A Shift in strategic Thinking is called for

After their humiliating defeat in Vietnam, the Americans vowed never again to engage in an Asian war –– at least not a ground war. And then, they did just that in Afghanistan.

Eighteen years later and still fighting in Afghanistan, the Americans remember why they made that vow. But it is too late for remorse at this time because the Americans have their hands full grappling with the classic dilemma of being unable to continue with the war and yet unable to end it and leave Afghanistan.

And that wasn't the only time the Americans got involved in an Asian war after Vietnam. They were tricked by the Fifth Columnists in their midst to believe that what drew them into Eastern Asia, lives in Western Asia as well; in a place called Iraq. And so, the Americans went into Iraq, and from there got sucked into Syria. Now entrenched in the quagmire of the Levant, the Americans find themselves unable to continue with the war and yet unable to end it and leave the region.

That begs the obvious question: What's the problem with these Americans? The problem is that they do not trust their own judgment. If someone approaches them as a friend and whispers slanderous stories about someone else, the Americans pick up their guns without giving the matter a moment's thought and go after that someone else. This is how Winston Churchill of Britain got them involved in Vietnam; it is how the Jewish Fifth Columnists got them involved in the Levant. And the story does not end here.

Even though the Americans were not defeated in Iraq or Syria the way they were in Vietnam, or the way they were militarily eroded in Afghanistan, they caused the region to convulse so badly, the reverberations in the region and Europe will be felt for centuries to come. Also lurking in the shadow, is a next phase that is itching to explode like no one can imagine at this time.

The next phase of what's awaiting the Americans, involves both Eastern Asia where the Korean situation is brewing, and Western Asia where the Iran situation came to within ten minutes from exploding. It cooled off for now but without settling any of the underlying problems. Two recent articles, one about Iran and one about Korea, deal with America's current situations in foreign policy.

The article about Iran came under the title: “Iran and the dangers of 'proportionalism,'” written by Gary Anderson and published on June 24, 2019 in The Washington Times. As to the article about Korea, it came under the title: “At the G-20, Trump Should Be Wary of China's North Korean Designs,” and the subtitle: “Washington should clearly support its ally Seoul while also finding a way forward with Beijing and Pyongyang,” written by Bruce Klingner and published on June 28, 2019 in the National Interest.

Gary Anderson tells the story of things getting so murky between the United States and Iran, the latter shot down an American unmanned drone. President Trump decided to respond militarily but then aborted the mission ten minutes before it started. Anderson goes on to warn that: “So far no blood has yet been spilled; but once it has, wars tend to mutate in ways the people that started them did not anticipate.” And he ends the discussion with the suggestion that, “There is still a chance the Trump administration can achieve acceptable results if it does not get ideologically intransigent … in what has become a very dangerous game”.

As to Bruce Klingner, he tells the story of an America that used to think it was engaged in the majestic project of protecting the world from the evil intent of the unprincipled others. And then, the following happened:

“First came Trump's call that other nations should reimburse the US for protecting maritime transit through the Hormuz strait. He also said that if we're attacked, Japan doesn't have to help us. He is demanding for exponential increases in Seoul's reimbursement for stationing US forces there. This year's demands for a 100 percent increase or even cost plus 50 percent”.

If you're an American that doesn't understand the implications of the country turning its military into a mercenary army for hire, here is a fictional story that will convey to you the sense of what the real people of other cultures are beginning to think of America:

An attractive young woman inherits a huge sum of money. She decides to lead the good life and have all the fun she can get. She notices it's more fun having sex with men who are so unfortunate, they never dreamed having sex with someone of her stature; so she stays with this kind of men. But time moves on, and she notices she is getting older and less attractive. She is also running out of money and beginning to worry. So, she turns into a prostitute for hire, and starts going after rich men.

That's why Bruce Klingner ends his article with this lamentation:

“Trump must carefully balance action against China, Iran and North Korea with affirming strong support for US allies and maintaining forces in the regions. That's no small challenge. His messaging to date has often undercut coherent US policies”.

A shift of this kind is doing America no good. What's needed is a fundamental shift in strategic thinking. That is, heed this admonishment, America: Stay home and mind your business. People around the world are beginning to think you're carrying a terminal kind of diplomatic venereal disease. And they want you out of their neighborhoods –– Now.

Suggesting an Amendment for the Central Bank

Simply stated, an economy can be defined as the coming into a community of a number of people who would produce and consume the goods and services they need to go on with their lives.

There has been a slow and steady evolution in the way that goods and services were produced and distributed from primitive times to the advent of the Industrial Revolution. And then, a quantum leap took place that altered the way those goods and services were produced and distributed.

Before the Revolution, productive members of the community produced the goods and/or services, which they exchanged (bartered) for other goods and/or services with the other members of the community. In such transactions, both sides knew what value they attached to what they gave away, and what value they attached to what they received in return. They were in total control of the transactions.

As a whole, the well-being of the community depended in large part on the weather because much of what was produced depended on what was harvested for human consumption, and what was there that could be fed to farm animals. Also, because the economy depended on a supply of fresh water, wood and such raw materials as stone, gravel, charcoal, base and precious metals, the geographic location of the community played an important role in determining the standard of living to which the members could aspire.

The Industrial Revolution changed all that because it altered the way that the goods were produced and how they were distributed. Also, a consequence of this alteration, was the need for new services now required to serve the rising new economy. As to the fundamental reason why those changes were bound to happen in the first place, is that the production of goods and services requires energy.

Whereas human beings used to depend on the energy produced by their own muscles and those of animals, the Industrial Revolution supplied much of the needed energy as well as the machines that ran on the conversion of fuels into energy. This made it possible for human beings to toil the land, mine the resources and produce the goods with the aid of machines that ran on coal and other fuels. The transformation multiplied by several orders of magnitude the amount of goods and services that were produced.

But machines had to be housed in factories where the “artisans” that used to work at home or in their shops, were now sent to work in factories where they manned the production machines. Called workers, they no longer put a value on the products they made; nor did they distribute them. The owners of the factory and their assistants did all that and gave the workers promissory notes called money in exchange for their labor. Whereas they used to barter the goods they produced and the services they rendered, the workers now used the money to buy goods from stores, and pay for services that were proliferating with every new invention that came along in the fields of transportation, health, communication, education and financial services.

Humanity moved into the Industrial Age where the creation of a central bank became a necessity. This happened because it became apparent that there had to be one central authority to manage the supply of money. The reason is that –– unlike the pre-industrial age where every artisan was responsible for what happened to him –– the industrial age created a situation in which the misfortune of one big institution can spell disaster for many families. Worse, the failure of one institution can also trigger a domino effect that brings down other institutions and possibly the entire economy.

And so, the central bank was given the mandate to print the money, set the monetary policy, make sure that prices remain stable and prevent unemployment from getting out of hand.

Things worked well for the Capitalist World as long as there was no serious competition to it from another system of economics. But then it happened that a new system got incubated in the Orient and started to challenge the Capitalist system. The new system was nicknamed “Crony Capitalism” because it is based on a partnership between the private and public sectors of the economy.

After several decades, the new system strengthened to become a formidable challenger. Even though it looks like it tolerates big gaps in income levels between the working people and the high-income earners, it does not show the weaknesses that threaten it to collapse the way that the same sort of gaps threatens to collapse the Capitalist system.

That's because in China –– where the new system thrives –– those who become wealthy are those who produce goods and/or services. In other words, they are the Bill Gates of the country. What these people earn is proportional to the amount of goods and/or services they produce. In America, on the other hand, the investment bankers who are close to the printing press of the central bank become wealthy. What they earn is proportional to the games they play, tricking the central bank.

Here is what happens. Whereas the small banks and some of the big commercial banks perform as the financial utilities which they are, some of the big banks, the investment bankers and the hedge fund managers do not operate as responsible institutions. They know the game so well, they do not sit together and conspire to trick the central bank; they are smarter than that.

But like a well-trained team, each of those in the loop, knows what to do to achieve the goal of making the central bank print abundant supplies of money. To this end, they approve the loan application of everyone that says he has collateral whether true or not. The central bank prints the money, which goes not to increase the pool of goods and services, but to inflate the prices of the existing pool, thus create a bubble.

Eventually, the bubble bursts, and the borrowers lose everything to those who allowed them to borrow … where all the money ends up. Meanwhile, the institutions that were caught in the draft go bankrupt. To save the system, the Treasury bails out the very institutions that played a role in the collapse.

How to fix that? The way to do it is to amend the mandate of the Central Bank, forcing it to make sure that credit is not given to an institution where management as a whole, receives more than 10% the sum total of the company's salaries.

Also, the central bank must ascertain that not a single officer of the borrowing company earns more than fifty times the lowest paid worker in the same institution. Any institution that violates this amendment cannot borrow from the central bank.

Scavengers preying on whom they see as lame

Despite their apparent stamina and inexhaustible energy, predators of the wild do not squander their energy needlessly. In fact, if they appear to have all the energy they can use when they need it, it's because they conserve it when they do not have to use it.

That's what predators do because even when they decide to hunt, they prefer to scavenge than try to take down a prey. But if there is nothing on which to scavenge, they look for a lame prey and go after it rather than chase the one that's fit and able to drain too much of their energy before succumbing.

Well, those same principles apply in the politico-diplomatic realm of humans. This being the arena where blood sport is played, it is filled with players, each of whom plays the dual role of being both prey and predator at the same time. That's because while seeking to cannibalize on others, the players know they also constitute prey to someone else. They live by scavenging on leftovers when they can, or they go after a lame prey when they have nothing on which to scavenge, or they go after a rugged prey if they must.

You can study the case of a scavenging opportunist who believes he spotted a rugged prey that suddenly turned lame. The opportunist is Benny Avni who called on his gang to assemble and go after the prey. He believes that Turkey, which used to hunt with the gang, has suddenly been crippled and so, Avni has suddenly turned hungry. He sent a message to his gang, which says the following: “Erdogan's Istanbul defeat is a chance to rebuild bridges with the West,” the title of a column that was published on June 24, 2019 in the New York Post.

And here is how the rest of Avni's message reads: “Turkish voters dealt the country's once-invincible president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a sharp slap in the face. America should use the moment to nudge Ankara, a NATO member and erstwhile stalwart of the Atlantic alliance, back into the Western fold”.

The problem with Benny Avni and all those of his ilk, is that if you oppose them on one thing, they'll take it that you oppose them on everything. If you agree with them on one thing, they'll take it that you agree with them on everything. But if you show them, you're in opposition on one thing and in agreement on another, they'll call you anti-Semitic and seek the help of a higher authority to shut you up.

That frame of mind keeps these people in a permanent state of confusion –– so much so in fact, that they never understand each other, let alone understand others. This is why the election of a single candidate in a municipal Turkish election, has led Benny Avni to conclude that President Recep Erdogan was suddenly transformed from the invincible tiger that he was to a lame duck.

Because of that false perception, Benny Avni has concluded that the entire Turkish population is on the side of NATO, and that Erdogan alone opposes both his countrymen and the NATO alliance. It is that the issue separating the two at this time, rests on the matter of Turkey buying a Russian system of air defense, and America warning Erdogan he will forfeit Turkey's right to participate in the production of the new American warplane if he goes ahead with the Russian deal. Erdogan was not deterred by that warning and so, Avni took the predictable course of switching the discussion to the Turkish economy, which he conveniently found it to be faltering. Here is what Avni wrote in that regard:

“The economy is one reason Erdogan lost Istanbul. Turkey's growth rate has slowed significantly. Foreign investors are cautious as the lira loses value. American pressure can further weaken the economy and force Erdogan to relent. Washington could punish officials involved in the air defense project. When they meet this week, Trump should disabuse Erdogan of the belief that he can have arms deals with Russia and America at the same time. As Erdogan's grip on power loosens, America must warn him that such realignment is neither in Turkey's interest –– nor his”.

Well, this is what Avni's Jewish mob of pundits has said about Russia, Iran and every country that refused to toe their line. But nothing happened to Iran, which remains as defiant as ever. As to Russia, it is now placed at the top of the list of countries that have recovered stunningly well after experiencing a downturn that some people thought was indicative of a faltering economy.

Second on that list of top performers, is Egypt whose currency –– like that of Russia, Iran, Turkey, South Africa and Nigeria –– was devalued to less than half of what it was. In fact, all these countries are doing well now, which augurs just as well for Turkey, whatever its real and perceived difficulties may be. This can only be true because the business cycle has not been repealed … and may never be.

Self-Deception demolishing its Practitioner

Honest operators that have no choice but to work with habitual liars, quickly learn that the worst problem afflicting those liars, is that they get to believe their own lies.

When this happens, the liars establish a kind of positive feedback loop whose property is to progressively add more to the system that created it. The unhealthy growth continues unabated till the entire construct comes crashing down under the weight of the lies that have piled up.

Had you, my friend, been watching Clifford D. May's contributions to the marketplace of ideas over the last few years, you would have observed his incessant piling-up of self-deceiving falsehoods. And you would know by now why it is that the monument of quackery he created during that time, has reached the point where it promises to come crashing down into a pile of debris.

But if you haven't been watching him, you now have the opportunity to see his latest contribution as it brings together the elements that promise to demolish the worldview, which he has meticulously been crafting during all those years. It is that he is offering a column under the title: “The freedom fighters of Hong Kong,” which he published on June 25, 2019 in The Washington Times.

Clifford May begins the discussion by quoting President George W. Bush who said that the desire to live in freedom has been planted in every heart. Clifford May disagrees, saying that he believes such desire has been planted only in some hearts. This being the case, it is crucial that we probe into these notions because they relate to the question: Was this the work of nature, or was it the work of nurture?

It is easy to establish that George W. Bush's view, is to the effect that the desire to be free is written into our genetic code, and that it is a universal occurrence ... his own statement so indicates. As to Clifford May, it is not clear whether he believes that some people were born with the same instruction written into their genes, and that others were not. Or if it is that some people have lived through circumstances so harsh, they came to appreciate freedom more readily than others.

Clifford May went on to describe the state of millions of people who struggled to be free of the tyranny that was imposed on them by the Chinese government; as well as the people who continue to struggle to this day. He saw such “freedom fighters” in China itself, in the Tibet, in the Muslim region of China and in Hong Kong where a quarter of the population came out of their homes and demonstrated in the streets. They forced the local government to scrap its declared intention to pass an oppressive law that was requested by the Chinese government but was disliked by the citizens of Hong Kong.

Clifford May also went on to describe the struggle of people who fought against the tyrannical domination imposed on them by their own governments in Iran and Syria. He chided the “leaders of what we used to call the Free World” for failing to respond to the cries of help from those people, or for responding only anemically to them.

Motivated by the desire to divide the world into “good guys” and “bad guys,” Clifford May sought to explain the disinterest of the Western powers to the plight of others by blaming the neutral stance of the West on two faulty theories that failed to deliver on their predictions.

One theory was the work of Francis Fukuyama who, in the wake of the Communist demise, asserted that the world was on its way to democratize all by itself. Another theory predicted that the trade and commerce, which the “Free World” was doing with authoritarian governments, will bring prosperity to those lands, causing the rulers to mind their own business rather than seek to “conquer other nations”.

The failures of these theories gave Clifford May the excuse to attack the Western decision to expand trade with China, and to allow it entry into the World Trade Organization. He also blamed those theories for President Obama's decision to pursue a lenient policy toward Iran.

That said, the stage was set for Clifford May to unveil––one more time––his remedy for the ills of the world. Here it is:

“I am arguing that speaking truth to powerful tyrants is preferable to shutting up for fear of offending them. Failing that, we will become indifferent to the suffering of unfree peoples. Also, should we not be seeking to limit our commercial relations with tyrannies? What is the strategic rationale for America enriching, empowering and legitimizing adversaries who are major league oppressors?”

It must be that Clifford May is not aware that the center of economic gravity has shifted too far already in the direction of the Orient to be halted or slowed down. Sooner or later, moral conduct for the world will cease to be dictated by the New-York/Tel-Aviv crime syndicate and will come out instead from a place where sanity will be the rule rather than the exception.

This being the case, Clifford May better start training himself to write articles containing paragraphs that sound as follows:

“I am arguing that speaking truth to the Israeli occupiers is preferable to shutting up for fear of offending them. Failing that, we will become indifferent to the suffering of the Palestinian people. Also, should we not be seeking to limit our diplomatic relations with that government? What is the strategic rationale for America enriching, empowering and legitimizing the Jews of Israel who are major league war criminals?”

The quantitative and qualitative state of terms

Everyone must have seen the small energy-saving cars that fill the streets of cities these days. There are also big cars; as much as several times the size of the small ones. When talking about cars, if it is necessary to emphasize the size of the car, we attach the adjective “big” or “small” to the noun. Or we call the models by different names –– such as “limousine” or “mini” or “van,” for example.

We call a huge car that's meant to carry heavy cargo, a truck. As well, we call a bus, the huge car that's meant to carry many people. All these vehicles are modes of transportation, but they are not the only kind we use. When it comes to land transportation, there are the bicycles, so named because they run on two wheels. And there are the motorbikes who are bicycles powered by a mechanical engine. They all differ from other modes of transportation, such as those that float on the water or swim under it or fly in the air.

When ordinary people are having a normal conversation, and someone refers to an incident that is as insignificant as seeing a driver run a red light, they don't bother specifying if that was a big car or a small one; a mini or a limousine. In more involved conversations, people are careful not to confuse between a car and an airplane, for example. So, they use a more precise language to be clear what they mean.

The intent of this conversation is to point out that unless it is absolutely necessary to be precise, normal people are comfortable relying on fuzzy language if not fuzzy thinking when they engage in everyday small talk. In fact, if some nerd keeps interrupting them, insisting that they employ a more precise language, the rest of the gathering calls him erudite. This means he reads too much, has become too educated for his own good, and proving how annoying he can be. This leads us to the reality that the artificial world we have created (outside the stern academic setting,) mimics the easy-going natural world to a large extend.

In fact, in the same way that biological life is grouped into a hierarchy of categories, ranging from the Kingdom to the Spices, the technological and institutional systems we have created, can be grouped into several categories. This is true for the modes of transportation we use to move around, as it is for the ways that we incarcerate people when we need to restrict or contain their movements.

More importantly, in the same way that you'll find quantitative differences between members of the same species –– such as tall people and short people –– you'll also find quantitative differences in the artificial creations that we produce. An example would be the mini and the limousine, both of which are land roving vehicles, but of different models. However, when you evaluate a car and a submarine for example, you'll have to acknowledge seeing a qualitative difference. This means they are two different categories –– having the same purpose of moving people and goods around –– but doing it in completely different ways. One vehicle moves on land, the other moves under the sea.

Well, the principle of separating the quantitative differences from the qualitative differences, comes into play with vengeance when we evaluate the institutions that we create; one of which being the way that we confine people. To see how important this topic is, all you need to do is read the column that came under the title: “There are no concentration camps on the border,” written by Richard Cohen and published on June 24, 2019 in The Washington Post.

What Cohen is trying to do, is make sense of the differences between the term “concentration camps,” such as those of World War II, and the term “detention centers,” such as those that exist at the American/Mexican border. There is no doubt these terms refer to different constructs. But are the differences quantitative or are they qualitative? Much rides on finding the correct answer to that question.

To Richard Cohen, the differences are qualitative because he sees the two constructs as totally different from each other. Here is his explanation: “No one is being held for political, ideological or religious reasons. No one is being whipped and made to work until dead from exhaustion. There is no crematorium, and no one is being crucified upside down as they were in Buchenwald, where a nearby area was called the ‘singing forest,’ so named for the screams of the dying”.

As to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who called the conditions at the Mexican border, concentration camps, she thinks differently. That's because the toddlers and the preteens that cared for them, were the ones that suffered at the border installations. Granted, the children were not waterboarded as were the wartime adults detained at the Guantanamo detention center, but the children were hungry, sick, sleeping on concrete floors and dying in peacetime America, not knowing why they were punished. They did not know because they had neither mother nor father to explain to them the harsh realities of life … having been brutally separated from their parents.

So I ask you this, my friend: is there any difference –– quantitative or qualitative –– between the detention centers of America and the concentration camps of the Nazis. To a normal fuzzy-talking human being, the Americans seem to have outdone the Nazis when it comes to inflicting atrocities on the innocent, especially the defenseless children.

Global Second Amendment for the great Equalizer

How about making a movie based on a story line that goes like this: A bunch of teenagers split into a couple of teams. They play cowboys fighting other cowboys as if they lived in the lawless era of the “Wild West,” a time when the only rule that used to count was to kill or be killed.

A super advanced alien race happens to be passing-by when the game of the human kids intrigues them. To better understand the game, the aliens wave their transmuting wand and instantly transform the scene. Instead of teenagers playing with toy guns, we now have two nations battling each other with computers. Also, instead of two teams of equal size, we now have one small nation battling a superpower in cyberspace; a domain where there is no law, no restraining rule of any kind, and no gentlemanly agreement as to what is allowed and what is not.

Well, my friend, if you guessed this was a metaphor for what's happening on Earth at this time, you guessed correctly. It reflects a president of the United States that came out one day and bragged about crippling Iran's economy, which is an act of war that normally requires a response. The same president then came out the following day and bragged about unleashing a cyber attack to intensify the continuing assault on Iran. As you can imagine, that's when the response became even more urgent.

What the aliens from outer space do not know but we do too well, is that the cybergun of the new Wild West has become a great equalizer in the same way that the handgun became a great equalizer in contemporary urban America. It leveled the playing field for the regrettable relationship that exists between the law enforcers and the disadvantaged groups whom the police tend to kill as if they were game for all seasons.

For the aliens to have transformed the game of children into a cyberwar between nations, is to foretell the kind of lawless world in which we are sliding. It is a world in which big nations, as well as small ones and non-state actors, can play the game as if all of them were operating on a level playing field, protected by a kind of Second Amendment right to keep and bear cyber-equalizers. We have entered an era in which there is no referee to warn or restrain the players, and no law by which to call them to account.

It must now be revealed that in reality, the aliens who transformed the game of children into a cyberwar, did not come from outer space. They came from right here, our own blueish planet. No one knows how many earthly aliens there are, or where they hide. But we know of one of them, and we know where he hides. He is David Marcus who hides inside an outfit called The Federalist. Once in a while, he puts out opinions on how he would transform the Planet.

That's what David Marcus did on June 23, 2019 when he produced a missive directed at all human beings. It came under the title: “Why Trump's Cyber Attack On Iran Was The right Move,” and the subtitle: “Cyber attacks are the future of warfare. By launching one against Iran, Trump has increased the threat to Iran without plunging the United States into war”.

What strikes you as incredible when you read that article, is the image of a guy that's going through life with only half his brain working. On the one hand, he admits to the following: “High-ranking military officials consider the cyber threat to be the greatest we face from foreign adversaries.” This is the product of the half-brain that's working.

But mindful that America and the world need to be kept safe from an all-out cyber war, you look for the wisdom that the other half of the brain is supposed to produce. Alas, instead of finding wisdom, you discover a Wild West kind of desolation. And you guess, it must have been produced by a gray matter that is as impaired as a bug that's runover by a truck. Here is the result:

“President Trump's cyber attack is in many ways more insidious and dangerous for the Iranian regime. By signing our name to it, the United States is sending a clear message that it is willing and able to use this newest weapon of war, to dramatic effect”.

What this young earthling is ignoring, is that the Iranians (and many others) can do to America and to each other that same thing. Thus, instead of advising how America and the world can be made safe from the devastation, which the new weapon can heap on the world, David Marcus is celebrating what he calls: “a serious cyber shot across Iran's bow”.

Did it occur to him that Iran will now work on responding to the American attack with one of its own? Apparently not, given that half his brain is too impaired to produce anything but that kind of drivel.

For Shoshana Bryen, History starts when useful

When the Jews started their cultural conquest of America half a century ago, they used weapons that were new to the American scene, thus cut through the existing cultural setup like a hot knife goes through butter.

One potent weapon used by the Jews consisted of randomly choosing a point in time for the start of events in such a way as to advance their narrative of these events. This is the weapon that Shoshana Bryen has brought back to life … but with a difference this time. Not only did Bryen use the weapon again, she is falsely and simultaneously accusing Ilhan Omar of using it.

Shoshana Bryen is doing exactly that in an article she wrote under the title: “For Ilhan Omar, History Starts Today,” published on June 21, 2019 in Algemeiner. This is where, under the cover of a lie to the effect that Ilhan Omar had given a lesson in history, Bryen accused the Representative from Minnesota of being ignorant because she viewed history as starting afresh every day. But the reality is that, unlike Bryen, Omar did not pretend to talk history, and certainly did not lecture on it.

What Ilhan Omar did, was express her opinion on the events of the day based on her observation of such events. This is how human interactions have been unfolding throughout the world since forever, and how they used to unfold in America before the Jews came along and––by repeated sleights of hand––gave a historical tail to every event that was related to Jewish and Israeli matters.

The most notorious of these sleights of hand occurred in 1967 when the Jews falsely accused the Arabs of wanting to turn the clock back to 1948. The Jews did so while they were themselves turning the clock back 2,000 years, to a moment in time when they said their ancestors were driven out of ancient Palestine by the Roman occupiers. Thus, the Jews had the gall of accusing the Arabs of being so inhuman as to want what they were themselves doing. Ironically, the Jews were blind to the reality that they were effectively calling themselves inhuman.

Unhappy with Ilhan Omar's observation that Trump's decision to get out of the Iran nuclear deal, is causing the current tension in the Middle East; also unhappy with Ilhan Omar's opinion to the effect that America should reinstate the nuclear deal, Shoshana Bryen has decided to lecture on the history of Iran as it was spun repeatedly by the Jewish propaganda machine.

The arbitrary point that Shoshana Bryen chose for the start of history, was 1979, a time when a new regime grabbed Power in Iran and took over the American embassy in Tehran. What Bryen neglected to tell, however, is why the event took place to begin with. Well, the reason why it took place was that the American embassy in Tehran was “ground zero” inside of which a plot was hatched in 1953 to overthrow the elected government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosadegh. Thus, Shoshana Bryen has once again proven to be intellectually dishonest. As to being ignorant for not knowing when an event started, Shoshana Bryen has proven to be the mother of all ignoramuses.

Another reality that Shoshana Bryen failed to mention, is that an overt Cold War has existed between Iran and the United States since at least the overthrow of the Shah, and that a covert Hot War was started shortly thereafter. The reason why all this happened, is that Iran was convinced that as long as America maintained military bases in the region, the Iranian people will never be safe. In fact, this theory proved correct when Saddam Hussein attacked Iran using chemical weapons against civilians. These were chemicals made with equipment and raw material supplied to Saddam by America.

Thus, in the same way that America risked war when the Soviets placed nuclear missiles in Cuba, Iran decided it would risk an all-out hot war with America if it came to that. The Iranians made this point clear to America when they attacked a Marine base in Lebanon. Ronald Reagan got the message and promptly pulled out of Lebanon.

Shoshana Bryen mentioned none of that in her article. What she did instead, is what Jews do all the time. She religiously recited the one-sided, distorted litany that Jews inflict on their audiences when they want to say their side was the innocent party that was attacked by an evil opponent.

But that kind of Jewish propaganda had failed previously to gain traction among the general audiences. So, the Jewish pundits shifted their approach to now describe battles that pitted soldiers against soldiers as terrorists killing their soldiers and those of friends. This approach appealed to Jewish audiences when the fight was said to involve Arab commandos and the Israeli military.

But when the Jews applied the same approach to battles that involved American soldiers and their enemies, the Jews were surprised to learn that the American soldiers did not feel terrorized by those they were killing and by whom they risked being killed. The Americans fought like soldiers, killed like soldiers and died like soldiers. Unlike the Israelis, they did not have someone eulogize them as young superheroes who were murdered by terrorists.

This is what Shoshana Bryen has tried to revive, and you get a feel of that, when you read the following passage in her article:

“The 1980s marked the start of Iran's occupation of Lebanon and the start of Hezbollah as its proxy. In 1983, Hezbollah blew up the US Marine Barracks in Beirut, killing 220 Marines and 21 other American military personnel. A second suicide bomber struck the French barracks, killing 58 French soldiers and wounding 15. Hezbollah blew up the Khobar Towers in 1996, killing 19 Americans and injuring 372”.

In politics they say, if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. In war they say, if you can't risk dying, stay home and cook something in your kitchen.

Conspiracy to appropriate and categorize terms

The latest in Jewish machination consists of having all members of the mob of Jewish pundits promote the idea of collecting into one basket everything that can serve the interests of Israel and the Jews and call it good stuff. Everything else is left to fall into another basket and considered to be bad stuff.

Meanwhile, the Jews have also started the process of appropriating words, terms and expressions such as holocaust, never again, pogrom, concentration camp, and the like. They proclaimed that these words, terms and expressions can only be used in conjunction with Jewish matters. And so, they decreed that their use in a different context will cause the user to be called practitioner of virulent anti-Semitism.

Having done all this, warriors of the Jewish mob got the feeling that they gave themselves the best weapons anyone can have to go after the enemy and win decisive victories. Their enemy this time, turned out to be two female warriors residing on the Left Bank of the Amazon River that's dividing the Jewish Right from the White and Multi-colored Left.

This said, let history record that on June 18, and June 21 of the year 2019, two expeditionary forces left the fortress known as The Washington Free Beacon, and went after the Amazon female warriors of the Left Bank. The first group was led by General Alex Griswold who labeled his campaign: “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Thinks You're Stupid.” The second group was led by General Jeffrey Cimmino who took on Ilhan Omar because she: “Don't Know Why Calling Facilities Concentration Camps Is Controversial”.

Unknown to the generals, was the fact that the warrior women of color were equipped with a vision known as natural genetic responses. It rendered them superior in terms of human behavior to the generals who were equipped with the vision known as conditioned animal response to command. To get a sense of what sets these two forms of armament apart, we need to do a thought experiment.

Imagine yourself watching a short scene from a war movie. You see a heavily armed soldier driving a truck. He encounters half a dozen enemy soldiers who are lost, tired hungry and carrying no weapons. He gives them just enough food and water to have them stand on their feet. He then roughs them up, beats them up, throws them into the cage at the back of the truck and drives away.

Moments later, you watch a short scene from another movie. You see an orphanage that's housing children ranging in ages from toddler to preteen. They have no adult supervision and no food to eat except what looks like crummy leftovers. Some of the toddlers are sick and dying. They are cared for by the preteens who know not what to do. The scene cuts to a dining room where the orphanage operators are having a dinner banquet. A one-way mirror lets them see the children next door without being seen. The operators gorge themselves, joke and laugh but do nothing to help the sick and dying children. Once in a while they collect their crummy leftovers and throw them in the direction of the children.

Think about it, my friend, how would you respond to these two scenes? One depicts a war situation in which adults are beaten up. The other scene depicts children who are not beaten up, but are neglected by adults, and cared for by other children that don't know what to do. To whom your heart goes out more?

While you're mulling over that question, here is what Alex Griswold said, discussing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's description of the situation at the Texas detention camp: “When you hear the term 'concentration camp,' what's the first thing you think of? You think of the Holocaust of course, which is why it was irresponsible for Ocasio-Cortez to declare that the United States is operating concentration camps”.

And here is how Jeffrey Cimmino described Ilhan Omar's view of the same subject: “She said she doesn't know why it is controversial to describe immigration detention facilities as concentration camps.” And so, Cimmino described what the concentration camps of World War II were for. He said this: “Concentration camps assured a slave labor to help in the Nazi war effort”.

And so, I ask you the same question, my friend: To whom your heart goes out more? The wartime slave laborers? Or the neglected toddlers and preteens of contemporary peacetime Texas? To help you make your decision, here is an actual description of what's going on in the detention centers, that motivated the women to respond as human beings, whereas generals of the mob of pundits responded the way that conditioned animals respond to command.

Under the title: “Children are dying in border holding facilities. A top immigration official is pleading for help,” USA Today published an Associated Press article on June 20, 2019 that reported the following:

“When 16-year-old Carlos Vasquez fell ill in a holding facility, he was diagnosed with the flu and sent to recuperate on a concrete bench. He died from flu complications”.

And then, the next day, the same publication printed another article from the same news agency under the title: “Migrant children describe neglect and mistreatment at a Texas border facility.” The description went like this:

“A 2-year-old boy locked in detention wants to be held. Girls, ages 10 to 15, have been feeding and soothing the toddler who was handed to them by a guard days ago. Kids are taking care of kids, and there's inadequate food, water and sanitation. Fifteen children have the flu, and 10 more are quarantined. Girls were taking care of a little boy, who had wet pants, no diaper and wearing a mucus-smeared shirt. A border Patrol agent came into the room and asked, 'Who wants to take care of this little boy?' A girl said she would but then lost interest after a few hours. 'In my 22 years of visiting children in detention, I never heard of this level of inhumanity,' said Holly Cooper, director of a Law Clinic representing detained youth. The kids would go weeks without bathing or a clean change of clothes. Psychoanalyst Gilbert Kliman has evaluated 50 children and parents, and says the trauma is causing lasting damage”.

Have you made up your mind yet? Have Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar exaggerated when they described the situation in the Texas detention centers as a concentration camp? Or have the Jews gone beyond the pale appropriating to themselves the term “concentration camp”?

No strategic Shift for the worn-out Paradigm

When you've watched the short-term tactical moves of someone for a while, you can pretty well determine their long-term strategic goal.

You can do this unless you're watching a bunch of amateurs who are still improvising each of their moves as they advance toward a confused vision with little or no root that is planted in reality. In this case, you'll determine that they will be moving aimlessly from one chaotic situation onto another.

It can also happen that you'll find yourself watching someone that relies heavily on tactical moves to score immediate and temporary success, while at the same time moving surefootedly toward a goal that is planted more in the realm of the imagination rather than the realm of reality.

This would be the Jews who constantly monitor their surroundings, waiting for a tactical opportunity to present itself so that they can pounce on it and exploit it. The Jews will do this while keeping an eye on the strategic promise that a powerful being called the Messiah will come down someday –– perhaps tomorrow or a thousand years from now –– and hand them Planet Earth with all its content. And this is the reason why they must be ready at all time to drop everything they do and welcome him.

Beside waiting for the Messiah, the biggest preoccupation of the Jews at this time, is the matter of grabbing most or all of Palestine from its indigenous Palestinian heir apparent. Because the Jews cannot do the work of snatching the territory alone, they resorted to the old trick of recruiting a sucker who would agree to do the dirty work for them. The sucker they recruited this time, is America.

A Jew that continues to claim being an American, has managed to make several administrations retain him to represent what is supposed to be his country. What he did, was pretend to mediate between the parties in the ongoing Middle Eastern conflict. That Jew is Dennis Ross who began life as a Catholic American, then realized he was a half-Jew, then decided to live like a full Jew, and finally dedicated his life to the exploitation of his old American credentials to better serve Israel, always Israel and no one but Israel.

Dennis Ross wrote an article under the title: “Don't Dismiss the Bahrain Conference,” and the subtitle: “It can help Palestinians.” It was published on June 19, 2019 in Foreign Policy and reprinted on the website of the Washington Institute on that same date.

Having transferred the material possessions that belonged to the Palestinians to the hands of the Jews, Dennis Ross is no longer claiming to mediate between the two sides. But there was still one thing that the Jews had not extracted from the Palestinians: their honor. This is what the Jews are trying to grab at this time, which is why they summoned Dennis Ross to help them achieve their goal. Ross welcomed the opportunity to serve one more time because to him, the honor of Palestinians, is the highest gift he'll have the honor of putting in the hands of the Jews. And that's what he is discussing in his article.

What Ross is doing in the article, is give the Trump Team advice on how to make a success of the upcoming Bahrain conference. To communicate his ideas, he adopted the style of criticizing the way that Trump operated in the past and telling him how to do better next time. Well, if you're familiar with how Ross used to operate, you'll realize he is proposing that Trump adopt the old Dennis Ross style.

What the style boils down to, is give Israel what it asks for, one thing after another, with no questions asked. In so doing, however, Trump must couple every tangible gift that Israel gets with a slogan he recites to the Palestinians or a promise for a future delivery of something they want –– provided they negotiate successfully for it. So, here is how a condensed version of the Dennis Ross article sounds like:

“The Trump approach has ignored Palestinian needs. The plan could appeal to a Palestinian public that wants to live a more normal life free of Israeli occupation. The administration continually responded to the symbolic needs of Israel. The irony is that Trump still could have taken many of the steps that appear to favor Israel without losing the Palestinian public. When declaring Jerusalem as Israel's capital, Trump could have said he recognized Palestinians' claims in East Jerusalem, to be addressed through negotiations. Trump should say in Bahrain that a future plan will provide for Palestinian statehood”.

It is clear that Dennis Ross has given up on fooling the Palestinian leaders. But instead of changing the paradigm that failed to work for decades, he wants to try the same old game on the Palestinian public, which he believes may turn out to be easier to con.

These people are so hopelessly rooted in failure, they are past the point of being redeemed.

A Tale of a Fanatic and a concerned Citizen

A short tweet exchange between John Cusack and Philip Klein offers a superb case study that allows us to put in perspective the difference between concern about a cause that is justifiable, and fanaticism for a cause that cannot be justified. (John Cusack shows how anti-Zionism is a gateway drug to anti-Semitism. By Philip Klein, Washington Examiner, June 18, 2019)

What happened to trigger the exchange between these two gentlemen, is that Cusack retweeted something by mistake, honestly believing he was promoting Palestinian justice. However, the retweet turned out to be material offensive to Jews rather than supportive of the Palestinian cause. When the mistake was brought to Cusack's attention, he apologized and promptly corrected the error. This can only be viewed as the response of a concerned citizen of the world.

Philip Klein would not let the matter end here. Motivated by the opportunism that powers fanatics of his kind, he pounced on Cusack's mistake and tried to advance the latest concoction devised by his kinfolks. That concoction consists of fusing into one and the same thing, all which relates to Jewish, Zionist or Israeli matters. The idea of playing this game, is that such fusion results in the image of a body that's made of various organs. Thus, every time that one of the organs is attacked, the entire body suffers. And this turned out to be the ultimate expression of Jewish victimhood. How Convenient!

Why has this approach worked for the Jews? It worked because the Jews made it so that an attack on them is considered a call to final solution them. Thus, a criticism of any Judaic organ, will be considered a deliberate call to wipe the Jews from the face of the Earth. This being the most extreme form of antisemitism that someone can express, it requires a strong rebuke from all those in authority. And that's how the Jews have managed to practically kill any level of criticism directed at them in the English-speaking world.

This is what we see in the case we're discussing; which is something that should concern all of us because it shapes the culture in such a way as to distort our view of the world. When this happens, it erodes our ability to get along with each other, or get along with anyone around the world. We can get a feel for how this is working out, when we look closely at the different ways that Cusack and Klein looked at the same thing, but saw different things:

John Cusack and Philip Klein looked at Germany in the early part of the Twentieth Century. Cusack saw a normal country populated with normal people. An evil man rose among them and caused them to commit horrible crimes. He started a war in which Germany was beaten. When the evil man was removed from the scene, the people redeemed themselves because human beings are naturally inclined to be good to each other.

As to Klein, he saw a Germany that was ready to be led by an evil man. When he rose to power, the country went along with him. He started a war in which Germany was beaten. When he was removed from the scene, the people of the country were kept in check by the rest of the world, which is a good thing because human beings are naturally inclined to be nasty to each other.

John Cusack is an optimist that behaved like a normal person who committed an innocent mistake, which he promptly corrected. Philip Klein, on the other hand, is a pessimist who behaved abnormally, attributing to Cusack the Nazi character he imagined is ingrained in each of us. Here is a quote from his article, which reflects that sentiment:

“Cusack sent out a tweet that could have come out of the Nazi propaganda archives. It featured a giant arm with a Jewish Star of David, with the hand literally crushing a group of people. It features a quote: 'To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize'”.

As can be seen, Cusack, who sympathizes with the plight of the Palestinians, saw a giant Israeli hand oppressing them. Because they are prevented from criticizing their oppressors, he took it upon himself to speak for them. As to Philip Klein, he associated John Cusack with the Nazi death machine that gassed and incinerated millions of people –– not because Cusack did anything wrong, but because he made an innocent tweeting error.

So, the question to ask is this: How does it happen that a pundit can look at a small mistake, and make a big hay of it –– so big in fact, as to rival in size the industrial scale Nazi death machine?

The answer to that question can be found in the opening sentence of Klein's article. It went like this: “Actor John Cusack sent out a virulently anti-Semitic tweet. This episode is a demonstration of how easily harboring deep hatred of Israel can lead somebody to spread anti-Semitism”.

The sentence contains adjectives and adverbs that exaggerate the meaning of Cusack's error. The sentence also conflates the resentment of Israel's actions with the spread of anti-Semitism that Philip Klein has falsely accused John Cusack of spreading.

As long as the Jewish leaders will continue to use that sort of language in the promotion of their agenda, they will corrupt the culture that is shaped by that language.

Meanwhile, the rank-and-file Jews who will neglect to silence those leaders, will be reviled and ultimately dealt with in a manner that will not be very pleasant.

Bad Faith turning Negotiations into red Herring

In some cultures, the expression: “red herring” refers to the dishonest use of language. Thus, when someone is negotiating something he doesn't want to resolve, he would continue to pretend negotiating, but would digress from the original topic by throwing-in a proverbial red herring.

That's what the Jews of Israel have been doing for more than fifty years since the Security Council of the United Nations passed Resolution 242 pertaining to the lands that Israel has occupied illegally in the wake of the 1967 sneak attack it launched on its Arab neighbors.

Because talk fills the air again about the search for a solution to Israel's repeated misconduct in the region, the subject matter that's covered by Resolution 242 came up again. And sure enough, with the certainty that night follows day, the Jews of America joined their cohorts in Israel, and started the process of pretending to negotiate a way to end the occupation of Palestine. All they have been doing, however, is engage in the business of transforming the talks into a red herring.

You can see how that works out in the article which came under the title: “The true status of the territories,” written by Shoshana Bryen, and published on June 17, 2019 in The Washington Times. What sets this article apart from other articles treating the same subject, is that Shoshana Bryen is discussing the subject not just from the political angle, but from the legal angle as well.

Talking about the military occupation of Palestine, this is how Bryen began her discussion: “Some hoary myths persist year after year. One concerns the legal status of the territories.” She did not come out and said what those myths are but chided the New York Times for asserting that: “having Jews live beyond the 1949 Armistice line would be illegal, and that annexation of the territory by Israel would be compounding the crime”.

Well, despite Shoshana Bryen's misgivings, this is the reality of the situation because the “home” that the United Nations (UN) created for the Jews in Palestine, is the only patch of land that the UN has allowed Israel to retain. And this means that until now, that patch is all that the Jews are legally entitled to. Get it Shoshana: this is a legal fact, not a hoary myth.

What is hoary is what the Jews of Israel, working together with their cohorts in America, have been trying to establish as law. But the fact remains that what these people are doing, has no more legal force than the quack proclamation of an organized crime syndicate. In fact, what Bryen is doing in the rest of her article, is repeat those hoary pronouncements. Here are a few:

First: “The creation of secure boundaries for Israel has been a hallmark of American diplomacy before Oslo, during the Oslo period, and now beyond”.

What the people who came up with that idea are missing, and what Shoshana Bryen fails to understand, is the fact that American diplomacy does not make international law.

Second: “The Clinton Parameters had Israel retaining the areas … It was presumed that Israel would annex that territory”.

What those deluded Jews cannot get into their thick heads, is the fact that when Clinton was mediating, and when proposals were made back and forth between the Palestinians and the Israelis; none of the proposals became law. Had there been a final agreement, signed and ratified by both parties, the proposals would have become a legally binding contract, but not law. However, since the talks failed, none of what was proposed became legally binding. And certainly not law.

Third: “President Bush said that the borders and certain aspects of sovereignty 'will be provisional until resolved as part of a final settlement,' … It can be presumed that Israel would annex anything on its side of a final border”.

It is discouraging to see these people incapable of understanding what they themselves write. Here you have Shoshana Bryen reporting that nothing will be resolved till a final settlement is reached and yet, she gives legal force to Israel's claims, knowing that there is no final settlement. Not only that, she even gives Israel the right to go ahead and annex the land without a law that backs it or a legally binding contract that allows it.

Fourth: “President Obama explicitly called for a 1:1 swap of territory. It can be presumed that Israel would annex that territory”.

Again, because there has been no final settlement, nothing can be presumed, let alone acted upon.

Fifth: “Even Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas was reported to have a plan to trade [land against land] with Israel. It can be presumed that Israel would annex that territory”.

Again, Shoshana Bryen and her Jewish kinfolks can presume all they want, but until there is a final settlement, nothing has legal force.

In fact, if these big-mouth Jews want to do something constructive, they could suggest that Israel should remove the settlers from the land it presumes will be swapped and offer it to Mahmoud Abbas. The bet is that Abbas will instantly allow Israel to annex what is presumed he will relinquish in return.

Let Israel do that, and it will have started the confidence building measures that will lead to a final settlement that both sides can live with.

As to Shoshana Bryen's suggestion at the end of her article, that David Friedman's probing into the intent of UN Resolution 242 will help find answers –– well, this is the red herring that the Jews have been throwing into the discussion for half a century. Doing more of the same is beginning to stink like a rotting fish. And the world cannot take it anymore.

The colonial 'divide and conquer' that unites

The world will soon be entertained by the sights and sounds of the dwarf that climbed onto the shoulder of the village giant and whispered something in his ear, convincing him to play the role of village clown, which is a game that everyone knows will lead to tragic consequences –– except for the giant.

The dwarf’s secret is that he knows of the adage that says: “give me a lever, and with that lever I shall move the word.” And so, the dwarf relied on the broken family of the giant to play one faction against another, and win the trust of the giant who became the moral slave of the dwarf.

When the dwarf succeeded in establishing full control over the giant, he stood on his shoulder and looked out at the world. He saw a global village that was so big, it made his giant look like a dwarf. And so, the real dwarf decided to use the real giant on whose shoulder he was standing, and got him involved in a scheme to divide the world and conquer it the same way that he conquered the giant's broken family, and came to own and operate the giant.

That giant is actually the United States of America. The dwarf is the Tel-Aviv/New-York crime syndicate whose latest scheme is to use America as a lever to divide and conquer the Arab World. The ultimate goal of the current scheme, is for the Jews to gobble up Palestine with the blessing of the Arab countries and the Palestinian rank-and-file. The misguided expectation is that the Arab countries and the ordinary Palestinians will overrule the Palestinian leaders, and do worse than sell Palestine to America's Jews for a song. All of this is supposed to happen in an upcoming meeting that will be held in Bahrain.

What the dwarfs of the crime syndicate should have done but did not, was study how badly those who tried the same kind of scheme in the past, have failed. And so, what they and the crowd at the White House have missed is this: Consulting the historical record before going ahead with the Bahrain meeting, would have revealed the numerous failures to divide, to conquer and to reconstitute the Arab world under schemes that were cobbled up by the Ottoman Empire, the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the Baghdad Pact, the American led Arab NATO and a few other wannabe colonial powers. They all ended up hurting their creators without doing much damage to the Arabs.

The Bahrain scheme is the latest in a series that was created by the operators of the Tel-Aviv/New-York crime syndicate to use America's power, prestige and good standing in the world –– to con the Arab countries into giving Palestine to the Jews, and pay them instead of the other way around. The Jewish tricksters believed then as they do now that they can pull this feat by making the Arabs think they are helping the Palestinians. And why not? Having seen the Americans blown away with amazement like a clown that took the bait and swallowed it hook, line and sinker, they were encouraged to plan Bahrain as an encore.

But the reality is that the onus will fall on the Americans who will play their clowning number, and make the Arabs laugh at them. Here is the plot: America will hire a propaganda outfit to produce a video clip that will show how the occupied territories can develop economically if the Palestinians will agree to overlook for now, the issues in the political file which contains the occupation of Palestinian lands, Jerusalem, the return of the refugees, and the borders of Palestine. The dwarfs call this, Phase One of the plan.

They and America will explain to the Arabs, there will be a Phase Two of the plan during which time the political issues will be tackled. So, here is how the laughable trick will sound to an Arab ear:

First thing first being the order of the day, you first agree to give up on the politics of the dispute so that we may go ahead with the economic matters in which the Jews will take Palestine and you, the Arab countries, will pay them instead of them paying the Palestinians.

After having a bellyful of laughs, the Arabs will imagine what will happen at the end of Phase One. That's when they'll propose to tackle the Phase Two political file as promised. But they see it now; they see the dwarf and his giant slave express astonishment at that proposal. And they can already hear them dish out the following argument:

You agreed to keep that file closed. Things have gone so well as we talked economics; let's not spoil things by opening the thorny political issues at this time. Let's instead, put on-ice the issues of occupation, Jerusalem, the return of the refugees, and the borders of Palestine. Think back how we were during the last half century, and look where we are today. Why go back to square one?

More united than ever, the Arabs will have only six words to say to the dwarf and his slave companion: Go to hell, both of you.

Does Iran have the Right to defend itself?

There is no legitimate or criminal activity that Israel conducts in the region or beyond, without the Jews forcing America to endorse it by expressing the preprogrammed, robo-mechanical opinion which goes like this: “Israel has the right to defend itself”.

America never tried to explain whether it believes this principle is a universal right applying equally to all nations and entities, or if it applies to Israel only. In fact, the world never even bothered to inquire as to America's thinking on this matter because the world knows that when it comes to politico-diplomatic thinking, America rises only to half the height of the totem pole of understanding. And when it comes to thinking about Jewish matters, America remains at the foot of the totem pole, if not below ground.

But now that the question of Iran's right to defend itself has become a hot issue, it is imperative to ask the question: Does America believe that Iran has the right to defend itself whether or not its conduct appears legitimate to the Americans? Well, three opinion pieces have appeared recently, discussing Iran's relation with America. They offer a wealth of insights as to how the pundits of America split over the subject of Iran's inherent rights and moral obligations.

One piece came under the title: “How to answer Iran's deadly Gulf games,” written by David Harsanyi, and published on June 14, 2019 in the New York Post. A second piece came under the title: “Preventive War Against Iran Would Be Foolhardy And Unpopular With Americans,” and the subtitle: “Instead of reducing the chances of conflict with Iran, a policy of maximum pressure only increases the threat of another needless US war in the Middle East,” Written by Willis L. Krumholz, and published on June 14, 2019 in The Federalist. A third piece came under the title: “Don't let oil prices drive Iran policy, Mr. President,” an editorial of the Washington Examiner, published on June 15, 2019.

David Harsanyi seems to telegraph that Iran has moral obligations but no inherent rights. This is why he started his discussion by explaining the facts of life as he understands them. And his facts, as they work in this case, are such that America had every right “to send an aircraft carrier, destroyers and cruisers to the Persian Gulf” because Iran had the obligation to accept America's decision to renege on the nuclear deal, but refused to do so.

Animated by this mentality, David Harsanyi saw wisdom in Mike Pompeo saying that the US will “stand with its partners and allies to safeguard global and regional stability,” which presumably means the use of those naval assets to blackmail or mug Iran into “coming to the negotiating table” and formally accepting, if not blessing America's decision to renege on the nuclear deal. And so, Harsanyi ends his piece by expressing the hope that Donald Trump will follow through with Pompeo's promise, and does what's necessary to bring Iran to its knees.

As to Willis Krumholz, he seems to be more attuned to the voice of the American people than do the politico-diplomatic operators who populate the piece of Zombieland known as the Washington Beltway. Because Krumholz believes that getting America involved in another futile war in the Middle East will seriously damage America while doing nothing to change the existing order in the region, he set out to remind his readers how things got to this point in the first place. Here is what he said:

“Tensions are running hot. The backdrop to all this is the White House's maximum pressure campaign of sanctions on Iran. The latter responded by quadrupling its uranium enrichment. Ironically, Tehran will probably continue to respond to America's sanctions and military buildup by upping its nuclear program further –– the exact opposite of the stated intent of maximum pressure. Common sense, and the American people, demand that we stick to our historical commitment to deterrence and peace”.

It is obvious from all this, that unlike David Harsanyi, Willis Krumholz believes that Iran has legitimate concerns, and has the right to defend its interests when someone, such as America, does damage to them by right or by pretense.

As to the editors of the Washington Examiner, they deviate from Krumhloz's view as to how the current situation began. Whereas he saw the backdrop as being America's reneging on the nuclear deal and the imposition of sanctions on Iran, the editors see the backdrop as being “Iran's escalation of hostility in the Gulf of Oman.” The editors go on to express the dread that Donald Trump will want to appease the Iranians for fear that confronting them will damage the economy, thus diminish his chances at getting reelected.

For this reason, the editors ended their missive to him with this advice: “Trump must not allow a fear of short-term strife and oil price hikes to interfere with America's [read Israel's] long-term strategic needs”.

So here you have it: The implication of the editors’ discussion at the Washington Examiner, is that Israel's needs become the inherent rights of Jews. This makes it so that the fulfillment of said rights becomes America's duty to achieve, even it means sending its own young to die as they murder the innocent young and old of other nations.

Seven and a half billion People cannot be wrong

It is astounding to see an entire planet of human beings agreeing on something, and yet a handful of self-serving pundits do more than disagree with them. These pundits are actually attacking all humans, accusing them of harboring evil intentions.

This is the story of the Jews who started out as a nomadic tribe that adopted some kind of religion thousands of years ago under dubious circumstances. The tribe became a model for the savage marauders that surfaced throughout history, and lived by raiding and looting the productive settlers of every land. The sordid trend culminated in the Genghis Khan band of killers who terrorized Western Asia and Eastern Europe during the heyday of the Mongol Empire, only to be surpassed in their thirst for blood by the Nazis of the modern era. All of these groups could trace their philosophical lineage to the Jews who started the trend.

Claiming the status of a religion, has been a convenience for the Jews because –– reeking of repugnance that causes normal people to flee their philosophy of life –– they needed to project an alternative image of themselves to attract new people to their causes. Projecting the image of a religion, has allowed them to convert enough followers to their fabricated religion, thus remained viable as a group. They formed a band that today, remains at about one percent of the Christian or the Muslim populations, both of which have been in existence only half the time that Judaism has been around.

Two articles published on two consecutive days in two related Jewish publications, demonstrate how the Jews continue to defy the human race instead of heeding its warning that the Jewish leaders, if not the rank-and-file, have gone too far already in their anti-social activities, and are thus endangering every Jew that lives anywhere in the world.

One article came under the title: “Is anti-Semitism becoming mainstream?” and the subtitle: “Experts see alarming trend in media, campus and public life.” It was written by Josh Hasten and published on June 13, 2019 on the website of Jewish News Syndicate. The other article came under the title: “Top Spanish Commentator Slammed for Pushing 'Jewish Lobby' Conspiracy Theory,” written by the staff of the online publication Algemeiner and published on June 14, 2019.

What follows is the paragraph in the Hasten article which demonstrates what the Jewish leaders do when they get together –– to keep stirring each other's bile and motivate one another. The intended result is to keep he fight for their various causes alive. But in so doing, they continue to drag the rank-and-file into the hellish world they have been taking it since the beginning of time. Here is that paragraph:

“David Hazony, executive director of the Israel Innovation Fund analyzed the issue: 'What you are seeing on North American campuses is only a thin slice of the anti-Semitic beast that has emerged in our public life around the world in the last six months, in the last year'”.

And so, instead of admitting that they (as Jewish leaders) have brought nothing but misery to what they call their people since time immemorial; and instead of describing themselves as the “bete noire” of the human race, you see this guy, David Hazony, call a “beast” the warning signs that the seven and a half billion people are sending to the Jewish leaders, telling them they are getting close to the breaking point once again.

The 1,400-word article goes on in this vein till the end, where it features a solution proposed by one of the Jewish leaders. It went like this:

“Aviva Rosenschein detailed growing anti-Semitism on college campuses. She added that the anti-Semitic agenda of some groups are often misunderstood by university administrators. It is not surprising that anti-Semitic activity takes place at schools with high Jewish student populations. There is no reason why we should be sitting back and taking it, and feeling intimidated. We must be willing to educate others”.

What must have escaped Aviva Rosenschein, is that she is calling for a repeat of the cycle that started half a century ago when the rabbis decided to “educate” the public about Jewish sensitivities. They also threatened to sue any challenger to their plans, and threatened to seek relief for injuries that never occurred. What the rabbis did as well, was run to higher authorities begging them to help silence the people who regularly demolished the Jewish arguments in a public debate.

After a relatively brief period of success, the Jews lost their credibility, which is what has led to the current situation. And Rosenschein wants to restart that cycle again. How dumb!

As to the staff of Algemeiner, their article points to a level of intelligence that does not surpass that of Aviva Rosenschein's.

That staff has applauded the Federation of Jewish Communities of Spain for “slamming” a TV commentator who “resorted to the age-old antisemitic myth of the Jewish lobby. Just one step away from Franco's Judeomasonic lobby conspiracy theories”.

This is an example of the Jewish habit for pointing out that something, which someone has said recently, resembles a historical occurrence, and accusing that someone of resorting to a conspiratorial old myth or trope or whatever.

This being the case, you better train yourself to go through life without peeing, my friend, because some Jew may someday discover that Hitler too was peeing. And based on this alone, you'll be accused of resorting to a conspiratorial old myth or trope or whatever.

It is getting that ridiculous with those desperate Jews.