifford May thinks he can prepare an attractive banquet, and fool the members of the P5+1 into believing that Iran made a serious mistake; the reason why they should join America in the war against Islam.

But from all indications, France will not eat from that Jewish bouillabaisse. Germany will not eat from that Jewish salami. And no one will be eating from that Jewish falafel.

Inciting to hate by stirring up the Fear

What goes on inside the locker room of the mob of Jewish pundits bears some resemblance with what goes on inside the locker room of any sports team.

The difference between the two is that in sports, the team plays to win a clean game under the watchful eyes of the referee and the linemen, whereas the mob of Jewish pundits schemes to create shock and awe, to see that bombs are dropped, and to make sure that rivers of blood are produced.

This is the sense you get when you read the article that came under the title: “Team Trump is about to let Iraq fall into Iran's hands,” written by Benny Avni and published on October 16, 2017 in the New York Post. This is where Avni plays the role of a coach in the middle of giving a pep talk exhorting the team to go out there and score a decisive win against the enemy.

But because the writer had realized that this specific situation was extremely delicate, he summoned all the wits about him to make his point as subtly as possible lest he reveal that his intent today is the same as it has always been. That is, he spoke softly this time to mean the following: Our team must win because the fight is an existential one for us and our friends. This means that a big win will insure that we'll live another day; but a loss of any kind will insure that we'll be physically annihilated.

Still, you can see at the outset that the coach does not really believe America is at risk of being annihilated. But he uses the language of subtle demagoguery to fill the team with the determination that should power it while it tries to vanquish the enemy for good. You'll gather this much from reading the first sentence of the article because you'll get the feeling that the writer has determined Kurdistan is at risk of falling into the hands of Iran's Revolutionary Guard … Kurdistan being the province of Iraq, Israel wants to pull to its side.

To make it sound that if oil-rich Kurdistan stays with Iraq rather than break away, will pose a mortal danger to the national security of the United States, Benny Avni spent the rest of the pep talk to draw a totally contrived line connecting the two events. He says in effect that if Kurdistan does not surrender, there will be war involving all the neighbors, and Iraq will ultimately become a subsidiary of Iran's Revolutionary Guard. He calls the latter a terrorist organization and an enemy of the United States. Nothing can be scarier than that.

To make the drama sound more poignant than it is, Avni laments that “Iraqi forces trounced Kurdish fighters in a short battle for control of oil-rich Kirkuk.” This happened, he says, because of the good training that America gave the Iraqis and because they used American weapons. The author also reminds the readers that in 2014, fighters of the Islamic State (ISIS) had stormed Iraq, causing the Iraqi army to collapse. That's when the Kurdish fighters – who were defeated today – entered Kirkuk and secured the city, he goes on to say. It must be that the reversal of fortunes was upsetting him enormously.

Having made these points, Avni does not stop here but goes on to intensify the poignancy of the situation by lamenting the stance that Team Trump has taken with regard to the developments in Iraq. Look how he begins this segment of his lamentation: “As the Kurdish crisis was brewing, the Trump administration called for the need to maintain Iraq's territorial integrity.” He must be counting on the bleeding hearts to bleed profusely at this point.

This done, he embarks on a Jewish style speculative bout as to how badly things will turn out if America does not intervene. For this to sound plausible, he must paint the actors who wear the enemy hat as being very bad people. Here is how he does that: “America's indifference to Kurdish independence encouraged Kurdistan's neighbors to do things the Mideast way.” That's it ... he said the Mideast way. Since nothing can be worse than the Mideast way, things are going to get really nasty, according to him.

How nasty, you ask? Nasty enough that Kirkuk, which is a key regional asset, is about to be dominated by the head of the Revolutionary Guard, General Suleimani, who will want to do things his way.

Avni expands on all that by saying that the triad of Turkey, Iran and Iraq has threatened war, which is a nasty thing to say when they could have used the more refined locution that goes: “everything is on the table.” But then again, the triad is neither Jewish nor American, and will never rise to that level.

Destroying the West to pamper Israeli Egos

To discuss the subject identified in the title of this article, we must begin by developing two definitions. First, we define “West,” and second, we define where Israel stands in relation to that West.

Even though the West is associated with the fair skinned inhabitants of the European Continent, it is recognized that the racial stock of Europe is predominantly Caucasian, which means having roots in the Caucasus of Asia. Also, the languages that predominate in Europe are known to have Indo-European roots. As to the culture of Europe, it is known to have two legs in the ancient world: the monotheistic and optimistic culture of Egypt, and the legalistic and pessimistic culture of Mesopotamia.

In addition, modern science and mathematics came to Europe from the Far East and the Middle East. Thus, when we say Western Civilization, we mean that which developed inside the space between Eastern India and Western Egypt, from where elements of the Civilization migrated to Europe.

As to the definition of Israel, it can only be done by describing an amorphous something calling itself Judaism. It is neither a race nor a religion but an ideology that has roots in the culture of desert nomads. It survives not by making what it needs but by raiding those who cannot defend themselves and looting their possessions. It is an aggressive culture which glorifies the crimes that succeed, and looks down on those who lead a moral life.

The Jews raided Palestine in antiquity and stole the country from its indigenous inhabitants, trying to create a Jewish empire of their own. Not long after that, the Romans raided Palestine and occupied it, killing the Jewish dream. When savage skirmishes flared between the Romans and the Jews, a “son of man” who was born in Bethlehem, named Jesus, played a role in that dispute. He was taken to Egypt immediately after his birth where he lived to the age of thirty, learning all about Egypt's highly moral and peaceful life. He went back to Palestine where he preached Christianity as an antidote to the savagery of the Jews, and was put to death by the Romans with the consent and acclamation of the Jews.

The disciples of Jesus migrated to Europe and preached Christianity there till the entire Continent embraced the new religion. Several Christian empires rose on the continent under the nose of the Jews who could not build one of their own. They tried to pull dirty tricks on the Christians, but the latter responded with a level of savagery commensurate with the savagery of the Jewish tricks.

Contemporary Jews then came up with a new trick that seems to yield a little more success, but is one that's fraught with danger. They invented a concept called Judeo-Christianity, and used it to fuse their ideology with a newly emerged Christian fanaticism practiced by an extreme American sect calling itself Evangelical. Riding on the backs of these willing beasts of burden, the Jews have been trying to create an empire that will remain under their control; one that will fly the Pax Americana emblem.

What comes next in this saga can be seen in the article that came under the title: “Saving NATO from turkey” and the subtitle: “Member states must break with Erdogan's Islamic extremism.” It was written by Daniel Pipes and published on October 16, 2017 in The Washington Times.

To understand what Daniel Pipes is articulating, we must recall that during most of the time the Jews were trying to compete with Christianity in Europe, the empires of the ancient world were experiencing a renewal of their own. This happened under the aegis of a new religion calling itself Islam. Eventually Christianity and Islam became rivals, a condition that continues to this day but not at the official level. Much effort has gone into making the two religions coexist peacefully, and the result has been great success.

Enter a Jewish establishment that started working relentlessly to drive a wedge between the two. The Jewish leaders – Daniel Pipes among them – have been trying for several decades to start a religious war they hope will end with the triumph of the Pax Americana forces under their control. They see this as the fulfillment of God's promise they will be given dominion over the planet and its content.

Playing his part in the Jewish scheme to take control of America and mobilize its resources to control the world, Daniel Pipes is using the events currently unfolding in Muslim Turkey to begin the process. To that end, he pulled a trick that worked for the Jewish leaders during thousands of years.

It goes something like this: “You're in danger of being annihilated, and I am here to save you.” The reader can see – in the first sentence of the Pipes article – how that saying is formulated to suit the times. Here it is: “The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, known as NATO, faces an existential problem,” he says. And so, he sets out to tell how to fix the problem and save the expanded “West” which now comprises Europe and North America.

To make his point, he goes on using the language of juveniles while speaking of the 28 members of the NATO Alliance. Here are some examples: “Instead of a robust NATO”; “The 28 stay mum about...”; “They appear oblivious to...”; “Maltreatment of NATO nationals hardly bothers NATO” and “NATO seems unfazed”.

He ends that series of rebukes by advising that NATO faces a choice: Hope that Turkey will return to the West or freeze Turkey out of NATO. If the organization takes the second choice, he has 7 ideas how this can be done.

Incidentally, experience tells us that if NATO indicates it is willing to consider those measures, the next thing Daniel Pipes and those like him will say is that NATO should take the goodies lifted out of Turkey and transfer them to Israel.

Finally, Pipes promises that if NATO does all that, it will rediscover its noble purpose, which is to safeguard the civilization to which the Jews contributed not even as much as a horse poop's worth.