Thursday, May 3, 2018

The perverted Jewish Definition of Leader

At long last, a Jew has come forward and given the formal Jewish definition of the word “leader,” at least insofar as it applies to what they call the “free world.” ("Trump Is Still the Leader of the Free World," published in National Review Online, April 30, 2018).

The Jew is Jonathan S. Tobin who wrote an article in which he anointed Donald Trump leader of the free world despite what he says are the disqualifying attributes of Trump. To explain this apparent contradiction, Tobin went through great lengths to explain that in Jewish eyes, what counts in a leader is that he runs scared and that he threatens those he perceives as enemies. All that, regardless as to the reality of the situation, and what may develop as a result of those threats.

To flesh out these points, Jonathan Tobin took pain to contrast Trump's demeanor and his philosophy regarding leadership – against the demeanor and the philosophy of his two potential rivals. They are Angela Merkel who is the Chancellor of Germany, and Emmanuel Macron who is the President of France. And here is how Tobin drew that contrast:

“Both [Merkel and Macron] are seen as the opposite of Trump. Both have a dignified demeanor, champion Western values, and embrace the notion of collective security rather than Trump's neo-isolationist foreign policy … But while Trump may not sound like the leader of the free world, he is defending it, while sophisticated policy experts advocate walking it into peril with eyes wide open. The Europeans' arguments depend on dubious assumptions about the nuclear pact”.

All of this indicates that at this point in time, the attitude toward the Iran nuclear deal is the prism through which the Jews look to judge a candidate's aptitude to lead what they call the free world. And this begs the following question: Why is it that of all the problems faced by America and the Western nations individually and collectively, the Iran nuclear deal commands such a high priority in the eyes of the Jews? We find the answer in the following passage:

“The deal empowered Iran … also enabled it to advance its quest for regional hegemony. Tehran's successful intervention in the Syrian war allowed it to threaten Israel. And Iran's missile program could give it a delivery vehicle that could threaten Israel … A Western leader would consider how dangerous it would be to allow Iran to continue on this path. Someone who values the security of the free world would not see it as a reasonable option merely to postpone the Iranian threat a few years while weakening Western resolve against Tehran”.

It is obvious that two themes are developed concurrently in that passage. First, speaking in the name of the Jewish Establishment, Tobin wants the Western World (nicknamed the free world) to consider Israel a part of it. Second, he wants the Western Alliance to consider Israel so important, it would sacrifice anything and everything to fulfill every Israeli whim, no matter how trivial it may be.

And so, when you put together the Jewish definition of leader and what the Jewish establishment wants the Western Alliance to do for Israel, you bump into a contradiction that Jonathan Tobin has not attempted to resolve.

Here is the problem: When something happens anywhere in the world, the Jews seize upon it and spin it in such a way as to say it proves that American threats produce results. That is, when exercised forcefully, American leadership is taken into account and given serious considerations around the world, say the Jews.

They said as much about Iran being forced to come to the “negotiating table” in response to an American threat. But then you have another faction – which includes Donald Trump – that says America consistently did badly at the negotiating table, no matter what it negotiated; with whom it negotiated.

This being the case, is it not foolish to incite America to threaten Iran and North Korea at this time, and then sit with them to negotiate a few losing rounds? Would it not be better for America to take a crash course on how to negotiate and win before engaging in it in real life?

And who would Jonathan Tobin recommend as instructors? Would it be the ancient Jews who negotiated themselves into the gas chambers and the incinerators? Or would it be the modern Jews who negotiated Israel into a permanent state of war with its neighbors, and never a deal with the Palestinians?

No, the Jews will not escape the consequences of souring and paralyzing the relations between America and its European allies the way they did the American Congress. That's because America's business can function without the Congress. What it cannot do is operate normally in the midst of a lengthy interruption in relations with the rest of the world.

If the Jews screw that up, there is no telling what price they will pay.