To avoid Speculation and subtle editorializing

Ever heard someone say to the writer of a piece that his work says more about him than the subject about whom he's writing? If you haven't, this is a time to get a sense of how such remark is sometimes earned by writers, even ordinary laymen, who can be so absorbed by the gathering around them, they can't see past it.

To see that, imagine you graduated from high school, and were accepted by an out-of-town university offering a program in journalism. It is early morning, and you hop into the car that your parents gave you on graduation, and hit the road on your way to the university. You stop at a restaurant near a small town to have breakfast. Two men at the table near you are talking loudly, and you instantly figure they must be farmers raising pigs because their language does not go beyond the pool of pig manure with which they must deal all day long … day after day.

You get back to your car and drive a few more hours. It is now early afternoon, and you stop at a restaurant at the outskirt of the city to which you're going, and visit the restroom where you wash up, and go to the diner for a snack. You sit at a table near to which two women are talking loudly. You figure they must be commodity traders because their language, though varied and touching on several topics, remains replete with images about the futures and the weather conditions that can alter them.

You get back to your car and drive to the university where you'll be spending the next few years. You go to the administrative building where they give you the key to the room where you'll reside. You take your stuff there, take a shower, take a short nap, get up and go around the campus to see what's there. It is early evening, and you come to a small building with a sign at the door that says “Come in you're invited”.

You walk into a common room containing tables around which sit a number of students, and perhaps a few professors. You see other students come into the room and sit randomly at any table while other students migrate from one table to another. You spot an empty chair at one table and go sit there. Moments later a student addresses an older person: Tell me this, professor, how can I decide whether to aim for a multi-disciplinary kind of education or whether I should aim to specialize in one field?

The professor says there is a need for both in a modern economy. If you'll do pure mathematics or get into high energy physics or astronomy, the more highly specialized you are, the better you'll serve the field. But if you'll be making things, your knowledge base must be rounded. You'll do that by adding experience to your theoretical knowledge. Another student says: I want to design cars. And the professor says: You'll need to learn the theory in the classroom. But in the same way that you can't be a good driver without actually driving a car, you won't be a good designer without spending years designing cars.

The discussion goes on in this vein for a while, touching on several professions. So you decide to break in and ask a question: What about commodity traders? What do they need to know? The professor responds that very few people trade for their account using their own money. Most traders work for a brokerage house handling the accounts of clients. Traders must be versed in economics and the factors that can affect the price of the commodity of their specialty. This requires a vast array of interdisciplinary knowledge.

Okay, you say, what about raising pigs? The professor answers: Like any musician, farmers, miners, and journeymen in every trade learn their profession by practicing it. Like a violin player that stops playing for a time, a journeyman that stops practicing his trade gets rusted up. You interrupt the professor saying you have one more question. Shoot, he says. And you confess: I want to be a journalist. What should I know? The professor says this is probably the most interdisciplinary profession you can get into.

You ask again: What should I know? And the professor answers: There is much that you'll have to learn by experience. But if I must give an advice for starter, here are two rules: (1) Refrain from speculating, and (2) do not editorialize by using adjectives that enforce a point of view rather that clarify the situation. If you violate these rules, your credibility goes down to zero, and you'll find it hard to regain the trust of the readers.

You go back to your room, turn on the computer and look up the daily publications. You come to an article titled: “Iran is trying to cover up its internal crisis,” written by Benny Avni and published on February 26, 2019 in the New York Post. The adjective “trying” in the title intrigues you, and so you read the article to see if what the professor was saying applies here. You encounter abundant speculation backed by adjectives galore. What follows is a condensed version of the passage that contain speculations:

“For the Iranian regime, the internal scrambling started in the middle of the night. How can it pretend to be united when one of its men quit so publicly? Iranians are suffering. More frequently than ever, they protest. Regime insiders are turning on each other. Factionalism is rising more than ever before. Zarif's political star is dimming in Tehran, and it surely reflects the internal strife the regime has increasingly faced. Lately Zarif has been more hawkish and seemed increasingly tense. The usually cordial Zarif angrily pushed back. The regime is clearly having difficulty dealing with it”.

And what follows is a condensed version of the passages that contain the editorializing adjectives:

“Zarif's resignation may have been a mere cry for help. Regime insiders are turning on each other. As for Zarif, he apparently wasn't informed of Assad's visit to Tehran. Some Iranian sources speculate that was the last straw, or maybe it was a protest to stress his relevance; it's anyone's guess. An Israeli-based broadcaster noticed that lately Zarif has been more hawkish than ever. His differences with the Guards were more over style. Let's amp up the pressure. The regime is having difficulty dealing with it … to our good”.

This article of Benny Avni says more about Benny Avni than it does about Iran or Zarif. The latter mind their business the way that things are done in any normal country. As to Benny Avni and those like him, they dream of pressure, instability, protests, blood and gore. That's who and what they are.

Losing Ground, the Termites eye the Campuses

If it is not violent speech to call someone a hawk, a dove, a lion, a tigress, a lapdog or a poodle, why is it violent speech to call the Jews termites? At least that's what the Jews claim to be the case; as they whine incessantly about it.

In fact, the Jews consider that appellation to be so violent, they responded by calling Louis Farrakhan, who uttered words to that effect, the most virulent anti-Semite ever to have existed. And they call anyone that does not concur with that view, an equal anti-Semitic offender.

Moreover, if that person happens to be in the public eye because they occupy a prominent position in society, the Jews gear up every gun serving in their hate machine, and have it open fire on that individual. They have those guns sustain the firing till the woman or man is disgraced and pushed out of their office. To think about it, this is more than fighting fire with fire or fighting violence with violence; it is responding to a harmless gentle shove with a cold-blooded murder.

Given that the Jews have forever claimed to be guided by principles, except that you can never make out what their principles are because every case they make dissolves into a nebulous mishmash of ambiguities, you decide to put your mind at ease by pretending to believe that the Jews must have a rational explanation to what they are saying and doing ... and that someday, you'll get to see that explanation, even come to understand it.

Well, maybe that someday has finally arrived because Jonathan Zimmerman, who is a professor of education and history, took pain to explain it all in an article he wrote under the title: “We must fight back against the idea, rampant on US campuses, that speech can be violent,” published on February 25, 2019 in the New York Daily News.

Jonathan Zimmerman begins the core of his argument by asking two questions. They are: (1) “Why aren't we denouncing the culture of intolerance on America's campuses, where dissenting voices have faced physical attacks?” and (2) “Doesn't our silence on that score make us partially responsible for the violence?”

Zimmerman begins to answer his own questions like this: “The plain fact is that respect for free speech is eroding on our campuses, precisely because so many people view it as violence. So we shouldn't be surprised when they respond with the physical kind.” He goes on to elaborate on that point as follows: “The pernicious idea that speech is violence provides a convenient pretext for the real kind. If talk is the equivalent of punching others in the nose, wouldn't they be within their rights to punch first? Or at least to raise their fist in self-defense?”

Having exposed the bleakness of the current situation as he sees it, Zimmerman finds nothing else to say or do except to cite a concrete example as to what has gone wrong with society. This done, he closes his argument with a final plea. First, the example: “According to a 2017 survey of 800 undergraduates around the country 81% think that words can be violent. And 30% think that physical violence can be justified to prevent someone from using offensive words”.

And here is the Jonathan Zimmerman final plea: “You can't have a free university or free society on those terms. Words will always offend someone. And if you construe them as violent, you clear the way for physical assault upon anyone who gives offense. The rest of us encourage it if we don't step up to denounce the whole idea of speech as violence. It's too easy to criticize someone for stoking hate and intolerance. It's a lot harder to look in the mirror”.

Yes, my friend, these are the magical words: “Look in the mirror.” In fact, this is what the Jews must spend the next 4,000 years doing: looking at themselves in the mirror. It took them 4,000 years to get where they are today; it will take them as long to get out of it. Hypnotizing themselves into the belief that they have privileges no one else has because they are the chosen children of God, they continually do the very things they demand that others refrain from doing.

And the way that the Jews go about making their demands never comes down to debating their opponents by fielding words against words, however soft or violent such words may be. No, this is not what the Jews do. Their way of operating is to gather dirt on the people at the top of the food chain, and blackmail them or hypnotize them. When they have these honchos where they want them, the Jews get them to use, not words of persuasion, but the security apparatus of the nation — ranging for the civilian police to the surveillance network to the military — and have them go after the good people who refuse to bow to the Jews.

Their motto seems to be this: Get down on your knees and worship the Jews or spend the rest of your life being vilified for everything you say and do.

Which is why you'll find it refreshing that ordinary people respect someone like Louis Farrakhan — who does not even bow to Jews — and regard him as being the Greatest Of All Time (GOAT).

Iran has the Houthis, America has the Israelis

If you go by the information that was advanced on February 24, 2019, you must conclude that the world has two major problems. One problem is America whose terror arm is Israel; the other problem is Iran whose terror arm are the Houthis.

The editors of the New York Daily News wrote and published a piece about the America/Israel problem in an editorial that came under the title: “Bibi goes low,” and the subtitle: “Netanyahu effectively allies Likud with the worst element in Israeli politics.” As to the Iran/Houthi problem, it was Peter Vincent Pry that took charge of telling the story. And so, he wrote an article under the title: “The next 9/11,” and had it published in The Washington Times.

The editors of the New York Daily News start their piece with this paragraph: “We, who consider ourselves proudly Zionists … [explanatory sentence deleted temporarily] ... who have admired Netanyahu's grit, are sickened by his decision to bring into the fold his nation's most hateful right-wing extremists”.

Let me ask you something, my friend. Was there something in that passage that jumped out of the monitor and hit you in the face like the punch of a boxing champion? Look again and you'll see this: “most hateful extremists.” Yes, there is that word “hate.” It is about Jews hating Jews. But you ask: why would a Jewish faction hate another Jewish faction? And you get the answer that one faction is left leaning whereas the other faction is right leaning.

And that causes you to scream: Is that it? You mean to say that Jews are allowed to hate each other when they are of different leanings? How can it be okay for Jews to hate over such a small consideration when they whine bitterly and ask the legislatures of America to pass laws that destroy the lives of gentiles for hating the Jewish acts of mass murder in Gaza and Lebanon? How can hate be good and bad to the same people at the same time?

I know how you feel, my friend. But let me tell you this: Don't blame the Jews for this situation. They are only exploiting the spineless chihuahuas who are elected to make laws in America. These are the ones who go to the Jews and ask to be trained at making the laws that turn America into a private washroom. When done, the chihuahuas wait patiently for their masters to reward them with a piece of red meat. If you must blame someone, blame those who spend their time on all fours, begging for money and votes.

We now turn to the explanatory sentence that was temporarily deleted from the above quotation. It reads like this: “We, who believe Palestinians' stubborn refusal to accept the Jewish state is the central problem in their conflict with Israel.” You ask: What's wrong with that? What's wrong is that the Palestinians are in no position to accept or reject the existence of a Jewish state. When you accept this premise, you conclude that accusing them of a sentiment they cannot have, could only be done by the satanic mentality of Jews.

As to those who accept the accusation and act on it; they can only be chihuahuas such as those who populate the Federal and State legislatures of America. And when you realize that it is the Jews who deny the establishment of a Palestinian state — not the other way around — you understand to what level of spiritual depravity the Jews have debased America. And that's something you can blame the Jews for.

And there is plenty more because the Jews are no longer hiding their abuse of America's system of values. They admit to what they do, as you'll discover in the rest of the editorial. So, let's look at what's there before we try to decipher what it means. Here is a condensed version of the editorial:

“The Likud Party that Netanyahu heads must line up partners to form a coalition government. Running separately, two right-wing parties may have fallen short of the threshold needed to enter the Knesset, scuttling Netanyahu's chances to form the government. So he brokered a unity pact between the two, sealing the deal by offering the joint entity seats in a future cabinet. The move empowers Jews who stand for the violent ethnic cleansing of all Palestinians from pre-1967 Israel as well as Gaza and the West Bank. These Jews carry the flag of a Party whose supporter, Baruch Goldstein, shot and killed 29 Muslim worshipers at a West Bank mosque. One of its current leaders attends tributes at Goldstein's grave. Another, calls him his teacher and rabbi”.

What does that say? It says a great deal about the reality of life under Jewish occupation. It is one of savagery; a kind never seen before under any occupation. Moreover, you can almost see stamped all over it the Jewish intent to keep intensifying the savagery — a notch at a time — till the ethnic cleansing of Palestine is complete.

In fact, this is what the world has been saying was happening in occupied Palestine. It is also what Jews such as the editors of the Daily News were denying was happening. But irony of ironies, it is what the editors of the publication are now admitting is happening.

But those editors are not calling on America — that enabled the horror in the first place — to do what's necessary to end the Netanyahu genocide, and bury it once and for all.

As to the Peter Vincent Pry article, the gist of it is that America has enemies who wish to hurt it. In fact, it was the people who denied that Israel was ethnic cleansing Palestine that also took pain to explain to the chihuahuas of America's lawmaking establishment, why some Middle Eastern groups “hate” America. They said that these groups hated freedom whereas America loves freedom. The two are opposites, and hate each other in the way that the Left leaning Jews and Right leaning Jews are opposites, and hate each other.

Making up that group, says Peter Pry, are the Iranians, their Houthi terrorist arm, and a number of non-state actors. He gives all sorts of reasons as to why they want to hurt America without once mentioning Israel, effectively denying something crucial. It is that Israel is at the root of the mutual hatred which now exists between America and all the people Israel has been hurting using American help.

Someday America will acknowledge that it had its nose rubbed in the mud because of its blind support for Israel. When it comes, that acknowledgment will be as refreshing as the editorial of the Daily News that just admitted to the reality that all along, the Jewish plan had been to ethnic cleanse Palestine of its Palestinian population. And that’s a premeditated crime against humanity.

In playing self-Deceit the deceiver gets played

In their continued effort to reassure the rank-and-file that normally supports Israel, members of the mob of Jewish pundits who contribute to the propaganda machine, find themselves compelled to use the proverbial chewing gum and masking tape to stick together fake stories that do not rise to a level good enough for juveniles.

Conscious of that reality, Benny Avni began to sense that the readers have grown tired of reading column after column he wrote that did nothing but slander the Palestinians who are not here to defend themselves. Worse, Avni slandered the people for refusing to profess their undying love for the Jews who killed their folks and robbed them of their possessions. Failing to get deluged with fan mail for this kind of performance, Avni decided to take a different tack as he started his latest column, but then lapsed into the same old pattern.

He first attacked the leader of Venezuela. He went on to mention that the South American had a few supporters backing him — one of these being the group of Palestinians at the UN headquarters. Avni then mounted an old-style attack on the Palestinians. It reminds you of the saying that used to be popular in the old days: The more things change, the more they remain the same.

Benny Avni did all this in a column that came under the title: “Meet the new axis of oppression,” published on February 20, 2019 in the New York Post. According to him, the axis comprises the leaders of Venezuela, Palestine, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Syria and Cuba. He attacked them with what you might call small arms fire, but reserved his big guns for the Palestinians. After all, this is the group that's most victimized by the Jews, who are themselves pressured by several world players to give back some of what they looted.

But while in Jewish eyes, the Palestinians are only an incidental threat to them, and a minor one at that; they see the Iranians as a more immediate threat to them and to Israel, and a major one at that. This is why you see Benny Avny intertwine his attacks on the Palestinians with a repeated reference to the role that Iran is playing in the Middle East.

To emphasize that point, Benny Avni mentioned the notorious Dennis Ross who had an article of his own, written on the same subject, and published one day earlier, February 19, 2019. The article came under the title: “What Washington—and Iran Should—Take Away from the Warsaw Conference,” and was published on the website of the Washington Institute.

Dennis Ross who was exposed as an Israeli asset that managed for several decades to have America finance his exploitation of America to enrich Israel, receiving a high salary doing it, is back serving Israel as faithfully as ever. He was brought back by Jewish organizations that keep inviting him to make public appearances in an effort to rehabilitate his image, having suffered a bruising descent into disgrace.

Masters at sponging the unguarded by stealth, the Jewish organizations have been inviting high-profile personalities to participate in panels on a given subject. Before you know it, the name of Dennis Ross would be added to the panel to help polish his image by this kind of artificially produced association.

In fact, this is how Dennis Ross was invited to moderate a panel on the Middle East at the same time that the Warsaw Conference was taking place. But to the chagrin of thinking Jews, Netanyahu of Israel attended the Conference and behaved like the scumbag that he is. He torpedoed both the Conference and the Dennis Ross sideshow in the blink of an eye.

But the one thing that will not be erased from what Ross was trying to achieve and failed, is that he left behind yet another proof that the Jews will never give up on the idea that they and those who side with them, are always correct. And that everybody else is wrong even if they do exactly the same thing as the Jews and their friends. In fact, Ross has alluded to that tendency in his article.

To understand the significance of what happened, it must be said that the world is so complicated, and people have become so sophisticated, only a fool would commit an obvious mistake nowadays, get caught and made to pay dearly for it. Most other people, especially the politicians, wait for things to happen, and when they do, exploit them to advance their own causes. Thus, the new Jewish rule as to who can exploit others and be regarded as smart, and who cannot exploit others, lest he be regarded as villain. You'll find examples of these two instances in the Dennis Ross article.

First, speaking of Iran, you'll find Ross saying this: “Iran's efforts to destabilize the region and exploit conflicts.” What he means is that Iran is bad because it has no right to exploit, but does it anyway.

Second, speaking of what America's friends could do with regard to the differences that exist between Russia and Iran, you'll find Ross saying this: “Those differences can be exploited to limit Iran's presence”.

What Ross means, is that America's allies are good to exploit those differences, thus frustrate the Russia/Iran coalition that's trying to stabilize the region on its terms.

The right to exploit that’s given to one but not the other, is the Jewish double-standard that America is made to embrace not knowing what it is getting into. But the world is watching, and making no allowance for America’s ignorance.

In the end, however, it was the self-deceiving hallucination of Benjamin Netanyahu that became the last word. And the entire Warsaw exercise went up in smoke like the stuff he must have been inhaling when no one was watching.

David French talks Rubbish to promote Israel

Traitors, such as David French, who would sacrifice American life, limb and treasure to please their Jewish masters, are out in force with two new excuses as to why America must remain in Syria. You can see it in the article he wrote under the title: “Trump's Decision to Leave a Token Force in Syria Is More Significant Than You think,” published on February 22, 2019 in National Review Online.

Notwithstanding the proven reality that Israel wants America to stand as a tripwire behind which Israeli troops can hide — given that in Syria, they will not have Palestinian or Jewish children behind whom to hide while they commit their habitual genocidal crimes — David French has come up with a new way to talk rubbish so as to promote Israel's interests. Two illustrations will help clarify what French is trying to accomplish now.

First illustration: David French is suggesting that, “the presence of American soldiers will act as a profound deterrent to American enemies.” Think so? Since when has the presence of American soldiers deterred those who wish to kill American soldiers? If David French did not mean to sound serious, you'd think he is making a bad joke. Unfortunately, however, he is doing worse than joke. The reality is that this guy's logic is so profoundly screwed up, his arguments can only please his Jewish masters.

Second illustration: David French is suggesting that, “even small American deployments facilitate continued involvement by European allies.” Hooray! Do you know what this sounds like, my friend? It sounds like the guy who says to his sidekick: a bear is coming at us, and I am going to run. The other guy says, you can't outrun a bear. And the first replies: All I have to do is outrun you. Well, not quite an exact analogy, you might say, and you’re right. So, here is a better analogy to represent the America-in-Syria situation:

It is the story of the antelope and the family of rodents. The antelope says to the rodents: a lion is coming at us, so why aren’t you running? We're not running, says the head of the rodent family because in the choice between us, the lion will choose to eat you. And so I ask you, my dear reader, why do you think the Europeans want the Americans to stay in Syria before they'll go there as well? The reason is that in the choice between the Americans and the Europeans, the enemy will choose to kill the Americans.

Keep this in mind as you continue to read the article and you encounter this passage: “If the allies come through, they will create an effective deterrent and leave ISIS with less abilities. Critically, it will help prevent Russia, Iran, and the Assad regime from gaining more power at the expense of American credibility and influence.” Well, if not ignorance of history, this is a manifestation of extreme intellectual dishonesty.

Speaking of the moments when America lost credibility and influence, you'll find them to have occurred not when America lost battles — at which time it actually gained sympathy for the casualties it suffered — but when its allies lost confidence in the logic of the mission in which they were dragged. This was the time when the allies decided to start withdrawing their troops from the battlefield, leaving America to fight and struggle alone. It is what happened in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. Now David French wants the same thing to happen to America in Syria.

In fact, on the same day that David French published his article, and in the same publication, Michael Brendan Dougherty published his own piece under the title: “Our Orwellian Syria Policy.” He made a number of good points but his main focus has been the antics that eroded American credibility and influence. What follows is a condensed version of the relevant passages:

“The White House said it planned to leave 200 American troops in Syria. In December, Trump announced a complete withdrawal from Syria. In January various advisers were redesigning the withdrawal in a way that our men would continue the mission from Iraq. Now we have it that a small peacekeeping group of 200 will remain in Syria. What is peacekeeping in this instance? American soldiers will provide logistics, intelligence and surveillance for directing airstrikes to targets. These are the actions of a belligerent, not a peacekeeper. Thus, America will still be part of the Syrian civil war. I'm struck by the Orwellian redefinition of America First: Doing what Sunni fanatics, Kurdish communists [and Jewish Zionists] want is now America First. Who is in charge, exactly? Whose regime is being changed?”

This is the sort of thing that America was doing when it lost credibility and influence. Probing deep into the matter, you'll find that the image of a regime that's caught in a state of disorder — being “democratically” pulled in all directions by opportunists who seek to sponge on it — tends to evoke more contempt in the observer than the dissolution of an autocratic regime that couldn't make it … and so admitted without resorting to a Democratic-Orwellian rhetoric aimed at making the failure appear like success.

The undeniable truth is that America lost its good standing among the peoples of the world because of its blind support for Israel. And there is no rhetoric — no matter how Orwellian it may sound — that will move America from the position of moral prostitute, on the scale that spans the gamut from prostitution to rectitude.

Fantasy held together with Gum and Sellotape

Small children can be so inventive at times that when they lack the material to construct something they fantasize about, they make do with whatever they find around them.

They start the construction of the thing, and hold the parts together with chewing gum and sellotape, also known as Scotch tape. If the children are lucky, they might have access to the sturdier masking tape, which they use instead of the sellotape. They might also have access to flour, which they mix with water to make glue, and use that instead of chewing gum.

When you see children being this inventive and this dedicated to making something using practically nothing, you want to help them by getting them the kind of toys they can use to construct the projects of their fantasy. This is normal human response, and no adult can avoid reacting in that manner. But can it happen at times that when you see someone behave as do the children, you get filled with contempt for that person? Can it happen that you'll be motivated to confront that person and tell them, they are such a disgusting creature, they diminish the value of the human race simply by virtue of their existence?

Yes, it is possible for someone to feel that way at times. In fact, you'll be provoked into harboring this kind of sentiment when you read the article that came under the title: “An Arab-Israeli talk-fest for peace,” written by Clifford D. May, and published on February 19, 2019 in The Washington Times.

It has been a decade and a half since the Arabs put on the table a project that would have every Arab country recognize Israel and establish normal relations with it in return for ending the occupation of Palestine. As per habit, however, the Jews tried to pocket what they were offered without reciprocating. They thought that in time, the Arabs will give up on the reciprocation part of the deal, and give the Jews the recognition they crave without getting the end of occupation. But the Arabs were not fooled.

The Israelis responded by urging the mob of Judeo-American pundits to imagine all sorts of things — using literary chewing gum and sellotape if they must — to tell about Arab diplomats who said privately that they would love to meet with their Israeli counterparts. Better yet, say the Arabs actually met with the Israelis, but that they wish to keep such meetings a secret. The intent was to fool the rank-and-file Jews in America into believing that Israeli diplomacy was working. The ultimate objective was for the Jews to have it both ways. That is, they wanted to have their Palestinian cake, and eat the Arab recognition of Israel too.

You can imagine that after more than a decade of feeding the rank-and-file this kind of garbage, even the most ardent Zionist among them got tired being lied to by slick pundits. So the Jews of Israel asked the Trump administration to mount one giant pimping job, and invite the Arabs and the Europeans to gather in Warsaw, and make it look like Madam America of the Towering Whorehouse had brought about a new day in Judeo-American diplomacy.

Unfortunately for the schemers, the Warsaw romp turned into a fiasco. And this is when people of the Clifford May ilk got back into the business of doing what they were doing previously. It was to cobble together — using literary chewing gum and sellotape — stories of success and semi-success in Warsaw. And that's what the Clifford May article is about.

In it, May is pursuing three themes. In the first part, he made it sound like the Arabs and the Israelis had become partners. In the second part, he reassured the hardcore Jewish fanatics that partners or not, Israel will not end the occupation of Palestine. Besides, he went on to suggest that while the Iranians may care about the leaders of Gaza, the Arab World no longer cares about the Palestinians. In the third part, Clifford May complained about the Europeans deserting the cause of the West. But he seemed to suggest that this was their loss. Here are the three parts, expressed in condensed form:

The first part: “In Warsaw the Trump administration convened a conference on the Middle East. Envoys arrived from 60 countries, including 10 Arab nations. The one head of state was Netanyahu, who was pleased to get together with his neighbors. They didn't seem displeased to get with him. The Arab/Sunni diplomats gathered are probably not enthusiastic about Jews occupying Palestine. But Israelis have become the strategic partner of the Sunni Arabs by default”.

The second part: “In theory, increasing Arab-Israeli rapprochement should make it easier to find a resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. In practice, don't bet on it. Bahraini and Saudi Foreign Ministers said that Iran was undercutting the Palestinian Authority. UAE Foreign Minister said every nation has the right to defend itself. Omani Foreign Minister said people in the Middle East have suffered a lot because they have stuck to the past; now we say this is a new era for the future”.

The third part: “Our West European friends are ambivalent. The European Union's chief diplomat declined to attend the conference. The German foreign ministry's official attended a celebration of Iran's Revolution. Germany, France and Britain have been attempting to devise a financial mechanism to avoid or undermine US sanctions on Tehran”.

You can think of these people as behaving like the aging inmate that has been in prison since he was a teenager. He deliberately blows his chances at being paroled because he doesn't know how he'll live if he is released. And so, he came to the conclusion that it is better to go on with the misery of prison than face the cruelty of living a life of self-reliance.

What's artificial decays, what's natural evolves

If you've been interested — even for a short period of time — in the undeclared tug-of-war that's been ongoing between the natural processes and the artificial processes, you should have realized by now that the natural process will always win the contest when going against the artificial process.

All you had to do to come to that conclusion was (1) look at the remains of a city that used to be a thriving center in antiquity, now turned into rubble … or look at a modern junkyard where artificially made products that no longer function as intended, are waiting to be recycled into something else. And (2) look at the aftermath of a devastation that was caused by a forest fire or a severe storm, and marvel at the power of nature to restart the process of growth and regeneration.

And so, the rule is that when it comes to tangible products, the guiding principle is that the artificial will always decay whereas the natural will always evolve. In fact, it can be said that the same principle applies to the abstract laws of nature and those of man. It also applies to the schemes that allow those laws to regulate the processes of what's natural and what's artificial.

To take an example, letting the market govern the economy of a jurisdiction naturally, will always win the contest when going against an artificially planned economy. That's because the market will renew itself and will evolve whereas the planned economy will, in time, decay and turn into junk. In fact, this will happen to any artificial scheme, no matter how much “spare parts” you produce to keep it going a little longer.

Broadly speaking, that principle applies to the sociopolitical organization of a country. The reality is that there will always be individuals and groups in every country, who will artificially steer the country into one direction or another. Some of these people will succeed initially to one degree or another, but in the end, nature will have the last world. It will preserve the parts of the scheme that harmonize with its own laws, and disallow the parts that contradict its laws.

No one has been subjected to such treatment more often than the Jews and yet, they are the only ones who seem incapable of learning the lesson. You can see an example of that in two recent articles. One came under the title: “Left, Right, Left: Anti-Semitism Marches on,” and the subtitle: “Anti-Jewish sentiment is vile and dangerous regardless of which part of the political spectrum it comes from.” It was written by Cathy Young and published on February 20, 2019 in The Bulwark. The other article came under the title: “How Democrats Can Get Rid of Ilhan Omar,” and the subtitle: “It's going to take a primary opponent, but not just any primary opponent.” It was written by Liz Mair and published on February 21, 2019 in The Bulwark.

What follows is a condensed version of the Liz Mair article. It shows how the Jews relentlessly scheme to subvert the natural process as presented in the American Constitution, when the time comes to elect the people who will govern the country. What is clear from the passage is that the Jews will do all they can to sabotage the natural process, and artificially install puppet governments at every level of American political life. They plant a clique in each jurisdiction; a vile group that will abandon the American people, and spend all its time doing the bidding for the Jews and for Israel. Here is the compilation of the relevant passages:

“Rep. Ilhan Omar was sworn into office and has dabbled in anti-Semitism. She is firmly installed, and was given a seat on the Foreign Affairs committee. Her district is solidly Democratic. So is America stuck with her or is there anything her critics can do? They need to beat her in a primary. Omar bested two opponents. She won a five-way primary and became representative. Jewish voters are not numerous enough to boot her out. She might emerge from the next primary even more powerful. To beat Omar, someone who is of a minority will need to go against her. Jenkins is the first transgender African-American woman ever elected in America. She may or may not take on Omar. A recruitment effort may kick off. A coalition has already shown interest in ousting Omar. The reality is, the voters will get the same lefty policy no matter who they elect. They will not get the representation they want from Omar if they are Jewish”.

Liz Mair could not have made herself clearer. In contrast, you'll find that the Cathy Young article is nothing more than a junkyard where the used, the useless and the once useful talking points of the Jewish propaganda machine, have been assembled by Liz Mair into an exhibit that is more of an eyesore than it is an educational presentation.

The article is more than 2300 words long, and the only way you'll get a feel of its disorder, is to read the thing. It's okay if you feel like clicking the computer to something else after reading just a few hundred words. In fact, you'll miss nothing because the thing is a tedious wall to wall pile of rubbish.

Seeking to trade a rickety Jalopy for your Gold

Imagine yourself visiting a used car dealership to buy a car. The salesman takes you to a car you recognize as the one that your neighbor used to complain about before he was able to sell it — or more like give it away for a token one dollar — to that same dealership.

The salesman starts pitching it as the best used car ever to be displayed on the lot of a dealership. You get tired of the sound of his voice, and cut him off to let him know that you know the history of this car, and it isn't worth being taken away for free.

The salesman immediately changes the tone of his pitch, and begins to say things like: Yes, the transmission may seize after a month or two. Yes, a wheel may fall off the moment that you drive the car out of the lot, assuming you can start the engine to begin with. Yes, the hydraulic system may burst and you'll lose control of the steering wheel. But he adds: What the heck, this is the best used car you'll ever buy with the pot of gold you said you set aside to exchange for a used car.

Well my friend, if you think this guy ought to be locked up in an institution where he cannot harm himself or the public, what would you think of a so-called opinion journalist that tries to sell you a politico-journalistic jalopy that's not plagued with a bad transmission, or loose wheels, or bursting hydraulics, but something dandier? It is a jalopy in which these systems were turned into a pile of junk along with the rest of the vehicle. This happened because the vehicle was involved in a horrific accident, and burst into a ball of fire.

That, my friend, is the pile of politico-journalistic junk that Benjamin Parker is trying to sell to the public. He is making his pitch under the title: “How Ilhan Omar Slandered Venezuela's Opposition,” an article that also came under the subtitle: “In targeting Elliott Abrams, she impugned the people who've been victims of the Maduro regime.” The article was published on February 19, 2019 in The Bulwark.

Having performed an intellectual somersault of the Judeo-deceptive kind; one that landed him on his belly (saying basically that Ilhan Omar is evil and what's happening in Venezuela is innocent) Benjamin Parker changed the tone of his pitch and admitted to the following:

“It's possible to imagine that, in a failed state like Venezuela, armed bands could one day prey on innocents while in opposition to the government. The struggle in Venezuela has not been entirely peaceful. In January, the military suppressed a national guard unit that had defected. As for those protesting the regime, their violence has so far been directed against property and in clashes with police, in which the resistance may have used firearms and a grenade launcher against police.”

As if the author had suddenly changed the tone of his pitch, the gist of that argument is that it is possible to imagine that one day, those armed bands will turn around and prey on innocents. And that's exactly what Ilhan Omar wanted to make sure will never happen. She thought that Elliott Abrams, having gained experience in such matters, would be able to assure the public that atrocities such as happened in El Salvador will not happen again under his watch in Venezuela or anywhere else. But Abrams was too self-conscious of his shortcomings, and was unable to respond like a normal human being.

In consequence of all that, and in a feeble attempt to turn the table on Ilhan Omar, Benjamin Parker listed all sorts of crimes he says were committed against the opposition by the Venezuelan government. True or not, exaggerated or not, the fact remains that an outside interference in the internal situation of the country will only help escalate the quarrel between the two sides.

And if the desire of Elliott Abrams, as quoted by Benjamin Parker, is to “support the Venezuelan people's effort to restore democracy to their country,” Abrams will again want to score a “fabulous achievement,” whose chances of succeeding is zero. The effort will fail the way it did in El Salvador, and will result in a horrific series of massacres instead of calming the situation.

Parker complained that when “the Bulwark asked her [Ilhan Omar's] office which groups or events, if any, she was referring to in her question,” he did not get a reply. This prompted him to end the article with this proposition: “Someone ought to ask Omar what her policy is”.

Do you know what this means, my friend? I'll tell you what it means. Given that Ilhan Omar's duty is to answer to the constituents that elected her, and more generally to the American public, when characters of dubious loyalties make demands that confuse the issues and serve the interests of Israel, they show themselves to be not human beings, but ferocious cannibalistic beats that ought to be called what they are, and treated accordingly.

Neither Ilhan Omar nor any elected official, owes an explanation to a Jew, to a Jewish organization or the Jewish-trained or hypnotized moral prostitutes that seek to supplant the American people who elect the candidates of their choice to represent them in their government.

Harassing these good people — by doing more than write opinion pieces — as they do their job in full view of the public, and surrounded by colleagues from both sides of the partisan divide, ought to be considered an assault on the democratic process. It must be outlawed, and the violators who pose as journalists must be punished like you would punish a sick dog.

He says she lied, but where is the Lie?

Rich Lowry spoke up. He wrote an article under the title: “Ilhan Omar's Big Lie,” and had it published in National Review Online on February 18, 2019. You see that title and your first reaction is this: Humm … I wonder what she lied about if she really did lie. But if she did, what might the truth be?

So you read the article, and the first sentence you encounter says this: “The Left distorts what happened in El Salvador in the 1980s.” You think that maybe Ilhan Omar stood at some podium and gave a speech in the name of the Left (whatever that is) and told a whole bunch of lies, one of them a BIG one. And so, you expect that you'll be reading all about Lowry's correction of that big lie.

But the paragraph that follows hit you in the face with a mega-attack on the woman; an attack that sounded like this: “Omar, who is establishing herself as the most reprehensible member of the freshman class, launched into Elliott Abrams.” Wow, you think to yourself. She must have really launched into Abrams, for Rich Lowry to be so agitated as to launch into her with this level of ferocity. Now you want to know what it is that she launched, and how she might have launched it.

You continue reading the article, and what you encounter is a transcript of Omar's questioning of Abrams. It goes like this: “Would you support an armed faction within Venezuela that engages in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide, if you believe they were serving US interests, as you did in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua?” Well, the first part of that statement cannot be an attack because it's a simple question: “Would you support...?” As to the second part, it is a reminder that Elliott Abrams did support the outcome of the operations in those places, calling them a “fabulous achievement.” And this cannot be an attack either. So, where's the lie?

By now, you begin to see something screwy in Lowry's article, and it gets worse. You find that instead of responding to Omar's questions, Abrams complained to the chair of the Congressional Committee where he was called to testify, that those questions represented an attack on him, and he refused to answer them. This is also the position that Rich Lowry took in defense of Abrams. And you wonder: what does that say? Well, it says there is a consciousness of guilt on the part of these two gentlemen. And guess what, my friend; the rest of Rich Lowry's article establishes the existence of that consciousness of guilt beyond any doubt.

Look what Rich Lowry went on to say:

“It is true that the Reagan administration wrongly minimized the 1981 El Motoze massacre. Ambassador Hinton doubted the initial reports about the atrocity. Embassy officials couldn't investigate. When Abrams publicly relayed bad information about the massacre, he was relying on the erroneous reporting from the embassy. It is true that the perpetrators were troops trained by the US”.

Thus, what happened in 1981 was that a series of gruesome massacres were committed in El Salvador. The US ambassador in the Latin American country doubted reports to that effect and relayed bad information to the State Department in Washington. Based on those reports, Elliott Abrams went public with the false information, and called America's military effort in that country a fabulous achievement. A few months later the truth came out, and everyone involved went public to correct the record … everyone that is, except Elliott Abrams, the character that went public with the false information in the first place. Here is how Rich Lowry described that episode:

“In a speech in 1982, Ambassador Hinton said of the death squads, the mafia must be stopped. The gorillas of this mafia are destroying El Salvador. His replacement, Thomas Pickering, denounced the death squads as murderers, torturers, and kidnappers who must be held to account. In 1983 Vice President Bush called the death squads, a cowardly group of common criminals and murderers”.

As can be seen, everyone that did not speak publicly in 1981 about the horrible events, came out in 1982 and 1983, and publicly explained how they came to believe the erroneous information that was circulated at the time. They took the opportunity to do the right thing, which was to denounce the people that committed the atrocities. Everyone came out and did so, except Elliott Abrams. Why?

And now, almost four decades later, Ilhan Omar tried to give Abrams the opportunity to redeem himself. But instead of thanking her for allowing him to set the record straight and denounce those who committed the atrocities, he complained he was being attacked. Why?

Rich Lower took it from there and lent moral support to Elliott Abrams. He did so in the very Jewish style of attacking Ilhan Omar for doing her job while giving Abrams the opportunity to join the stream of humanity and become one of us. But Abrams refused the gift, and Rich Lowry blessed him for his stance. Why?

The Choice to make between War and Peace

Deception plays a big part in the conduct of a war. If you use a well-planned deceptive trick once, you can win big. But if you repeat the same trick on the enemy you have targeted previously, the chances are good that the enemy will be prepared, and will make the deception backfire on you.

Deceptive or not, another way that you can fall victim to your war tactics, is to talk about them openly and then use them against someone. The chances are good that before your next attack, the enemy will have set-up an ambush, and sat waiting for you. The moment that his forces will spot your forces, they'll open fire from all directions and decimate your forces before the latter realize what hit them.

But why would someone be so careless as to use the same deceptive tricks on the same target more than once? Or use tactics he discussed openly, on someone that was listening? The answer to those questions can be given in one word: arrogance.

There was a time when the gap between the power of those that had it, and those that sought it — called asymmetry — was so wide, the first could pull a trick, brag about it and pull it again without suffering any serious consequence. And then someone named Molotov found a cheap way to narrow that gap. He filled a bottle with gasoline, stuffed a piece of cloth in its mouth, lit the cloth and hurled the bottle at the enemy. The concoction worked as an effective weapon, and was called Molotov cocktail. It became a weapon that anyone can produce cheaply and use as an incendiary hand grenade.

Much has happened since that time to level the playing field between those that have access to the most sophisticated weapons, and those that don't. The asymmetric gap has narrowed so much that an advanced army using tanks, for example, cannot be certain it will prevail in a ground battle against a primitive force that uses improvised explosive devices. However, an advanced military still has a small edge when it comes to air power, but the gap is narrowing there too.

The new realities have created problems for the United States of America, the power that still wants to act as policeman of the world. Warned in Korea that the glory days of the Second World War were over, the lesson was not heeded by America. The lesson became hard to deny in Vietnam, but America still kept itself in the denial mode. America then tried its hand a few more times in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and elsewhere in Africa where it went to kick asses but got its own ass kicked … not once but again and again.

You would think that after all this, no amount of incitement will again persuade America to get involved in a war that's none of its business, but you would be wrong. Two articles illustrate the points discussed above, also show that America has not fully digested the lessons of the past. One article came under the title: “How the US might stay in Syria, and leave at the same time,” written by David Ignatius, and published on February 25, 2019 in The Washington Post. The other article came under the title: “Wars ending badly,” written by Jed Babbin, and published on February 17, 2019 in The Washington Times.

In a screaming display of the moronic state to which the so-called democracies have fallen, David Ignatius is showing how the democratic poison, known as “trying to have it both ways”, is eating at America's internal organs. Look what comes in the first paragraph of the Ignatius article: Is there a way for the US and allies to remain in Syria and leave at the same time? Officials are struggling to devise a workaround strategy, but it could carry more risks than maintaining the status quo.

Ignatius goes on to discuss the various elements of that strategy, much of which consist of trying to deceive the enemy, using tactics that were used previously — or using strategies that were discussed publicly. Being in the group that wants America to remain in the Middle East and protect Israel's mischievous conduct, David Ignatius ended the article with this advice: The best course would be for Trump simply to acknowledge that his earlier decision to withdraw from Syria was unwise and reverse it.

Would that be wise? Apparently not according to Jed Babbin who looks at America's involvement in foreign wars through the lens of the Vietnam humiliation. Here is what he says:

“The United States and the Taliban have agreed in principle to a roadmap for peace … The Taliban's intentions mirror those of the North Vietnamese at the end of the war … The accord supposedly preserved South Vietnam's right to self-determination. But the North attacked and conquered the South anyway ... In Iraq and Syria, the prospects for peace are not any better … The result of the Afghan War will be the same as that of Vietnam whose lesson isn't that a better approach to nation-building could make it successful”.

Having tried everything else and failed, America is left with one more choice to make: Stay home and don't bother anyone so that no one will want to bother you. It is as simple as that; it is that easy to implement.

Africa to produce the upcoming economic Miracle

There is no doubt that the wave of economic growth is gradually shifting from Asia where it had an effective run that may continue for a while longer, to Africa where the growth cycle has started to take hold.

Fortunately, what is unfolding in Africa happens to coincide with a welcome shift in the paradigm that used to govern the industrial powers of the world. From the colonial mentality that motivated those powers to raid the economic storehouses of the world and loot the resources therein, they now look forward to partnering with those emerging storehouses in Africa, and to trading with them.

But there is a bug in the ointment; one that promises to spoil the whole thing, not just for Africa but for all of humanity. They are the Jews who managed to take control of America, a superpower that is equipped with the muscle to destroy the world, but also endowed with the brainpower of an obedient chihuahua. Imagine the thing sitting in the lap of its Jewish master, doing as ordered to do, and you'll get an accurate picture of where the world may be heading, especially after learning what the Jews are aspiring to achieve now.

You'll know what that thing is when you read the article that came under the title: “The benefits of strategic communications and warfare,” a column that was written by Clifford D. May, and published on February 12, 2019 in The Washington Times. Commenting on Trump's State of the Union speech, here is how Clifford May introduced the core of his criticism: “Time to turn to President Trump's slip: 'Great nations do not fight endless wars,' he declared,” and Clifford May proceeded to expand on the theme.

His response to Trump's slip was to assert that “of course” great nations fight endless wars. He went on to explain that great nations have enemies — such as China, Russia and Iran in America's case — who will not stop fighting even if America stopped. So, he wonders why should America stop? His conclusion comes down to this: Gear up for an endless war regardless of what the consequences will end up being.

A serious question must be asked at this point. It is this: Is there a reality check in retrospect that can and must be done here? The answer is, yes there is. That's because, going as far back as half a century, countless people were hurt in their careers and their lives because they rightly observed that Jews have always started or incited the wars that plagued humanity since time immemorial. These innocent people were accused of spreading false rumors and of hating Jews for no reason but that they were Jews.

But now, Clifford May comes along and reveals that those innocent people did not hate Jews; they simply verbalized what they were observing. As to the Jews that accused them of being haters; they were nothing but savage and cowardly trash masquerading as human beings. They were programmed by fanatic indoctrination to go out and destroy the lives of innocent individuals as a first step to starting the wars that would kill and destroy the lives of millions more. And nothing can be more Jewish or more hateful than that.

You'll understand what motivates Jews of the Clifford May kind at this time when you go over the article that came under the title: “Seeing Red: Trade and Threats Shaping Gulf-Horn Relations,” written by Elana DeLozier, and published on February 15, 2019 on the website of the Washington Institute. What follows is a very condensed version of the pertinent passages:

“The Red Sea is becoming an economic node between the Gulf states and the Horn of Africa. The emergence of new economic opportunities has spurred Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to draw closer to the Horn of Africa. This area represents an economic opportunity for the Gulf, while the African states welcome the investment. Great powers have set up camp in the region. In 2001 the United States established a base in Djibouti, other countries followed suit: France, Italy, Japan and China. Saudi Arabia has engaged in talks for a base in Djibouti. Russia has done the same with Sudan. Turkey has a base and port agreement with Somalia. Sudan has signed deals with Turkey and Qatar. The UAE has access to eight ports or bases along the Red Sea”.

These developments in that part of the world have been taking place over a period of two decades in a climate that has remained relatively calm even though the United States had a military base there for most of that time. So you have Jews of Clifford May's ilk look at the situation and wonder: What's the use of having an American military base so close to Israel, in a region that's growing in importance, and we're not having a disturbance that serves the interests of Israel? Shame on America!

And Clifford May got on his computer keyboard, and banged a piece through which he urges America to start an endless war around the Horn of Africa because if it fails to do so, the Jews will feel that once again, Israel has been orphaned and left to stand alone out in the cold.

Would you want this Lawyer to represent you?

On February 15, 2019 the New York Post published an article under the title: “Omar's attack on Elliott Abrams was cribbed from the anti-American playbook,” written by Jose Cardenas, a longtime buddy of Abrams. In fact, both worked in Republican administrations on matters relating to Latin America.

The article being a defense of Elliott Abrams, I was curious to know, among other things, if Cardenas did a good job playing lawyer, representing Abrams in the Court of Public Opinion. By the time I got to the end of the article, I was reminded of an episode in my life when my preoccupation and my goals were different from what they are now.

I had come to sense with a great deal of certainty that the Canadian Jewish Congress, working with the bumbling security apparatus of the country, was relying on the staff of a major newspaper — not only to keep me from accessing the public square; which they had already succeeded in doing, but also — to stain my reputation in the eyes of future researchers who might discover the true story of a “democratic” human rights record that wasn't good enough to serve as toilet paper for wiping Hitler's ass.

I was not thinking of the internet at the time, and my ambition was to write a book telling my story before I die. I knew the book will never be published, but thought that a combination of copyrighting it, and the existence of a legal record, would alert a future researcher to the fact that the truth about this story is buried somewhere and begging to be found. I wanted posterity to know the truth about human rights practices in the democracies that are so deplorable, they are not good enough to flush down Stalin's toilet.

To create a legal record, I sued the newspaper in question, and while doing discovery with an official I had subpoenaed, the lawyer would interrupt the official's response and answer the question himself. I objected and the lawyer backed off a little, but then resumed answering the questions again. I understood what he was doing. He wanted me to object once more so that he may put his foot down and say, let's go find a judge in chamber, and have him rule on this matter. And guess what. It would have taken two or three hours before we got back to resuming the discovery. And during that time, I'd be paying the court stenographer I hired to transcribe the procedure. And as soon as we were back, he was going to interrupt again, and ask that we go see the judge yet again.

And so, it occurred to me that I was not suing because I thought I was going to win the case against a newspaper that was owned by one of the richest men in Canada — one that bid to buy the Wall Street Journal when it was up for sale, but lost to Rupert Murdoch. Instead, I was suing to create a court record that will speak to future researchers when I'll be in my grave. And so, I let the lawyer answer the questions as vaguely and as slickly as he was doing. In reality, this would have served me better than getting honest answers from the official, except that easy access to internet publishing rendered moot that whole exercise. And the internet is where I went to tell my story as I am doing now. So far, I have the equivalent of more than thirty books, and I'll keep going for as long as I can.

I thought in retrospect that the defense lawyer representing the newspaper wasn't smart because it was known at the time that I was creating a court record for posterity, and he played right into my hands. He knew I didn't have a chance in a million to win the case no matter what the facts were and what the law said. So why not let the official answer my questions truthfully, thus add a thin veneer of authenticity to their case? This would have motivated future researchers to give some credit to the side he was representing, but he blew that opportunity.

Back to the present. The idea of a defense lawyer that isn't smart enough for the case he is handling, is what came to mind when I read the Jose Cardenas defense of Elliott Abrams. Look what he did and judge him yourself:

Given that the issue pertains to America's declared intention to interfere in the Latin American country of Venezuela, Representative Ilhan Omar wanted to know if Elliott Abrams, who was in charge of a similar situation in the past, will want to perform in the same manner this time as he did then. Any child will tell you this is the rational way for a Congressional Committee to investigate an issue. But Jose Cardenas objected with this: “Omar attempted to steer debate toward 30-year-old events elsewhere in Latin America”.

In fact, there was a compelling reason why Omar sought an answer to that question. You don't have to go far to find out what the reason was because Cardenas himself described it. He said that Abrams did not deny reports about a massacre in El Mozote in which civilians, including children as young as 2 years old, were murdered by US-trained troops who also bragged about raping 12-year-old girls before killing them.

Not only did Abrams not deny those reports, he said that the US policy in El Salvador was a fabulous achievement. The achievement being that America managed to effectuate a regime change in El Salvador by installing a regime that was loyal to America. And Ilhan Omar wanted to know if Elliott Abrams would be willing to have America perform in the 21st century the way that it did in the last century. Again, a child will tell you this is the rational way for a Congressional Committee to investigate an issue. But Jose Cardenas objected to this approach as well.

But after objecting, the bumbling lawyer confirmed that the question was a legitimate one, thus contradicted Elliot Abrams who complained to the Chairman of the Committee that Omar was attacking him. Here is how in his oblique style, Jose Cardenas confirmed that Abrams will perform as savagely today as he did 30 years ago: “The irony is that the scorn they [Omar et al] heap on him [Abrams] is not due to his failures, but his successes”.

This is how Cardenas admitted on behalf of Elliott Abrams that he views El Mozote to be not a failure but a success; and he would happily repeat it in Venezuela. He will allow massacres as horrible as El Mozote — where civilians, including children as young as 2 years old were murdered — to be carried out by US-trained troops who might then brag about raping 12-year-old girls before killing them.

Elliott Abrams would allow all this to happen, if not facilitate it, because he believes it is the way to serve American interests. What do you believe, my friend?

Assuming that Abrams did not ask Cardenas to represent him, but that Cardenas did this on his own, would you want someone at his level of criminal incompetence to represent you?

Between Realism and the Dream of past Glories

Science, technology and industry have made the world so small, anything that happens in one place affects all the places on the globe, in one fashion or another.

For this reason, those that have not brought themselves to thinking globally in what they say or do, have little chance of advancing whatever cause they champion. Thus, you'll find that today, most people think globally … including those that hark back to a time when globalism was a strange something that nobody knew how to define. These people worship a has-been era, as they remain motivated by the belief that the glorious past is still alive, but taking a nap and about to wake-up and rule again.

Two authors who believe in the global phenomenon but from very different angles, have pronounced themselves lately. They wrote about the crisis in Venezuela, and how America is handling the situation there.

On February 12, 2019 Benny Avni wrote a piece under the title: “Why Venezuela's struggle for freedom has Iran's rulers worried,” a column that was published in the New York Post. Two days later, Mark N. Katz wrote a piece under the title: “Suspicion over US motives in Latin America warranted,” and the subtitle: “Elliott Abrams should answer Ilhan Omar's questions,” an article that was published in the New York Daily News.

Benny Avni worships the colonial era, which is a time when the world was populated by human predators in the business of hunting down human preys, and robbing them of their possessions. This is why Avni is firmly wedded to the idea that the Israeli genocide of the Palestinian people by Jewish hunters that come from all over the globe, is a marvelous phenomenon that should continue till the hunters acquire all that they want.

But Israel is situated in the Middle East where there is also Iran, a nation that is regarded by the Jews in Israel and America—such as Benny Avni—as an impediment to Israel's effort at implementing its genocidal designs on the people of Palestine. Moreover, this being a globalized world, it happens that Iran and Venezuela are in one and the same boat, according to Benny Avni. This is why, to escape this unpleasant reality, he could not help but be drawn to reveries of the golden era of colonialism.

And so, to Benny Avni, the struggle in Venezuela and Iran boils down to the following:

“The regimes in Tehran and Caracas are birds of a feather. Iran faces growing internal dissent and external sanctions. Ditto for the Bolivarian Republic. Venezuelans seem close to toppling the regime. Iran may follow a similar course. In both cases, tumbling oil prices transformed leading petroleum exporters into basket cases. No wonder the two are such close friends. The late Hugo Chavez merged the Latin-tinged 'Yankee Go Home' with the Persian 'Death to America' chants. The two regimes find themselves in the same boat. Trump's administration has used pressure points in support of Venezuelan and Iranian regime opponents. In Venezuela, the streets erupted. Iran's clerics must tremble as they watch their allies teeter”.

As can be seen, Avni is obsessed with the idea that the world is made of good and evil. He believes that those who are not with us are against us, and this makes them evil. It is why he firmly believes that they will lose in the end. In fact, the end must be nearing as demonstrated by the difficult time that Venezuela and Iran are experiencing. Avni has no proof that the clerics in Iran are trembling, but his obsession is so powerful, it turned his imagination into a reality he cannot shake off.

As to Mark Katz, the struggle in Venezuela boils down to the following:

“What captivated those who follow the crisis in Venezuela was a clash between Rep. Ilhan Omar and Elliott Abrams. Omar called into question whether Abrams was acting in good faith. She recalled his role when the US government illegally provided aid to the Nicaraguan Contras to fight the Marxist regime there, and he pleaded guilty about lying to Congress. This exchange was significant because it represented the clash of two worldviews concerning American foreign policy. Abrams sees the goal of American foreign policy as doing good for the people of other countries. But for Omar, US policy involved the practice of overthrowing democratically elected leaders and replacing them with military rule. The overthrows of Guatemala's Jacobo Arbenz in 1954 and Chile's Salvador Allende in 1973 are examples”.

As can be seen, Mark Katz sees and teaches reality as it is, not as he wishes it were. If he has an agenda of his own, he keeps it to himself, being engaged in a line of work that bestowed on him the fiduciary duty of being truthful and impartial.

This is why Mark Katz is a teacher whereas Benny Avni is a modern-day partisan pundit.