It's no longer the story of a boy who cried wolf

There is the proverb of a playful boy who cried wolf, scaring the people of the village who scrambled to protect themselves, only to discover that the alarm was a hoax. There was no wolf.

The boy played the game several times, losing a little of his credibility each time. And then it happened one day that a wolf did appear roaming near the village, and the boy cried wolf, but nobody believed him because he had lost all credibility by then. And so, you can imagine what the consequences must have been.

There is more to the story and so, please continue to imagine. It is that the playfulness of the boy was apparently transferred to his father who cried wolf. When the people of the village came out prepared to confront the wolf and stand up to it, they saw no wolf to stand up to. Puzzled, the people asked the playful father: Where is the wolf that's threatening our village? And the father responded that the wolf was not here, threatening us. It is on the other side of the mountain threatening the village over there.

So I ask you, my friend, what do you think of that man? Don't you see him as a strange case that ought to be dealt with accordingly? Maybe so, you say, but that's fiction; nothing like that happens in real life. You are correct, nothing does exactly the same way. But analog situations do happen, and they represent real danger to the people who believe hoaxers on any subject instead of asking them: What's the point of sounding the alarm among us when the issue concerns the people over there who are not even worried?

You'll know what this is about when you read the article that came under the title: “China's 'Debt-Trap' Diplomacy with Third-World Nations,” written by Lawrence A. Franklin, and published on August 28, 2020 on the website of the Gatestone Institute. You must have figured by now that the story is a metaphor in which the wolf represents China, and the village over there represents the people of the Third World.

So, you have people like Lawrence Franklin warn that China is threatening the people of the Third World. The trouble is that these people are on the other side of the communication divide, and when the alarm about China was sounded on this side of the divide, very few of them heard it. Moreover, when those few heard it, they scoffed at it because they view us as the wolves that have been devouring them for centuries, and continue to devise ways to devour them again and again.

But given that we are practically the only ones to hear the alarm, why do people like Franklin continue to sound it? Well, we’ll find the answer to this question by looking into the article. Here is a relevant passage:

“The objectives of China's global Belt and Road Initiative [BRI] programs are as much strategic and political as they are economic. They seem designed to win new dependents, especially in areas neglected by the West or in the Western sphere of influence. The ultimate objective of the global dimension of China's BRI appears to be geared toward replacing the existing political, military and economic dimension of the West's liberal democratic order”.

So there is the answer to the earlier question. It is that Lawrence Franklin and people like him fear that China will grow roots in areas that used to be in the Western sphere of influence, intending to replace the existing political, military and economic dimension of the Western order. That includes us, citizens of the West, according to Franklin. In other words, he says he fears that we may someday look at the Chinese order, and because we feel neglected by the Western order, we may embrace the Chinese. But if we choose a new system because the one that we have is neglecting us, what’s there to fear? Lawrence Franklin does not say … which makes his entire presentation suspect.

Let me tell you, things will begin to make sense when we think of the wolf, not as a character representing the Chinese, but a wolf in human clothing pretending to be the father of the boy who originally cried wolf. The pretender’s intention is not to save America from going into the jaws of the Chinese order and be swallowed, but to serve another order. However, before we see what that is, we need to know who Lawrence A. Franklin is. Here is his story:

Earlier this century, when America was governed by the neocons of George W. Bush, a Catholic named Lawrence Franklin, who was a hater of Islam and the Arabs, used to work for the American security apparatus. He gave the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) classified information about America's operations in Iraq, to pass on to Israel. He was caught, pleaded guilty and sentenced to more than ten years in prison, as were several operators of AIPAC.

But as it often happens on the American side of the “Western order” where Jews and Israel are considered to be above the law, all the cases were mysteriously dropped before any of the guilty had gone to jail. That’s American style rule-of-law for you to be amazed, and for the world to be disgusted.

Whatever! In the end we are forced to conclude that Lawrence Franklin sees the competition for controlling the planet will not be between America and China; it will be between Islam and the Jews.

He so badly wants the Jews to win, he would destroy America if that’s what it’ll take to hand them a decisive victory.

They subvert the US Constitution practicing reverse Free Speech

What is reverse free speech? Reverse free speech is a highly developed method by which you can use your right to free speech as guaranteed by the United States Constitution, to prevent someone else from exercising their right to free speech as guaranteed by that same Constitution.

How does that subvert the US Constitution? First, let's understand that there are many ways by which the word “subvert” is defined, one of which being the stealthy and cowardly manner by which to overthrow an existing order. In this case, the order that's overthrown is the right of everyone to exercise their free speech when agreeing or when disagreeing with others, without attempting to silence them. Failing to do so would subvert the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The self-appointed leaders who pretend to speak for all Jewish Americans are the group that developed the stealthy and cowardly method by which to use their right to free speech to subvert the same right that's guaranteed to everyone, without exception, by the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

You can see how those Jews go about implementing their demonic scheme when you read the article that came under the title: “Associated Press profile on Al Sharpton forgets to mention the times he incited anti-Semitic riots,” written by Becket Adams and published on August 27, 2020 in The Washington Examiner.

What makes this piece an iconic case study, is that the Associated Press’s discussion of Al Sharpton, which displeased Becket Adams of the Washington Examiner, was done by –– not a booster of Sharpton, or done in the context of a campaign to elevate him to a higher position but –– a publication that was doing a routine kind of work such as exposing, in a balanced way, the reality of what Al Sharpton represents to the people who need him, listen to him and follow him.

And so, instead of following a pattern that would have satisfied the requirement of the Constitution, such as engaging the Associated Press and/or Al Sharpton himself, in an open debate that would have parsed all the relevant issues and clarified their components, Becket Adams did the very Jewish thing of dragging out, ruminating and regurgitating the long accumulated list that was compiled by the stealthy and cowardly self-appointed leaders of the Jews. That's a list of what they say should prove that Al Sharpton is a bad guy, that he must only be portrayed as an evil character, and never characterized in glowing terms.

Okay, you say to yourself, you'll keep an open mind about this. But Becket Adams of the Washington Examiner better show convincingly that Al Sharpton is an evil character, or the false accusations they are making up will force you to consider the Jews themselves to be the evil characters.

So, you go through the article, and what do you find? You find not a single moment when Al Sharpton said or did something that even the Jews would consider impeachable. Every incident that Adams has cited, involved Sharpton being with people that the system had failed, comforting them and lending them support. But as it happens in such gatherings, there were moments when someone used language that Mother Theresa would not approve of. And so, Becket Adams falsely and knowingly attributed such indiscretions to Al Sharpton, as if he were the one that uttered the inappropriate words.

And in the same way that the cowardly self-appointed leaders of the Jews have tried to indict and crucify impeccable men and women of the Louis Farrakhan, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Linda Sarsour caliber, Becket Adams and the Washington Examiner –– who fanatically champion the war criminals of Israel –– are trying to indict and crucify Al Sharpton for helping his people overcome the injustices of a system that keeps failing them in every way you can think of.

Their demonic effort boils down to applying maximum pressure on Al Sharpton in the hope that he'll praise Israel and the Jews while trashing his own people. Well, there is only one thing to say about Becket Adams and the Washington Examiner, and say it to their faces. It is this: Someone better advise these characters when it'll be that hell will freeze over.

Until this happens, publications like the Washington Examiner will pay people like Becket Adams not to openly engage in debates with those who are spiritually, morally and ethically superior to them. Instead, they'll pay the Adams of this world to collect what they call historical events about the good people. In reality, these would be events that project an image to the world that's no more significant than a tired Joe dozing off while watching a boring television show. And yet, the Adams and the Examiners of America will describe such events as earth shattering, destined to go down in history like say, the Fall of the Roman Empire.

And when people like Becket Adams have gathered what they believe is damning evidence, they'll write articles that will subvert the US Constitution in their quest to silence others. They’ll do so in an effort to make America serve World Jewry and Israel the way that the Jewish-trained political elites in the Washington Beltway have been doing for half a century –– doing it shamelessly and treasonously.

When a strong Desire produces Delusion

Imagine this: you are the representative of an African or Central Asian nation, and somebody comes to you begging that you, “please, please, please take advantage of us. We're the startup nation –– and you don't have to take my word for it; someone (a Jew no less) wrote a book about us. We have the hi-tech that you won't find anywhere else so, please, please, please take advantage of us”.

Who's running around saying this, you ask? They are Jewish American lobbyists, shameless Israeli big-mouths and the Christian moral prostitutes whose closet and its content of skeletons have been revealed to Jewish blackmailers in the business of coercing them into cheering for Israeli achievements that don't exist.

Whereas initially, some of those nations were conned into buying the Jewish propaganda, they eventually learned the true story, thus came to view Israel as no more than a primitive actor in the field of technology. What they learned was that the big technology companies in the US, Japan and Western Europe started building plants to produce chips in Third World countries such as Peru and Philippine because making the chips was too polluting of the environment, and so the companies decided to go pollute somewhere else.

But in time, even the Third World countries started to turn away new offers for building plants in their territory. That's when the Intel Corporation, among others, turned to hungry Israel and built a plant there. Since that time, there has been nothing but misery for the Corporation, which lost billions of dollars due to a work force that would rather do bible study than learn how to produce computer chips.

As to the software side of technology, the same thing happened to those that believed in the Israeli ability to deliver on anything. This was demonstrated with clarity when the Americans developed software to disrupt the Iranian nuclear industry. The Americans had the software work well for a while but then handed it to the Israelis who thought they could improve on it. They altered it, and the moment they unleashed it back on Iran, the latter caught the intrusion and neutralized it. The lesson to learn turned out to be that the Israelis were as ignorant about the software side of technology as they were about the hardware side.

What there is now at the diplomatic level, is a movement to resolve some of the outstanding issues in the Middle East. But there are signs already that the effort will not unfold smoothly. You can see it when you delve into the article that came under the title: “Trump's diplomatic triumph with Israel-UAE agreement applies 'maximum pressure' against Iran,” and the subtitle: “Breakthrough opens doors to investment, tourism and security.” It was written by Daniel L. Hoffman, and published on August 27, 2020 in The Washington Times.

The idea suggested in the subtitle of the article to the effect that someone wants to get the UAE and Israel together and apply maximum pressure on a third party, is so anathema to Arab culture, it will remain a sticking point, and will hamper progress. In addition, something in the article will tell you that the Jews of Israel and America have not diminished their knack to behave in such obnoxious manner, they will turn off everyone they work with. Here is that something: “Dialing the UAE into Israel's economy –– especially its highly developed technology sector –– is a key element of the deal.” Speaking in these terms when the truth is the opposite will blow the attempt at rapprochement.

The truth is that the writing of the book about Israel being a startup nation, was the starting point to the implementation of a massive scheme to defraud the so-called “angels” that had money to pour into hi-tech ventures. The gang behind the scheme had already set-up the infrastructure with phantom companies on the NASDAQ and the Toronto exchange to collect the billions they expected will pour into their coffers. What happened instead was that someone unmasked the demonic scheme, and the gang was kicked out of the North American stock exchanges.

But whereas the gang was neutralized, the mouth of the mob of Jewish pundits remained active, and in the business of propagating delusional mythologies about Israel being high on hi-tech. And so, letting myself do something that goes against my grain to never make predictions, I predict that if the Israelis are allowed to go deep into the hi-tech sector of the UAE, they will come out saying that Israel is more advanced than anyone in renewable energy when in reality Israel is an absolute zero in this field.

Do you know why this might happen? It's because the UAE is one of the Arab countries at the leading edge of that technology. In fact, advanced research and applications are carried out by countries like Germany and Denmark in cooperation with Arab countries such as Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE in photovoltaic cells and windmills. The Arabs are so advanced in this field, there is no way the Jews will look at that, and not attribute to themselves the success they see in others.

And the Jewish fakes will continue to run around and beg: please, please, please take advantage of us. We're the startup nation. We have the hi-tech that you won't find anywhere else so, please, please, please take advantage of us.

And no one will believe them … but they'll continue to beg.

What's there to do when we reach the end?

Joschka Fischer wrote an interesting article under the title: “The End of Western Opportunism,” and had it published on August 24, 2020 in the online magazine, Project Syndicate.

In addition to being interesting, the article is also important because the writer was the Foreign Minister and Vice Chancellor of Germany for seven years, and then became founder of the country's Green Party as well as its leader for almost twenty years.

The point Joschka Fischer makes is that the West, looking at its own rise into the industrial age and the history of its modernization, thought that China will follow a similar pattern and eventually become a capitalist liberal democracy styled after the Western countries. Alas, this did not happen. But after fifty years of opening itself to the world, China has pursued a path that was never tried before. As a result, it has done very well for itself but also became a menace to the Western politico-economic system, according to Fischer.

Fischer sees that the competition between the Western and Chinese systems is transforming into a serious confrontation where both will continue to vie for a dominant position in technology, trade, global market share, supply chains, and more importantly in fundamental values. And so, he concluded that at the end of the day, everything can be negotiated except the fundamental values by which the West must stick firmly.

Has Joschka Fischer neglected to look into something? The answer is yes, and you get a sense of what it is when you parse the following passage in his article:

“Through it all, Western leaders assumed that modernization and economic development would lead China eventually to adopt democracy, embrace human rights, and the rule of law. They were wrong. The Communist Party of China has evolved a novel hybrid development model consisting of a one-party dictatorship, a highly competitive economy, and a consumer society”.

Fischer has observed that Western leaders have “assumed,” but they turned out to be “wrong.” And yet, he did not stop and ask why this kept happening for as long as it did. Had he done so, he would have widened his perspective enormously, and would have encountered a plethora of leads in which to look for ways to forge a Chinese-Western relationship that would benefit all of humanity for as long as there will be a human species in this world and out there in the universe.

So then we ask, why did the Western leaders go wrong making the false assumptions that they did? The answer is that they looked at the pattern of their own development since the Industrial Revolution, and thought it was going to serve as template for the countries that will follow. But things did not turn out that way because of two main reasons.

The first reason has to do with the fact that the development of the Europeans happened organically. That is, they were at the leading edge of science, technology and human development, and had no pattern to follow. When a breakthrough happened in one area, it reverberated in the other areas, causing them to also change. Thus, everything in society moved forward at the same pace.

This happened not only on the technical and industrial levels where the tools, the machines and the products kept changing, but also on the societal levels where people had to adapt. That is, in the same way that a new discovery in science has led to a new process in industry, it happened that a new invention in technology has caused society to change its lifestyle. It was led to adopt new methods of interaction among the citizens, and between the citizens and their government.

The other reason why the European pattern has failed to take roots in the emerging economies––one of them being China––is that these economies were not going to reinvent the wheel. The European pattern was there for them to look at and study but not to follow. Instead of making the tools that helped make the machines that were making the consumer products, the emerging economies bought the production machines from the West, made the consumer products at a lower price, sold them to the Western societies and paid for the machines they were buying from them.

Whereas the leaders of the emerging economies welcomed the science, technology and industry of the West, they determined that the political culture of the West was not suitable for them and so, they decided to experiment with new systems of governance and economics. Experimentation is what's taking place at this time in the major emerging economies––such as China––and this does not sit well with the West that fears being overtaken by an alien system they will not want to emulate.

This is why it will be better for the Western leaders to accept the other economies the way they are, and the way they choose to evolve. Instead of getting in their way, the West should cooperate with them in matters that concern all of humanity such as our stay on this planet, and what we'll need to discover and develop beyond it.

Here is how the fantasy became an obsession

The fact that the Jewish mantra has been, “next year in Jerusalem” for as long as anyone alive today can remember –– says that the Jews were having deeply rooted fantasies about the Middle East; so deep in fact, they bordered on the obsession.

Now that the first leg of their fantasy has been realized with their occupation of Palestine, including Jerusalem, it stands to reason that their fantasy has not ended. What is adding credence to that view are the activities and rhetoric in which both Israel and the Jews engage every day.

In fact, a recent article has appeared which demonstrates not only that the fantasy is still a factor in Jewish thinking, but that it has morphed to become a brand-new obsession. The title of the article is: “Lebanon may be broken beyond repair,” which also came under the subtitle: “Its debt is massive, its political class corrupt, and terrorists call the shots.” It was written by Clifford D. May and published on August 25, 2020 in The Washington Times.

Indicative of Clifford May's state of mind regarding the massive explosion that recently hit the port at Beirut, Lebanon, is the opinion he expressed concerning the event. The occasion was the visit to Lebanon of the French President Emmanuel Macron who reassured the people of Lebanon that he was there to help them. As if on the couch of a psychiatrist doing word association, the first thing that came to Clifford May's mind was to utter these words: “It's doubtful he'll succeed”.

This says that Clifford May was doing more than just expressing a harmless opinion. It says that he obsesses about Lebanon breaking up so badly, it will be beyond repair at long last. That's what May wishes will happen because when a country is in such condition, it becomes an easy prey for a predator to catch if that's what Israel wants to do, or become a low-hanging fruit for a lazy opportunist to grab if that's what Israel has become, given that it has been deterred by Hezbollah, which is what the evidence suggests.

At a time when street protests are erupting on a nightly basis in America and Israel, which are Clifford May's countries of the head and the heart respectively, he speaks of street protests in Lebanon as if they were a strange apparition, heretofore unknown to Planet Earth and having the effect of, “shattering Lebanon politically and economically”.

Thus, when done with the preamble, Clifford May got into what he wanted to say next. It is that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, it is affiliated with Iran, it is practically governing Lebanon and running that country into the ground. Hezbollah is also equipped with deadly weapons that can seriously damage Israel, he went on to say. For this reason, he wants the world to do something to get rid of it.

For his part, Clifford May used innuendo to make it sound like Hezbollah was responsible for the massive Beirut explosion, now that it has been established that the explosion was an accident. Here is how he formulated the innuendo: “Welders accidentally ignited materials that detonated ammonium nitrate stored in the port where Hezbollah has free reign. Ammonium nitrate is useful for agriculture and terrorist bomb-making.” Not very persuasive, of course, but it’s a try.

Not only did Clifford May express such opinion, he had his comical Foundation for Defense of Democracies commission an economist he characterized as “eminent,” and had him write a report that gave Clifford May and the Jews of his ilk, the kind of conclusion that sounded like music to their ears. It is that the eminent economist has concluded the following: “Lebanon today is broke. The entire country has been picked clean by terrorists, criminals, elites and the political class,” Clifford May so assures his readers.

To put that view in perspective, he cited the case of Argentina that was bailed out by the IMF two years ago. But when you try to determine why the same will not work for Lebanon, you find that Clifford May has made no connection and no case of any kind. In fact, his words leave you with the impression that Lebanon can be bailed out, and most certainly will be. But to hedge his bet that Lebanon cannot be bailed out, May has added this: “Even if donors were to provide sufficient funds, it's not clear how the money could be utilized”.

However, as far as Clifford May is concerned, all of that is nothing more than a sideshow. His real concern has always been the safety of Israel, and the big threat that's facing it now is Hezbollah. This is why Clifford May ended his article with the following lamentation:

“Mr. Macron has said not a word about disarming or defanging Hezbollah. He doesn't seem to grasp that investing billions of dollars to save the country [Lebanon] would be a fool's errand”.

In other words, Clifford May is asking the world to let Lebanon struggle all by itself so that in the end, Israel will have an easy time hunting it like a wounded prey, or if it prefers, stretch its arm up and grab the low hanging-fruit.

Their fantasy never ends even after it has been realized.

They see what they did but not its immorality

One of the main reasons we give toys to children, is to have them simulate the real situations they'll encounter when they grow up. For example––right or wrong––in most cultures, boys are given a car to simulate driving, a firetruck to simulate firefighting or an erector set to simulate constructing or building something. As to the girls, they are given a doll to simulate comforting, dressing or feeding a baby.

The question is whether or not it is necessary to impose this artificial method of learning on human children since they are naturally equipped to learn by watching their parents and the other adults around them. The answer is a qualified yes, because what differentiates our species from the other species, including the higher primates such as the apes and the monkeys, is that we are equipped with a brain that allows us to live an artificial life. We therefore need an artificial education to sustain it. But we must be careful what we teach our human children since anything in our hand can be turned into a double-edged sword.

In some cases, such as the newly hatched chicks, they know what to eat and how to search for food the moment they hatch. In other cases, kittens are taught how to hunt for food by their mothers. In both cases, that's all the little ones need to know because it is the kind of life they'll live. When it comes to human beings, however, we'd have a hard time living without electricity, mechanized modes of transportation, and increasingly a twitter in the hand. Because none of these can be made without attaining a certain level of mathematics and communication skills, we built schools to teach these subjects to our human children.

But what happens when the proverbial “a little bit of education” becomes an important factor in what we think and do? By the way, in other languages, a little bit of education is referred to as “half education” or “semi education.” Well, if and when that is the case, and the one that's bedeviled with a little bit of knowledge is in a position to harm others, bad things can result, and they often do.

That's because a little bit of knowledge is manifested in one of two ways. It is either a harmless, “monkey see, monkey do” kind of situation that may even appear comical, or it is the case of an ignoramus who believes he knows something because he saw someone else do it, when in reality he only saw a small part of what's there. He remains ignorant of the part he did not see, which is usually the one that can harm others when imposed on them by the half educated.

This brings us to the article that came under the title: “United Nations not thrilled about Middle Eastern nations uniting,” written by David May and published on August 24, 2020 in the Washington Examiner.

The point that David May is making goes something like this: The UAE and Israel have agreed to normalize their relations. This is a happy occasion, and the UN that is supposed to bring about such outcomes, is not celebrating. This proves there is something wrong with the UN, a reality that we, the Jews have been pointing out for a long time.

Well then, what's wrong with that? What's wrong is that it is the product of a partial education. David May seems to know the half of the story that suits his narrative but ignores the other half because those who raised him never told him about it. He knows about the land that was given to the Jews out of pity, as a result of them making a mess of their lives throughout space and time. But what he was taught to deliberately ignore, is the plight of the Palestinians who were dispossessed to make the Jews comfortable.

Instead of tolerating the natural resentment that was expressed by the Palestinians whose homes were, after all, invaded by the Jews, the latter added insult to injury by pouncing on the Palestinians and starting a program of ethnic cleansing Palestine of its Palestinian population. This is why the world keeps reminding the Jews that they are doing the wrong thing. It is why the UN is not celebrating the little events that happen at the periphery, such as a potential rapprochement between the UAE and Israel, while the core of the issue, which is the right of the Palestinians, remains unresolved.

But is this case unique in the sense that the perpetrators of the injustice, care only about the benefits that accrue to them while ignoring the damage they inflict on their victims because they choose not to see the reality of what they are causing? The answer is yes, this is a unique case. It often happens that the perpetrators of an injustice come to see the damage they cause to others, and do what they can to rectify the situation and compensate their victims … but not this time; not with the Jews being the perpetrators.

What horrifies humanity is that the Jews know exactly what inhuman conditions they are inflicting on the Palestinians, but while they see the facts on the ground, they turn a blind eye when it comes to seeing and being moved by the high sense of morality that should make them recognize the obligation they have toward the Palestinians.

If that's cold war, the US is in it with the world

David Ridenour is president of the National Center for Public Policy Research. He rebuffed the Foreign Minister of China for saying that “the United States is pushing the two countries to the brink of a new cold war.” The truth, says Ridenour, is that the two countries have been in a cold war situation for years, and not just at the brink of one right now.

Ridenour made his views known in an article he wrote under the title: “We didn't declare the new cold war, but we must win it,” and had it published on August 21, 2020 in The Washington Examiner where he points out that the Trump administration has been the first to fight back against China's nefarious behavior.

Apparently unaware of the effort that America has been exerting to propagate its own system of governance abroad, David Ridenour made an angry list of the Chinese efforts to propagate their culture in America. What he is missing is that as a Government, as a Republican Party and as a Democratic Party, operating separately and at times jointly, the Americans have masqueraded as neutral Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) or harmless civil societies that were only trying to teach local people how to serve their countries better.

Ridenour called the Chinese activities those of a cold war, which means that if we accept this view, we must also accept the view that America has been in a cold war situation with practically the whole world for decades. Seeing this reality and studying it, must be what convinced the Chinese to emulate America, doing it––not to the whole world––but only to America, if we are to believe Ridenour.

The way that the Trump administration fought back, says Ridenour, is that it ordered the Chinese consulate in Houston to close, and the diplomats in it to leave the country. The reason is that of all the Chinese diplomatic missions in America, that one had been the most active when it came to spying on America's military and civilian industries. These were the institutions from which, agents of the consulate have been stealing billions of dollars worth of scientific and technological secrets for many years.

If true, this should not come as a surprise to anyone that has been watching and studying this kind of widely practiced shenanigans between nations, even among friends. In fact, it was only a few years ago that Egypt's Security apparatus caught the American Congressional team, masquerading as harmless NGO, in the act of bribing its young and naive Egyptian workers, training them to spy on Egypt and engage in activities considered subversive under Egyptian laws.

The Americans were expelled out of the country, prompting America's legislators to respond by huffing and puffing and threatening dire consequences if Egypt did not reverse its decision. Egypt did not reverse itself, and this stance prompted other countries, including the Russians to look into their own situation. The Russians discovered that the Americans were engaged in subversive activities there too, and they responded by booting the so-called American civil societies out of the country.

Ridenour goes on to say that the Chinese do more than steal science and technology from America. They rely on their students who are studying in American colleges and universities to “build a sophisticated propaganda apparatus dedicated to break America's public will to stand up to Chinese aggression,” he goes on to say.

Well then, this should remind the readers of the American officials, including the President of the United States, who regularly tell rioters who rise up in places like Iran or China or Egypt (in 2011), that America was standing in solidarity with them. Is it any wonder that the Chinese as well as the Russians and the Iranians and the North Koreans are now taking liberty to interfere in America's electoral process by any means they can, including the internet? These people seem to know the adage that says, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Ridenour is also unhappy about what he calls, “a huge [Chinese] network of media outlets to spread disinformation in the West, some overt and some covert.” Well, it is laughable to read something like this come from a country that has Radio Free Europe, Voice of America, Al Hurrah and the many private publications that put out a foreign edition, be it in print or in electronic form.

As to the product that's put out by the Chinese being called “disinformation,” forget about the Chinese and forget about the world. Maybe David Ridenour will be good enough to tell the American people how they can determine what is information and what is disinformation when they watch the broadcasts of FOX News and MSNBC, and hear contrary descriptions of the same event.

But instead of thinking in these terms, Ridenour had the National Center for Public Policy Research devise a plan in nine points, which he says will help America win the cold war that China has unleashed on America.

He described three of the points in the article, and they sound like something already peddled for several months by those who wish to punish China for what they say is that country's responsibility in the rise and spreading of the COVID-19 pandemic.

What will David Ridenour do when he discovers that the rise of the virus may have happened in China, but its spreading was done in America more than anywhere else?

Keep your friends close, your enemies closer

A version of the proverb you see in the title of this piece was uttered throughout time and space, from the ancient Chinese to Machiavelli's Rome to a Hollywood Godfather movie.

In one form or another, the wise men and women of the modern world have adopted that proverb as their motto, and have done well protecting themselves because it kept them from being blindsided by an enemy when they were not watching. In fact, I still remember the headline of an article I read in an Arabic newspaper decades ago. It went like this: “e3lam 3addoak” which translates into “know your enemy.” This was a United Arab Emirates publication discussing Israel.

What brought back that memory at this time, is an article I read in English under the title: “Israel-UAE agreement has major potential for a political realignment in the Middle East,” written by Abraham Wagner, and published on August 21, 2020 in The Washington Times. Obviously, when writing his article, Wagner was not thinking about that proverb, or the one that says, “blood is thicker than water”.

The point of the Wagner article is summed up in the title itself. It shows that the man is dreaming the typical Jewish dream of seeing Jews get into a hate pact with someone (it does not matter who) and go after someone else (it does not matter who) to beat them up and loot them. In fact, this has been the most prevailing feature in the long legacy that the Jews have left behind, and nothing of what they do now indicates that they wish to change their ways.

And this happens to be the substance of the Abraham Wagner article. Here is his conclusion as it appears near the end of the article: “The Israeli-UAE deal is an attempt to establish a group in the Middle East and achieve a regional realignment based on confronting Iran and avoiding any real notion of solidarity with the Palestinians.” He dreams of the Arabs hating the Palestinians and the Iranians and loving the Jews instead. Will someone remind him that blood is thicker than water!

To understand what's really going on out there, we need to understand the Arab mentality. And the first thing we need to do to understand the Arabs, is to reject the childish notion which the Jews have about everything boiling down to who loves whom and who hates whom. When you do that, you’ll begin to understand why a few months ago, the idea of America organizing the Arabs into a hate-Iran pact, sank like a stone into the cesspit of Jewish morality.

In fact, it has been seven decades since the colonial powers, and then America tried to organize the Arabs into a hate-somebody pact, the most notorious being the anti-Soviet Baghdad Pact. But they all sank ingloriously, letting the hapless organizers know that the Arabs, unlike the Jews, do not recognize hate as a worthy currency to own, to trade with or even pretend to have.

A noteworthy occurrence that can serve as a key to understanding the Arab mentality is what happened shortly after the Israeli Pearl Harbor style sneak attack on its neighbors in 1967. Having gained the notorious “Jewish leverage” from that attack, the Israelis said to the Arabs, “let's negotiate,” and the Arabs gave the famous three “Nos,” one being no negotiation. In 1973 the Arabs counterattacked, smashing the Bar Lev Line and liberating the Sinai. They gave the Israelis enough time to effectuate an “orderly” withdrawal of their troops and equipment from the rest of the Sinai, as requested by America's Henry Kissinger who spoke in the name of President Richard Nixon.

When this was done, Anwar Sadat, who was then President of Egypt, said to the Israelis something to this effect: “Now that we have the upper hand, we shall not do what you do, which is to use the advantage as an Arab Leverage. What we'll do instead is show you what Arab magnanimity looks like.” He added that he would go talk to them in their own Knesset, and he did. This, my friend, is what it means to be an Arab.

Throughout the ages, that Arab mentality has worked to keep their friends close and their enemies closer. But time after time, the Jews made the mistake of not seeing Arab magnanimity for what it was, seeing instead every goodwill gesture made by the Arabs as a response to the Jewish leverage they only imagined they had most of the time. And so, the Israelis erroneously responded in a way that turned off the Arabs and sent their relationship back to square one.

With regard to the current situation, it must be said that the Arabs are a patient people and will give the Jews plenty of time to come to their senses and end the occupation of Palestine. But as long as you see Netanyahu allude to the possibility that he might someday annex parts of the West Bank, you should know that the burgeoning relationship with the UAE and the rest of the Arab World, will remain on shaky grounds.

And you can be certain that there will always be a Netanyahu in Israel who will work to prolong the misery of the Jews as long as there will be influential American Jews, such as Abraham Wagner, who will continue to utter nonsense in America such as the following:

“The so-called occupied territories in the West Bank and Gaza ... The Palestinian issue has gone nowhere and is highly unlikely to go anywhere in the future ... The UAE and other Gulf states have decoupled their support for the Palestinian cause from their own interests ... A Palestinian state or the 'two state' solution that was the mantra before Trump”.

As long as they have influence in America and as long as they get enough taxpayers' money to live on the high life, characters such as Abraham Wagner, will continue to hang on to the politico-diplomatic game they now play. They are playing it in the way that a normal person hangs on to his profession, except that the Wagners of this world make a living at the cost of inflicting horror, pain and death on millions of people of all races and all religions.

They must be stopped, and this will only happen when their followers will follow them no more. Meanwhile the Arabs will patiently wait for the Jews to smarten up, while reminding each other that they must “e3lam 3addoak”.

Twinning of the Microcosm and Macrocosm

Do you wonder why it is that the world sees America roll nonchalantly inside the pipe of a Jewish sewer? Well, wonder no more because someone will now explain to you why this is happening.

He is Daniel DePetris who wrote: “Shortsightedness of US foreign policy exposed with UN and Iran,” an article that was published on August 21, 2020 in The Washington Examiner.

When you read the article, the image of two patterns immediately come to mind; one that exists at the microcosmic level, the other at the macrocosmic level. The remarkable thing about these two, is that they show an uncanny resemblance between them. So, let's begin by describing the two patterns.

Pattern number one: This is the microcosmic pattern that Daniel DePetris did not bother discussing in the current article. He is not discussing it because the pattern has been out there for decades, and everyone that's interested in such matters, should be familiar with it. Nevertheless, the pattern must be described here to better illustrate the resemblance it has with the macrocosmic pattern that DePetris later discusses in detail.

The first pattern has to do with the repeated Israeli demand that the Palestinians must negotiate the end of their country's occupation by offering something for when Israel will offer package A. Believing they see honesty in such offer, the Palestinians offer package B in exchange for the Jewish package A. But instead of going ahead with the exchange, the Israelis who use America as leverage, take the Palestinian offering of B, and never give A in return in defiance of the deal. On the contrary, the Jews of Israel ask the Palestinians for something more if they really want to see package A that should have been theirs by now.

Pattern number two: This is the macrocosmic pattern, discussed in the Daniel DePetris article. It has to do with the deal that America and 4 other world powers negotiated with Iran concerning the Iranian nuclear program. Things went well as far as everyone was concerned until a Jewish administration with a neocon head and two neocon hands, moved into the White House and reshuffled the deck.

The first thing that the neocons did was pull America out of the Iran nuclear deal, a move that was reluctantly accepted by the world, but with trepidation, because of the negative consequences that were feared will result, even if America had the legal right to do so.

The trouble is that America did not stop there. Wishing to repeat the pattern that the Jews of Israel played when dealing with the Palestinians at the microcosmic level, the Jews of America tried to play the same game with the Iranians and with the whole world at the macrocosmic level. In effect, having pulled America out of the Iran nuclear deal, which means they discarded America's responsibilities as well as it rights under the terms of the deal, the Jews of America said: No, no, no. Things don't work that way in Jewish logic. There is another way to deal with such matters.

And so, in the same way that, on a microcosmic level, the Israelis got all the rights while the Palestinians got all the responsibilities, what must happen now at the macrocosmic level, say the Jews of America, is that America should gain the advantages that accrue to the act of reneging on the nuclear deal while maintaining the advantages America used to have when it was in the deal. And so, the world including America's closest friends, told it to go fly a kite.

This is what Daniel DePetris calls shortsightedness of US foreign policy. And here is how he put it:

“Secretary of State Mike Pompeo made it official, outlining why the United States was invoking the sanctions snapback provision in the Iran nuclear deal. The US is claiming to remain a party to the deal after it publicly withdrew from it in 2018. The administration's legal rationale reveals its shortsightedness: If they wanted to invoke snapback sanctions, they shouldn't have left the deal”.

This kind of behavior is indicative of a neoconish character that is primitive, savage and cowardly. It is slowly being absorbed by America, thoroughly digested by its personnel, and openly displayed by them when operating on the world stage. In addition, the behavior represents a grave danger to the world as observed by DePetris who wrote: “Germany, France and the UK, three allies of the US, dismissed Washington's attempt as a danger to the entire UN system”.

This kind of situation might have been palatable to some people if America were seen to be in the driver's seat and leading the world––through savage times but––to an ultimate nirvana that will make it all worth it when we get there. But that's not the case here, because the world now sees America the way that DePetris aptly describes it, which is the following:

“More concerning than Washington's arguments, is the policy on Iran. Every industry has been sanctioned, meaning that a country transacting with Iran in those industries will be shut out of the US financial system. The architects of the campaign promised that this would compel Tehran to give away the store in a new negotiation. None of that has gone according to plan. Moving Iran's foreign policy in a different direction has been a failure of immeasurable proportions. The story is that the US is willing to degrade its standing at the Security Council, make a mockery of US diplomacy, and spend much political capital to engage in a staring contest with a mid-tier power”.

Is there something more you can say to an unstable moron instructed to emasculate himself by his own never-satisfied folks?

The more they accuse others, the more they tell who they are

Theirs is a culture based on the twin symbols of evil: savagery and cowardice. They'll go behind your back, meet those that can hurt you, tell them fabricated stories about you, and incite them to come after you because if they don't, you'll be the one to go after them.

But if that will not work because you're not a simple individual minding your business, but are a public figure enjoying an honorable position in the public domain, they'll come after you relentlessly and publicly, trying to sow doubt about your character in the eyes of the public.

This is the culture of the Jews … and that kind of behavior is the staple on which they feed as they fantasize about the day when the messiah will come and hand them the ownership keys of Planet Earth and everything it contains, including the billions of men, women and children that make up the human race.

Whereas this sort of behavior permeates everything that the Jews do, playing out in a variety of versions day in and day out, you can see how it is playing in a case that is currently unfolding. It involves Jordan Davidson the Jewess who plunged into the sewer of Jewish filth, grabbed what she could at the bottom of the tank and threw it, not at Louis Farrakhan or Ilhan Omar who are the usual targets, but at Linda Sarsour this time.

You'll see what Davidson has tried to do when you read the article she wrote under the title: “Linda Sarsour, Who Raised Funds For Terrorist, Featured As DNC 2020 Speaker,” a dishonest piece of work that was published on August 18, 2020 in The Federalist. It must be said that accusing others of terrorism or associating with terrorists, is not something new but something that follows a long-established pattern. 

You see, my friend, every time that the Jews felt they bored their audiences with baseless accusations they threw at others, they looked at themselves in the mirror to see what else the good people of the world might be seeing in them. When they discover something horrible about themselves, they accuse the others of that very thing.

This time, it happened that when Israel came up with a plan to ethnic cleanse Palestine of its Palestinian population, the Jews discovered that the world was seeing the true face of terrorism in Israel. This is why foot soldiers of the crime syndicate that is Israel, such as Jordan Davidson, began to throw the accusation of terrorism at everyone they dislike.

It is not surprising, therefore, that Jordan Davidson has accused Linda Sarsour of raising funds for “Terrorist,” a passage that was so baseless and outrageous, even the editor of The Federalist was so horrified to see it there, he/she took it out. The problem is that they forgot to take it out the article's title where the accusation remained and went into print. What an embarrassment for The Federalist.

Aside from all that stinky stuff, look what little things the Jews grab onto as they try to generate the sense of a big deal when they discover they have no legs to stand on, but wish to stand on something, anything at all that will make them look taller than they really are:

“In 2019 Sarsour came under fire for claiming that Israel was built on the idea that Jews are supreme to everyone else. According to The Times of Israel, Sarsour also supports a boycott of Israel and favors a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The one-state solution is code for ending the state of Israel”.

Typical of the way by which the Jews avoid having an honest debate, Jordan Davidson said that Linda Sarsour came under fire from someone she did not name. But why did Sarsour come under fire? She did, says Davidson, because of what Sarsour had said. Well then, what was it that merited a fiery response from a faceless individual? It was that Israel was built on the idea that Jews are supreme to everyone else. If so, why did Jordan Davidson not respond to Linda Sarsour instead of saying what someone else had said about the matter? Well, there is only one answer to this crucial question. It is that Jews do not get into honest debates, and Jordan Davidson is Jewish. Period.

Proceeding in the same vein, Jordan Davidson quoted –– not Linda Sarsour directly or some American publication, but –– The Times of Israel which itself had quoted Sarsour as saying she supports BDS, and favors the one-state solution to the Palestinian issue. Only then did Jordan Davidson venture to comment that the one-state solution will end the state of Israel.

Of course, that's an improvement over saying what someone else has said, but it is not enough to say that the one-state solution will end the state of Israel without explaining what the word “end” means in this context. Ending apartheid in Rhodesia and South Africa ended the apartheid states, and this turned out to be the best thing that happened to the two countries. It will also be a good thing happening to occupied Palestine.

But if Jordan Davidson does not like this idea, she can tell her collaborators in Israel to get on with the two-state solution.

Hungry Scavengers come out after the Feast

After the lions and the tigers hunt their prey, catch it and eat it, they leave the scene and go to the waterhole where they quench their thirst and take a nap. This is when the scavenging hyenas and vultures come out looking for the scraps left on the dinner table by the kings and queens of the natural jungle.

Something similar happens in the artificial jungle that the marketplace of ideas in the so-called democracies, has become. When a big event takes place on the local or international scene, you might first see the foolhardy come out unprepared and seek to score a scoop which they hope will make them famous. The heavyweights then come in, crack the case open, expand on the relevant points, and when the rumination that must be done has been done, go to a quiet place and take a recharging siesta.

This is when the scavenging lightweights come to the deserted dinner table looking for the scraps that the masters may have left behind. They pick a morsel here and a morsel there, assemble them into a potpourri, and fool themselves into believing that they are treated like the kings and queens of the democratic jungle. In fact, they are assisted in their self-deception by the clueless media bosses who pay them handsome sums to eat and discharge garbage to an audience that wants journalistic quality but finds it nowhere.

An example of garbage-eating and garbage-producing lightweight is Lee Scott Lingamfelter who used to be an army colonel and a politician, but is now a retired nobody looking for fame writing pieces that even the toilet finds so disgusting, it throws them back at him rather than flush them down the tube where they might pollute the septic tank.

Lingamfelter's latest foray onto the deserted dinner table of the masters, came under the title: “Will Israel-UAE agreement foster peace or more violence?” and the subtitle: “Israel and the United Arab Emirates strike a deal,” published on August 19, 2020 in The Washington Times. It is a clear case of going to unprecedented extremes kissing Jewish asses in the hope of securing their support the next time he runs for offices.

What Lingamfelter did is tell the story of military encounters between the Arabs and the Jews since 1948, having read not a single paragraph on the subject in a history book, and obviously not being old enough to remember many of the events he talks about. Instead, his writing betrays his reliance on information he must have picked up in the gossip basement of some crack-house built in a place where no one knows your name or cares what it is.

Lee Lingamfelter wrote about all the encounters that took place between the Arabs and the Israelis in the same ignorant manner and tone. And so, it suffices to discuss one encounter, aware of the fact that the ignorance displayed here, is displayed everywhere else. The encounter we choose to discuss is the Egyptian front where action began in 1956, went quiet for 11 years, and blew up again in 1967 to remain active till 1973. Here is what Lingamfelter would have you believe has happened:

“In 1956, it was Israel's turn to blunder into a war with instigators Britain and France, both angry at Egypt's nationalization of the Suez Canal. Nasser hated the British presence in Egypt as well as Israeli statehood. While the Arabs were regarded as the victim, their military response was a disaster. In 1967, they attempted to set that record straight. They lost. In the 1973 war, the Arab surprise attack on Israel turned into a rout with the IDF surrounding the Egyptian 3rd Army”.

There it is. In a true crackhead fashion, Lee Lingamfelter has tried to show that if Israel blundered once, the blunder was due to someone else––France and Britain to be exact. But even if the 1956 encounter was an Israeli blunder shared by two colonial powers, do not forget, says the writer, that it happened because Egypt's President hated the presence of the British in Egypt as well as Israel's statehood. This is in keeping with the Jewish teaching that everything boils down to who loves whom, and who hates whom.

And then, to show that when it comes to kissing Jewish asses, a hungry for power treasonous ex-colonel would stand with Israel and dump America in a heartbeat, Lingamfelter did it by painting a glowing image of Israel, and choosing to ignore the role that President Eisenhower played when he ordered the French and Brits, whom he saved from Nazi destruction, to get their armies out of Egypt or else.

The purpose of that incursion into Egypt's Sinai being to teach Israel how to do it again on its own –– thus get in the way of an Egyptian economic development that was moving at a rapid pace –– Israel prepared for the offensive during 11 years of training and of storing arms and munitions acquired from Britain and France. When ready, Israel attacked Egypt at a time when the country was busy implementing a massive development program based on the electricity that was now generated by the hydroelectric station at Aswan.

That attack started the 6-year War of Attrition during which time the Egyptians went behind enemy lines on a daily basis and degraded the Israeli ability to supply the Bar Lev line along the Suez Canal, or defend it when the Egyptians will decide to cross the Canal and liberate the Sinai.

That day came in October of 1973. However, months before then, Anwar Sadat that had replaced Nasser as President of Egypt, warned the Americans that if Israel does not vacate the Sinai, Egypt will launch an all-out war. The Americans relayed the message to the Israelis who laughed it off, believing that they were invincible. To convince them that he is serious, Sadat staged a crossing of the Nile using actual military hardware. He did it in front of the Nile Hilton Hotel where American diplomats and journalists were staying. Still, the Israelis did not budge. And so, the Egyptians launched the promised all-out counterattack.

So then, how does Lingamfelter present these events? Well, he says nothing about the surprise nature of Israel's 1967 attack, but falsely characterizes the 1973 Egyptian counterattack as an Arab surprise attack on Israel. He puts out these humongous lies despite the numerous warnings that were given the Israelis to vacate the Sinai or face an all-out war.

And so, my friend, if you want to characterize what that is, call it the work of an ass-kissing former colonel and hungry for power, treasonous crack-headed male prostitute. It is what he will do to an American audience looking to him for accurate information but getting venomous Jewish propaganda instead.

Don't believe a word he says.

The Jewish Art of turning Friends into Foes

Clifford D. May is lamenting: “America's key European Allies side with Tehran, Moscow and Beijing,” which is the title of his latest column actually. It was published on August 18, 2020 in The Washington Times.

The amazing thing about this column is that the author is proceeding under the self-delusional impression that he is doing a good job explaining to his readers why it is unfair for the Europeans to part company with America at this time, when in reality he is doing a good job explaining to his readers why it is perfectly logical for the Europeans to part company with America at this time.

The problem that's diminishing Clifford May's ability to reason logically, is that the twisted Jewish culture in which he was raised, continues to influence his thinking to a high degree despite the many years during which he was exposed to different cultures and different modes of thinking. Regrettably, he fails to see what the world –– including America's allies –– sees, which is that America and not Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism. It is so by virtues of being Israel's funder and provider of weapons at a time when Israel is known to be the only terrorist entity in the world today.

Had the American people not been swamped by tsunami waves of Jewish propaganda for more than half a century, they would have rejected what their politicians are doing, shredding every American principle as they do, to serve Israel's interests while antagonizing the world, including America's allies. But the good news is that after half a century of silence, the American people are beginning to make their views knows. They are speaking up to the effect that the lowlife politicians must sacrifice no more of their country for any reason, especially not for the treasonous expectation that the Jews can or will help them get reelected.

And so, while the American people are endeavoring to pull their country away from the Jewish orbit, and get it closer to where the rest of the world stands, the Jews who pretend to be Americans while being loyal to Israel and only Israel, continue to try steering America away from the rest of the world. Their aim is to get America back into the Jewish orbit so that it will remain beholden to serving Israel's interests as it had been doing for half a century.

This time, Clifford May is not saying anything about the shift in attitude among the American people who decided to side with the world rather than the Jews. But he is saying something about America's closest allies who stood with the world by abstaining to vote on an anti-Iran resolution that was introduced in the Security Council of the UN by America. This is what Clifford May has said about the allies:

“The leaders of Britain and France along with Germany, Belgium and Estonia abstained … as I fear, because they have adopted a policy of accommodation and appeasement vis-a-vis threatening regimes. Keep in mind that Iran's rulers and Hezbollah, have been responsible for multiple acts of terrorism on European soil”.

What does that say to you, my friend? Does it not blow every paradigm under which the Jews have been telling America to operate? They were saying that maximum pressure on Iran was going to make that country capitulate. Instead, Clifford May is now saying that the West, including the American public, have capitulated in the face of Iran's ability to inflict pain on those that harm its interests.

And what is there to say about the progressive American people breaking away with their politicians on the subject of slavish allegiance to the Jews and to Israel? Is Clifford May accusing these people of cowering in the face of terrorism the way that he accuses the Europeans?

Whether there is truth in Clifford May's new muddled ideas or there isn't, such ideas lead to the paradox of the man simultaneously asserting two opposite situations. (1) The policy of maximum pressure on Iran, which he and his colleagues have advocated for years, turned out to be a dismal failure according to him. (2) America must continue that same policy and expect a different result.

Some people may see insanity in that kind of attitude, and dismiss the whole thing as just another worthless Jewish exercise. But other people, especially those in Europe, assign a high value to this kind of talk when it comes out of America. That's because time after time, the Europeans saw that a media campaign highlighting Jewish desires for something, often translated into “kinetic” action inflicted by the American military on someone, somewhere in the world.

They know how much misery can result from such action, and how much it will take to heal the wounds and get things back to normal. This is why the Europeans are breaking away from the Americans on this occasion, and perhaps forever. It is why Jews such as Clifford May, who are adept at turning friends into foes and never the other way around, are perplexed.

Diversified exceptionalism is their target now

When you study the American culture by the method of canvassing and analyzing what the Americans themselves say about it, you find that whichever way each individual comes at it, be that a salient thinker or a prosaic philosopher or one that’s in-between, they all attribute what they call the exceptional strength and beauty of America, to its diversified culture.

But while diversity is a powerful stream running through the American culture, the quest for equal opportunity is another stream running through the culture, and the two streams often clash. In fact, when lawsuits pertaining to equal rights flooded the US Supreme Court in the decades of the 1970s and 1980s, an exasperated Justice made clear that the High Court cannot and will not right every wrong.

This meant that to maintain the exceptional American character of wishing to remain diversified, you must tolerate a certain amount of inequality. That's because if you reject the proposition, and you doggedly pursue absolute equality, you'd have to force everyone to fit one and the same mold. This would ultimately create the so-called perfect human being as envisaged by the Hitlers, Mussolinis and Stalins of this world.

However, to allow a certain amount of inequality does not mean that one group will consistently have it their way while another group will consistently have the request to upgrade their right, denied no matter how narrow and modest the request may be. In short, an ideal situation must allow everyone to be different while enjoying a modest amount of privilege no one else has, as long as the others are equally allowed to be different while enjoying privilege that no one else has. So, you ask: who would want it any other way?

As it happens, there is an answer to that question. You'll find it in an article that came under the title: “Disquiet about favoring Islam in Philadelphia Airport's 'Quiet Room,'” and the subtitle: “Taxpayer money should not be used to favor one religion over others in government facilities such as PHL.” It was written by Daniel Pipes and published on August 17, 2020 in The Washington Times.

This is the work of self-appointed, taxpayer-assisted and highly remunerated bunch of Jews who––by personal fiat––used to sniff around looking for Arab and Muslim mischief-makers to report to the authorities. Unfortunately for them, they found no Arab or Muslim mischief-maker, so they ended up making asses of themselves and the authorities that listened to them and pursued their fake leads. It is that those authorities wasted valuable time they could have used to go after the street gangs plaguing American cities; and they wasted tons of money going after Arabs and Muslims who turned out to be innocent citizens, living lives well above the slightest hint of suspicion.

Having lost that game, Daniel Pipes and he outfit he calls Middle East Forum, joined the effort of the dozens of similarly taxpayer-funded Jewish outfits of uselessness, and went snooping in the areas where the principle of equal opportunity deprives the Jews from receiving the superior treatment they crave, and the areas where the need for diversity has allowed the Arabs and Muslims to have privileges where no one else cares about or seeks to acquire privileges.

And so, whenever the army of charity-funded Jewish bums finds something that irks its members in a place like Philadelphia's Airport, they threaten to sue and/or launch a campaign of bad publicity if their demands are not met. This prompts the institutions to make the petty changes asked for by the Jews to avoid spending millions of dollars and precious time defending themselves against frivolous lawsuits.

Read the Daniel Pipes article, and see for yourself how much taxpayer money his army of good-for-nothings must have spent living the high life during the nine months that he says took the bums to blackmail the airport into making the changes that favor the Jews and disfavor the Muslims. These being changes that will affect no one in any serious way; the reason why no one cares about as much as a dog's poop. What a massive waste of time and money for nothing!

Aside from that waste, there is the matter of these activities eroding America's diversified exceptionalism by forcing everyone to think and act the same way. You can see how the Jews have succeeded to make members of both parties in Congress and State Legislatures think about and vote the same way when it comes to Israeli and Jewish matters. They also made the White House and State Governor houses think the same way. And they made the right-wing and left-wing press think the same way about Israel and all Jewish matters. In addition, the Jews are now working on making every institution in America think and act uniformly as if all of them were robots produced in the same factory according to one and the same blueprint.

In fact, what Hitler could not achieve in Nazi Germany, what Mussolini could not achieve in Fascist Italy, and what Stalin could not achieve in Communist Soviet Union, the Jews are slowly but surely achieving in so-called Democratic America.

They are making the institutions of government at all levels, as well as their workers think in accordance with the dictates of the Jewish Central Command, supervised by the Jewish lobby in America, and enforced by the mob of Jewish pundits, one of which being the Daniel Pipes gang.

They are eroding America's sense of exceptionalism for small gains, and because it makes them feel influential. And no one is even trying to stop them.

What's beyond the ordinary is extraordinary

Richard Haass wrote an article that is perfect in every sense of the word –– the ordinary sense, that is. It’s that the article lacks the most crucial ingredient that's necessary to bring about the condition it professes to advocate. This would have been the extraordinary part if it were there.

The article comes under the title: “To the Brink With China,” and the subtitle: “A Sino-American cold war, or even an actual one, is not inevitable, but either is more likely now than just months ago.” The article was published on August 13, 2020 on the website of the Council on Foreign Relations.

When you read the article, you'll find it to be a model of common sense. You will not encounter a single idea that's incomplete or out of order. But deep down––based on your experience and years of observations––you'll feel that what's in the article cannot alone lead to a peaceful resolution of the differences that currently separate the United States of America and China.

What's this about? Is there a physical parallel that can help us see this point more clearly? Yes, there is. It's about the way that nature is allowing us to see things.

For example, we can stand outside on a clear night, look into the heavens and see stars that are trillions of miles away. Even during the day, we can look up and see our own star which is 93 million miles away. But if we stand in the middle of the desert or the ocean where no obstacle impedes our line of sight, we can see only up to the horizon that's 8 miles away. This is due to the curvature of the Earth. If we want to see farther away, we can get into a helicopter and the higher up we go, the farther away we'll see.

In a similar fashion, Richard Haass sees with absolute clarity, the things that stand within his line of sight. He described them exactly right, and analyzed what they stand for in a way that makes perfect sense. What is missing in his article, however, are the things which stand beyond the horizon, and have the potential in the future to affect what he sees today.

In real life, you can describe what you see, and you'll have a snapshot of the situation as it stands now. But if you're going to give advice on how to handle a situation, the snapshot alone will not suffice because history begins now and proceeds like a movie. Of course, no one knows what the future holds, thus you cannot make accurate predictions. But what you can do is explain what vehicles you see over the horizon that might be involved in creating future events, and what kind of fuel is powering them.

For this, you must develop a kind of over-the-horizon radar that will help you see what's beyond the line of sight –– not out into the heavens –– but down here on Earth past the horizon. Well then, what is there to see beyond the horizon that might, in the future, affect the relationship between the United States and China? The answer to this question is contained in 4 words which are etched into the Chinese consciousness, and will be difficult to erase because they describe: A century of humiliation.

To get a sense of what role the historical memory of the colonial era now plays, and will continue to play in China's relationship with America and the Europeans, think of a moment in time when you innocently uttered a word which to you, was nothing more than a linguistic unit that’s defined by the dictionary. But as it turned out, it was a word that was loaded with a ton of meanings, and bearing painful memories to a Black or Jewish or Native audience.

In a similar fashion, the inadvertent use of words can cause a temporary hiccup in the relationship between nations, but once the words are explained, the matter is forgiven and forgotten. What will not be forgiven or forgotten, however, is the attitude that a high American official might display, and remind the Chinese of the humiliation they suffered for a century at the hands of the colonial powers.

And this is the aspect, which you'll realize, Richard Haass has neglected to treat in his article. It simply was not in his line of sight, and he did not bother activating his internal over-the-horizon radar to see it. Without this step, however, some of the things he suggested in the article might send the wrong signal about American attitude toward the Chinese nation and Chinese people. Here are five areas you’ll find in Haass’s article where American attitude can touch a raw nerve among Chinese officials:

“The inhumane treatment of its Muslim Uighur minority.”

“China's consistent theft of American intellectual property.”

“Mounting repression at home.”

“Hopes that integration would bring about a rules-abiding China.”

“Focus on shaping China's external behavior.”

When talking about a “Western” or former colonial master, the Americans would not use expressions like “inhumane treatment,” or “consistent theft,” or “repression at home,” or “rules-abiding so and so” or “shaping the behavior of so and so.” They do it talking about the Chinese as Richard Haass just did.

Consciously or unconsciously, the Americans use such expressions to denigrate someone, and the Chinese know it. Worse, it reminds them of the century of humiliation they went through, a reality that will cause them to turn indignant and respond accordingly.

The way to avoid such outcomes is to begin with pundits like Richard Haass, and impress upon them the necessity to respect the peoples they once thought were inferior.

Haass and all those who write about foreign affairs must help expunge the American culture of all such prejudices. Only then will America have a healthy relationship with the rest of the world.