And their Hunger for more stays insatiable

Jonathan S. Tobin wrote an article under the screaming title: “Ignore the Foreign-Policy 'experts' Who Defend the Iran Deal,” published on March 29, 2018 in National Review Online.

As if talking directly to President Donald Trump, Jonathan Tobin begins his attack on the Iran nuclear deal by saying something that goes like this: You know something, Mr. President; that deal is bad, and I'll prove it to you. I won't give you a fancy, shmanzy kind of talk about the demerits of the deal; I'll prove my point by relying on what those who defend it are saying. Believe me, Sir, they unwittingly “boost the case” for you to change the deal or nix it or do something.

And so, Tobin goes on to give a long lecture that can be condensed as follows:

“A closer look at their argument, summed up by Wendy Sherman, reveals that the experts don't understand the nuclear pact. Among their number is Thomas Pickering who is a lobbyist for Boeing, which, like many European firms, profits from doing business with Iran. Removing sanctions on Iran has made it richer. Iran's intervention in Syria brought its forces near to Israel and gave it a land bridge to Lebanon. Sherman and her colleagues take issue with Trump's efforts to get the Europeans to eliminate the sunset clauses. They think the West will have time to react if Iran moves to build a weapon. That premise is based on the notion that Western intelligence knows everything that's going on in Iran. That's why Trump and Bolton are right to exert pressure to force the Europeans to go along with more sanctions to regain more leverage. Nor does the U.S. have to wait for European approval since it can implement secondary sanctions that would prevent any entity doing business with Iran from conducting transactions with U.S. institutions”.

And we are left to wonder who to believe. Should it be Wendy Sherman who sat with the Iranians for two years and negotiated the nuclear deal? Or should it be Jonathan Tobin who sat in a New York office during all that time, ruminating over the many ways he could think of to promote Israel's interests, including the ways he can employ to discredit what the negotiators were doing on behalf of America, Europe and the rest of the world?

To answer those questions, we'll have to do what Tobin himself has tried to do. That is, we'll check to see if he inadvertently did himself in while trying to discredit what Sherman and her colleagues have accomplished.

He is moaning that Thomas Pickering as well as the European firms, America's own Boeing Company and the nation of Iran are doing brisk business; that they are profiting greatly and will continue to profit as long as the nuclear deal is adhered to. This being the case, the populations of Europe and America are also profiting financially, he says, given that their national economies are improving with the nuclear deal being left alone.

And this is why he is lamenting that the situation has made it possible for Iran to grow so big and so powerful, it has spread itself into the vicinity of Israel's neighborhood. Thus, what's at stake now, according to Jonathan Tobin, is that the well-being of these peoples has come at the expense of Israel which sees its own expansionist dreams in the region drastically curtailed if not eliminated.

To remedy the situation, Jonathan Tobin wants Donald Trump, Mike Pompeo and John Bolton to fabricate a situation that will kill those business deals even if such action will come at the expense of a rift between America and its European allies. Not only does he want to see America implement sanctions on Iran; he wants to see America pressure the Europeans, forcing them to follow suit or suffer the consequences of sanctions being imposed on them by America.

That would be to slap restrictions on the ability of their companies to do unrestricted banking transactions worldwide; this being an area in which America has some control. The thing, however, is that America's power in this realm is beginning to weaken. It happened because America has abused the power – mostly to protect Israel – and China took advantage of the situation by creating a parallel system that's catching like wild fire.

Because there is no way to turn back the clock, the trend will push America to a second tier economic ranking. What a pity that all this is happening to please Israel only to see Jonathan Tobin ask America for more sacrifices of the kind that Israel keeps squandering, afflicted as it is by the incurable Jewish profligacy.

A Yankee Saboteur of Brexit ain't a Multilateralist

Based on the belief that John Bolton is a multilateralist, Benny Avni has constructed a theory around the idea that the philosophy of his new hero coincides with that of the New-York/Tel-Aviv axis that's trying to assemble a hate-the-world syndicate; one that's ready and willing to set the world on fire and rebuild it from scratch.

The poor fellow must have been asleep when Bolton was flashing his true colors, as he did in several talking-head appearances and in op-ed pieces … arguing for the breakup of every political and economic grouping in the world and for the establishment of a one-to-one relationship between America and each of the resulting pieces. To that end, Bolton lobbied hard for Britain's exit from the European Union and got his wish, except that the British voters have indicated they may reverse themselves and decide to stay in the Union, an occurrence that will most certainly disappoint Bolton.

Benny Avni revealed the details of his fantasy in the column he wrote under the title: “In response to Putin, Team Trump is going 'multilateral' without the United Nations,” published on March 26, 2018 in the New York Post.

The following is how Avni celebrated what he mistook as a success achieved by those for whom he is rooting: “The coordinated Euro-American action against Russia may signal the end of an era: hello coalitions of the willing.” As to you dear reader, note the “s” at the end of the word “coalition” because it signals the author's desire to see the formation of more than one coalition in the future.

After the fake celebration, Benny Avni literally welcomed John Bolton to the post of national security adviser in the Trump administration, and did something that is as Jewish as matzoh bread: he stole the success that was scored by A and attributed it to B. More specifically, he attributed to America the call to punish Russia; a request that was made by the Prime Minister of Britain who called on friends to show their displeasure at Russia's unacceptable activities on British soil.

Not only did Avni commit a typically Jewish act of intellectual dishonesty, he went further and created the noise that made the whole drama sound like it was a John Bolton success story. Here is how Benny Avni did that: “Caricatures of his 'unilateralism' aside, Bolton is a proponent of coordinated action among allies, like the bright display of solidarity with Britain.” What Avni failed to mention is that the incident and the drama that followed it had unfolded entirely before John Bolton was heard from, and before he was nominated to the post of National Security Adviser.

So the question that needs to be answered is this: “What kind of “coalitions of the willing” does Benny Avni fantasize about, having said, “Goodbye, empty UN blather”? The only way we can answer this question is to review how the United States handled such matters in the past. To confront the North Koreans in the 1950s, America called on the United Nations to help, and the UN responded positively. The operation was inconclusive. A decade later, the United States called on the NATO allies to help in the Vietnam War, and many responded positively. But when they saw the futility of the war, they jumped ship … one after the other.

When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, it was Saudi Arabia that called on America to join the Arab coalition to oust him, and America joined what came to be known as the First Gulf War. It must be said that it was the only coalition of the willing in which the goals set for it were achieved. This operation was followed by the Second Gulf War; an ill-advised criminal enterprise planned for and executed by the Jews using America's military and treasury. At first, a number of NATO countries joined the Judeo-American coalition, but they quickly withdrew when they saw the futility of it all. The historical record up to now makes clear that this operation will continue to be viewed as the worst mistake America ever committed.

Based on that history, it is reasonable to surmise that when it comes to serious conflicts, America will have no one willing to join it ever again. What may happen, however, is that America could find itself in a coalition called for by the UN. This would be the same UN about which Benny Avni said this: “Goodbye, empty UN blather,” and John Bolton said this: “No one would care if the UN headquarters in New York lost 10 of its 38 floors”.

Speaking about blather, Benny Avni gave his version of how “coalitions of the willing” have evolved. Look what he says, and see if you can make sense of it: “While 'coalition of the willing' was first used by Bill Clinton, it was made popular by George W. Bush, and was much maligned after the Iraq war, when the United Nations was put at the center of international action. It didn't work. Russia, China, North Korea, Iran and various Islamist regimes became more aggressive than ever”.

Inasmuch as this says nothing about coalitions, it says a great deal about Benny Avni. While pretending to attack Russia, China, North Korea and various Islamist regimes who are so invulnerable, they care not what he says about them, Avni is behaving like the moral serial rapist that cannot refrain from raping every vulnerable victim he encounters. Alas, his victims happen to be the readers who cannot make out what he's trying to do to them.

The Paradigm that exceeded all Expectations

Look around the world and try to locate something that works as well as expected or better. Where would you find such a thing? Would it be in the economy of some Asian tiger? Would it be in the progress the Germans have achieved at switching to green energy? Or would it be in the Swiss political system, said to operate as efficiently as a Swiss watch?

Perhaps there is something about each of those things you can call admirable. What you cannot say, however, is that whatever the thing is, it has approached or has exceeded all expectations. But if you want to see the one thing that has truly approached that status in terms of performance, look at the Jewish exploitation of the American political system.

Two decades ago, before the Cheney-Rove era, even the most optimistic of Jewish schemers could not have dreamed of engineering a total paralysis of the American political system. But the schemers did it eventually, and have achieved what allowed them to transfer the American levers of power to the Jews of America and to Israel.

The tricks the Jews used to achieve their goal so captured the imagination of several foreign powers, the latter started implementing similar schemes. First they made small moves which they described as the subway tokens that let them into the game where they influenced or altered the American system of governance. In time, the foreign powers grew more sophisticated, thus began to use the internet to infest the American system on a massive scale. This allowed them to play havoc with public opinion in America, an occurrence that may or may not have served the interests of the foreign players.

Now imagine you're a Jew and you have that tremendous achievement under your belt, what would you dream of doing for an encore? Let's face it, only one thing would tickle your fancy at a time like this; it is encapsulated in the cry: Today America, tomorrow the world! In fact, you determine there is no reason why you cannot go after the world given that you practically own America which has influence in parts of the world where much good can be done to serve the interests of Israel.

Compared to what it took to transform America, working in those places will be a cakewalk. The thing, however, is that to succeed, the local systems must first be made vulnerable. The way to do that is to use the leverage America has in those places and force the locals to make the changes that will allow the Jewish infiltration to happen in their institutions. The ultimate aim, of course, will be the takeover of the country the way that America was taken over.

It must be said, however, that the Jews have been trying to pull such a scheme for a while but failed to score success at any level anywhere. In fact, they failed resoundingly in the sense that they found themselves regressing instead of advancing. The bottom line is that they lost the few friends they had in the world, and made more enemies than they could handle, not only for themselves but also for America.

You can sense the turmoil in which America's Jews find themselves when you go over the article that came under the title: “The problem with promoting democracy,” written by Clifford D. May and published on March 27, 2018 in The Washington Times. What will strike you about its content is that it accurately represents what is going on in America at this time. In fact, the article is the latest installment in the ongoing dialogue that's unfolding among Jews who are engaged in describing their abject failures at using America to do to the world what they did to America with great success, speed and efficiency.

Having explained the current situation as he sees it, Clifford May closed his argument with this thought:

“If the choice is between liberal authoritarianism and illiberal democracy, I have to opt for the former. Better to establish some rights guaranteed to all rather than establish rights guaranteed only to the majority. Establish a foundation of freedoms first; further progress may then be possible”.

When you see something like that, you realize how severely impaired these people are. Think of them as being afflicted with the power to believe in something more powerfully than they can reason it is unreal.

The evidence is all around them to the effect that the East European nations of the Second World who used to be Communists and then became Capitalists, have rejected the Jewish brand of democracy when they saw the swamp that the Jews have created in America. They said: No way do we want to be ruled by Jews the way the Americans are.

As to the Third World nations everywhere else, they rejected the Jewish brand of democracy when they saw the hellhole that the Jews have created in Palestine. They said: No way do we want to be ruled by Jews the way the Palestinians are.

But as demonstrated by Clifford May's closing argument, he believes what he believes, and cannot fathom that he lives in a universe that’s different from the reality known to seven and a half billion human beings.

Patriarch abandons Family, elopes with Hooker

Why would a king abandon his subjects, abdicate the throne and marry a foreign commoner? Why would any respected head of household cheat on his wife by having an affair with a gold digger, thus ruins his marriage? Why would the leading nation in the world abandon its respected doctrine of fairness to slavishly serve the schemes of a worldwide crime syndicate, thus become a global pariah?

We may never have a full answer to the first two questions but there is enough material around to help in the search for answer to the third question. To this end, we have the opportunity to dig into three articles that expose some of the mysteries surrounding America's slide from being the darling of humanity to that of financier and promoter of Israel's crimes against humanity.

The first article is an editorial that came under the title: “The U.N. Hates Israel,” and the subtitle: “Why does the U.S. still belong to Turtle Bay's Human Rights Council?” It was written by the Jewish editors of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) and published in the March 26, 2018 edition of that publication. The second article is a letter to the editor of the New York Times, written by the head of one Jewish organization correcting what the head of another Jewish organization had said about his organization. It came under the title: “Vocal about Anti-Semitism,” published on March 26, 2018. The third article came under the title: “Actually, Palestinians Are Doing Pretty Well Under Israeli Rule” and the subtitle: “If you look at the data, life keeps improving in the Palestinian territories.” It was written by Jonah Cohen and published on March 20, 2018 in the Weekly Standard.

The takeaway from the editorial of the Wall Street Journal is this: “The resolutions characterize Israel as an 'occupying power' in Palestinian-claimed territories, including East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.” This is how the editors explained why they say the UN Human Rights Council hates Israel, and why America should pull out of it. Well, the readers who are familiar with the issues know what that means. Those who are not familiar need to be told what's going on.

Of the territories that Israel seized during the 1967 aggression on its neighbors, the West Bank of Palestine and the Western Part of Syria's Golan still remain under Israeli occupation. In violation of international laws enacted by the UN Security Council with the participation of the United States, Israel has annexed Palestine's East Jerusalem and Syria's Golan. Thus, when someone speaks of these territories as being Palestinian or Syrian, the Jews go apoplectic and respond as did the WSJ editors: “Palestinian-claimed territories, including East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.” This is to emphasize that 'Palestinian-claimed territory' is one thing, whereas 'East Jerusalem and the Golan' are another thing. It also means that when Israel annexes someone else's property, the decision nullifies the international laws prohibiting this kind of piracy. Thus, when you question this Jewish right, you send the Jews into apoplexy.

Furthermore, that reaction brings to memory the infamous Alan Dershowitz doctrine which says that Israel has the right to inflict on the Palestinians (apparently also the Syrians) what anyone has inflicted on someone at any time, anywhere on the planet. Because parallelism is what guides the likes of Dershowitz, we create a parallel that illustrates what the WSJ editors just did. Imagine a discourse that goes like this: Can you believe this? Someone has characterized Hitler as being “a murderer” just because he killed a handful of Semitic Jews and a few Gypsy Jews. God help me; I'm going apoplectic!

Of course, Gypsies are no more Jews than the Golan is Palestinian, but to confuse them is acceptable to the ignorant editors of the Wall Street Journal whose eyes are covered by the Jewish propaganda under which they are buried. To realize that America is financing, arming and protecting this primitive, cowardly and beastly behavior is to begin understanding the enormity of the crime that America is sustaining at the expense of its current reputation and the well-being of its future generations.

But how did a handful of Jewish paupers, plucked out of the European concentration camps by America, manage to Svengali the elites of a superpower in such a short period of time? Well, the letter to the editor of the New York Times provides the answer. The reader will notice that the Jews have abandoned the old talking point that used to go like this: “If you criticize Israel, you attack the Jews, and this proves you are anti-Semitic.” When it backfired on them, they replaced it with something that goes like this: “On college campuses, Jewish federations work with Hillels to help protect students from hateful anti-Semitism, often masquerading as anti-Israel activism”.

That is, to defend the occupation of Palestine and work against the BDS movement, the Jewish organizations are masquerading their activities as defensive moves meant to protect Jewish students against what they say are anti-Semitic attacks. But the reality is that many of those who promote BDS are Jewish students working to save Israel from itself.

But the elites of America don't know this because they spend no time on the issues they were elected to deal with, spending their time, instead, on getting reelected. They leave it to their staff––most of whom are handpicked by the lobbyists––to tell them how to vote, and how to justify their uselessness.

The Jewish lobby being the best organized crime syndicate in America, it has managed to turn superpower America into an effective Jewish colony in the service of Israel. And this brings us to the Jonah Cohen article which shows how much the Jews have become enamored with the old colonial methods and discourses.

The Israelis moved into Palestine half a century ago, and the Jews moved to conquer America at the same time. Like the old colonial powers they said they will improve the lives of Palestinians by looting their properties, and said they will “educate” the American people on Jewish sensitivities to raise their level of consciousness. But the truth is that Israel would not last a month without America's help, and the occupation of Palestine would not last a week without that help.

This is why the Jews worked on America's patriarch, Uncle Sam, to have him abandon his American people and devote all his energies to loving Israel.

The Daybreak at the end of a long Night

What's the difference between saying, “The daybreak at the end of a long night” and saying, “The light at the end of the tunnel”? The answer is that the intended meaning is the same. It is just that the first saying applies to naturally occurring phenomena while the second applies to artificially occurring phenomena.

Well, guess what, my friend. We neglected to look into one small addendum that is very much a part of this story. It is that unlike the natural daybreak, the light at the end of the tunnel can well be artificially produced. It can be that of a train that's coming at you full speed.

Keep that in mind while thinking of another saying which has it that the Americans will try all the bad options available to them before finally settling on the correct one. Apply those ideas to the appointment of John Bolton as National Security adviser to the President of the United States, and think of the possible ramifications of such a move in terms of the Iran nuclear deal as well as the issues that may be related to it directly or remotely.

There is no doubt that some people see Bolton's appointment as the daybreak at the end of a long night. Others see it as the flickering light of a slow and somewhat uncertain train, still at the end of the tunnel. And there are those who see it as the train that's no longer at the end of the tunnel, but one that's rushing out and rolling at the world at a supersonic speed.

How can we wrap our heads around an issue as complex as this? Well, the first thing we do is turn to the people who know more about the subject than anyone else. One such person is Wendy R. Sherman who was America's lead negotiator on the team that hammered the nuclear deal with the Iranians. Responding to the declared intention of both Trump and Bolton to nix the deal, she wrote an article under the title: “Trump and Bolton's Plan to isolate Allies and Encourage Enemies,” published on March 25, 2018 in the New York Times.

She says the deal is good, and gives the following evidence to back her claim:

“The deal was negotiated by the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China, coordinated by the European Union, and endorsed by a 15-to-0 vote in the United Nations Security Council”.

As to the consequences of America abrogating the Iran nuclear deal, Wendy Sherman says the following:

“First, Iran most likely will move to enrich uranium. It will increase the Revolutionary Guards' activities. This will increase American calls for military action. The march to military conflict will be hard to stop. Beyond this horror show, to destroy the deal will pound a nail into the coffin of the trans-Atlantic relationship. Trump has laid the task of 'fixing' the deal at the feet of Britain, France and Germany. He is demanding that they solve a political problem he created by campaigning against the deal. Nixing the deal won't do America much good with the rest of the world, either. Allies like South Korea, Japan and India reduced their reliance on Iranian oil in service to the negotiations that produced the deal. Sabotaging it will sour these relationships. Killing the deal will also be a blow to the negotiations with North Korea. It will give the United States international isolation. It will not isolate Iran, and will lead its allies to consider China and Russia as dependable partners. Nothing about this decision will increase American security. It will have devastating consequences”.

Now that we have the opinion of the most qualified expert on the subject, we ask the question: Can the human race––in this day and age––afford to let America go through its habitual shtick of trying all the bad options before settling on the correct one? The answer is that such a choice is no longer viable for two reasons:

First, America has diminished itself so much already it can do nothing that is seen as capricious without triggering a response from its worthy rivals; even from some of the unworthy players. Second, nothing appears more capricious in the eyes of the world than promises made during an American election campaign to placate the nationalist fires that the Jews have in their hearts for Israel. And nothing angers the world like an America that tries to fulfill those promises at the expense of someone else, if not the whole world … and doing it in response to undue Jewish pressure.

Add to this the reputation of John Bolton as being the foremost kisser of Jewish asses he considers above him, as well as the foremost kicker of everyone he considers below him, and you have a world that sees the White House as a powder keg liable to explode at any moment, and ready to take the world down with it.

It will take a herculean effort to dismantle the powder keg the White House has become. And the world wonders if Donald Trump is qualified to do this job.

Are we in to seeing and enjoying the next daybreak? Or are we in to being run-over by a runaway train?

Return of a Schizophrenia as old as Time itself

Whereas the paradigm governing America's conduct in the past had been to root for people around the globe that wish to govern themselves and do business as they please; it is no longer the case even if the claim persists that the paradigm has not changed.

The truth, however, is that America has adopted a more complex paradigm. It is one that seeks to project the glowing image of olden days while pursuing an agenda that is little different from the goals of colonial empires in a bygone era. This reality is detected in the fact that America engages in two discourses at the same time. What's more; the discourses often run against each other, at times even negate each other.

And so, it happens that when speaking in the abstract about the things that America stands for, the past is recalled and the values that were pursued then are claimed to apply today. But when concrete actions are described – whether they are ongoing or they are contemplated – the dreadful reality of what America has become is revealed for all to see.

This performance unmasks America as being gripped by schizophrenia, which is the reality of the current situation. In fact, America's dual profile consists of the old-time “nativists” who wish to “take back the country” and return it to the glory days of the past. It also consists of the much louder group of Jewish infiltrators who now command a good part of the levers of governance. They seek to take the country back – not to the glorious past of America – but the inglorious past of yesterday's colonial powers.

One such voice is Rachel Avraham who wrote: “Why America must help the Kurds in Syria,” an article that was published on March 21, 2018 in The Washington Times. When reading the article, if you think of Rachel Avraham as the Jew that's promoting the Israeli agenda, you'll detect the usual Jewish badmouthing of the people whom the Jews have designated enemies of the day. But if you think of Rachel Avraham as an American, you'll be struck by the depth of her schizophrenia.

Here is a sampling of what she says as a Jew that's speaking about the enemy:

“Turkey and its Syrian allies have committed atrocities against the Kurdish people. Turkey has bombed schools, hospitals, bakeries and water stations. Most of the victims of Turkey's assault are innocent Kurdish women and children … They committed human rights abuses in Afrin. They looted civilian homes and stolen cars”.

And here is a sampling of what she says as a Jewish-American that's gripped by schizophrenia:

“Turkey's Islamist allies are poised to ethnically cleanse the Kurds, and in the process, eliminate America's foothold in Syria. Although Russia, Turkey, ISIS and Iran disagree on many things, they all agree on booting America out of the region. This reality represents danger to the United States, its Middle Eastern allies, Europe and the world at large. They also seek to prevent the creation of an independent Kurdistan, thus killing off the Kurds' dreams and aspirations. The Kurdistan National Assembly of Syria is an umbrella organization of Kurdish organizations that are pro-American. America should use its influence in order to pressure Mr. Erdogan to hand over Afrin to the Kurdistan National Assembly of Syria. America has a moral obligation to help the Kurds”.

It is clear that one of Avraham's schizophrenic sides motivates her to warn that Turkey has joined Russia, ISIS and Iran in the effort to boot America out of the region, claiming that this will endanger not only America but also its allies and the world. As to her other schizophrenic side; it motivates her to push for the creation of a Kurdistan that would be a clone of Israel and allied with it. A feat such as this would go a long way toward the breaking of the Arab world into cantons; a cherished Judeo-Israeli dream.

To reconcile the wishes of her Jewish side and the pretense of being loyal to America, Rachel Avraham has managed to pull off a contrived denouement of the kind used by drama writers to give a piece that's too heavy on drama the semblance of a happy ending … or at least the suggestion that things aren't as bad as they seem. Here is what Avraham did:

“ISIS will never be eradicated from Syria without boots on the ground and if America does not want to provide those boots, then they need to help those who have been acting as America's boots on the ground in order to maintain the gains that they have won”.

In saying this, the writer has artificially forced convergence between Israel's need to see the Arab world weakened by internal divisions, and America's need to stay out of trouble from the places where it has no vital interests.

The Confusing and the Superficial

Bret Stephens wrote a confusing article under the title: “John Bolton Is Right About the U.N.,” published on March 23, 2018. David French wrote a superficial article under the title: “John Bolton Isn't Dangerous. The World Is,” also published on March 23, 2018 in National Review Online”.

As can be seen from the titles, both writers are discussing the appointment of John Bolton to the post of National Security Adviser in America. Both writers like the appointment, and both took on the task of defending Bolton against the perception that he is too hawkish and too dangerous to be in that position.

Bret Stephens –– who considers the United Nations (UN) to be more satanic towards Israel than Iran's Ahmadinejad considered Israel to be satanic towards the human race –– decided to defend Bolton's attacks on the United Nations. As to his own views, he says that the UN is scandal itself disguised as hope; and that's because the world body relies on collective security to maintain peace when in his view, “collective security is a recipe for international paralysis or worse”.

He attributes the UN's failures to mismanagement, corruption, abuse and moral perversity. He gives as examples, a cholera epidemic in Haiti that was caused by peacekeepers. Allegations of sexual abuse and exploitation that were committed by peacekeepers. A Rwanda genocide that the UN failed to prevent. A Srebrenica massacre it failed to stop. A Sri Lanka and a South Sudan wars it failed to prevent.

So we ask: “How bad is that?” and recall the vignette of the man that bumped into his friend and asked: “How's your wife?” In response, the friend asked: “Compared to what?” And so, we are tempted to ask: How bad is the UN compared to the U.S. and Israel, the two countries that Bret Stephens holds as models of perfection to the rest of the world. In fact, someone posed that question already though differently, as reported by Stephens. Here is how he put it: “Imagine if the U.N. was going to the United States and bringing cholera, Mario Joseph, a Haitian lawyer told the A.P.”

In terms of performance, to compare the UN against the US Congress is to compare a Cadillac against a jalopy. In terms of honesty, to compare the UN operations against the various prime ministers of Israel is to compare a run-of-the-mill car salesman against a Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme. To compare the sexual abuses of the UN peacekeepers against those in the US military against its own recruits is to compare the activities of a peeping Tom on a campus dormitory against those of Harvey Weinstein. To compare the shortcomings of the UN in Haiti against the shortcomings of the US Veteran's Administration is to compare the error of an overworked doctor to the crimes of a serial killer holding a medical degree. And the list goes on.

If you want to measure how much America fails its own people compared to how much the UN fails the peoples of the world, remember that in terms of population, the world is 25 times bigger than America. That is, ask how many die of drug overdose in America, for example. If the answer is 40,000, multiply that by 25 and this would be the equivalent of 40,000 X 25 = 1,000,000. That's a million. This done, check how many in the world die from drug overdose and you'll know who's better at running the shop under its jurisdiction: The US or the UN.

Do the same thing with regard to the murder rate, the school shootings, the rapes, the child abuses and so on; and you'll never again read an article like that of Bret Stephens without getting sick to the stomach at the gall of a guy that's trying to mess up your head. You'll be galled even more when you realize that he is doing all this because the UN is refusing to serve his Jewish agenda the way that the U.S. Congress does.

As to David French, it is clear from his article why he says: “It is time to give a hawk a chance.” Call it the “Appeasement Syndrome.” That “derangement” goes back to the time when Neville Chamberlain returned home to Britain after visiting Hitler who convinced him that Germany had no intention of attacking anyone. And so, Chamberlain proclaimed that peace was at hand … but was proven wrong by history.

The hawks that David French has in mind were brainwashed – by the proclamations of Winston Churchill – into believing that everyone who tries to develop a military that's powerful enough to threaten the United States, must be as evil as Hitler, and will attack America as soon as he has the chance. For this reason, America must not only contain someone like that, it must destroy him before he gets too powerful, say the hawks.

That is precisely what John Bolton has been saying he believes. So we must ask: Is this a sign of wisdom, or is it a sign of insanity?

To answer that question, we recall that in response to Churchill's proclamations, the Americans fought a bitter war in Vietnam lest the communists become too powerful and attack America. Well, America lost that war, but the communists did not attack it. On the contrary, the Vietnamese communists became good friends with the Americans and remain so to this day.

That reality does more than demolish Churchill's theory; it tells the world that if there is a Hitler-like evil to fear in this world, it is America. That's because it is manipulated by the Jews who wish to revive the dark age of colonialism. As demonstrated in the Bret Stephens article, the Jews are constantly nudging America to attack someone, and America has responded by starting a new war at the rate of one every two years.

David French says John Bolton is not dangerous; the world is. Let future events make that determination. In the meantime, however, there is enough evidence to show that Bolton is insane, and that he should be in an institution, not in the White House.

This Fallacy must be exposed once and for all

Richard Haass believes that the world is in disarray. Ralph Peters believes that “The world is descending into tyranny,” which is the title of his latest column. It was published on March 20, 2018 in the New York Post.

What's that about? Is it for real? Or is it the case of a handful of kooks who used to believe they were the world, now seeing themselves shrink into irrelevance, thus choose to believe that the world is unraveling? Well, from the available evidence, it looks like the kooks are verbalizing their panicky descent into irrelevance, and what they see as their ultimate diminution if not disappearance.

The instrument the kooks are using to determine the health of the world is something that used to be respected by the human race. The trouble is that the kooks abused it so badly; it became the object of scorn among the rising new generations everywhere in the world. The name of that instrument is “Democracy.” So the question to ask is this: How did the kooks manage to turn the precious old democracy into a new quack democracy?

To answer the question, we must look back and begin from the beginning. It happened a little more than 2000 years ago that a bunch of nomadic Jewish tribes were chased out of the Palestine they had occupied for a brief period of time. Their chasers were the Roman legions that also coveted the piece of real estate called Palestine. The Jews scattered throughout Europe and were joined shortly thereafter by the Christians who began to proselytize their beliefs, thus converted the Europeans to their new religion.

The Jewish rabbis –– who fantasized about building an empire such as those that had risen around them in Egypt, Persia and Babylon –– reckoned that they will not realize their dream unless they infiltrated an existing empire and taken it over from the inside. They tried to pull off such a feat but failed everywhere they went, causing their people to suffer enormously at the hands of the indigenous populations. It was the behavior of the Jews, as well as the biblical stories they were telling, that scared the Europeans who fought back to prevent the Jews from gaining the upper hand and doing to them what they did to the Palestinians.

It was not until eighteen centuries later that the Jews discovered America, a place they deemed ready to be taken over by them. The problem the Jewish leaders faced was that their people had invented Communism, a doctrine that's the direct opposite of Democracy, the prevailing doctrine in America. The Jews first tried to convert America to Communism but when they failed, pretended to be more democratic than Democracy itself. To their delight, they discovered that the gullible Americans believed them.

Not only did the Jews conquer America by subjugating (using bribes and blackmail) a handful of elite political “officers” and “captains” in the governing apparatus of the American Republic, they drafted their newly acquired subjects, and sent them to conquer the rest of the world … all that in the name of Democracy, of course.

The way the Jews got away with this, was to claim that the democracies do not start wars. Well, if that's a dogma, someone ought to tell it to the Americans and the Israelis who say they are democracies, and have started 100 percent of the wars that flared on the planet since the end of the Second World War. They should do this or admit that democracy and war have become two synonymous words. Also, in the name of intellectual honesty, they should refrain from uttering sentences like: “Tyrants may oppress you. They may lead you into disastrous wars,” as seen in the Peters article, because these are fallacies that were exposed for what they are, and must therefore be discredited.

It did not take the peoples of the world very long before they saw through the bad faith of the Jews. They had aspired to embrace Democracy as soon as they got their houses in order but to their horror, they became aware that the Jews had transformed Democracy from being the gate that led to heavenly governance, to being the gate that would lead them to a hellish subjugation by the Jews.

Most nations in the world responded to the Jewish takeover of America by backtracking on the steps they had taken to democratize their system of governance. From the looks of it, a number of them implemented novel steps in the quest to fashion a new system of governance that will prevent the likes of the Jews and their Nazi cousins from Palestinizing the pieces of real estate they covet and seek to conquer. The response by the world is what upsets Richard Haass and Ralph Peters.

It is also the response that's panicking all the Jewish leaders and their lackeys. Like Haass and Peters, they see the world in disarray, and see it as descending into tyranny when in fact the world is only shaking off the bad baggage that the Jews had loaded onto it.

As to the tyranny that Ralph Peters wants to talk about, let it be known there is only one tyranny to worry about. It is none other than the Jewish tyranny which got him to complain about dangers that do not exist while disregarding the Jewish hell into which America is slowly but surely sliding.

He was given Clarity of Vision. Where to now?

Let me tell you a story that may not qualify as a full-blown parable but is something close to that.

A blind man who was born with his condition undergoes an experimental eye surgery. A few days later, the surgeon removes the bandage off the patient's face, and the man sees light for the first time. Amazed and jubilant, he looks around and cries out: “God, how beautiful life is!” He looks at the surgeon and promises: “You gave me vision, and the least I can do is be your eyes. Count on me taking you everywhere you want to go, and I'll describe what I see … you'll find it stunning”.

Obviously, the man had not yet realized that to perform the operation the surgeon had to have vision. Well my friend, whereas something like this may not happen in real life, something like it happens all the time. And you have an example of it in the column which came under the title: “The Egyptian riddle,” written by Clifford D. May and published on March 20, 2018 in The Washington Times.

May went to Egypt and saw what he didn't know was there. Dazzled by the high quality of governance in that country, he compared what he saw to what he thought he would be seeing, living as he did in the blind fantasy of those who dwell in the dark alleys of their mutually induced ignorance. But now that he saw the light for the first time, guess what Clifford May did. He spoke about the Egyptians who gave him the proverbial clear vision, and said what he'll do to help them see their way to good governance. Imagine that! But if you can't imagine, here is a condensed version of May's passages that make those points:

“Sisi is trying to protect his country. If you're like me, you're now puzzled. It does seem possible that President Sisi represents Egypt's best chance to save itself from conflict and carnage. How might we translate such ambivalence into policy? At least consider this: Separate freedom from democracy. Press Mr. Sisi to take steps to increase the former but leave the latter for later. As we should have learned over recent years: Elections alone do not a democracy make. Start with human rights; the most basic being freedom of religion. Next come minority rights. The journey toward a freer society won't be quick or easy. But if there's a better way, I'm not seeing it”.

Despite what he saw and heard in Egypt, Clifford May asked: “How might we translate such ambivalence into policy?” By that he meant the Judeo-American policy he thinks should supplant the Egyptian policy that accomplished what he didn't know was there already. He goes on to answer his own question: “Press Mr. Sisi to increase freedom and leave democracy for later.” What a misfit! Can you believe this? The man just admitted he saw what he never dreamed he would see; but now that he has seen it, he still wants to give advice to the Egyptians that live the thing. Can he ever stop being a Jew, if only for a moment?

Having spoken the unspeakable, May now makes a confession: “As we should have learned; elections do not a democracy make.” Too bad he and those like him learned nothing during the decades that some of us were trying to teach them about the reality of what's happening outside their cocoon. The truth is that they had good teachers; it's just that they were bad students.

Having written in his previous column about how much the Christian minority in Egypt appreciates what President Sisi has done and continues to do for its members; Clifford May still has the gall to say he wants to tell the Egyptian President he needs to pay attention to the issues relating to freedom of religion and minority rights. What a dork! Can you believe this? It is customary to call someone “tone deaf” when he doesn't hear what others are saying. But what do you call someone that doesn't hear himself?

Clifford May ends his discussion with this: “The journey toward a freer society won't be quick or easy. But if there's a better way, I'm not seeing it.” Actually he never saw what was happening in Egypt because he was looking at the wrong thing. Instead of looking at Egypt, he mind's eye was fixated on a picture of that country; one that was painted by charlatans who exist for the sole purpose of committing mischief.

Clifford May calls such groupings, think tanks. He singles out the one identifying itself as “The bipartisan Working Group on Egypt,” describing it as being composed of “a dozen distinguished think tank scholars.” Well, the first thing that comes to mind is that the word “bipartisan” signifies it is a subsidiary of the Jewish propaganda machine. The second thing that comes to mind is that the charlatans populating it are of the most destructive neoconish kind. The third thing that comes to mind is that Clifford May will not solve any riddle – Egypt or otherwise – until he breaks away from this kind of groupings.

Instead of telling those who survived the test of time how to survive the test of time, Clifford May who was given vision, should take the hand of those that remain in the dark alleys of mutually induced ignorance, and lead them to the places where they might be given clarity of vision.

A demonic Attempt to impose a fake Debate

Andrew Bacevich wrote: “The Iraq reckoning still to come,” an article that was published on March 19, 2018 in the New York Daily News. Conscious of the reality that the American public wants accountability for what he calls “the blood sacrifice vote,” Bacevich asked a series of “why” questions concerning the Iraq war. He then said if politicians are to regain credibility, the political establishment will have to answer those questions. No kidding!

Who is this guy trying to kid? Which politicians – 15 years after the fact – remain at their posts to answer the questions he is posing? No, Andrew Bacevich is not asking questions because he wants answers; he is asking questions to show that no answer will be forthcoming ... in consequence of which he wants the readers to forget about the whole thing and move on.

Bacevich asked three questions: Why was the Iraq war necessary? The answer is that the Jews engineered it to advance their agenda. He asked: Why was the conduct of the war bungled? The answer is that the Jews did not want to liberate Iraq as they pretended; they wanted to destroy the gains achieved by the Baath Party because it stood for Arab Renaissance and the quest for Arabs to take their place under the sun. He asked: Why do Americans still await a public inquiry into this fiasco? The answer is that the inquiry was actually held. It's just that it wasn't held “in public” but held “by the public.” Bacevich knew that, as he pointed out when he wrote: “Communities that paid a high price for the Iraq War in terms of casualties tended to vote for Trump.” It's that the people inquired and then decided how to respond at the ballot box.

Thus, the pressing question that begs for an answer: Why does Andrew Bacevich wish that America would forget that history? The answer is that he wants the history to be forgotten for the same reason that the editors of the New York Daily News, who published the article, want that history to vanish. They both feel that the Jewish machinations, which led to an Iraq calamity the likes of which America did not experience since the Vietnam War, are about to be revealed. The worry is that when the public will get acquainted with the details of those machinations, it will become aware of what else the Jews are preparing for America. This will prompt the public to come down on the heads of the Jewish leaders like a ton of bricks, and stop them cold in their tracks.

To avoid this outcome, Andrew Bacevich came up with an ingenious trick. Having detected the kind of debate that's shaping for the next election cycle, he did the opposite of what creative writers usually do. Instead of transposing the past onto the present to predict the future, he transposed the future he already knows will be dreadful onto the past. Doing this, allowed him to take the Jews out of the picture and blame the calamity that was Iraq on everyone else … sparing absolutely no one. What follows is a condensed version of what Bacevich has said to confuse the upcoming debate:

“Hillary Clinton voted for the war, then disavowed it, showing little sign of grasping its significance. The arguments depicting the war as essential turned out to be wrong. So too did predictions of a clean, quick victory resulting  in Iraq's transformation into a liberal democracy. Worse, the costs of the war in terms of lives lost and treasure expended exceeded what anyone had predicted: thousands of U.S. troops killed, tens of thousands of lives damaged, trillions of dollars spent. For what? Clinton offered no answer to that question. Neither on the GOP side did Bush, Rubio, Cruz, Christie, Carson or Fiorina. Only Trump called Iraq a mistake, claiming (falsely) to have opposed the war before it started. Saddam Hussein is gone. The Baath party is no more. The Islamic State –– created as a direct result of the U.S. invasion –– has been defeated. Even so, the problems Operation Iraqi Freedom was meant to resolve persist. Let me emphasize that nothing Trump said in 2016 suggested he had a clue about how to solve those problems. Candidate Trump didn't know squat about foreign policy”.

As can be seen, Bacevich dumped a ton of verbiage – not to answer the three questions he asked – but to create a false debate he says has started already between people who wish to forget the war and move on, and those who were disabled by the war as well as those who lost loved ones, and are still hurting.

In reality, however, this is the fake debate Andrew Bacevich wants the people to have during the next election cycle so that no one will ask the only relevant question pertaining to the Iraq war: How did it happen that the office of Vice President Dick Cheney became the war-room in which the Iraq war was hatched and conducted by those who called themselves “children of Holocaust survivors”?

Their agenda was to get back at humanity for what they say the human race did to them during the Second World War and for thousands of years before that. They implemented their satanic revenge in the open, and no one in America lifted a finger to stop them.

Now that the American people have realized how much it cost them to let the Jews indulge in the deadliest of their impulses, Bacevich wants to steer them onto a dishonest debate so that the Jews may continue to pull the same sort of tricks on humanity again and again.

Forcing the Hand of History to repeat itself

Benny Avni has thrown the usual Jewish tantrum because Germany has refused to victimize itself in favor of giving Israel the opportunity to cash in on the victimhood game it has been playing for such a long time with signs that it intends to play it indefinitely.

Avni wrote: “Germany's shameless power play against Israel,” a column that was published on March 19, 2018 in the New York Post. He tells the story of Germany refusing to stay out of the race to sit on the UN Security Council, and give Israel the chance – not the certainty – of winning that race. Not only did Benny Avni make the shameless remark that Germany ought to deprive itself of that right, he accused it of being shameless for asserting its right. How much more Jewish than that can someone get?

You'll understand how Avni can be so out of touch with the norms of human conduct when you look closely at his opening sentence. It reads as follows: “Remember when the new Germany was keen to put its historical baggage behind it and be Israel's best friend in Europe?” Well, this shows how Avni is resisting the idea that the new Germany is now the old Germany that put the baggage of its ancient history behind it. In addition, Germany is telling Israel that from now on, it will have to earn the friendship of Germany; of Europe and the rest of the world because there will be no more free rides for it in Europe, and pretty well everywhere else in the world.

Meanwhile, what's working for the Jews in America is that they are interacting with a culture that's in the making, therefore one that's immature. Whereas the decision makers everywhere in the world have sorted out the bad decisions and set them aside, the Americans are still in the process of trying all kinds of decisions. Whereas the foreigners look into the remaining good decisions and choose one from among them, the Americans are still experimenting with mostly bad decisions before they'll discard them to finally settle on the one they hope will turn out to be a good thing.

You can see how this situation works for the Jews as they zero-in on a single individual, dress him up with the power, prestige and respect that America has earned over the centuries, and send him into the world to do Israel's bidding without someone in America lifting a finger to stop him. This is how John Bolton established that Jewish racism is superior to Nazi racism. It is how Richard Holbrook established that terrorist Israel is more innocent than neutral Switzerland. It is why Lindsey Graham is trying to establish that Ukrainians must be armed to defend themselves, and that Palestinians must be disarmed lest they defend themselves. It is also why Richard Grenell is supporting Israel's latest tantrum, hoping it will make the world safer for Jews.

Three other articles published lately, add to the knowledge as to how the Jews exploit the immaturity of the American culture and make it work for them. Cheryl K. Chumley's column came under the title: “America's love affair with Israel grows under Trump,” published on March 15, 2018 in The Washington Times. Jonathan Weisman's article came under the title: “Missing in the Fight Against Anti-Semitism,” published on March 17, 2018 in The New York Times. Jack Crowe's article came under the title: “D.C. Councilman Apologizes for Saying Jews Control the Weather,” published on March 19, 2018 in National Review Online.

What the three articles have in common is that they touch on the relationship as it stands today between the Jews and the rest of America. Here is the point that Chumley is making, based on a survey that was conducted by Gallup: “Now, under Trump, the love affair of America with Israel is rocking.” Here is the point that Weisman is making based on his personal experience: “Anti-Semitism hate crimes are on the rise, up 57 percent in 2017 … I have personally seen the anti-Semitism, in online insults, threatening voice mail messages and emails.” And here is what Jack Crowe has written: “A Washington City councilman has suggested that a cabal of Jewish financiers manipulates the weather to exercise control over urban areas”.

Aside from the fact that the credibility of Gallup was pushed deeper into the tube of bio-hazardous waste, it is becoming clear that the more the politico journalistic establishment comes under the control of the Jewish lobby, the more it pretends that America “loves” Israel, and the more the American people react by hating the Jews.

Not only do the people hate the Jews, they increasingly express their hatred openly to send a signal to the Jewish leaders and their lackeys, telling them they must change. But instead of doing just that, the Jewish leaders manipulate the likes of Cheryl Chumley, instructing her write the kind of articles that add fuel to the fire.

If there is a conclusion to draw from this phenomenon, it is that what happened in Europe eons ago is steadily repeating itself in North America. The truth is that the popular ill-will toward the Jews is something the Jewish leaders whine about and monetize while ignoring the reality that it gives impetus for the European tragedy to repeat itself in North America.

Two Albatrosses are heavier than one

This discussion is in response to the article that came under the title: “A mission quandary in Syria,” written by Jed Babbin and published on March 18, 2018 in The Washington Times.

However, a few things need to be cleared up and set aside once and for all before discussing an article of that kind. Here is how one of the things was expressed in Babbin's article: “Trump ordered a cruise missile attack on a Syrian air base.” What needs to be said for the sake of clarity is that this missile attack was not an isolated incident. It was the latest installment in a pattern that started with the election of President Bill Clinton.

Since that time, what happened immediately after the election of a new President –– be that a Democrat or a Republican –– was that the right-wing groups in America launched a pressure campaign, forcing the President to prove he deserves being called commander-in-chief. They told him cruise missiles were the way to go; they chose the Arab country to which the missiles were to fly, and they provided the argument that would legitimate the attack. Except for Barack Obama who refused to play the game, every other president played it. The murderous balance sheet for America has been a baby formula plant blown up in Sudan, a hotel where an Islamic conference was being held, nearly destroyed in Baghdad, and an air base needlessly bombed in Syria.

Another habit that must be discredited is regularly encountered in articles written by right-wing authors. You'll notice that foreign groups fighting on the side of America (provided they are not hated by the Jews) are always described as the best fighters the Americans had on their side. This time, the honor was bestowed on the Kurds who fought alongside the Americans in Iraq.

Worth mentioning is that the Israelis are eying the Kurds as potential future partners in the Jewish scheme to cantonize the Arab countries. Here is how Jed Babbin told a fake story to inflate the military prowess of the Kurds: “American troops, joined by our Kurdish allies, have been in Syria for more than a year. They sustained casualties and inflicted enormous losses on our opponents, including Russians”.

A third trend that must be met with a chuckle and discarded, appears in the works of right wing authors when they feel compelled to tell a sad story about American forces that came short on the battlefield. To mitigate the sting of the bad news that's coming, the writer would first tell a fantastic tale in which the American military scored glorious successes on the battlefield.

Having thus joyfully decorated the road to the lament that's ahead, the writer winds his way to the sad news as did Jed Babbin who played the game like a master of exaggeration: “Russian forces built a bridge over the Euphrates. A Russian force of about 500 men, supported by tanks and towed artillery crossed it to attack Syrian rebel and Kurdish forces. American artillery and aircraft destroyed the Russian force; killing about 200 Russians”.

And so, if you discard the suspect passages in the Babbin article on the grounds that they deal with matters not fit to exist in a serious presentation, you'll discover a strange thing. You'll discover that the author is trying to tell a big story where there isn't even a small one. In fact, what you're left with is a whine about America having screwed up badly in the Middle East. What follows is the expression of that whine in condensed form:

“With their forces dominating most of Syria, it is clear that Russia, Iran and Turkey control the outcome of the war. Syria's fate is irrelevant to our national security. Because our goal in the Syrian war is undecided, it needs to be recalculated in terms of the benefits to our national security. Let's focus on the Kurds because they are the next target in the Russian-Iranian-Turkish axis. We will continue to protect the Kurds but not everywhere Kurdish populations are present. The Kurds deserve our protection but not unlimited support. While we should protect their homeland, we won't go to war for their independence. Regardless of the outcome of the Syrian war, major alliances in the Middle East are shifting against us”.

Do you see a meaning in this apparently meaningless article, my friend? I'll tell you what it is. Imagine you hypnotize Jed Babbin and get him to tell the unvarnished truth as he sees it. What follows is what he'll be telling:

“We, Americans went into the Middle East because the Israelis wanted us to oust Bahsar Assad. We failed in that mission because other players in the region outwitted us and protected Assad. Let's not make this defeat the end of the game. On the contrary, let's do something that will give Israel a consolation prize. To that end, let's belabor the Kurdish issue and create a Kurdistan that will be a clone of Israel. We should do it knowing that we’ll double the losses we suffered in the Middle East. We know this will happen because we'll have not only the Israeli albatross to carry around our necks; we’ll have that of Kurdistan as well”.

And here is my last word on the subject: It remains to be seen which handful of treasonous suckers in America will be picked by the Jewish lobby to commit this dishonorable act.

Young Adult hangs on to his juvenile Mindset

When you've been a teacher that had to deal with the emotional difficulties confronting teenagers and young adults, and when you've made it your hobby to study the behavior exhibited by the higher primates, you discover a striking similarity between the conduct of the two.

You come to realize that even the most ferocious of bullies fear getting into a fight against an opponent no matter how small and weak he may appear. In fact, most bullies prefer to stage threatening theatrics hoping to intimidate the opponent and scare him enough that he'll go away, thus avoid having a fight.

After reading a number of articles written by Matthew Continetti, you become aware of the reality that he is a young adult whose mindset is still rooted in his adolescent years. This reality has revealed itself once again in the article he wrote under the title: “So Long to the Iran Deal,” published on March 18, 2018 in National Review Online.

What you'll discover in that article is a mentally active young man named Matthew. He is looking at the antics of a grown man, Donald Trump, that happens to be President of the United States; an individual whose life story and ascendance to the highest office in the land have been unusual. Unable to see deep into the President's domestic or foreign game plans, young Matthew interprets the man’s outward behavior in accordance with the principles that used to motivate him and the schoolboys he used to hang around with not long ago.

And like the bully who would rather intimidate than fight an opponent, Matthew Continetti has kept another trait from his adolescent years. It is that he worships every role model he dreams of emulating someday. Right now, he views Donald Trump as the omnipotent bully that makes his opponents cower and submit, or run away each time that he raises his voice and roars. As it happens, this is the cartoon-like, superficial image of Donald Trump that Continetti has painted in his article.

Euphoric about President Trump firing the dovish Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State, replacing him with the apparently hawkish Mike Pompeo, the boyish-at-heart Matthew Continetti jubilantly declared that “the Iran deal may not last much longer than Tillerson.” Mixing irrelevant information already in the public domain with fantasy he fabricated in his own mind, Continetti reached the conclusion that, “Pompeo will give Iran's rulers plenty of reasons to worry. They already have plenty to worry about … inflation, a banking crisis, additional sanctions and the threat of military action, will make their problems worse,” he went on to say.

This being his interpretation of what he believes he is seeing, the boy Matthew switched to the speculative mode and attributed to himself the qualities he imagines characterize the Trump-Pompeo team. Thus, speaking about himself using the pseudonym Pompeo, the boy started to design a strategy in his own mind; one that will take on America's enemies and beat them. The first that he decreed was this: “What [Matthew] Pompeo can do is shift the conflict into terrain of OUR choosing, and decide it on OUR terms”.

He went on to explain his strategy as follows: “Deterrence is based on fear of reprisal. We have seen this process at work in the Korean peninsula, where OUR threats of fire and fury have backed Kim Jong Un into an apparent willingness to negotiate … What is amazing to ME is that so many Americans seem not to understand the basic concept underlying deterrence that has guided American foreign policy for decades”.

And this is where Matthew proved himself to be as wet as a baby whose nanny forgot to put him in diaper. The fact is that the North Koreans were not deterred in the 1950s, the North Vietnamese were not in the 1960s, the Soviets were not in the 1970s, the Iranians were not in the 1980s, the Serbians were not in the 1990s, the Iraqis were not in the 2000s and the Syrians were not in the 2010s.

Continetti went on to speculate that because “Iranian fast boats that have plagued traffic in the Persian Gulf stopped their provocations,” meant that the Iranians were anxious about what Trump and Mattis might do to them. He went on to fantasize, “might not the presence at the table of Pompeo spook the Iranians even further?”

No, the Iranians were not spooked today anymore than they were by Ronald Reagan when he quietly negotiated the release of American embassy hostages in return for weapons. And neither has Kim Jong Un been spooked into negotiating the way that the boy Matthew believes he did.

When he'll have lived long enough to realize that most of what's important in world affairs is negotiated away from the eyes of little guys who are more of a nuisance than a beacon of light, Matthew should stop speculating and start learning how to be a journalist. Till then, he should leave the analysis of subjects concerning war and peace to grownups.

Samantha Power is a Closet Neocon

Samantha Power may not have officially converted to the Conservative ideology but she is––at least as far as Pax Americana is concerned––a diehard Neocon that wants to micromanage the affairs of the world.

To understand how the human mind operates under such conditions, we must acknowledge the existence of tension between our desire to accomplish something––however controversial it may be––and the desire to appear like we're doing the right thing.

In the case of Samantha Power, she expressed her desire for accomplishment in the embrace of the doctrine called, “The responsibility to Protect (R2P).” But sensing––most likely at the subconscious level––that this concept is closely associated with the neocon philosophy; she tweaked her views on all other matters, and made them coincide with the going liberal trend at every moment.

These are the complex realities that must have come into play when she sat down to write “How Mike Pompeo Could Save the State Department,” an article that appeared on March 14, 2018 in The New York Times. The first that the reader encounters as to her preferences in the field of foreign policy, is this sentence: “He [Pompeo] can make it his mission to revitalize America's diplomatic corps and get back to trying to solve problems in the real world”.

To explain what this boils down to, she cited the need to appoint ambassadors where a number of vacancies cry out to be filled. She also mentioned the need to “promote investment, protect Americans abroad and combat terrorism,” all of which are normal, routine tasks expected to be completed by the State Department. But that's not all that Samantha Power has said or done. What she did after that was to pursue two parallel paths: one that is typically liberal and one that's neoconish but with a twist. It is that Samantha Power embraced the Pax Americana component of neoconservatism but rejected everything else.

Her liberal bent came to the fore when she complained about more American military personnel being deployed abroad than diplomatic personnel. She also quoted “our military commanders” as saying that they cannot achieve their mission without the diplomats addressing the underlying issues. She praised the American effort to help end the Ebola epidemic, and urged Pompeo to work on ending the nuclear standoff in North Korea as well as the war in Syria.

As to her opposition to conservatism, it came to the fore when she criticized what she considers Pompeo's extreme positions. She pointed the finger at his “opposition to the Iran nuclear deal, his skepticism on global warming, and his support for torture and the prison at Guantanamo.” She warned that they are: “antithetical to American security and will diminish his pull with valuable allies”.

Despite her rejection of conservative ideas of that kind, she began to show a disposition to cross from the liberal camp to that of the conservative at the point where the two overlap. The first sign to that effect came when she expressed the wish that America would work to bring about “a democratic transition in Zimbabwe or a cease-fire in Yemen”.

From that point on, Samantha Power moved closer to the neocon ideology with this: “We also need to stop seeing diplomacy as a relationship solely between governments.” And she revealed her diehard neocon credentials with this: “Mr. Pompeo should encourage relationships with [foreign] unions, youth, business leaders, religious figures and minority groups.” That's what showed her to be in full micromanagement mode.

Power then showed how wedded she was to that mode of operation. She did so when she praised former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for trying to build an expeditionary foreign service that would go over the head of foreign governments and deal directly with local groups. She called that idea, “the kind of activist diplomacy needed in a rapidly changing global landscape”.

Unfortunately, that's where Samantha Power displayed both the bankruptcy and the danger of harboring the worldview by which she is animated. Yes, the world is changing rapidly like she noticed––producing generations of youngsters angry at their elders for letting foreign governments interfere in their internal affairs––but she failed to appreciate the danger posed by the explosive part of that equation.

Instead of learning from the 2012 Benghazi experience as did many others in America, she complained that the “diplomats retreated.” She has thus demonstrated that her fanatic devotion to the neocon principle of having America micromanage the world, is more powerful than her ability to recognize danger when she meets it.

Whereas her wise colleagues seek to avoid repeating the Benghazi experience, she dreams of single-handedly “doing some good around the world,” refusing to see that what’s good in her eyes is toxic in the eyes of her prospective recipients.