The Kim and Nikki Credibility Considerations

In an article written by Alex Nitzberg and published in the online magazine Townhall on April 27, 2018, it was reported that, “UN Ambassador Nikki Haley Decries Use of 'Human Shields' in the Middle East.” In fact, this was the headline under which the article appeared.

On the next day, April 28, 2018, the Bret Stephens regular column appeared in the New York Times under the title: “Kim Jong-un Sells a Peace Bridge”.

Knowing what you know about world affairs, and reading the two pieces; which of the two characters would you trust more: Nikki Haley or Kim Jong-un?

Bret Stephens makes it clear that he does not trust Kim Jong-un. The writer begins the column by telling a story that goes back in time almost a quarter century. It can be encapsulated in this saying: Like grandfather like father like son. That is, all three Kims promised to cease their nuclear activities; the first two reneged on the promise, and the third will most likely do the same, according to Stephens. Well, I don't know if the writer speaks French, but maybe something in the back of his head rang the saying: Jamais deux sans trois. Whatever the case, Stephens expanded on his opinion, and what follows is a condensed version of that:

“Part of this is quite natural: War is a catastrophic option and China is never going to force Pyongyang to denuclearize. Other alternatives? I asked Mike Pompeo to suggest some. He replied, 'the most important thing we can do is separate capacity, and someone who might have intent, and break those two apart.' It was a call for regime change, and Pompeo promised to provide options to do that … The fact that all options turned out to be bad does not make negotiations the least bad. Sanctions relief and economic concessions help keep the regime in power and in business”.

It is clear that the thinking in America is regime change for North Korea … by force if possible or by sanctions if necessary. So, let me ask you this question, my friend: If you were a Kim in charge of North Korea, what would you do? Well, as Ronald Reagan would say, you seek peace through strength. And that's what the three Kims have done. They dodged the sanctions as best they could while strengthening their hand as much as possible. And now that the grandson has developed the strength, he sued for peace. That's what you can accomplish when you combine brilliance and professionalism.

When those of us who are of a certain age think of what happened during the last quarter century, we cannot help but go back in time to the 1950s when America was so fearful of a communist invasion, Hollywood expressed that fear by making movies about aliens from outer space invading Earth. Despite their advanced state, however, the aliens were beaten by the more cunning earthlings. Well, imagine the kind of movies Hollywood will be tempted to make a decade or two from now about a Kim Trinity that outsmarted the pompous and the Pompeos America threw at them.

As to the Alex Nitzberg article, the writer says that Nikki Hailey accused ISIS, Hezbollah, the Houthi militants and Hamas of engaging in the practice of using human shields to advance their war aims. Nitzberg says that Haley called such behavior heinous, craven, barbarian and cowardly even for a terrorist.

The trouble is that Nikki Haley provided not a shred of evidence confirming the accusations she leveled against these organizations. Moreover, she cynically hid the fact that the evidence is overwhelming to the effect that the Jews of Israel not only live to hide behind their children, they monetize the practice, which –– you must agree –– is heinous, craven, barbarian and cowardly even for a Jew.

As to the evidence? The Jews themselves bragged about building kibbutzes on the front lines … war zones they filled and continue to fill with children – even foreign children. How did the Israeli Jews brag? They stuck gas masks on the faces of the children and paraded them in front of the international media they invited to witness their craven displays. And they scored the propaganda points they craved, and then sent out armies of volunteers to solicit and collect donations.

This being the reality of the current situation, what is Nikki Haley trying to accomplish? The answer is simple; she is paving the way to blame the victims of Israel's next aggression on the victims themselves.

You see, my friend, the Old Testament is full of examples about heinous, craven, barbarian and cowardly Jews killing babies to inflict maximum pain on their parents. From the murder of babies in Egypt to keep the parents busy while they looted the country and ran into the desert, to the killing of babies in Palestine aiming to murder Jesus before his time, the Jews fashioned a culture that is as ghoulish as it is depraved.

And they did not stop here. They carried the horrific culture with them everywhere they went through space and time. They kept it to this day, changing nothing about it except for ending the habit of bragging about what they do, and replacing it with the habit of blaming someone else for what they do.

Of the seven and a half billion people alive today, all except a handful of them in America, Israel and a few other places, would agree that Nikki Haley –– wearing the Star of David on her forehead and projecting America's image to the world –– is only good enough to sweep the floor at the Kim Jong-un residence.

Do you like that image of yourself, America?

America, the World and the Iran Deal

The worst thing that can happen to a recently diminished has-been is that he does not believe he was reduced to the status of a has-been, thus continues to function as if he still is what he was.

He bites more than he can chew only to discover he cannot swallow all that he used to down in a single gulp. And so, he spits what's in the mouth and goes for another bite, thus repeats the performance till he finally realizes he is not up to it the way he was.

By now, the has-been would have cultivated a large number of enemies on whom he tried to chew but couldn't. Sensing his weakness, the enemies turn around and start biting at him like a swarm of piranha feasting on a drowning prey that never learned how to swim. (Recall that the Ottoman Empire was once called the Sick Man of Europe.) What will happen after that is totally unpredictable because only a miracle can now save the diminished and near helpless has-been.

Whether a piranha-eating predator will appear out of nowhere and chase away the little brutes, or whether the water will suddenly chill, and force the warm-water piranhas to flee – will depend on what the big guy up there decides. Will He give the has-been a second chance? Or will He leave him at the mercy of his former preys that will most certainly devour him one bite at a time?

This, of course, is a metaphor. It is meant to represent the situation in which the United States of America finds itself at this time. In fact, America lives in a world it used to dominate; a world in which it has steadily diminished in stature on several fronts, ranging from the economic dimension to the military prowess.

Whereas the world realizes what is happening to America, America fails to see that its reach has exceeded its ability to grasp what's there. And so, America continues to listen to those who promote an alien agenda. It is the scheme of those whose goal is to destroy an entire neighborhood so that they, who are alien to the region, may dominate where America used to be a welcome partner and a friend.

As it happens, the group that's promoting the alien agenda in America is none other than the editors of the Wall Street Journal. They wrote a piece that came under the title: “Europe, Trump and the Iran Deal” and the subtitle: “Macron's move opens the way for a joint rewrite of the nuclear agreement.” Their piece was published on April 27, 2018 in the Journal.

The aliens are the Jews whose agenda is to destabilize the Middle East and destroy it so that Israel may move in and dominate in the places where the United States of America used to have long-time reliable and faithful friends that did not hide the admiration they had for America's accomplishments, and looked up to it.

What the Journal editors are doing is tell America how it must use its diminished resources and reduced powers to force its friends in Europe to go against their own grain, and do what's necessary to advance the Judeo-Israeli agenda of destroying the region where the indigenous groups used to understand America but now get confused hearing its recent Jewish-like pronouncements and its changing behavior.

The editors are suggesting that if America fails to convince its European friends of what they must do, it should take the plunge into the piranha infested waters. That would be a world that had it up to here with a genocidal Israel whose surrogates are forcing America to pimp for it everywhere around the world. Here, in condensed form, is how the editors of the Journal have expressed their thinking:

“Trump may withdraw from [the Iran deal]. Iran and Europe would isolate the U.S. But Trump can reimpose sanctions on Iran. If Europe tried to join Iran and Russia and isolate the U.S., Trump could then impose secondary sanctions on European companies doing business with Iran. There's no denying the consequences of U.S. withdrawal would be messy. Europe has to decide if it wants to unite with the U.S. or risk a showdown over U.S. sanctions on Iran and Europe”.

But the thing is that Europe has already decided how it will run its own business. When Netanyahu tried to tell the Germans what kind of military relationship they can have with Egypt, the Germans told him to mind his own f**ing business. Netanyahu shut the f**k up and never tried to con any European ever again.

Learning from Europe's responses, the Americans must begin by telling the likes of the Wall Street Journal editors they must learn how not to write treasonous editorials before they can try telling the captains of the ship of state how to sail the ship.

The eternal Problem of incorrigible Recidivism

Dozens of articles are written every year by Jews who display the latest statistics concerning the number and kind of incidents that relate to what they call antisemitism in the world.

These days, the authors categorize such incidents and discuss them without openly suggesting a solution for the problem. Or if they do; it would be to suggest a new variation on an old solution; one that was tried on previous occasions and shown to increase incidents of antisemitism rather than diminish them.

This year is no different, and of the dozens of articles that have already been published on the subject, two are discussed below, having appeared on the same day, April 27, 2018, each in a different publication.

One article came under the title: “Ironic Consequences of Europe's War Guilt” and the subtitle: “In an attempt to atone for past wrongs, Europe invites a resurgence of anti-Semitism,” written by Mona Charen and published in National Review Online. She discusses antisemitism in Europe in general terms, but more specifically in Germany and France. The second article came under the title: “Jeremy Corbyn's Jewish problem,” written by Dominic Green and published in the Weekly Standard. He discusses antisemitism in Britain.

Whereas the method of Jewish writers in the old days was to mention the statistics and then indicate the kind of solution they wanted to see implemented in the quest to solve the problem of antisemitism, they choose to be a lot more subtle nowadays. What they fail to do, however, is step outside the traditional box containing the solutions that proved not to work. Here is how Mona Charen walked that tightrope:

“The response among European leaders has varied. Some avoid the question or retreat to platitudes. Some police forces are reluctant to label attacks as 'hate crimes.' Jeremy Corbyn is comfortable with left-wing anti-Semitism, which tends to bleed into every other kind”.

That is in contrast to the old days when she would have demanded that European leaders be clear and definitive about condemning acts of antisemitism. She would also have demanded they pass new laws that favor the Jews. And she would have demanded that the police double and triple the effort to catch and severely punish the perpetrators of such acts. As to the situation in Britain, she would have accused Jeremy Corbyn of inciting and encouraging all acts of antisemitism happening in Britain because he repeatedly fails to display discomfort when acts of antisemitism are committed in his country.

And that's not all because Charen goes on to point to a solution that is truly astounding. Here are her words: “How can it be that only 70 years after the Holocaust, Europe's Jews do not feel safe? It's ironic, but one reason is guilt. Eager to live down their histories of colonialism and racism, Europe has welcomed millions of immigrants from the Third World.” Though she does not say it openly, Mona Charen's point is that Europe must close the door to immigration from the Third World so as to protect the Jews.

But the real irony is not that Europe is taking in immigrants from where they come; it is that in making the suggestion – however subtle it may be – Mona Charen will discourage politicians that may have a good reason to want curbing immigration from discussing their point of view openly lest they be accused of wanting to implement the Jewish agenda.

As to the Dominic Green article, here is what the author says is happening in Britain: “The Labour Party does not have an anti-Semitism problem. It has two anti-Semitism problems.” He goes on to list those problems as follows: Corbyn is too friendly with Islamists as well as the Labour members and local councilors who popularize anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. And that's not to forget the 'white problem' which, Green says, refers to the Labour Party's inquiry about itself in which it whitewashed the self of the anti-Semitism accusation.

Well then, what does all that mean? Looking at the content of these two articles, and the dozens of similar articles, we cannot help but acknowledge that scarcely 70 years after the Holocaust during which time the Jews were pampered by humanity, the latter has turned against the Jews. Why? Who's at fault?

You can look at those questions anyway you want; the answer to them always boils down to this: Either humanity is at fault and must change, or the Jews are at fault and must change. Well, it is clear by now that the Jewish attempts to change humanity have boomeranged. Instead of changing to embrace the ways of the Jews, humanity has rejected those ways, and has developed resentment toward the Jews for trying to impose them on the population.

But wait a minute. Have the Jews not changed over the thousands of years when they roamed the earth from one place to another? Yes they have, but the problem is that they did not change the essence of what humanity resents about them. What they did is blend the supremacist attitude that humanity is rejecting, with the local culture everywhere they went, making their attitude more palatable for the locals. Initially, the Jews scored success but the people soon discovered what the Jews were up to and turned against them.

And that's what Mona Charen and Dominic Green say is happening in Europe. So the question is this: What's the solution? The answer is that the Jews must discard the core of their system of beliefs which is that they are the chosen children of God, and must be given exclusive privileges.

But if the Jews change that system of beliefs, Judaism itself will change and become something else. Yes, this will happen. But the choice is to make the change or greet the Final Solution because nothing lasts for ever, and there is going to be an end to the current situation however it happens.

The seductive Signals of a virulent Disease

What is wrong with a child – you catch with the hand in the cookie jar – that denies his hand is in the cookie jar? Well, nothing is wrong with that child; he is just a child being a child. If things unfold normally for him, you can expect him to grow up and become a fine citizen.

What is wrong with an adult you catch with the hand in the company petty cash – that denies his hand is in the company petty cash? And what is it with him that insults you for suggesting he may be doing something unethical? Well, what is wrong with this adult is that he is a thief, a liar and a downright lout.

What is wrong with a guy that never stops bragging about accomplishments he never scored, knowing that his audience is aware he is lying through his teeth? Well, what is wrong with this guy is that he is kept inside a blanket of insecurity so thick, he cannot detect his nakedness nor that he drips with shamelessness.

What is wrong with a guy that calls on surrogates to sing accomplishments he never achieved knowing that most of the audience out there knows that's a lie? Well, what is wrong with this guy is that he is a Jew. And you know this to be true because only a Jew would do what he did. When you gather a few like him and give them a homeland, they look for more suckers to draft into the service of promoting their Jewish causes.

That's what happened in 1948 when Israel was created. Ever since that time, the most important task the Jews have had was to find a host on which to feed while pretending to comfort the breast they suckled. After three failures courting the Soviet Union, France and England, the Jews discovered a made-to-order sucker that was perfectly suited to play the role. It was the United States of America.

After that discovery, the Jews needed one more ingredient to get the ball rolling. It was a story they could tell from both sides of the mouth. Being who they are, they had no difficulty putting together a story that would send out seductive signals from one side of the mouth while spraying venom from the other side of the mouth.

They thought correctly that the Americans were gullible enough to believe – on the one hand – that having chosen them to be his favorite children, God gave them the best piece of land in the world known as the Land of Milk and Honey; and gullible enough to believe – on the other hand – that the land was barren and inhospitable to such an extent, only their ingenuity was able to turn it into a lush green oasis.

Thus, in the American system of beliefs, the Jews had become lovable things in the eyes of God, as well as being so ingenious as to almost rival Him in knowledge and wisdom. This is why the Americans adopted the view that the Jews have the right to grab anything they want even at the objection of its owner.

With a climate such as this permeating every walk of life in America, everyone has learned to step aside and make room for the Jew to enjoy the right of way without lifting a finger for the privilege. A mind blowing example of this reality is the behavior of America's legislators who fall over each other to give Israel what it wants at a time when America, having its own needs, is drowning in debt and stubborn problems.

Having this kind of power over America, and seeing that America has sway over parts of the world, it was inevitable that the Jews began to scheme the use of America's power and influence to further their Israeli agenda. That being the creation of a Jewish empire that will eclipse the splendors of the ancient world, the Jews of America tried to grow Israel by the method of conquest till they learned that violence had limits and will not get them what they wanted.

And so, it occurred to them that instead of using violence to conquer Israel's neighbors, they should try to do it the way they conquered gullible America. They will blitz the region with propaganda, duplicating in the Arab world what the Jews achieved in America. They will make the Arabs believe that the Jews are so ingenious they are full of knowledge and wisdom. With that, they hope to make the Arabs adopt the view that the Jews have the right to grab anything they want, anytime they decide.

How to do that? By doing what Herbert London did with the article he wrote under the title: “A fresh wind in the Middle East,” published on April 24, 2018 in The Washington Times. This is a 620-word piece that has one purpose only and one sentence to express it.

After the necessary verbiage that makes of the effort an article, Herbert London ended his argument with the star of the show. They were the following two sentences: “If the Middle East has a future, it is dependent on the innovation emerging from the Jewish state. Who would have guessed that the target of Arab enmity for years would turn out to be the region's savior?”

But guess what, my friend. This Jewish approach has been going on for a while already, and whereas some people are flipping over it in America, almost no one bothers with it in the Middle East. The few that glance over it see it as a virulent disease that's trying to seduce them. No, the Arabs will not go the way of America.

Once was not enough; he wants it twice more

Have you ever heard the expression: You couldn't make this stuff up? It is used when someone wants to convey the idea that something which happened in real life was so unreal, a fiction writer could not have imagined it.

This being the case, we could not possibly imagine something like the inadvertent confession Benny Avni made in his latest column. And so, we imagine a short vignette that may not fully express what he actually did, but will attempt to approach it.

Think of the neighborhood meat store where you've been shopping for decades. The owner has always been friendly to you, and the employees helpful and courteous. The products you bought were always fresh and were priced competitively. In short, you never had a complaint to level against the store during the decades that you've been shopping there. You were truly a happy customer.

And then one day, as you entered the store intending to do your regular shopping, the owner pulled you to the side saying he had something important to tell you. Puzzled, you gave him a blank look and said not a word because you didn't know what to think. He proceeded to tell you that the meat you've been buying all these years was neither beef nor lamb. It was horse meat and dog meat. But now that you've enjoyed these delicacies during all these years, there is no reason why you shouldn't continue to shop at the store.

By now, you must be asking: Did Benny Avni really do something analogous to that? Yes, my friend, Benny Avni did something analogous to that. As it turns out; what he did is even more incredulous in terms of the contempt he proved to have for his readers; and in terms of negative consequences his conduct has heaped on the free exchange of ideas in the so-called American democracy.

The column in question came under the title: “Trump can end the Iran deal and still make one with North Korea,” published on April 24, 2018 in the New York Post. As indicated in the title, Avni is advising Trump not to worry about reneging on a deal America concluded with Iran because such move will not affect another deal America is trying to conclude with North Korea. As unreliable as this shows the Jews to be when it comes to making deals with them, it pales compared to what else Benny Avni did. What follows is what he did in his own words:

“Iran touts international commerce as a way to keep the clerics in power. What's good for the ayatollah isn't good for North Korea. Iran's threat to race to get nuclear weapons if we even tweak the nuclear deal is a bluff. Iran will do anything to lure European companies. Publicly seeking nukes would set that quest back. In fact, the deal is so advantageous to Iran it'll beg Europe to stay in even if the US bolts”.

Benny Avni just sank the arguments that he and his mob of Jewish pundits have been pouring into the public square for years, attacking the Iran nuclear deal as they did. They were saying that the deal was giving Iran a path to the bomb, and that the ayatollahs will take such path because they are so irrational, they would hurt themselves to experience the pleasure of hurting others.

But now, Avni is saying that the deal is a good thing because the ayatollahs are so rational, they know it is advantageous to them, and will want to keep it. But does that mean Avni is now advising America not to bolt out of the deal? No, he is not saying that. In tact, Avni has found another reason why America should bolt out of the good deal. Here are his words in this regard: “Nixing the Iran deal on the eve of the Kim summit can actually help. It'll show Pyongyang that America [is prepared] to walk away from the table”.

So you have this guy –– Benny Avni who just told the American people that for decades, he has been selling them not a bill of goods but horse meat and dog meat –– telling them now to keep buying what more he wants to sell to them. And what he is selling now is twice as consequential as before.

Whereas in the past, Avni used to advise the dumping of the Iran deal knowing it was a good thing, he now wants America to dump both the Iran deal and a North Korea deal in the making … presumably because he knows that both deals will be good for America and for the world.

Kosher or not, will America keep eating dog meat? Or will it tell the Jew to hit the road and never look back?

Using Congress to legitimize Jewish Supremacy

It is the publicly stated dream of the Jews to break up every Arab country and every neighboring Muslim country into canton-like pieces and make it possible for Israel to create a Kurdish type problem for every Arab country and for Iran. If this can be done, the Jews hope it will lead to making Israel the hegemon of the region.

Their scheme has succeeded in Sudan. They are trying to have it work in Iraq but failing so far. And they are trying hard in Syria but the dream is fading there too. Undeterred, the Jews are murmuring similar fantasies about Iran, and you can be certain that sooner or later, they'll be singing the same kind of tune about Turkey.

Thus, for a Jew to claim that Jews harbor no such schemes, is to tell the world he is a lying animal that should be treated with contempt, or tell the world he believes there is an audience of stupid animals out there who are thirsty to hear this kind of talk. One such Jew is Andrew Miller who wrote an article that's specifically designed to impress those in the American Congress. The article came under the title: “A new hope for NGOs in Egypt,” published on April 23, 2018 in The Hill magazine.

To understand what's motivating Andrew Miller, you need to know what happened in Egypt about half a dozen years ago. What happened there was that the country's security apparatus put an end to a Jewish scheme that was using America's power, prestige, money, and influence to do to Egypt what the Jews did to Sudan; what they are trying to do to Iraq and Syria, and what they are dreaming of doing to Iran and Turkey. They were trying to sow dissension among the various groups in Egypt, preparing to break up the country the way they did in Sudan, and the way they are trying to do in Iraq and Syria.

So now, half a dozen years later, you can imagine the savage, animal-like rage that Andrew Miller and his co-conspirators are experiencing, frustrated as they are that Egypt, the biggest of the prizes, has not only escaped their murderous designs; it is getting further away from them with every passing day. And so, once again, the Jews have turned to their crappy allies, the brainless dogs of treason; the dogs of war and mayhem in the American Congress of sheer uselessness, and asked for help.

The Jews asked the honorable male and female bimbos populating the Congress to do more than mortgage their American motherland to help the Jews “conquer” Egypt; they asked the bimbos to prostitute their mother by giving her away free of charge to the Jewish whorehouse that's on the New-York/Tel-Aviv axis of organized crime. And the honorable bimbos felt doubly honored to be asked to assist.

In addition to working as diligently as they can on that scheme, you'll catch the Jews working on a larger scheme. It is that of institutionalizing every small gain they make so that the cumulative effect of such gains will someday become the monument that will validate God's will at making the Jews his favorite children, and placing them above everyone else.

The way the Jews hope to achieve that goal is by making the American Congress pass laws that favor Israel or the Jews or both. But because the scheme will work only in America, they had the Congress pressure the foreign governments to pass laws in their own legislatures favoring the Jews or Israel or both. The Jewish leaders envisage that once they have covered the entire planet, the scheme will have become a universal undertaking.

You'll encounter several long passages in the Miller article in which he instructs the Congress on how to pressure the Egyptian government to do what will most certainly hurt Egypt and America, but will serve the interests of Jews and Israel. Here is a sample of that:

“This is an opportunity for President Sisi [of Egypt] to prove his willingness to work for a better relationship with Washington. He knows that Congress has a say on issues important to Egypt … Arranging for the full exoneration of the defendants is a step that Sisi could take. Egyptian officials tend to overstate the risk of such action, citing public opinion and legal obstacles … Sisi could easily contain fallout from overturning the verdicts”.

What Andrew Miller is saying, in effect, is that in Egypt, in America and everywhere else in the world, nothing is sacred when the intent is to do what's necessary to validate the eternal truth that God has ranked the Jews above everyone else, and gave them priority in everything.

US foreign Policy by Times of Israel and Lifson

If you thought that to say the mob of Jewish pundits in America –– working together with its counterpart in occupied Palestine (sometimes referred to as Israel) –– is setting the foreign policy of the United States of America, is an exaggeration or an exercise in empty talk, get ready to see the proof that will explode your mind by the pressure of total bewilderment.

Such proof is contained in an article that came under the title: “Trump administration dumps another pro-Palestinian shibboleth,” written by Thomas Lifson of the American Thinker, and printed on April 22, 2018 in his online publication. In his article, Lifson chose to discuss a report that was published in The Times of Israel (TOI). As it happened, however, the mob that's running TOI was itself discussing a report that the U.S. State Department had issued – as it does every year – in which it laid-out the state of human rights around the world.

What happened according to TOI is that the State Department zeroed in on something that was formulated long ago in such a way as to sound pro-Palestinian. The Department changed the formulation to make it sound pro-Jewish instead. And so, in an explosive expression of jubilation that's equal only to the force of your bewilderment, Lifson joined the party his brethren in occupied Palestine were having.

After announcing triumphantly that the State Department “no longer refers to the West Bank as 'occupied,'” here is how TOI and Lifson say the event developed: “Whereas previous iterations of the Report had a section on 'Israel and the Occupied Territories,' this year's document refers instead to 'Israel, Golan Heights, West Bank and Gaza.'” This being as innocuous as it sounds; the State Department did not have to explain why it changed the formulation. But the fact that the change did occur presented an opportunity for the likes of TOI and Lifson to exploit it by spinning it as follows:

“This is very significant. It is 'normalizing' Israel's hold on the lands it won in a war. Poland is not about to give back to Germany the territory that was taken at the end of World War 2. It's Gdansk, not Danzig … Nor is the US about to hand over the lands it won from Mexico, as La Raza wants. War and conquest is how pretty much every nation established itself as sovereign over whatever territory it rules”.

To say that this is what the State Department was signaling is of course nonsense, and anyone that reads English knows it. But if not, what are TOI and Lifson trying to accomplish, spinning it as they did? Well, this is a stark example of how the Jews pull tricks on America. They make the tricks so filthy, the Americans shy away from correcting them lest they inadvertently cause two things to happen. First, to push against the Jewish filth will tell the world there is daylight between America and Israel. Second, it will encourage the growth of antisemitism in America.

To take full advantage of those fears, the Jews in America and Israel take advantage of the situation to advance notions that become the accepted norms simply because they were not repudiated. And the ramifications are such that they play a big role in everyday life at home and abroad. Played in the Middle East by the Israeli media, and played in America by a sycophantic media, the Jewish leaders legitimize every “far out” notion they want. The effect abroad is that the notions define America's foreign policy from which America cannot retract.

As to their effect at home, such notions signal to young Americans struggling to shape a moral life for themselves that what counts in life is getting away with what you do. If it is bad for Russia to garb Crimea but good for the Jews to grab the West Bank; it must be bad for everyone to steal, murder and rape, but good for me to steal, murder and rape. I can sin all I want, and in the same way there is a defense by temporary insanity, there is for me a defense by temporary Jewishness.

And as usual, you can count on the Jews turning reality upside down. This is what Lifson did when he accused the world of practicing the double standard of allowing to others what they forbid to Israel. He went on to say that Trump broke with that tradition, and praised him for not being like Hitler.

But what's this guy talking about, anyway? World War Two happened because Hitler grabbed territory from his neighbors the way that Israel is doing now. For Lifson to say that Trump is not like Hitler because he allows Israel to grab territory from the neighbors the way that Hitler did, proves that Trump is not like Hitler – is a logic that has the Star of David stamped all over it.

Do you know where this argument belongs, my friend? At this time, it belongs in the toilet. But when a new Hitler will rise, it will belong in a much hotter place.

Be careful what you wish for, Thomas Lifson, because you may just get it.

Will that be a Syrian Lesson for America?

In the chronology of opinions that he wrote – obscuring the chronology of facts surrounding the war in Syria – Andrew J. Tabler has nevertheless done a valuable service telling the story of that war as he sees it.

He wrote the story under the title: “How Syria Came to This,” an article that was published on April 15, 2018 on the website of the Washington Institute. What is valuable about this article is that it offers an important lesson for the American governing apparatus in both the White House and the Congress. The trope is that the lesson shines through the article because of what was left unsaid more than it shines by what was said.

What the author did not mention is that there was a steady stream of Jewish calls in America and Israel for a regime change in Syria. As certain as the sun rises in the East and sets in the West, this kind of calls have always forced the embattled leader of a country to take protective measures to insure the survival of the regime. And the result of such measures has always been the creation of a catastrophe that could have been avoided but was not. This is what happened in Syria; and the lesson is there for all to see and learn from.

In a world of instant communication, and where populations are becoming aware of what can be had that they don't have, protests and uprisings became common from China to Turkey to Spain to Brazil. The Arab World, especially Syria, had its share of such protests; but it was only in this part of the world that the Jews psyched the Americans into believing they must intervene by siding with the protesters or else the sky will fall, then the planets will fall, then the stars will fall and then the whole bloody universe will fall. And then guess what my friend; the dumb Americans believed every word of that venomous trash. They ate from it without question like monkeys eat from a basket of bananas.

From the executives of Google who displayed a Sudan in flames, to a half-baked intellectual of the Franco-Jewish kind who warned that Libya was becoming a Rwanda, to a chorus of Jewish American editors and pundits as well as their ass-kissing followers who decreed that Syria must have a regime change; the American politico-journalistic establishment let its collective birdbrain be mobilized by the Jews. And all those in the establishment were given the task of saving the universe from an Arab big bang they were told will annihilate them unless America sides with the protesters whomever they are, wherever they are, and whatever they want.

As to the method by which the organized crime syndicate that owns and operates America today is sustaining the horror; it rests on the use of catchwords the Jews invent for every occasion. In the same way that you can train your dog to do what you tell it with a single word like “catch” or “attack,” the Jews have trained the multitude populating the politico-journalistic establishment to do what the syndicate wants by uttering such words as “dictator” or “despot.” Why develop a time consuming full length argument telling America to bomb a country when you can achieve the same result by saying that the country is governed by a dictator or a despot?

In fact, unlike anywhere else in the world, the Jews don't need to make a case in America anymore for the intellectual elites of that country to call on the administration to send troops overseas. All that the Jews need to do is say the magic word and pronto, a contingent of young Americans is sent to kill and die in far away lands, and achieve nothing more than inflate the ego of Jews in America and Israel.

This demonic performance worked so well in Syria, a chain of events more convoluted than any Elizabethan dramatist could come up with, has unfolded in that unfortunate country. In fact, Andrew Tabler tells of children that scrawled graffiti on a wall prompting the Syrian authorities to implement a “small crackdown.” Things got out of hand when “direct and fiery” agitators forced the regime to respond with gunfire, he went on to say. And then, uncharacteristic to Syria, well organized protests flared in several parts of the country. This prompted foreign fighters and terror organizations to join the fray, turning the battle into a civil war, says Tabler.

That's when America officially called for regime change in Syria, urging its friends and allies in the Middle East and Europe to join the effort at realizing that goal. In addition, America started to arm the rebels who worked hand in hand with the terrorists. And the regime in Syria had no choice but to call on its friends in Iran and Russia to help it push back against a multi-pronged foreign invasion instigated by the Jews and overseen by the American military.

Seeing that their demonic plan had backfired with the Iranians and the Russians winning the war for a regime they wanted to topple, the Jews panicked as they feared what will happen to Israel. America too panicked, seeing that the Russians were building a naval base for themselves in Syria.

Now my friend, knowing that the Jews will not learn the lesson they never did in four thousand years, do you think the Americans will learn the lesson they ignored for eight decades, and stay out of trouble?

This shall remain an open question till next time when the mob of Jewish pundits will cry out: Look America, there is a rebellion in that Arab country, and you wouldn't be leader of the free world if you didn't go bomb the hell out of that place.

We'll know then whether or not America has learned its lesson.

He admits to Bankruptcy of the Jewish Approach

Here is a typical column of the Bret Stephens variety. It came under the title: “Jewish Power at 70 Years,” published on April 20, 2018 in the New York Times. Stephens admitted that the Jewish approach has failed, and then suggested that to remedy the situation, the Jews must do A and B, which – you guessed it – are the steps of the approach he says had failed.

To explain his philosophy, Stephens seized on an incident that happened in Germany, and argued that Jews are hated in Europe, which also means they are hated just about everywhere else. The solution, he says, is for the Jews to huddle in a homeland of their own such as Israel; a place where they can be protected by Israel's “army, bomb, and robust willingness to use force to defend itself”.

Reduced to the two essential components of the Stephens argument –– the cause and the ensuing effect –– the writer's logic seems to hold together when looked at in a cursory way. But when you parse the argument and look at its parts, you discover that the glue keeping it together is strained to the limit. And you begin to understand why the Jewish approach has gone bankrupt … not once but over and over again.

What's wrong with that approach anyway? Well, to shed light at the repeated failures of the Jews to integrate into the human family, we need to understand how they view their dilemma, and how much they are prepared to cooperate in the search for a way to resolve the difficulties. What follows is a condensed account of how Bret Stephens and most other Jewish leaders view the situation:

“Germany's foreign minister tweeted, 'Jews shall never again feel threatened here.' It's a vow not likely to be fulfilled. To be visibly Jewish in Europe is to live on borrowed time. That's not to doubt the sincerity of European leaders who commit to combating anti-Semitism. Jews cannot rely for their safety on French or German politicians. There's a limit to how many guards can be deployed to protect synagogues and Holocaust memorials. There's a limit, also, to trying to cure bigotry with appeals to tolerance. The German government is mulling a proposal to require recent arrivals to tour Nazi concentration camps. It doesn't occur to them that to some, Buchenwald is a source of inspiration, not shame”.

Bret Stephens has finally seen the light. His words indicate he understands that shoving the love of Jews down the throat of people does not make them love Jews. On the contrary, it makes them hate Jews so much they wish a new Hitler would rise and implement the Final Solution for good this time. But does that mean Stephens is prepared to negotiate or at least debate what the Jews might do to harmonize with the rest of humanity? No, it doesn't mean he is prepared to do that. Here is what he says in that regard:

“Israel exists to end the victimization of Jews. That's a point Israel's critics could learn. Palestinians in Gaza returned to the border fence with Israel in protest. Their purpose is to march on Jerusalem. Israel cannot allow this to happen, and has used deadly force to counter it. The pundits think this is excessive. It would be helpful if they suggest alternative military tactics. The least they can do is defend Israel's sovereignty”.

It is obvious that there is a standoff between humanity which believes in the rule of law and justice for all – and the Bret Stephens type of Jewish leaders who are developing new ideas just as weird as the old. Given that they and Stephens have stepped back from the standard Jewish position of demanding that nations recognize the uniqueness of Jews and make laws reflecting this reality, they see no way out of the difficult situation but for the Jews to retreat into a national ghetto called Israel.

Having abandoned the idea of Jews receiving special status in every country, they still hang on to the idea that Israel should be given special status among the nations of the Earth. This is important to them because their philosophy is based on the idea that they are the chosen children of God. For this to become reality in practice, humanity must be made to accept it, adopt it and cherish it. That’s another way of saying love the Jew or else.

The idea is that if it’s impossible for individual Jews to enjoy the benefits of that divine providence in every country on the planet, they can enjoy it by exercising the right collectively. They can by going to live in Israel or by supporting it from wherever they are in the world.

When the Diaspora Jews will understand those realities, they'll get in line and accept that Israel has the right to express its uniqueness by being sole judge as to the amount of deadly force it can use when battling someone; so says the logic of the Jewish leaders.

This is especially true when battling the people whose properties Israel is looting in fulfillment of God's promise that what the Jews desire becomes theirs instantly. They can take it by hook, by crook or by the bumbling of the U.S. Congress of imbeciles, say the Jewish leaders.

And that, my friend, is why the Jewish approach has gone bankrupt again and again.

You can read them like an open Book

Here is a golden opportunity to see how the Jewish design on America is executed in practice. Two articles were published on April 19, 2018 laying out in detail how a strategy of “Confuse, Paralyze and Pivot” is used by the Jews to keep America as their eternal sucker.

One article came under the title: “Use Iran Sanctions to Stop Assad” and the subtitle: “Allied cooperation in Syria offers a way to overcome differences over the nuclear deal,” written by Mark Dubowitz and Richard Goldberg, and published in the Wall Street Journal. The other article came under the title: “Trump's Syria Strike Is a good Start,” written by Matthew Brodsky and published in The Weekly Standard.

The Dubowitz/Goldberg article shows how the Jews interlace a web of several issues to confuse the American foreign policy apparatus, thus paralyze it before moving in on it and forcing it to serve the interests of Israel instead of America's and those of the world. As to the Brodsky article; it shows how the Jews move in after the paralysis, and guide America to self-immolate by neglecting to serve its own interests and those of the world in favor of serving the interests of Israel.

Given that the most important concern of the Israelis at this time relates to the growing ties that Iran is developing in the Middle East, and the influence it is gaining as a result, you'll find that both articles begin by discussing Syria to make it look like the writers are interested in all matters relating to America's concern for the well being of its citizens and the world. But when they are done with this topic, the writers pivot to discuss Iran, making sure to place Israel's interests above those of America and the world.

Not only that, but as you can see from the title of the Dubowitz/Goldberg article, the authors took advantage of the fact that Assad is the hour's hated man to make the devilishly twisted argument that tells how Assad can be made to suffer even more. The argument goes something like this: if America would punish Iran it would, by the same token, punish Assad. Of course, the writers are not saying that whereas Assad is America's current enemy, Iran is Israel's most feared enemy. And so, the net effect of the Jewish ruse in telling America how to move on Iran, boils down to stirring up America's hatred and force it to do the dirty work for Israel.

To develop that argument, the writers started the article like this: “The debate in Washington has centered on whether the strike against Syria went far enough. But policy makers should consider another question … Iran spent $ 15 billion last year to bolster its partner in Damascus.” And they came down hard on Iran, suggesting that the way to deal with it is to increase the financial pressures on its economy. For this to succeed, they spoke of the necessity to draw the Europeans into the effort. And this is where they employed another devilishly twisted argument. Here, in brief, is what they said:

“Trump will soon decide on issuing a waiver suspending sanctions on Iran's central bank. The U.S. can offer a face-saving gesture to win European support. Rather than labeling the reimposition of sanctions a way of nixing the nuclear deal, the president should announce the move as a response to Iranian behavior in Syria”.

In other words, the Jewish writers are telling America to pull on the Europeans a trick of utmost hypocrisy considered by them to be vintage Jewish. The trouble is that the Europeans have been punishing the Jews throughout the centuries for practicing this kind of hypocrisy. The fact that America will be the one pulling it this time will not diminish its sting. And the Europeans will respond as they always do … with extreme indignation.

As to the Matthew Brodsky article, the writer has evoked the name of former President Barack Obama 5 times to tell how bad he believes the man had been for America. But when he tried to explain that point, he revealed his true motives. It is that he thought Obama put America's interests above those of Israel, and he didn't like it. And so he went on to tell the new president how to proceed in the Middle East. Here is a condensed version of that:

“Trump could have done far more to punish Assad; hit his presidential palace in Damascus; leveled his summer residence and palace on the coast; cratered his runways and airfields; destroyed his air assets and targeted his air defense systems … The next step in Syria is finishing the job, recognizing the military threat Iran poses and pivoting to the prevention of additional gains by Iran”.

To these people, America is a beast of burden and a cash cow rolled into one. How much longer will this last?

Editors unmasking Israel as a failed Experiment

The editors of the New York Post came up with a piece that is so poignant, it makes you wonder if after 4,000 years of continuous misery, the Jews will ever develop a modus vivendi that will harmonize with the existing intelligent life on Planet Earth, thus fit-in with the human race and live in harmony with everyone else.

It may be that the editors believe in what they say, or it may be that they wrote a subtle parody pretending to be sincere while demonstrating the failure of the Jews who try to disprove the theory that they will never have a functioning country of their own because the only way they can survive as individuals or a country, is by forging a parasitic relationship with someone else.

Whatever the case, what these editors wrote demonstrates what the current Jewish failure looks like. The piece they wrote came under the title: “What makes Israel most remarkable at 70,” an editorial they printed on April 18, 2018 in their own New York Post.

When you read that thing, you get filled with emotions as if a pauper had said something remarkable happened to him. You ask what, and he says he saw ten dollars on the sidewalk, picked it up and never felt so rich in his life. You shake your head and mutter to yourself: Those poor buggers! They have no idea how poor they are spiritually, intellectually and culturally. What follows is what the editors say they believe is remarkable about Israel's achievements:

First, in the category of stirring up their own bile and those of others, the editors say this:

Israel has triumphantly managed to provoke “a terrifying resurgence of European anti-Semitism; calls for Israel's economic isolation and growing assaults from US and European intellectuals and the political left.” They go on to say this: “At home, Israel remains roiled by partisan strife and ongoing tensions between religious and nonreligious sectors of society.” And you must admit this is quite an accomplishment.

Second, in the category of self-deception, you'll catch those editors saying this:

“In the face of threat from Iran, Israel has forged alliances with Arab Gulf states like Saudi Arabia.” Well, anyone that knows the Arabs will tell you this is a total fabrication since there has never been an alliance between an Arab or a Muslim country and Israel. The latter has only a peace treaty with two front-line Arab countries: Egypt and Jordan; a situation that is always referred to as a cold peace and nothing more … because that's all it is.

The editors go on to say this: “Thanks to the mutual threat from Hamas-controlled Gaza, Israel's ties to Egypt remain strong.” As can be seen the theme here points to a weird Jewish peculiarity. It is that when they see a flicker of light in the distance – one that may be real or may be imagined – their imagination tends to fly uncontrollably to cloud nine and beyond … to where they believe in the reality of their latent fantasies.

And what makes that weirdness even weirder is that it is triggered by the Jewish vision that if a country has an enemy that also happens to be an enemy of Israel, the Jews automatically assume that such country is allied to Israel. In this case they have assumed that the Gulf countries are fearful of Iran, therefore they are allied with Israel. They also assumed that Egypt feels threatened by Hamas therefore it must be chummy with Israel. This is a fantasy the Jews will hang onto till they replace it with an even stranger fantasy.

Third, in the category of pure fiction, the editors of the New York Post take flight at warp speed to the land of obvious falsehood ... as you can see for yourself:

They say that “Israel remains a technological powerhouse … the most important source of high-tech innovation outside of Silicon Valley.” The truth is that if you put together all the innovations produced by Israel's high-tech workers, they would not fill the pocket of a single Third World kid. These are the kids who participate in international high-tech contests and win prizes. As to the venues; they happen to be forums where most of the time, not a single Israeli qualified to even enter the contest.

Still, unashamed and undeterred (if they are not faking,) the editors of the New York Post go on to say that Israel's “economy has one of the highest growth rates in the world.” But the truth is that Israel does not have an economy. It is a haven in which wealthy Jews around the world park the ill gotten gains they accumulate by hook, by crook and by all kinds of legal, shady, and outlawed tricks.

It must be noted that when such transactions transpire in a place; they do not qualify it to be called an economy anymore than the transactions transpiring in the territory of a drug cartel qualify it to be called an economy.

Israel is the failed experiment that has been failing for thousands of years because it rests on one thing and one thing only: the big lie.

High Priests of Darkness plotting new Missions

Who do you think is more dangerous to your teenaged boy or girl? Would it be a boy that was abused by a priest and believes it is normal to act with others the way the priest acted with him? Or would it be the priest himself that's trying to lure your teenager into his 'circle of friends'?

If there is a grain of sanity inside your skull, you'd say they are both bad, but the priest is infinitely more dangerous to your teenager and to society as a whole. There are many reasons why this is so, and they should be obvious to every reader. However, what is difficult to make-out is that much of what happens in modern society can be analogized to that example and yet, when we try to sort out the bad from the worse, we discover that it is a difficult thing to do.

The reason is that modern society has so advanced it sorted out what is good from what is bad from what is worse. The effect has been that most people pretend to be good, and almost no one believes them. In fact, most of us do bad things, but depending on how sophisticated the person is, each manages to project an image of the self that’s better than they really are. And the more sophisticated the bad person is, the better they hide their evil intent, and the more dangerous they are to society.

For example, you might have a coworker that becomes visibly temperamental at times. He is bad but not too dangerous because you know how to avoid him when he starts acting up. You might also have a suave coworker that's always flattering you while saying bad things about everyone else. And then you discover that he is flattering everyone in their faces while telling them bad things about others, including you. In addition, you discover that he has been telling the temperamental worker the same sort of things, thus winding him up to get nasty with everyone. And so, you determine that the apparently suave coworker is more dangerous to you and to everyone at the office than the temperamental one.

This kind of drama is also played out in a big way on the international stage among state and non-state actors. Looking at them, we discover similarities and differences in how the game is played in the office and on the international stage. They are similar in that the action is almost always improvised and spontaneous. The difference between them is that in the office, the creators of the drama and the players are one and the same. By contrast, the players on the international stage are usually politicians that lack creativity, thus depend on whisperers to tell them what to say and what to do. The whisperers can be close advisers or distant pundits offering advice through the media.

One such whisperer is Clifford D. May. You can see what he is whispering and to whom he is whispering it. This will help you determine if he is a priest dedicated to saving souls, or he is a devil committing heinous crimes while hiding inside the robe of holiness. He wrote: “Middle East missions to accomplish,” a column that was published on April 17, 2018 in The Washington Times.

If in the language of politics and diplomacy 'defending democracy' has come to represent the robe of holiness, Clifford May who presides over the Foundation for Defense of Democracy, must be a high priest of some kind. But what kind is that? To make that determination we look to see if he is of the type that minds his own business and wishes that others do the same in true 'live and let live' fashion – or if he is the type that goes around badmouthing everyone to create fear and suspicion among them in a true 'divide and conquer' fashion?

Reading his column, we find that he structured the human race the way that employees are structured in a company office. He speaks of American values as being the model of high morality whereas the rest of the world is made of “totalitarians who vow to destroy us.” He says this reality comes through the attitude of the United Nations and that of Democratic former President Barack Obama. Thus, Clifford May has managed to set half of America against the other half and against the entire human race. The trouble is that he neglected to tell which half of America owns the model of high morality. Perhaps he meant the Republican half.

You comb through the column looking for clues and find that he defines high morality as stealing the petroleum resources of Syria, and honoring Israel: the grand thief of Palestinian properties. But that's the kind of attitude that Republican Dwight Eisenhower rejected thoroughly. So, you're back to wondering – if not Democratic or Republican – what part of America is Clifford May lauding?

You find it to be a small group of Jews and their lackeys calling themselves Neocons. Their preference, according to Clifford May, is to trigger a high-intensity conflict as soon as possible because the alternative will be to surrender America and the West. But again, Clifford May neglected to say surrender to whom? Would it be to Bashar Assad of Syria? Or would it be to Hassan Rouhani of Iran?

No, if there is any evil in these people, it's only that they resemble the teenagers who were abused by the high priests of darkness, and can easily be rehabilitated. But the long term and lasting solution to what is ailing Planet Earth will not happen till the priests of darkness are taken care of.

They believe all Dots connect to Iran

When in 1967 the Israelis used the chemical weapon known as napalm bomb, they did not hide this fact. What happened, instead, is that they brought smiles to the faces of the moronic beasts in the American congress by telling them the story of Jews being so technologically advanced they produced weapons the other side could not dream of. And the moronic beasts of America went to bed that night reassured that the world was kept safe by their support for Israel.

When during the Gaza wars the Israelis used the chemical weapon known as phosphoric bomb to kill scores of Palestinian women and children huddled in their bedrooms, the Israelis blamed the attack on the victims who chose to live in crowded Gaza rather than flee the land and leave it to the Jewish squatters that hungered to go in and occupy it. And the Jewish lobby in America explained this reality to the moronic beasts of the congress that authorized the Executive to give Israel a billion-dollar reward for doing a heck of a murderous job.

When the Hindu nation of India, followed by the Muslim nation of Pakistan produced a nuclear bomb, the Jews who think of Israel as a Jewish nation, wanted to rekindle the old dream of producing the Jewish bomb they once collaborated with apartheid South Africa to realize but never did. In lieu of the dream that escaped them, the Jews created a fantasy about having two hundred bombs in their arsenal. Next, they had their mouthpieces in America whisper the fantasy in the ear of the moronic beasts that populate the congress. And the beasts went to bed thinking they had a strong ally in the Middle East protecting them from barbarians knocking at some gate they don't know where.

And now that the Jews have realized they were instrumental in bringing another Muslim nation called Iran close to producing the bomb they'll never have, they want the America of the congress of morons to destroy Iran. And the way the Jews go about telling America to do them such favor, is that they point to anything and everything an Iranian does anywhere in the world, and say to America: See? Like we said; this proves the Iranians are preparing to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth.

Not only did the Jews reach that absurd level of paranoia, they went beyond it to the point of suspecting everyone that dealt with the Iranians of plotting the annihilation of Israel. What made matters even worse is that Syria, which suffered a great deal by Israel's raids on its territory, came to believe that Israel had the bomb. In response to the threat that never really was, Syria's leaders developed the chemical weapons that came to be nicknamed the poor man's bomb.

And now that the Syrians got rid of the chemical weapons which are banned under international law, the Jews are pointing to the legitimate chemicals Syria has, accusing it of holding on to the poor man's bomb. The Jews make these accusations while urging their mouthpieces in America to continue bragging about Israel having a fictitious arsenal of the real things.

That was the strategy adopted by the Judeo-Israeli organized crime syndicate. Its purpose was to have America destroy the Middle East and ready it for Israel to go in and colonize it. But the strategy failed, and when the Jews began to sense they were getting back to square one, they started working on a new strategy. You can see signs of it in the column that came under the title: “Syria's chemical attack is a warning on 'disarmament' deals,” written by Benny Avni and published on April 16, 2018 in the New York Post.

What you'll detect is a Jewish effort at making the Americans believe the bad guys are out there developing banned weapons –– not just fantasizing about them as do the Jews –– and that the bad guys will hide such weapons in military bases labeled off limit to international inspection. Based on this, Benny Avni reaches the conclusion that, “Inspections are useless if a country wants them to be”.

And that's the point where he pivoted the discussion from Syria to Iran and talked about his favorite subject: how bad the Iranians are, and what America must do to protect humanity from the people he hates. It just happens that these people contributed much to the advancement of the human species during the millenniums when the Jewish parasites were running around sucking everyone's blood and getting incinerated for it.

This is what Avni said about the Iranians: “Those in Iran know they can have their yellow cake and eat it too.” Well, at least it's their cake; not the flesh and blood of the hosts that take pity on them and give them a hand.

They shed Darkness on clear Issues

There have been attempts to define the word “disinformation,” and each definition may have served a useful purpose. So, allow me to make a contribution of my own to that effort. I define disinformation as the shedding of darkness on an issue that is inherently clear. A simple way to retain this idea is to think of disinformation as being the opposite of clarification. That is, think of it as being the act of committing a declarification.

And we are lucky today because Thomas L. Friedman took pain to show how declarification is done in practice. He did it by shedding darkness on an issue that is essentially clear. He wrote, “The Real Next War in Syria: Iran vs. Israel,” a column that was published on April 16, 2018 in the New York Times.

No one that's old enough and learned enough to know that the word 'Iran' does not refer to a newly discovered planet in outer space – but to a country that's located here on Earth – will have missed that Iran has had a long history of complex interactions with most nations here on Earth. Currently, it has good relations with some neighbors and has bad blood with other neighbors. Also, it has good relations and bad blood with nations that are strewn all around the globe. This means that when Iran does something, the chances are that it does it not out of whim but because it has taken many historical and present-day factors into consideration.

This being the reality of the situation, to say otherwise is to be silly. Worse, to say otherwise and write a 1,400-word essay to make the silliness sound plausible, is to commit an act of disinformation by shedding darkness on the real issues of the day for the purpose of declarifying them. Well then, how did Thomas Friedman shed darkness on a Middle Eastern issue he admits may explode into a “real” war in Syria?

What Friedman did is write the following: “Tehran's attempt to build a network of bases and missile factories in Syria appears to be an ego-power play by Qassem Suleimani to advance his power struggle with Hassan Rouhani.” In other words, Friedman is telling us to forget about the trials and tribulations that Iran was forced to endure in the past, and continues to endure today. What we must understand, according to Friedman, is that Iran is marching to the beat of a rivalry that's raging between two of it leaders.

When looked at as a stand alone statement, the Friedman suggestion jumps out the page as a goofy utterance meant to belittle the Iranian system of governance and the two leaders responsible for the shenanigan. But the problem is that the statement was not a stand alone utterance. It was an integral part of a long presentation dealing with life and death; the most serious subject anyone can discuss. And so, we must dismiss the Friedman interpretation that put the blame on two Iranian leaders, and search for what Friedman and the Jewish propaganda machine are really trying to accomplish.

To that end, we recall that Iran was once a close friend of the United States and Israel. And then, it happened that in the 1950s America interfered in the internal affairs of Iran, the result of which being the imposition of an alliance between the ruling class and the foreign influences that sought to exploit the resources of Iran. The people revolted and toppled the regime. America responded by rallying its friends, including Israel, and led them to put pressure on Iran.

The confrontation between the two camps escalated to the point that America supplied Iraq's Saddam Hussein with the means to attack Iran with chemical weapons. And this was the act that led the revolutionary rulers of Iran to the conclusion that the survival of the country will depend on their ability to grow so strong that America and her allies will not be able to destroy their regime or their country.

This history, combined with Israel's incessant provocations and American utterances to the effect that “all options are on the table,” are the reasons why Iran is taking the defensive measures it is seen to take today.

This is the reality that Thomas Friedman sought to declarify in his discussion. Fearing the possibility of things going against Israel in the face-off it has with Iran, he reckoned that Israel will be blamed for the fiasco that will result. This is why he and the Jewish propaganda machine have imagined the Suleiman ego-power play, and make it the reason why Syria is about to explode into a real war.