If you ever doubted that John Bolton made-up an integral
part of the Jewish propaganda machine, you now have the evidence that he did,
and that he still does.
He wrote: “The Iran Deal Isn't Worth Saving,” an article
that also came under the subtitle: “The idea of 'decertifying' the agreement
but staying in it is too cute by half. Trump should cut cleanly.” The article
was published on September 29, 2017 in the Wall Street Journal.
You can detect in the article the two inseparable trends
that constitute the Jewish signature when it comes to the formulation of
propaganda that handles the sociopolitical fields. One of the trends may be
called the “Great Reversal,” the other may be called “Creating Monstrosities with
Disparate Parts”.
With regard to the Great Reversal, you'll see that the first
thing Bolton did in his article was to advise that until further notice, the
authority on matters relating to the Iran Nuclear Deal, must no longer be the
Congress of the United States, but Paul Laxalt who once advised a Filipino
president.
Here is how Bolton introduced Laxalt: “'Cut, and cut
cleanly' Laxalt advised Marcos, urging him to flee Manila .” Bolton went on to draw a lesson from
that event, and to advise the following: “Trump could profitably follow
Laxalt's advice today regarding Obama's 2015 deal with Iran ”.
This approach is a repeat of what happened between the years
2001 and 2003. The debate at the time concerned the question how to handle Iraq . The Jews
and their echo-repeaters wanted war; the rest of America wanted to see a peaceful
resolution to whatever accusations the Jews were throwing at Saddam Hussein.
And the majority in the Congress happened to reflect that second point of view.
But knowing that George W. Bush will do what they tell him,
the Jews who used to treat the Congress like their little fiefdom, reversed
position and sought to diminish the influence of the Congress on this occasion.
To this end, they revved up the propaganda machine, instructing it to bring to
the fore and give maximum coverage to those who wrote about the legitimacy of
presidential powers in matters of war. At the same time, they did all they
could to suppress the views of those who wrote about the exclusive authority of
the Congress to declare war, and to deny the President the authority to engage
in one by refusing to appropriate funds for it.
But why is this considered a purely Jewish approach and a
signature of theirs? We recognize it as such because it is crude. While reversal
may be practiced by many, the difference between ordinary people and the Jews
is that ordinary people make subtle shifts rather than outright reversals. In
addition, they leave the door open to be corrected if and when they are proven
wrong. And this is an approach that the Jews never took.
In fact, what the Jews do is conduct their propaganda
campaigns like brutes. They invent nothing original because they are not
equipped to rise to that level. What they do instead, is copy one thing from
here, another thing for there, a third one from out there, and so on. This
done, they bring the parts together and construct a monstrosity that could be
part fish, part fowl, part feline or what have you.
Even John Bolton had a negative reaction to the idea that said
decertify the Iran Nuclear Deal but stay in it. He called it “too cute by
half,” and he was right for once. That's because while on the surface, the exercise
of decertifying the deal and then handing the problem to the Congress, may look
and sound like democracy at work; it is not the kind of democracy that the
framers of the American Constitution would have approved.
When you analyze the idea objectively, you find it to be a
Jewish monstrosity made of disparate parts that do not fit together. Made in part
with free speech, in part with deception, in part with punting the problem, and
in part with cowardice, its ultimate aim is to try having it both ways. This is
an attitude that the Jews have been associated with for as long as mankind has
wanted to punish them severely.