If only America were truly liberated

The Reuters news agency reports that the Trump administration wants to create a security alliance that will bring the six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council together with Egypt and Jordan. It is not clear at this point in time how the coalition will relate to the United States but whatever the case, the idea was once dubbed Arab NATO, but never took flight because it commanded no one's interest.

In fact, this will be the third attempt at creating such a grouping. The first was called Baghdad Pact and broke off eventually. The second never materialized, and the third will most likely never happen. But if it does, it will be something very different from what its dreamers are envisaging at this time. It is also ironic that the American President whose philosophy is to dismantle all coalitions and forge bilateral relations with individual countries, would want to be a part of a coalition that brings the United States together with eight Arab countries.

The Baghdad Pact was put together in 1955 and had its headquarter in Baghdad for the first 3 years of its existence. A revolution in Iraq then took place, and the government there was replaced. The first act that the new government did was to withdraw from the Pact that had brought Iraq, Turkey, Iran and Pakistan into a coalition under the aegis of Britain.

The Americans were supposed to join the pact but the grand irony is that John Foster Dulles who stabbed Egypt in the back on the Aswan Dam project to please the Jews, got stabbed in the back by the same Jews when he tried to join a coalition that was meant to contain the Soviet Union. But the thing is that despite the withdrawal of Iraq from the Pact, the coalition, now headquartered in Ankara, Turkey, survived for 21 more years under a different name: The Central Treaty Organization (CENTO). It eventually dissolved in 1979.

The idea behind forming a new alliance as envisaged by the Trump White House is to contain Iran. But the problem is that the project evokes a fundamental question: Can Donald Trump put together an Arab-American coalition for any purpose, let alone a coalition that may be dragged into a real war –– not just a proxy war –– with a Muslim country that may be disliked by many but did not invade another Arab or Muslim country?

Even if we discount the Jewish factor for the moment, knowing that it will play a big role in this project, the culture under which the Arabs operate is so different from what America has become, it will be impossible for the two to see eye to eye on many of the important issues. For example, both sides say that abiding by the law is paramount in their culture, but there will be a difference.

The Arabs believe what they say and would pay any price rather than breach the law. By contrast, the Americans use the law as a convenience that's so versatile, they twist it at will and turn it into a tool, a weapon, an excuse to disparage someone or an alibi to interfere in the affairs of others. Name it, and the Americans will commit just about anything illegal that might serve them … and do it all in the name of the law.

And so, if it happens that an operation will require breaking or bending an international law, the Americans will not think twice about bending or breaking the law. The Arabs, on the other hand, will refuse to follow suit, thus create friction with the Americans. And there is no telling to what point the disagreement will escalate.

Another difference between the cultures is that the Arabs will gauge everything they do now in terms of what impact it will have in the future. If they believe that doing something at this time will disgrace them or their offspring in the future, they will not do it. The Americans, by contrast, will not take into account what someone will say about them or their offspring after they die. It the thing will serve their purpose now, they will do it and damn the torpedoes.

For all of these reasons, the Arabs will want to work with limited and precise objectives. They will halt any operation when they have achieved its predetermined goals. Past experience shows that this will not happen with the Americans who will operate without a plan B or an exit strategy.

If they find that the going is easy, they will take advantage of every opportunity opening to them to forge ahead. It is how they behaved in Libya when they betrayed their Arab partners and pressed on with a campaign that eventually brought horror to North Africa.

Now imagine what will happen when the Jews will get involved and put into practice their propensity to stab in the back all those who smile in their face and give them the opportunity to take part in a civilized endeavor.

Personally, I shudder to think.

Hysteria gone exponentially frantic

The American State Department just lifted the halt it had imposed on the funds slated to go to Egypt for military procurement. Anyone with half a brain knows there is nothing that can be done at this point to make the State Department reverse its decision. So why is someone engaged in this futile attempt?

That someone is Brian Dooley, said to be Senior Adviser to an outfit calling itself Human Rights First. His job is described as: containing and counteracting a U.S. retreat from global leadership on human rights. He wrote an article under the title: “Administration should use its leverage to get Egypt to improve its human rights records,” published on July 28, 2018 in The Hill.

Either this guy is an absolute kook in a state of frantic hysteria and totally oblivious of the realities of the situation, or he knows what's going on but is saying one thing while trying to accomplish another thing. If he is a kook in a state of uncontrolled hysteria, the situation speaks for itself, and there is no point elaborating further on it. This leaves us with no choice but to speculate that Brian Dooley is working on an evil plan that his outfit is brewing in secret and hoping that no one will decipher. But what secret plan could that be?

To find out, or at least make an educated guess, we go over the information we know relates to the subject and was previously authenticated. We examine it to see if it paints a picture that tells a plausible story. And so, while going over the article, the thing that hits us more forcefully than anything, is that Dooley mentioned three senators who spoke about human rights in Egypt as the subject relates to civil society in that country.

The odd thing is that the senators were not interested in the 50,000 civil society groups that have been operating in Egypt since before America became a Republic. Rather, they were interested in the handful of foreign groups that were caught interfering in Egypt's system of governance and were kicked out of the country.

It is that, with the use of civil society on the ground, some foreign powers were doing to Egypt the very thing that a number of foes were doing to America using social networks and cyberspace. What happened in Egypt raised the ire of the people long before their American counterparts were told what someone was doing to their country. The Egyptian people demanded action, and the government responded by taking a number of individuals to court while kicking others out of the country.

When you take into account the reality that the American senators who expressed unhappiness at Egypt's action, have the nasty habit of doing two contradictory things at the same time, you start getting some ideas. First, they lamented the loss of human rights in Egypt because the people there no longer have foreigners urging them to revolt against their government. Second, the senators resisted being moved by the recurring spectacle of American children being slaughtered on a regular basis in their schools at the hands of mad men.

When you see that, and when you hear what the senators have to say, you realize that they –– like the Brian Dooleys of this world –– are political animals on the take. They are serving the interests of domestic and foreign animals who use America's power in a grand scheme to conquer the entire planet, not just Egypt.

But what are they trying to accomplish in Egypt at this time, anyway? Their evil plan is to have operators on the ground whose task will be to foment unrest by spreading fake news and false rumors. When the skirmishes will become so large that the government will move in to quell them, the evil ones will activate bands of thugs disguised as bystanders with instructions to shoot at both sides in the skirmish. This will turn the skirmish into an insurrection they hope will keep escalating to become a civil war. Hello Egypt gone Syria!

And that's when the evil ones will call on America and its allies to intervene militarily in Egypt. Needless to say that they already worked out the details for placing Zionist Jews in the strategic positions that will allow them to pull strings and move the American military in such a way as to implement the Israeli agenda.

Finally, a cowardly monster of the Marco Rubio caliber must be singled out for characterization of the most brutal kind. That's because in return for money he receives from the gun lobby, he rejected a plea from America's children made directly to him for help to save their lives. Rubio rejected the plea while professing to help fight for freedom in Egypt; what he pretends doing in return for the money he receives from the Jewish lobby.

That reality paints Marco Rubio as nothing less than a primitive and savage animal disguised as a human being. And that's an appellation that must be tattooed on his forehead.

Hermit by Choice and Hermit by Coercion

When you see a headline that reads: “World Socialism's Anti-Israel Turn,” you're inclined to think that World Socialism has turned against Israel just now.

But when you read the article that's developed below the headline, you encounter this: “The left turned against Israel after the 1967 war –– refram[ing] Zionism from a story of Jews fighting for a home into another Western effort to oppress a Third World people.” And you wonder if anyone is left on Planet Earth that hasn't parted company with Israel due to its conduct on the world stage.

In fact, the article offers clues as to what's going on with Israel and its quirky relationship with the human race. Besides having that headline, which serves as title, the article also came under the subtitle: “Shimon Peres could once be the honorary president. No more.” The article was written by Elliot Kaufman and published on July 23, 2018 in the Wall Street Journal.

After asking if the marriage between the Left and Israel can be saved, Elliot Kaufman makes the point that while Socialist International, “has been anti-Israel for decades, it accused Israel of apartheid last month, and endorsed the BDS movement.” This shows that Jews will stay in a deteriorating marriage up until the moment it begins to cost them money, at which time they'll gladly dissolve the marriage. The article also shows that the Jews will do nothing to try saving their marriage, preferring instead to endure an intolerable situation than let go of habits their partners can no longer endure.

And so, while many wonder why a country like North Korea chose to live in a state characterized as “hermit,” they do not realize that the rulers of North Korea did not choose that state for their country or their people. It is that the condition was imposed on them by America in an attempt to isolate the country for refusing to give up its desire to live the way it wants to.

And so, it can be seen that the coerced state of North Korea contrasts with that of the Jews who freely chose to live like hermits. They did so, living in ghettos behind walls that were made of wood and stone during the time that they bunched together in Europe in a sojourn that lasted several centuries. And when the time came for them to carry on with the habit of fleeing the place where they made a mess of their lives, they carried the ghetto tradition with them to their new destination.

That was America. When the new continent opened to them, the Jews moved into it in droves and chose to huddle in closely knit neighborhoods that did not have physical walls separating them from the rest of the country. What their leaders did, however, was erect virtual walls that continued to separate the rank-and-file from the surrounding neighborhoods.

To that end, the leaders created Jewish specific schools, recreation centers and media, thus forming a kind of cultural ghetto behind whose walls they kept the flock, preventing it from interacting more than necessary with the outside world. The leaders also discouraged the kind of mixed marriages that did not result in some kind of windfall for the Jewish causes.

You would think that given the developments which unfolded over the last half century, Elliot Kaufman would get the message and urge his fellow Jews to make an effort at harmonizing with the rest of humanity, but you'd be wrong. Instead of doing that, Kaufman blamed the bad relation that exists between the Jews and humanity on the latter for practicing what he says is a double standard that disadvantages the Jews.

Elliot Kaufman traces the deterioration of the relations between Socialist International and Israel to the effort of Bruno Kreisky who was the Jewish Chancellor of Austria and also vice president of the International. Kaufman adds that now, “35 of the International's member parties are in government.” They promote the BDS movement, condemn Israel's Law of Return and demand the immediate release of Palestinian prisoners, says Kaufman.

This should bring people of goodwill to ask if there is anything that can be done to help the Jews integrate into the human family. Well, whatever the ultimate plan will end up being like, it must be based on showing the Jews examples of nobility they can absorb as if by osmosis, and then aspire to emulate.

Since there is nothing more noble than a victim of the Jews advising them on how to improve their performance to integrate into a human family that has developed the highest esteem for the victim, the Jews should consider as golden the advice that Mahmoud Abbas is giving.

Here is how Elliot Kaufman has revealed the existence of such advice: “Mahmoud Abbas attributed the Holocaust to Jewish social behavior”.

The advice is clear: to integrate into the human family, the Jews must improve their social behavior. They should heed this advice and thank Abbas profusely.

The perpetual Blood-sucking Machine

A peculiarity of the human psyche is that we abhor missing anything in life. This means we want to be fully satisfied at every moment. Thus, if we believe that something is missing in the way that we live, we imagine being immersed in a void. And so, we try to fill that void even if it costs us a lifetime of failed attempts.

And that's not all there is to the peculiarity of our psyche. Another aspect is that if we manage to fill the void we have imagined, our imagination will create another void, and we'll spend time and effort trying to fill this one too. Moreover, when we run out of ideas as to what else we may be missing, we look to our neighbor for the sake of imagining that “the other man's grass is greener,” thus get wound up about missing something.

This game does not always play itself out serenely. It is apt – once in a while – to generate motivation that can get out of hand. If this happens to someone that doesn't have the moral fiber to push back against temptation, they run the risk of taking from others what they feel they must have. And the way they do that spans the gamut from embezzlement to armed robbery.

What may come as a surprise to the reader is that such behavior does not involve only the poor or the downtrodden. In fact, a poor man may steal only one loaf of bread when he could steal two because one loaf is all he needs to appease his hunger. By contrast, a man that may be wealthy enough to buy himself an empire, is prone to engage in unlimited shady business, not because he desperately needs to nourish his body, but because he wishes to build an empire that will eclipse that of his neighbor.

It can also happen that when someone has reached that level of power and wealth, he begins to develop paranoia. He projects onto others the intense desire he sees in himself for having something they don't have, thus lives in fear that they will come to take from him what he has and they don't. When someone has reached this level of delusion, he is liable to use violent means to defend himself against a threat that may not exist.

If this scenario is difficult to fathom among individuals, it's not difficult to see it develop among nations. In fact, it was the development of such sentiments that caused America to see a domino situation unfold around Vietnam. It is what caused America to see Iraqi nuclear mushrooms fill its skies. It is also what's causing America to imagine Iranian mushrooms fill the skies everywhere in the world.

What must be said, however, is that left to its devices, America would probably not have developed such sentiments. Having responded to Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor with two nuclear bombs over Japanese cities and having won decisive victories during the Second World War, the Americans were in a magnanimous mood.

But as a nation that grew too powerful too fast, America also developed a complex of inferiority with regard to its knowledge of foreign affairs. And so, the older nations of Europe took advantage of the situation and convinced America to do the dirty work for them. They got the giant to start the Cold War against the Soviet Union; and got it involved in several South East Asian hot wars.

But after a while, the old European powers saw the folly in what they were doing and backtracked. In so doing they created a kind a vacuum that the Jews were happy to fill. They came with their own agenda and used America to implement it for them. To this end, the Jews pitted America against the Arab/Muslim world, and when the sparks started to fly all over the region, the Jews collected the spoils.

Not only did the Jews abuse America's power and prestige, they used its relation with the NATO nations to abuse those nations as well. This happened every time that America used the NATO bases and/or personnel to launch air and/or naval attacks against an Arab or Muslim country.

The Jews are still trying to abuse America and its NATO allies as you can see in two editorials that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on July 24 and 26, 2018. The first came under the title: “Pompeo's Iran Truth-Telling” and the subtitle: “The President's tweet distracts from a better speech.” The second editorial came under the title: “Europe's Iran Options,” and the subtitle: “Instead of digging in on a bad deal, try to negotiate a better one”.

On the 24th of July, the editors of the Journal advised President Donald Trump that more effective “than blustery tweets” is the case that Pompeo and Haley are laying out for dealing with Israel's number one nemesis, Iran.

On the 26th of July, the Jews advised the Europeans that they should “focus their diplomacy on securing a pact that truly restricts Tehran”.

And so, like the boy that's never allowed to grow up and look after his own interests, the Jews are hanging onto America like the blood-sucking twin that never wants to separate from his other half.

Subhuman Reasoning from out of this World

What's the difference between the enlightened and rational people, and the callow and confused people?

The difference can be explained by comparing the following two examples:

First, delegates from around the world gather at the UN Human Rights Council. Most of them see the world as it is, describe it the way they see it, draw conclusions that enjoy the support of the majority, formulate policies accordingly and implement them the best they can. These are the enlightened and rational people.

Second, a couple of those delegates see the world through the prism of their fantasy, describe a setting that does not exist, draw false conclusions that enjoy no one's support, and try to implement policies that rub salt in the wounds of the already victimized. These are the callow and confused people.

The people in the first category are ordinary human beings living everywhere on Planet Earth, including America and a few places in Israel. But how do you know they are enlightened and rational people? You know they are because if you ask them: What do you call the presence of Israeli troops in Palestine? They answer: we call it the occupation of Palestine by the regime that's governing in Israel.

As to the people in the second category, they are politicians of the so-called democracies, as well as their master puppeteers and confused followers. Their thinking is not shaped by the principle of the moral life, or even the mundane life. Rather, their thinking is shaped by the need to sell their soul to the highest bidder in the hope this will help them get elected. If you ask them whether or not they consider the presence of Israeli troops in Palestine an occupation, they protest that you dare asking such question, and accuse you of antisemitism.

The enlightened and rational delegates at the UN Human Rights Council have no illusions about the state of the human condition. They see horror committed by people against people in Latin America, Asia, the Middle East, the United States of America, Europe and just about everywhere in the world. None of them claims to be “holier than thou” and so, they all work together for the common good. They tell of their own shortcomings, compare them with those of others, debate possible solutions and pledge to do the best they can to improve the situation for those who suffer. And they do make progress year after year.

While this is happening, the only place where demonic horror is committed by one kind of people (Jews) against another kind of people (Christians and Muslims) is Israel where the government implements a long range genocidal policy, deliberately disguised as apartheid so that critics talk about the apparent apartheid instead of talking about the reality of genocide. As to the place where the rulers of Israel find support and encouragement; it is among the American politicians who promise to sell their souls if elected, and deliver when they are.

That demonic behavior is not something peculiar to modern Jews. It has been their legacy since ancient times; the reason why they suffered hugely throughout time, everywhere they went on the planet. Their behavioral pattern never changes, thus remains predictable. They get into a new community; they do well initially, and when people discover what they are up to, seek to solution them out of existence. Thus, the nagging question: Why can they not see it coming, and stop doing what they do?

You get an answer to this question when you go over the article that came under the title: “Moral clarity becomes a casualty of the need to placate tyrants,” an article that was written by Ed Feulner and published on July 23, 2018 in The Washington Times. What you'll see throughout the article is an Alice in Wonderland sort of situation where everything is turned upside down.

What follows is a condensed version of what Ed Feulner has written about the speech that Nikki Haley gave at The Heritage Foundation with regard to America's decision to quit the UN Human Rights Council:

“We've seen the Council allow membership to some abusers while criticizing Israel. And so Nikki Haley came to The Heritage Foundation to elaborate on the reasons the U.S. withdrew from the Council. The U.N. was founded to promote peace and security based on justice, equal rights, and the self-determination of people, Ms. Haley pointed out. Unfortunately, thanks to the presence of some members, it falls short of this goal. The result? Well-meaning members adopt a position of neutrality. Today, the Council includes some of the worst human rights violators – Cuba, China and Venezuela have seats on the Council, Ms. Haley said. It targets Israel and seats the Congo. When Venezuelan Nicholas Maduro spoke to the Council, he got a standing ovation. Ms. Haley said many share our disgust at the Council's record, but they will say so only in private. They're afraid to speak up. We withdrew from the Council because we disliked its hypocrisy. The U.S. will continue to pursue its human rights outside the Council. We're not going to remain in it because we have a conscience”.

While Nikki Haley was reminding the audience that the purpose of the UN is to promote peace and security based on justice, equal rights and the self determination of people, she advocated kicking out of the Council, countries like Cuba, China and Venezuela, countries that exert herculean efforts to give their people the good things the UN says everyone must have.

And while advocating kicking the good people out of the Council, Nikki Haley wants the world to admire Israel, the only neocolonialist entity that is occupying someone else's country, depriving millions of Palestinians of peace and security based on justice, equal rights, and the chance to determine their own destiny.

Based on that performance, let it be known that the lump of organic molecules called Nikki Haley, does not make up a human being. It is a monstrosity that should be classified as an alien life form, yet to be cataloged and classified as incapable of human reasoning.

America's Congress, the Epitome of Uselessness

When Hitler annexed the Sudetenland, and when he later attacked Poland, implementing a diabolic plan to sweep across Europe, he established what was known as a fait accompli. Humanity rejected this kind of behavior and mobilized to fight Hitler and destroy his regime.

Now that the Jews are doing the same thing in the Middle East via the entity they call Israel, they changed the nomenclature to fool the useless simpletons of the American Congress and get them to endorse the Jewish criminal behavior to the hilt. The Jews don't call that kind of aggression fait accompli anymore; they call it reality. They hammered their logic into the empty skulls of those in charge of America's governance and taught them to defend their idiocy by claiming that they are doing nothing worse than “recognize reality”.

That, in fact, is the method by which the Jews convinced the lost minds of the American congress to accept as legitimate Israel's theft of East Jerusalem from its Palestinian owners. It is also how they are preparing the same body of lost minds to repeat the performance and accept as legitimate Israel's theft of the Western Golan Heights from their Syrian owners.

Benny Avni is recounting this story as part of a larger one he is telling in the column he wrote under the title: “Russia just proved it doesn't have control in Syria,” published on July 24, 2018 in the New York Post. In case you wonder why Avni pressed his editor not to change that title; it is that the Jewish establishment doesn't want it known that Russia's Putin refused to exercise the influence he has in Syria and help Israel. This happened despite the fact that Netanyahu went to Russia more than half a dozen times and licked the boots of a dozen Cossacks each time he went there but failed to impress Putin.

You get a sense of what the larger story is about from reading the first sentence in the Avni column. It goes like this: “If the Tehran-Washington war of words gives way to conventional war, the Golan Heights might be the battlefield.” A few paragraphs later, Avni explains: “...the Syrian side of the Golan Heights where now, aided by Russia and Iran, Assad is completing his victory”.

Later still, Avni let out the fake lamentation: “Moscow intervened to save Assad but is clearly now in over its head,” then almost immediately after that, Avni shot himself in the foot by blurting a lie that contradicts what he tried to accomplish up to now. Here is that big lie: “The Russians reportedly offered to keep Iran some 60 miles away from Israel”.

Believing that it's not enough to preemptively shift the blame for the crisis that is sure to come, from the Jews to the Russians as he already did, Benny Avni decided to lump the Americans with the Russians, and blame them as well. This is what he did: “In Washington, meanwhile, Trump aides are, as on all fronts, divided.” But all is not lost in the eyes of the Jews because in America, they hold the ace card that can trump even Trump's White House. That card is none other than the epitome of American uselessness, the Congress of the United States.

This is how Benny Avni made that revelation: “A capitol Hill initiative to recognize Israel's sovereignty over the Golan Heights, which it has since 1973 and annexed in 1981, is gaining momentum”. Woah! Before I go any further, let me correct Avni's knowledge of the Golan's history. Israel captured all of the Golan (East and West) in 1967. Syria retook the Eastern part (the province and town of Quneitra) in 1973. This left Israel with only the Western part of the Golan it has been occupying since 1967.

More ignorant than his Jewish master about what is fiction and what is not in the history of the Middle East, a “senior Republican congressional staffer” told Benny Avni: “Fiction can be useful in diplomacy, but once it stops being useful there's no reason to keep it up,” so says Benny Avni.

Well, my friend, there is no avoiding telling it like it is. By his reporting, Benny Avni has unveiled the solemn duty he has as a pundit to name the senior Republican congressional staffer who made that remark. Avni has such duty because the public has the right to know who in the Congress “stopped being useful,” a reason big enough not to keep that man or woman on the payroll much longer.

And when the individual is sent to pasture, Benny Avni will see the light and take back his own remark. It’s the one that goes: “The least we can do is give Israel all rhetorical, diplomatic and military help [it wants]”. Not so.

He wants America to practice Israeli Quackery

The two pieces of quackery upon which Israel has relied for two decades to suck America's blood and stay afloat, were ambiguity and bluster. Call them the A and B of Israel's immorality play.

When someone speaks of ambiguity in relation to Israel, what usually comes to mind is the charade about Israel staging all kinds of theatrics to make the onlooker believe it has an arsenal of nuclear weapons but will not acknowledge it. But that's not the only ambiguity by which Israel lives. Another and more important ambiguity is the charade it is pulling on America's governing elites and America's governed.

This ambiguity consists of playing the double and contradictory game of projecting weakness and strength simultaneously. Israel projects itself as weak, prompting America to defend it lest the Jews living in Israel suffer a second Holocaust. Israel also projects itself as strong to say that what it receives from America is peanut compared to what it does for itself. Thus, America's people and politicians must not think they can treat Israel as the beggar they can push around and tell it what to do to earn America's charity.

So much for ambiguity. As to bluster, when Israel shoots the hot air or stages a pompous scene, it is not trying to scare its big Arab neighbors. That's because it knows they are not buying its theatrics given that –– despite what America gives it –– Israel cannot even beat the million and a half unarmed kids of the city state known as Gaza. Rather, Israel is trying to make its supporters in the American Congress, as well as its dwindling followers among America's Jewry, believe that it is still a viable entity; one that could use their moral support and deserves their continued financial support.

This reality makes up the bedrock of the unchanging status quo in the Middle East because no big Arab country has ever wanted to invade Israel or destroy its war machine, which any one of them could do in a flash. The reason is that such act would trigger a ton of responsibilities encapsulated in the saying: “You break it, you own it.” And no one wants to be responsible for the fate of a now defenseless 6.5 million Jews.

Can you imagine what will happen to these people if they lose the protection of a Jewish army? Surrounded by the millions of neighbors that Israel has turned into refugees or kept under a brutal occupation, the Jews will stand no chance. Only the invading Arab army that destroyed Israel's war machine will be in a position to protect them. In addition, because Israel relied on others to feed its people, the onus will now fall on the Arab army to feed the 6.5 million Jews it is protecting. The task is a nightmare no one wants to live through.

This is the reality of what Israel has made of itself in seven decades. And the consequence is that Jewish kids in America who grew up feeding exclusively on Judeo-Israel propaganda, mistakenly believe that Israel's policy of ambiguity and bluster is a winning formula that can work for America as well as it did for Israel. And they are counseling the sufferers in Washington to implement it. You can see an example of that in: “Why NATO Matters,” which is the title of an article that also came under the subtitle: “The Atlantic alliance is crucial to American deterrence,” It was written by Matthew Continetti and published on July 21, 2018 in National Review Online.

What follows is the passage in which Continetti tells the folks in Washington all about what he thinks has been Israel's winning formula, having rejected the notion that the Middle East status quo is maintained because no Arab country wants to smash Israel's war machine once and for all, and because America prolongs the artificial entity the world has created out of pity for the plight of the Jews, and now regrets doing it. Here is the passage:

“Deterrence relies on the perception of strength. The tougher one's adversaries perceive you to be, the less likely they will move against you. Collective security in NATO bolsters this perception of strength through greater numbers. Would NATO invoke Article Five if Russia moved into Estonia or Latvia or Slovenia? We don't know. But Russia doesn't know either. It is [ambiguous] and risky”.

Continetti goes on to offer this logic: Because Nazi Germany invaded a badly defended Europe in the past, Russia will invade a badly defended Europe today. To defend against this eventuality, look to Israel that is emulating the Nazi formula of growing by war and annexation, and prepare to defend Europe rather than let the Europeans, led by the Germans, defend themselves.

The problem with this logic is that the author has overlooked one crucial point. It is that Israel keeps gambling what it has because America keeps replenishing its coffers and warehouses. But who will replenish America's coffers and warehouses when it will have gambled what previous generations have passed on to the current generation? Matthew Continetti is not saying.

The wrong kind of Flowchart for Facebook

There is a complicated idea we need to discuss. To understand it, we must begin at the beginning. To this end, imagine you live alone in an area of the highland where a small wellspring gushes clean water. You and your family use the water to drink, wash and irrigate the plot of land you farm to feed the family and to husband the animals you eat as well as those you use to do the hard work.

Now change your thinking and imagine you're not living alone with your family around that wellspring. The place is an outpost inhabited by several families, some of which live upstream, some downstream and some in-between. Given that the flow of water is not always even, you can well imagine that once in a while, there will be friction between the families as to how much water each can use. Another source of friction concerns the obligation those who live upstream have not to pollute the water that’s going downstream.

To resolve these issues, you all get together, discuss the situation, and come to an understanding as to how much water each family will use, and when it will draw it. You'll also come to an understanding as to what the upstream dwellers will do to insure that regardless of the flow, the downstream dwellers will always get an adequate amount of water. And you'll come to an understanding that the upstream folks will be very careful not to pollute the water that goes downstream.

When this is done, you'll have established the principle that people have rights, and that they have obligations toward each other. You'll have an understanding that may be verbal or may be written but will be a valid contract freely entered into by the majority of those concerned, if not by all of them. In fact, this is how society organizes itself to insure the equitable sharing of the available resources and the maintenance of domestic tranquility.

Depending on the size, sophistication and degree to which the community has evolved, the early contract will have spawned variations that might take on the name of codes-of-conduct, rules, laws, bylaws or constitution. What must be understood is that the more evolved the community, the more the rights and obligations of a group or individual will be intertwined with the rights and obligations of another group and other individuals. This will increase the chances for creating friction, which is why learned people, such as elders or judges, are called upon to interpret the law and adjudicate the cases that come before them.

In fact, we are now so advanced, sophisticated and evolved that we have something new called the internet, an offshoot of which is called Facebook. It was founded by Mark Zuckerberg, and he is facing a moral dilemma that rises to the level of legal perplexity. It is written about in an article that came under the title: “What Mark Zuckerberg doesn't get,” and the subtitle: “Facebook is amplifying hate by letting conspiracy theorists sell their wares.” It was written by Joan Donovan and Brian Friedberg, and was published on July 20, 2018 in the New York Daily News.

What is wrong with the Donovan and Friedberg presentation is that the writers see two kinds of speech: free speech and hate speech. When tracing the flowchart that results from the way they develop their thesis, you'll find that they advocate a return to the “executive” kind of rules adopted by some Human Right Commissions, and used to convict defendants because their speech made the plaintiff feel uneasy. Donovan and Friedberg would put utterances that do not praise the Jews under the rubric of hate speech, thus cause people to fear opening their mouth just to say the word Jew. All other speeches will go under the rubric of free speech, in the Donovan and Friedberg model.

But the flowchart must not look like that. It should start with the rubrics: free speech, banned speech and restricted speech. Under free speech will go the subgroups of hate speech, offensive speech, disgusting speech, love speech, praiseworthy speech, and so on. Under banned speech will go the subgroups of incitement to violence, child pornography and the like. Under restricted speech will go the subgroups of treason, underground material, civil disobedience and what have you.

The model offered by Donovan and Friedberg would privilege the Jews at the expense of all others. This will cause everyone else to demand being moved to the privileged position. Since this is impossible to do, domestic tranquility will suffer, things will get out of hand and the Jews will be made to pay the ultimate price as they have since the beginning of time.

The Donovan and Friedberg model is like ordering that only one kind of people can live upstream where they'll have the right to pollute the water all they want before it goes downstream.

As to everyone else below them; they'll just have to accept the situation imposed on them. For consolation, they might get a pat on the back if they can bring themselves to profess loving the situation.

And now that Israel proved to be a little Fart...

Having dragged America into the cesspool of endless Jewish bad advice, the Tel-Aviv/New-York axis of the Pax-Judaica/Pax-Americana global calamity is beginning to look shaky.

This reality has prompted the Bibi of Israel to run to Moscow at every occasion where he begged Vladimir Putin to forgive the Jews for what they did to hurt the interests of the Soviet Union –– and later those of Russia –– in the American Congress of know-nothing nincompoops.

The Jews did it by taking advantage of the state to which the Congress had sunk; brought down by years of degradation imposed by the termite-like activities of the Jewish parasites that invaded it. These parasitic moles covered the place with confusion, pitted the political parties against each other, incited the members to attack one another, and decreed that everybody must love the Jews, always the Jews and no one but the Jews. And so, they turned the superpower into a hollowed-out hulk.

The unforeseen side-effect has been the reduction of Israel itself from the artificial whale-like appearance it had enjoyed for a while, to the minnow-like appearance it always was. Unable to pump hot air back into the Israeli blimp, mamma Michelle Dunne, who adopted Israel as its own child, panicked. Realizing that she can never make Israel look like a giant balloon again, she hit on the idea of making Israel's big neighbor look very small to make Israel look big by comparison.

And so, Michelle Dunne teamed up with Andrew Miller to co-write: “Losing Egypt to Russia Isn't the Real Problem––but Collapse Is,” the title of an article that also came under the subtitle: “Cairo is no long[er] a prize to be won, but a weak state in need of reform.” It was published on July 20, 2018 in The National Interest. Having tried a similar stunt once before, and making the mistake of talking economics, a field in which she is as bad as the Bibi can be when faking intellectual honesty, Michelle Dunne avoided the subject this time.

Instead of economics, she made a sweep of every aspect of statehood that she and her writing sidekick could think of. Having a long list on hand, they attacked Egypt directly on some of those aspects, attacked the country indirectly on other aspects, and pooh-poohed Egypt's ability to be useful to America in everything else. When you put all that together, it sounds as follows:

“We have doubts as to whether the Egyptian military is prepared to switch from Western to Russian patronage. We question whether Egypt is a critical military ally to the United States. But what if the relationship did fall apart? On a practical level, the impact on U.S. interests would be minimal. The Egyptian state is less capable than it was, and its military a poor reflection of the force that did well in 1973. Power in the region has shifted to the Gulf, while other Arab countries have eclipsed Egypt in human development. While Trump believes Egypt is key to Israeli-Palestinian peace, neither Netanyahu nor Abbas is likely to move off avowed redlines at Sisi's request. Egypt will still allow U.S. ships access to the Suez Canal. As to overflight and landing rights to U.S. military aircraft, they are less valuable than before. The danger is that Egypt could sink into obscurity or state failure due to poor governance. Egypt is no longer a strategic prize for the United States. It is a challenge to be managed through coercive diplomacy”.

The two clowns have managed to pack not one message in their article, but two of them. The first is that Egypt has become so small, everyone else in the neighborhood looks big by comparison, including Israel. The second message is that if left alone, Egypt will collapse and create serious problems in the region. For this reason, Miller and Dunne are recommending that America act to fix the situation ... not by handling Egypt with kid gloves but using coercive methods.

Even if someone didn't know that Michelle Dunne made a career weeping the sad song which says: “the end is near for Egypt,” and calling on America to force that country into emulating America's Congress of nincompoops to save it from the collapse that hasn't come in seven thousand years, is there any indication in the article that shows how wrong Dunne and her sidekick are? The answer is yes; and here is the passage that shows it:

“The Egyptian-Russian cooperation needs to be seen in a broader context. Egypt is not seeking to replace the U.S. but rather to supplement it with Russian support. Egypt has sought to return to a more independent foreign policy. Egypt no more wants to be dependent on Russia than it wants to be dependent on the U.S. Moreover, Sisi has sought to expand defense and commercial ties with Germany and France as avidly as with Russia”.

The truth is that the Egyptian economy is firing on all cylinders, scoring a growth rate of between 5.5 and 6 percent, quarter after quarter. Investors from around the world are flocking to Egypt loaded with oodles of money to invest in a country that is fast becoming the economic miracle of the future as far as the eye can see.

Since Michelle Dunne and all those like her –– totally ignorant of economic matters but anxious to detect signs that growth has plateaued in Egypt, if only temporarily –– let me help them. They'll know that growth has plateaued when they see what is called “hot money” come into the country.

That would be money brought in by speculators, not to invest in something productive, but to buy property they hope to flip to another sucker who will pay them a higher price. Dunne and company will know this time has arrived when the government will impose a tax on incoming capital –– Foreign Direct Investment (FDI).

They seek to be loved by peddling Hate

Here is a new Jewish message to the human race: We can hate you to the point of ruining your lives, even kill you or have you killed if we believe we can get away with it, but you cannot hate us so much as to complain about it. You must accept what we do to you, even love us for it.

This is what seeps out Jonathan Greenblatt's missive to humanity. It came in the form of an article under the title: “Holocaust denial is a form of hate,” and was published on July 20, 2018 in the New York Daily News.

When discussing a subject of this nature, the first thing we must do is keep in mind that we cannot regulate natural human tendencies using artificial means. That is, we cannot force someone to love or to hate by punishing them for not harboring the correct feelings. All that we'll accomplish when taking this approach, is intensify the existing feelings of that someone.

An example that no one sane will refute is that of Romeo and Juliette. If, in real life, you try to force the two lovers to hate each other, they'll love each other even more. Another example that some people might wish to refute or put in perspective, is that of forcing people to stop hating someone. To understand what happens here, we must recognize that people harbor different levels of hate for different levels of offenders. We must, therefore, restrict this discussion to the people that continually stir the hatred of others by hurting them or by continually offending their sense of morality.

Some people will argue that if you try to reform such people by punishing them, they'll develop a more intense hatred for those they do not like. Other people, such as Jonathan Greenblatt, have a different point of view. To expand on that view, he asks a question: “Should Holocaust denial be allowed on Facebook?” And he says that Mark Zuckerberg, who founded the organization, says “yes.” And Greenblatt says he doesn't like the answer.

Greenblatt goes on to explain that denial of the Holocaust must be banned because the arguments used to express it are probably based on lies, and that the denial itself –– lies or not –– is intended to propagate antisemitism. This puts denial of the Holocaust in the category of hate speech, and because, “Facebook does try to ban hate speech, it should root out Holocaust denial on those grounds, not simply because it's false.” Wow! What a convoluted piece of reasoning.

What Greenblatt has said in effect, is this: Ban denial of the Holocaust because it is a bunch of falsehoods. Come to think of it, don't worry about the falsehood part of my argument. But you must ban Holocaust denial because it is intended to propagate antisemitism even if Zuckerberg says he doesn't believe people get it wrong intentionally … Well, now that Greenblatt has realized he cannot tell what someone's intention is, you still must ban Holocaust denial, he says, because it is hate speech, and Facebook wants to ban that kind of speech.

What is wrong with this argument is common to most Jewish arguments. It has to do with the Jews trying to have it both ways. When, for example, someone argues that Israel conducted itself the way that Hitler did because it annexed lands that belong to neighbors the way that Hitler annexed the Sudetenland and started a war, the Jews cry foul and say you cannot compare the two. But when it suits them to compare what Israel is doing with what someone else is doing, they do not hesitate to compare. The problem, however, is that they refuse to show how the comparison works. And that's what they are doing here.

The reality is that the hate speech that's banned on Facebook and elsewhere, is the kind that incites people to harm others. No such incitement is detected in the examples that Greenblatt has cited. In fact, to speak of a Jewish conspiracy aimed at collecting German compensation or stealing Palestinian properties, is not inciting; it is expressing an opinion. When Louis Farrakhan says he doesn't know how many Jews were killed, it takes a mental case to accuse him of inciting harming Jews. And besides, what Farrakhan said is not denying the Holocaust; it is affirming it. When Arthur Jones speaks of a Holocaust racket, it is not worse than the Jews constantly accusing UNRWA of colluding with Hamas to perpetrate the “myth of Palestinian refugees.” Are the Jews anti-something? What would that be?

Greenblatt goes on to do something that is very Jewish and very objectionable. He says this: “Despite the anti-Semitism deep in the core of these ideas, they're allowed on Facebook whose standards say “We define hate speech as an attack on people based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, sex, gender, gender identity, and serious disability or disease”.

Well, as demonstrated above, to deny the Holocaust is not to attack Jews. Thus, to accuse Facebook of violating its own standards is to commit a demonstrable falsehood that can only be characterized as hateful. This is what Greenblatt did, and he earned the hate that's coming to him. But why is he and other Jews like that?

The reason why used to be a mystery, but the secret is out now. It is that the ultimate goal of the Jews is to force the human race to fall madly in love with them. A French Jew that believes he is a philosopher wrote a book to say this much.

That being the case, it is incumbent upon us to warn the Jews that the harder they work on implementing this dream, the more the human race will hate them.

Inside a moral Void named Weekly Standard

It should begin to worry the American people that a publication as renowned as the Weekly Standard does not have an editor with the intelligence to look at a submission, spot its deficiencies and fix them.

It happens often and everywhere in America what just happened at the Weekly Standard. It is that the editors look at a piece of writing and see food for thought that's good for public consumption when in reality, the product is nothing more than a moral void that's good for the trashcan. Those among the unwary public who eat from it not realizing what it is, are bound to be sent on a trip down the tube of confusion, and be forced to live with a shallow intellectual life unworthy of a superpower.

See for yourself by reading: “Ocasio-Cortez Should Be Lesson for the Democratic Establishment,” which is the title of an article that also came under the subtitle: “What happens in voters' backyards can affect their choices as powerfully as what is happening in D.C.” It was written by Andrew Egger and published on July 19, 2018 in the Weekly Standard, of course.

At a time when the populist cry in America echoes the refrain “drain the swamp,” as repeated by the populist of all time, Donald Trump, you catch Andrew Egger reminding the bosses of both political parties that politics was always done in accordance with this piece of wisdom: “There's a reason most politicians try to stick to boring, smiley platitudes in interviews.” It is the writer's effort to make the party bosses believe they'll do well in elections if they reject the Ocasio-Cortez's approach of open and honest politics, and continue doing things the old way.

The bottom line of Egger's philosophy is revealed at the end of the article. Here is how he expressed it: “What happens in voters' backyards can affect their choices just as powerfully as what they detect happening far off in D.C.” That is, Egger gives equal weight to what a candidate running for national office does locally on one hand, and what happens at the national level, such as in the Congress and the White House, on the other hand.

To make his point, Egger accepts what Joe Lieberman wrote: “Her [Ocasio-Cortez] election in November would make it harder for Congress to stop fighting and start fixing problems.” And yet, he rejects Lieberman's scolding the voters of the 14th District, “for picking a candidate who may make it more difficult for Democrats to win races in, say, Nebraska.” And for adding: “But who says the voters of the 14th should care?”

What this says is that both Lieberman, the politician (supposedly a Democrat,) and Egger, the journalist (supposedly a Republican,) care only about winning elections, and not about what's good for the country. They both want to see Ocasio-Cortez out of the way, and the question is why? The key to answering it is one word: Bipartisan.

The only thing that's bipartisan –– which means widespread in American politics –– is support for Israel. This is why, aside from fixing Israel's needs, the bipartisan only-for-Israel Congress does not “stop fighting or fixing problems,” as pointed out by Lieberman. And yet, the latter wants the public to believe that honesty of the Ocasio-Cortez variety will get in the way of fixing a broken Congress that’s supposed to fix America's problems but doesn’t because it’s too busy fixing Israel's needs … over and above the real needs of the little fart.

And Lieberman is seconded in that view by Andrew Egger who called Ocasio-Cortez's reference to the occupation of Palestine, a symbol of radicalism. In making this assertion without explaining it, Egger turned himself into a living example for the public to spot and study the weird phenomenon that he is.

Like the multitude of Jews who wrote about this subject and said the same thing, not one has defined the word occupation. And yet, this was the prerequisite to explaining why they believe that Ocasio-Cortez was mistaken to call the presence of Israeli troops in Palestine, an occupation.

In fact, being vague was the approach adopted by the Jewish establishment in America for half a century in its quest to “educate” the American public and the politico-journalistic elites about Jewish sensitivities.

Because the education was wrapped in a package labeled sensitivities, no one dared to ask questions. The Jewish leaders took advantage of the situation and built a tall monument on a foundation that’s nothing more than a crevice … a moral void. And that's what America has become under the tutelage of the Jewish lobby.

Running scared and dominating America

The terror syndicate that combines the ruling class in Israel and the Jewish lobby in America, is the current global team of arsonists that has been starting fires in the Middle East for several decades.

The forerunner of that team was a syndicate made of the ruling class in Israel and the two colonial powers, Britain and France. At the time, America was the authentic fireman putting out fires all over Europe, and once in Egypt when Britain, France and Israel attacked there.

Recognizing that the future belongs to America, the ruling class in Israel worked on turning the American fireman into their arsonist accomplice; training him to help set the Middle East on fire. They succeeded beyond expectations at turning the military of superpower America into their terror arm. And they used their new toy to start fires all over the Middle East. The ultimate goal of the Jews is to wreck the region thoroughly, thus fulfill the ancient dream of setting the world on fire before taking possession of it.

This being a project that takes time to realize, the strategy is not to burn the place all at once or to march into the desolation with an occupation army tomorrow. Rather, the strategy is to burn smaller places here and there, now and then while going in to play the role of fireman. This is what the American-Israeli syndicate is doing at this time in the region. The syndicate also uses the incidents it creates to drag the American government into the criminal acts it commits, and then turns around and tells the world that America's the one.

All of this can be detected by reading the article which came under the title: “A Joint strategy for Syria,” written by Abraham R. Wagner and published on July 18, 2018 in The Washington Times. Wagner represents the American-Israeli syndicate that pretends to fight the fire it started in Iraq fifteen years ago. It is the fire that spread into Syria, having devastated Iraq many times over.

The trouble with playing with fire is that, once you start the event, you cannot tell how it will spread. The Jews never think of this because starting fires gives them the upper hand when dealing with others. But fires often get out of hand, and when this happens, there is little that anyone can do to contain them. This is what happened in the Levant, and after trying and failing to exploit the situation to Israel's advantage, the Jews backtracked on everything they tried to impose on the world when they had the upper hand.

Now that the Iranians have inherited the upper hand, Abraham Wagner is calling on the much hated United Nations to get involved and bring with it – you won't believe this – Resolution 338. This is the one, together with Resolution 242, that Israel has been violating for more than 4 decades. True to form, the Jews want the UN to implement only the parts of the Resolutions that call for a ceasefire between the Syrian and Israeli forces. The Jews want this to happen while ignoring the parts that order Israel to withdraw from Syria's Golan Heights. Yes, my friend, nothing can be more Jewish than this.

There's something else that is quintessentially Jewish in the Wagner article. It starts in the first paragraph and carries through the rest of the article. When you bear in mind that the supplicant living in fear of being “wiped off the map” is Israel, and that the three giants from whom he is begging for help, are America, Russia and the UN, you expect to see a level of reserve on the part of the Jewish writer. Instead, this is what you get:

“With respect to the Syrian war, Trump and Putin understand the need to ensure Israeli security. The 1974 agreement resulted in 40 years of peaceful co-existence. This is the status quo ante Israel wants, and is willing to accept the Assad government back in charge of [certain] Syrian areas. The problem in restoring a stable situation remains the presence of Iranian forces and Hezbollah close to the Israeli border. It is unrealistic to think that Mr. Putin can force the Iranians out of Syria. What is clear is the commitment on the part of Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin that Israel's security concerns are paramount. Whether the Iranian forces can be held 80 kilometers from Israel may be possible, although Israel believes even this is inadequate”.

That is, having whispered in the ear of Donald Trump the moronic concept that a sovereign country has the right to place its embassy anywhere it wants, even on someone else's property without prior permission, the Jews are now telling that same Donald Trump, they want him to enforce by military means, their decision to keep President Assad of sovereign Syria, at least 80 kilometers in his own country, away from the Israeli border.

The suggestion is that if Assad came any closer, they want America to do to him what Israel did to the unarmed Palestinians in Gaza who stayed in their territory but came close to the Israeli border: They were cut down by American made Israeli bullets.

However, being armed and able to defend himself, Assad is not someone they want to tackle alone. This is why they want America to do the dirty work for them.

Will America hear and obey the Jewish master? Time will tell.

Notice the unfairness and judge for yourself

It is amazing what some people will do to denigrate someone they don't like. To critique the economic theory articulated by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Liam Warner wrote an article that was printed on July 17, 2018 in National Review Online under the title: Ocasio-Cortez Embarrasses Herself on Firing Line.

Warner based his article entirely on a half-hour conversation he watched on television. He saw and heard Ocasio-Cortez respond to questions in three areas of interest: capitalism, education and foreign policy, he says. From the little that he wrote about the foreign policy part of the conversation, it is obvious he cared very little about it. But because the topic pertained to Israel, he found himself duty bound to spew the usual thing. More about this later.

Liam Warner quickly disposed of that topic by mentioning what it entailed, and by characterizing it this way: “Unfortunately this wasn't simply the one scar of an otherwise flawless performance.” This done, he went on to critique Ocasio-Cortez's views on economics and education. Unfortunately, however, he made two big mistakes, that totally blemish his own performance.

Let's begin with the second mistake: His critique of the economics and education part of the interview.

Liam Warner says that Ocasio-Cortez is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). He says she began by summarizing the economic principle and goal of the movement when the interviewer asked why democratic socialism would be the proper vehicle to achieve that goal. Her response, he says, was that “DSA is the only organization pushing for universal health care and college”.

That response did not sit well with Warner because, he says, it did not answer the question. He explained that the interviewer wanted to know why the mechanisms of socialism are the best at delivering the desired results but the answer was something else. Well, had he said this much and stopped here, he would have only been accused of splitting hair. But he went further, and in so doing, set himself up to making the first big mistake.

He used the occasion to explain and to mock that the question was not, “whether the DSA is more explicitly socialist than, say, the Tea Party,” but that the answer amounted to: “Democratic socialism is the best way of giving us free college because democratic socialists are the loudest in demanding free college.” That was humorous but inaccurate. What's wrong with it, anyway?

What's wrong is that Warner has used the gauge of a written debate to measure the precision of a verbal debate. The difference between the two can be seen when you look at this: “Democratic Socialists of America” and then look at this: “democratic socialists of America.” Do you see the difference? Surely, you must have spotted the upper characters in the first expression, and the lower characters in the second. The first refers to an organization whereas the second refers to those who believe in the philosophy of the organization. It is like the difference between the Conservative Party and those who adhere to the conservative cause. The written word helps to spot that difference but not the spoken language. Confusing the two is what happened during the television interview.

But why could Liam Warner not see this? He could not see it because he is closer to being a one-dimensional man than a rounded-up man. And there is yet another example to prove it. He latched onto a saying that goes: “Profit at Any Cost,” and called it an oxymoron. Well, it would be an oxymoron if I made a profit of ten dollars by spending ten dollars. But if I made a profit of ten dollars by polluting the environment and costing everybody else ten dollars or more in health disbursement; it is not an oxymoron. It is “no-holds-barred, Wild West hyper-capitalism”.

Now to the first mistake: His critique of the foreign policy part of the interview:

Writing for a right-wing publication in America, and discussing Ocasio-Cortez, the New York politician that does not toe the Jewish line, Liam Warner had no choice but to say something nasty about her. He began by saying she did not have command of the issues. He then took up the “widely circulated highlight … her reference to the occupation of Palestine.” Pressed repeatedly by the interviewer to clarify her answer, Ocasio-Cortez demurred, he says. He then threw this at her: “This wasn't one only scar. Most of the time she opened her mouth only to change feet”.

This is the attitude that was expected of him even if he's not “of the body” that's emotionally attached to the story. But what comes out the little that he said, is that Ocasio-Cortez neglected to clarify –– meaning to define –– the word “occupation.” In fact, none of the others – all of them Jews – who wrote about the subject tried to define that word either. But pressing someone to define a word is a trick that they often use to trap someone in a gotcha moment and then work on wrecking his or her career.

The Jews do at times pretend to define a word or an expression, but all they do is haggle endlessly among themselves. And you can bet that if they try to define the word occupation, they'll spend a lifetime haggling over it till they die of old age not knowing what the hell they were haggling about.

Meanwhile, Ocasio-Cortez came out the ordeal like a 100-karat piece of diamond comes out the mouth of a volcano in full eruption. She is ready, more than ever, to cut through every obstacle that the Jewish establishment will put in her way to prevent her from realizing the dream of building a better world.

The Difference between swamp and honest Talk

Those in the media who complain that their bellies are about to explode due to the rage caused by politicians that engage in “swamp talk,” should stop complaining and start looking inward at themselves. They need to examine their own performance where they'll find the causes that give rise to that kind of politics.

In fact, something happened recently illustrating that reality superbly. It was the appearance of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on the PBS show “Firing Line” on July 13, 2018 during which time she was quizzed about her views concerning the situation in Palestine. She made it clear that her interest in the subject related to the human condition under which the Palestinians live and die. And it is here that journalists who respect themselves and their profession can identify what's wrong with what they do.

They'll discover that instead of adopting the professional approach by restricting the questioning to the areas of interest indicated by Ocasio-Cortez, the host of the show –– who was primed by the Jewish lobby –– repeatedly asked the guest to expand in areas where she could be trapped in a “gotcha” moment. But despite the fact that even seasoned politicians of the swamp get trapped by this method, Ocasio-Cortez whizzed through the moment and came out unscathed.

She managed to do so because she was powered by the energy of her total honesty. The young woman cut through the dark moments of the interview like sunlight created specifically to expose the hidden affinity that exists between modern yellow journalism and the politics of the swamp.

But how do we know that the host was primed by the Jewish lobby? We know because the approach taken by the host had the signature of the lobby etched all over it. What happens when a host prepares to interview someone that the lobby has in its cross-hairs, is that the lobby descends on the host ahead of time and tells him or her of the urgent need to ask the guest one question, which they pronounce “waaaaan question.” It would be the one that will lead to the gotcha moment and the checkmating of the victim in the cross-hairs.

As it happened, however –– shielded by the honesty that even the armor-piercing questions of the Jewish lobby could not penetrate –– Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez survived the treachery of the lobby and its journalistic lackeys. This fiasco so enraged the lobby, its operators arranged to attack the good woman at a venue where she would not be allowed to defend herself. They attacked her in a publication calling itself The American Thinker.

They authorized Monica Showalter to do her thing, and she wrote: “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is one very low-information voter on Israel and Palestinians,” which is the title of an article that was published on July 16, 2018 in that most infamous of English publications.

When done with the preamble; with the introduction and the narration of the event the way she chose to spin it, Monica Showalter said she was ready to draw a couple of conclusions. Actually, she pontificated over four of them as follows:

First, Showalter said that Ocasio-Cortez is a young “Milllenial” that knows nothing about the news, being of a generation that does not read newspapers.

Second, she will not be an asset to the talent pool of the Congress because she is a dimwit that wouldn't know how to make laws that please the Israelis and the Jews of America.

Third, she is a kind of election dummy because she lives in New York, a city that's full of Jews who care about Israel more than anything else. Monica Showalter predicts that come election time, the voters will stay home rather than go out and vote for her. That's because, in their view, she is shallow and ignorant, says Showalter.

Fourth, because Ocasio-Cortez doesn't know what she is talking about, the socialist masters in charge of the political party she represents, will manipulate her like a puppet.

In view of all this, the one observation everyone will not fail to make is that the future of the young politician-in-the-making will be shaped by the kind of journalism that surrounds her. By contrast, the future of the journalist that started her career as a disaster-in-the-making, will have no one to alter it.

The net result will be the further deterioration of journalism that will, in turn, continue to degrade the political establishment. And this will be the recipe that will maintain the downward spiral on which we already find ourselves as a society.

Can we do something about it? Yes, we can. Without embracing a political philosophy we do not like, we can strive to be as honest as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in our everyday lives while avoiding the swamp-like talk of Monica Showalter.

Never before was so little exploited so broadly

Every language has idioms, which are expressions that say something different from what the words would indicate. For example, when you tell someone to go to hell, you do not expect to see the person go to the airline counter at the airport and book a trip to a fiery place run by demons.

It can happen at times that two different languages have expressions that may translate somewhat differently from each other but are used in similar contexts even if they mean something different from what the words would indicate. One such expression in the Egyptian dialect would literally translate as “go drink from the sea.”

In fact, when at one time, the late President Nasser grew tired of the colonial Powers continually threatening Egypt, he told them to go drink from the sea. Reporting the news and commenting on it, an English publication translated the saying as “go jump in the lake.” Well, consider it close enough. But as you can see, the expression in either language does not mean what the words would indicate.

That event was a moment in time that most everyone forgot about after a day or two, except for yours truly because these things used to intrigue me so much, they remained stuck in my mind to this day. What kept reminding me of the event over the years, however, was the incessant harking back to the Iranian expression: “Death to Israel, death to America,” that the Jews kept recalling when they had nothing interesting to say … which was most of the time.

I do not speak Persian, so I cannot be certain what an Iranian may think or feel when he utters those words. But this being clearly a Persian idiom, I always believed it wasn't used to tell someone he must assassinate Israel or America. I thought of the expression as one the Iranians use to respond to the incessant Judeo-American threat: “All options are on the table”.

That belief of mine has now been reinforced by the fact that the Iranians who used to chant “death to Israel, death to America” are also chanting “death to Palestine, death to the Supreme Leader.” This shows how trivial is the expression that the Jews have been exploiting so much for so long. But why did they do it? They did it to stir hatred for Iran, thus win the sympathy of the American decision makers. These are the people who decide on compensating Israel –– not for the damage someone has caused it but –– for the damage it has caused others; usually the Palestinians it kills by the thousands using the deadliest of American weaponry.

I was not surprised to learn that Iranian dissidents used that expression to condemn someone other than Israel or America. But I was surprised to see that a Jew exploited what appeared to her as an Iranian flip. In fact, with the same zeal that the Jews have been exploiting, “death to Israel, death to America,” Eliora Katz has now exploited, “death to Palestine, death to the Supreme leader”.

She did so in an article that came under the title: “Iranians Are Now Chanting 'Death to Palestine'” and the subtitle: “Khamenei calls enmity toward Israel 'an issue of the heart.' There is reason to question his sincerity,” The article was published on July 14, 2018 in the Wall Street Journal.

Whereas it was simple to argue that chanting, “death to Israel” meant that the cantors hated Israel, Eliora Katz was forced to take a long detour to explain that chanting, “death to Palestine” still meant that the cantors hated Israel. Katz began her reasoning like this: “Why would Iranians care about 'Palestine' with such passion as to wish it dead? Because hatred of Israel is a foundational idea of the Islamic Republic”.

This done, Katz started to quote from the history and literature of Iran to highlight something she wants the readers to believe is uniquely an Iranian habit when in fact, it is a universal habit. That is, she wants the readers to believe that only the Iranians are so protective of their culture, they fear seeing it invaded and overwhelmed by the Western culture. I have news for Eliora Katz: everybody fears seeing their culture being invaded and overwhelmed by an alien culture.

And so, after rambling for another 800 words that add nothing to the understanding of her thesis, Eliora Katz made this pronouncement: “Why do Iranians chant 'Death to Palestine'? Because the regime that claims to champion Palestine has become the enemy of the people”.

Try to figure out what that means. I give up.

Paradigm Shift of the most Yiddish kind

Did you hear the latest? It happened while you were asleep. The world has changed.

No, that wasn't the Shah of Iran crowning himself emperor because he could not find someone worthy enough to crown him. This time, it was his imperial holiness Matthew Continetti sending a memo to his prime minister Donald Trump of the Federated Empire of America, instructing him as follows: I have no objection to you meeting with Putin but make no grand bargain. Give me instead the four No's: no sanctions relief; no recognition of Crimea; no withdrawal from Syria, and no trusting Putin.

So you ask: Where is the paradigm shift? And the answer is that control of the universe has shifted – perhaps temporarily or perhaps for good – from Wolf Blitzer's Situation Room at CNN to Matthew Continetti's Washington Free Beacon in the District of Columbia. And you can read all about the said infamous memo in the article that came under the title: “No 'Grand Bargain' with Putin” and the subtitle: “The risks to American deterrence aren't worth it.” That piece of work was written by Matthew Continetti, of course, and reprinted from the Washington Free Beacon in National Review Online on July 14, 2018.

The goal of the self-crowned master of the universe is to ascertain that America will remain in Syria to stand like a sentinel protecting Israel's murder of Palestinians and Israel's theft of Palestinian properties. Like the rest of the mob of Jewish pundits, Continetti came up with all kinds of fake reasons as to why America must spend trillion more dollars to see more lives of its own perish in far away lands, sent there by their government to kill innocent people that did nothing to harm America. Look at the way that little Matthew formulated these thoughts:

“American withdrawal from Syria would be doubly self-defeating. Our mission there prevents Assad from reestablishing 'full control,' deters Turkey and provides us intelligence. Our departure would remove the heavy boot on ISIS's neck. The lesson in the early 21st century is that terrorism festers in places where no military has established 'full control.' It would be the height of folly to create such a place in Syria on purpose [the way we did in Iraq and Libya]”.

It will take a few more years of growing up before Matthew Continetti will have learned that the foreign control of a society––originally known as colonialism; later renamed neocolonialism––plants the seeds of rebellion, awakens the forces of resistance, creates wars of liberation and the inevitable invitation to acts of terror. Only then will he realize that the Pax Judaica disguised as Pax Americana––his elders planted in his head––will fail to accomplish what he believes “our mission there” will do. What will happen instead is a rekindling of the conditions that started in the nineteenth century and culminated in the twentieth century with blaming the Jews for starting all wars, and the attempt to permanently do away with them to permanently do away with wars.

Matthew Continetti and all the young who are schooled in the Ronald Reagan slogan, “peace through strength” and the W. Bush doctrine of America remaining militarily superior to all the others combined – end up making fools of themselves when they are not careful how they treat the subject. In fact, they cannot believe in those concepts without believing in the idea that to get there, America must be engaging in an arms race. And when you have an arms race, you do not adhere to an arms control treaty whether or not there is one.

To be ignorant of these realities and mock someone for not adhering to arms control, will make the readers laugh alright, but not at the one being mocked; they’ll laugh at the one doing the mocking. Here is an example from the Continetti article: “The Russians look at arms control the way you and I look at dieting and nutrition: as pledges that work to one's advantage in the short term but are ineluctably broken.” You may laugh at little Matthew.

Not only has the schooling of the new generation of right-wing fanatics gone out of control with regard to the subjects that relate to war and peace, it has gone out of control with regard to the subjects that relate to the treatment of both friends and foes.

At the very moment that America's “friends” are scratching their heads wondering if America views them as friends or foes, Continetti says this: “Russia has no intent to act on its promises of diplomatic comity. It's almost as if it can't help being the bully in regions it considers important.” Tell that to Angela Merkel of Germany and Theresa May of the United Kingdom.

It is that the current president of the United States of America seemed at times to imitate the buffoonery of Idi Amin. He now seems to imitate Ferdinand Marcos who thought that women are never good anywhere except in the bedroom. Is this the kind of comity the new generation of American right-wingers is advocating?