Suppose we discover a new species on this planet or any other planet where the young are begotten and raised to accomplish a specific task; one that is designed for each individual at birth. As long as the individual follows the course for which it was designed, it is allowed to go on living and to function normally. But if the individual deviates from its course, it is cloned and made to disappear. The clone is then made to pick up the task from the point at which its predecessor left it. This would be a weird planet; don't you think? Well, we have something like it right here on Planet Earth. The thing is that the species is not a biological one; it is a philosophy of life you will find to be weird.
If you want to see how that works, you will need to look at the Bret Stephens column that was published in the Wall Street Journal on March 21, 2012. It is titled: “The Bogus Iran Intelligence Debate” and subtitled: “Ignore the media leaks. Tehran's nuke program is hiding in plain sight.” At first, you may get the feeling that this is a “Road to Damascus” sort of conversion but after devoting a little more thought to the subject, you will find that the reality is a lot more profound than that.
To set you on the road to thinking that he converted from an old position to a new one as a result of a chance encounter he had with an expert on building nuclear bombs, Stephens says the following right at the start of his article: “To better understand the debate … it helps to talk to someone who has built a nuclear bomb.” He goes on to describe that encounter and what sounds like the factors that may have contributed to his conversion. And by the time you reach the middle of the article, he hits you with this: “In other words, having a debate about the quality of our Iran intelligence is mostly an irrelevance”. And you shout it to yourself: History is dead, long live history.
But was this a conversion or was it a species of philosophy that has been with us for as long as there was a Jewish cause to fight for, and Jews like Bret Stephens to fight for it? In fact, one of the most avid participants in the debate he now calls irrelevant has been none other than the man himself, the very man that has just killed the thing. So you wonder why he did it, and his answer pops at you: “The serious question … isn't whether Iran will … It's whether Iran should be allowed...” But this is exactly what the old debate was about, for heaven's sake! Yes, he says. In fact he corroborates your observation with this: “That is the essence of the debate the Obama administration is now having...”
It is natural that when you see someone kill his own baby, you want to go back in memory to a moment when someone that looked like he enjoyed a normal state of mind suddenly flipped to a state that made him commit what amounts to a moral infanticide. Apparently that fateful moment came about when Stephens asked the bomb building expert how hard it would be to build a nuclear bomb, and the man responded that anyone can build it. This brought to the mind of Stephens the old reports that were put out by the various US intelligence agencies and by Israel's own Mossad to the effect that Iran had not decided to pursue a weapon. And then it happened that one of the most important founding fathers of the old history flipped and decided to kill his own progeny. And so he planted the following dagger in its heart: “All this sounds like it matters a whole lot. It doesn't.”
Now that the narrative of the old history is very dead and safely buried deep underground, Stephens begins to nurture the new narrative that will replace it. He does it by creating an analogy. It is the story of a drinker that is holding a bottle of whiskey in one hand and a glass full of ice in the other. What is important, says the columnist, is not that we try to guess whether he will pour himself a drink; it is to deprive him of the opportunity to do so in the first place. And this is where you shout it to yourself: The new narrative is an exact clone of the old narrative. Long live the baby narrative – at least till such time that the founding father decides to replace it with Clone the Third.
Now that he has a new baby which is an exact replica of the old baby, he goes on a badmouthing rant to destroy the old and to make a new crucible inside of which the new baby will sit, play and grow in comfort. And this is how the author of the article begins the charge against the old: “That's what was so misleading about the 2007 NIE, which relegated to a footnote the observation that...” And this is how he places the new baby in its crucible: “To have sufficient quantities of enriched uranium is … the whiskey of a nuclear-weapons program. By contrast, 'weaponization' … is merely the glass.”
Now that the baby is safe and living in comfort, it needs to be nurtured. The most important part of nurturing a baby being to feed it, Stephens does that, showing all the care of a good parent. But guess what he feeds it? You won't believe this; he feeds it the same old stuff he rejected earlier. Here it is: “And thanks … to the regular reports of the international Atomic Energy Agency, the world doesn't need to rely on spies or shady sources to figure out just how much uranium the Iranians have enriched.” Same old, same old. And this is when he comes up with the sentence you see in the subtitle of the article.
And now that he is back to square one, standing side by side with a baby that has grown muscular enough to step into the arena and do battle with him, Bret Stephens takes on the President of the United States. He throws the first punch: “The president has stated flatly that he won't allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Good. But Israelis worry...” and he rehashes the same old argument. He continues the fight by attacking the President's Administration not only because of the policy it has adopted -- one that he regards as being inferior to the policy of Israel -- but also for the way that the Administration is fighting this battle. He complains that it is done by leaks to the media.
But he throws his strongest attack yet against the intelligence community which he accuses of having ideological axes to grind when it is supposed to be neutral, and supposed to provide only “disinterested analysis” for people like himself and the Israelis who will then tell the American Administration what to do to help them grind their own ideological axes. Nothing can be more Jewish than this, of course, unless it is more of the same. It is that he has advice to give, as well as insults to hurl at America's spooks. He tells them that they should be seen and not heard from because they are like English children.
And now that he flattened the whole landscape, and there is nothing left against which to lien and make the big decisions involving war and peace -- where the weapons of mass destruction could possible be used -- he says that there is one sure-fire test by which to make such a decision. It is also the one thing that is so simple, even a spook can grasp, he adds. Here it is folks: “...consider that a regime that can take a rock in its right hand to stone a woman to death should not have a nuclear bomb within reach of its left.”
If you wonder who that may be, you only need to search the religious books to see who allows the stoning of women and who does not. You will find that the Jewish bible is full of stories about stoning women that commit adultery, and that nowhere else is such a crime mentioned, let alone accepted.
If a primitive tribe somewhere in the world that may have been “educated” by Jews is still practicing this crime, it should be uneducated and reeducated to do things differently. In the meantime, the religious fanatics in Israel are multiplying, and they are forcing a return to the ancient abhorrent practices. They may well revive the practice of stoning women.
For this reason, like says Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal, we should keep an eye on Israel and not on Iran.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
From Eco-Terrorists To Rights Advocates
A totally useless piece of intellectual rubbish was drafted under the title: “Don't Return to Business as Usual: Link Foreign Aid to Democratic Progress in Egypt” and published in the Huffington Post on March 18, 2012. It was written by Neil Hicks who is associated with an outfit that calls itself Human Rights First. And so we ask: What the hell is this all about? To answer the question, we need to go way back to the beginning.
There was a time when kids used to join in droves organizations that pretended to protect the environment. They were mostly lazy and little educated kids with no apparent talent who nevertheless wanted for themselves the fame if not the fortune of Rock stars. Pretending to do something for a good cause such as help the environment gave them a roof over the heads if only a temporary one, gave them a ship on which to sail away if to an occasionally dangerous destination, and gave them a sandwich to eat every once in a while. But they felt they belonged to a group at long last, they were more respected than their panhandling days and they could look forward to a tomorrow that may be better than today. Their motives may have been dark, as you can see, but their movement was new and this caused only a handful of people to ask the right questions about them. And so they were tolerated by society.
These, however, were not the original people who started the movement to protect the environment; they were what you might call the second wave. In fact, the motive of the people who started the first wave had been an even darker one. It all started in the decade of the Sixties in the Twentieth Century when the GDP of Japan – a loser in the Great War -- was seen to surpass that of Great Britain, a winner in that same war. Some people in Britain who could not imagine their country being less wealthy than Japan became upset, and they searched for the reason why Japan was succeeding so nicely. Instead of attributing the Japanese success to the discipline, the determination and the hard work of the Japanese people, they attributed the success to the fact that Japan was getting “free food” from the seas. Amazingly, what the Brits thought they had discovered was that the Japanese were becoming rich because they hunted whales for food.
This discovery told the British group that they had found a way by which to suppress the Japanese economy and thus give Britain a chance to rise again to a position superior to that of Japan. To get there, the group started a movement you may call the “love a whale and hate a yellow belly” movement. Under its rules, members of the group and their followers attacked the ways of Japan and the Japanese people every which way they could. They concentrated on the world leaders whom they incited to do something never done before. They asked that the world institutions -- having any level of jurisdiction over the matter -- be activated and made to look into the Japanese practice of hunting whales. The aim was to find a way to curtail the practice if not stop it completely.
The Brits had a few successes in that the Japanese were called upon to attend world forums to explain and to account for their practice. But this effort resulted in very little being done to curb the Japanese fishing activities despite the fact that the number of forums multiplied, and the sittings became longer in duration. Frustrated, the Brits started to confront the Japanese who came to attend the forums. They threw blood and shouted obscenities at them as they walked from the car to the meeting halls. After a while, this sort of tactics became objectionable in the eyes of the public, a development that caused the Brits to rethink their approach.
They decided to do things differently intending to escalate their confrontation with the Japanese. What they did was ask that people come forward and donate money. They received enough of that to buy ships which they sailed to meet the Japanese whalers on the high seas and confront them there -- sometimes violently. This made heroes out of them and motivated other young men and women to seek membership in the movement. This, in turn, created a second wave of activists who not only agitated on behalf of the whales but also worked to save every aspect of the natural environment. The green movement was born but had not yet been christened with this name.
Different people with different outlooks on life then came along and began to create organizations that advocated other causes; and young activists rushed to join them left and right. Chief among the new causes was that of human rights but it was not the only one as the landscape was filling with organizations bearing all sorts of stripes – social, political, religious and the like. The thing is that all these organizations competed for attention and for donations. Eventually, they all discovered that to obtain what they wanted, they had to get media coverage -- and to get that, they had to do extreme things publicly.
Meanwhile, the people who purported to defend the environment were beginning to lose their financial backers, and so they resorted to the practice of ecological terrorism (ecoterrorism) by which they set out to hurt the people whom they said were damaging the environment such as the logging companies, for example. As to the people who purported to defend human rights, they were sought after by interests that offered to back them financially but with conditions and with strings attached.
What is important to understand here is that the authentic and legitimate cause of human rights began in the United States of America by people of African descent whose ancestors were brought into the country as slaves and were themselves still segregated and still discriminated against. The reality is that the cause of these people was a natural one, preceding that of the other groups by several decades and having almost nothing in common with them. Another distinction to be made here is that the struggle of the African-Americans was different from the struggle of the people in other continents because those in America were not out to liberate their country; they were out to become full citizens of it.
The struggle of these people was different from that in South Africa, Rhodesia and Palestine because the White oppressors in America were alien to the land as much as the Blacks themselves were alien to it. Also, whereas in Africa and the Middle East, the oppressors were invaders that came to colonize the land of an indigenous people, the indigenous of America whose skin color was closer to red than White or Black, were all but forgotten while the newcomers fought to forge a working accommodation by which to insure the installation of a system of equality under which everyone was to receive a share of the pie.
All the while, a few other things were beginning to change in America. For example, the fact that the slaves and their descendents were exploited because they were different, gave new ideas to some people. They thought of ways to highlight their own differences thus claim they were discriminated against and deserving of a special accommodation with the rest of society. This is how the causes of human rights (civil rights in America) proliferated to the point that the Supreme Court threw its hands up in the air and asked the people to stop asking it to find new rights on which to adjudicate. But there were some beneficiaries, and the biggest of these were the women who had been fighting for their “liberation”. More than anyone else, they managed to ride the momentum generated by the African-Americans, and they reached their goal long before the Blacks had been liberated from segregation and from discrimination.
Exploitation is so American there would be no America without it. From the moment that the newcomers to the Continent began to exploit what used to belong to the natives, waves of newcomers came to exploit – in their own little way -- the existing setup, or be exploited by it. One particular wave that came to America after the Second World War of the Twentieth Century were the Jewish immigrants whose penchant for exploitation germinated and bloomed in the New World faster than it did anywhere else during the centuries that the Jews roamed the Planet in search of people and situations to exploit.
What is different about the Jews is that their technique consists of studying the psychological soil of the culture with which they came to interact before they threw onto it the seeds of their exploits. What they found in America was extreme toleration for exploitation but only as long as it was done within the rules, however poked with loopholes those rules may be. The Jews also found that the American desire for exploitation had a hidden side. It is that the Americans are so terrified of foreign competition, they view as a potentially dangerous juggernaut anyone that does not come under their legal jurisdiction. In their mind's eye, they will either win the fight or lose to the foreigner, will lap him for breakfast or become his lunch, kill the competition or be killed by it. Thus, live and let live is talked about in America but almost never practiced.
To eliminate this threat, the American would want to remake the world in his image. He will want to extend American law to a foreign land where it will be feasible and when possible to protect himself from unfair competition – or so he will claim. But the truth is that the American will never tolerate someone running away with an idea lest the idea grow into something so big, he will never catch up with it or respond to it effectively. In fact, one telling moment came when the Soviets launched their Sputnik into space, and a number of Americans questioned the right of these people to invade what they saw as being private American property. They later satisfied themselves by calling the moon American cheese.
And this was the psychological landscape in which the Jews planted their seeds of exploitation. They became the lawyers who infiltrated both the Congress and such outfits as Human Rights First. They made the laws in the Congress to serve their numerous causes, and they used the human rights outfits to force the executives in the Administration to implement those laws. This is how and why you see Neil Hicks begin his article like this: “The [Obama] administration must decide, pursuant to the 2012 appropriations law, whether … military and other foreign assistance can be paid over to the Egyptian government.”
To America and its people, to Egypt and its people and to all of humanity, the rest of the article is not worth a dog's poop. Look at this passage, for example: “Now is not the time for giving Egypt's current rulers … the U.S. government's seal of approval. That is exactly how the release of U.S. aid would be seen by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces...” No, no -- what is exactly false is the pretense that Hicks and company of idiots know something that no one else knows. They have no idea how the Council in Egypt will view America's gesture, period. Moreover, no one needs a bunch of lawyers who could not earn a living practicing their profession honestly, taking up the cause of someone that never hired them while being paid by a piper with a tune to orchestrate them and a string to gesticulate them.
Look at this other passage: “The U.S. government should not delude itself that it can protect its strategic interests...” In fact, the reference to self-delusion was started by John Bolton, the notorious operator who has been getting 50 million dollars a year (almost a billion since the start) -- extorted from the American taxpayers to run a place he calls the Holocaust Memorial. He practically lives there, a place of horror powerful enough to turn anyone into a self deluding and dangerous mental case. Bolton dropped the expression about self-delusion, and as always, dogs of the same taste gathered to lick from it. They were all afflicted by the same diarrhea, and they went crapping it everywhere, be it on the airwaves, the electronic media or the printed material.
Another theme you see repeated by these same running dogs (to revive a saying from the days of the Cold War) is that they now advocate a strategy not of “swagger, kick an ass and display your stiff erection” but of pursuing the gentle approach of the pussycat. Thus, they recommend that by adopting: “A phased roll-out of the annual aid package … the U.S. government could have the flexibility it needs to respond to the challenges...” Indeed, you now see them recommend this same gentle approach when it comes to dealing with the Chinese who have cultivated a powerful influence in Sudan, Syria and North Korea where America used to gently persuade but is now seen as no more worthy than the fart of a Jewish dog.
There was a time when kids used to join in droves organizations that pretended to protect the environment. They were mostly lazy and little educated kids with no apparent talent who nevertheless wanted for themselves the fame if not the fortune of Rock stars. Pretending to do something for a good cause such as help the environment gave them a roof over the heads if only a temporary one, gave them a ship on which to sail away if to an occasionally dangerous destination, and gave them a sandwich to eat every once in a while. But they felt they belonged to a group at long last, they were more respected than their panhandling days and they could look forward to a tomorrow that may be better than today. Their motives may have been dark, as you can see, but their movement was new and this caused only a handful of people to ask the right questions about them. And so they were tolerated by society.
These, however, were not the original people who started the movement to protect the environment; they were what you might call the second wave. In fact, the motive of the people who started the first wave had been an even darker one. It all started in the decade of the Sixties in the Twentieth Century when the GDP of Japan – a loser in the Great War -- was seen to surpass that of Great Britain, a winner in that same war. Some people in Britain who could not imagine their country being less wealthy than Japan became upset, and they searched for the reason why Japan was succeeding so nicely. Instead of attributing the Japanese success to the discipline, the determination and the hard work of the Japanese people, they attributed the success to the fact that Japan was getting “free food” from the seas. Amazingly, what the Brits thought they had discovered was that the Japanese were becoming rich because they hunted whales for food.
This discovery told the British group that they had found a way by which to suppress the Japanese economy and thus give Britain a chance to rise again to a position superior to that of Japan. To get there, the group started a movement you may call the “love a whale and hate a yellow belly” movement. Under its rules, members of the group and their followers attacked the ways of Japan and the Japanese people every which way they could. They concentrated on the world leaders whom they incited to do something never done before. They asked that the world institutions -- having any level of jurisdiction over the matter -- be activated and made to look into the Japanese practice of hunting whales. The aim was to find a way to curtail the practice if not stop it completely.
The Brits had a few successes in that the Japanese were called upon to attend world forums to explain and to account for their practice. But this effort resulted in very little being done to curb the Japanese fishing activities despite the fact that the number of forums multiplied, and the sittings became longer in duration. Frustrated, the Brits started to confront the Japanese who came to attend the forums. They threw blood and shouted obscenities at them as they walked from the car to the meeting halls. After a while, this sort of tactics became objectionable in the eyes of the public, a development that caused the Brits to rethink their approach.
They decided to do things differently intending to escalate their confrontation with the Japanese. What they did was ask that people come forward and donate money. They received enough of that to buy ships which they sailed to meet the Japanese whalers on the high seas and confront them there -- sometimes violently. This made heroes out of them and motivated other young men and women to seek membership in the movement. This, in turn, created a second wave of activists who not only agitated on behalf of the whales but also worked to save every aspect of the natural environment. The green movement was born but had not yet been christened with this name.
Different people with different outlooks on life then came along and began to create organizations that advocated other causes; and young activists rushed to join them left and right. Chief among the new causes was that of human rights but it was not the only one as the landscape was filling with organizations bearing all sorts of stripes – social, political, religious and the like. The thing is that all these organizations competed for attention and for donations. Eventually, they all discovered that to obtain what they wanted, they had to get media coverage -- and to get that, they had to do extreme things publicly.
Meanwhile, the people who purported to defend the environment were beginning to lose their financial backers, and so they resorted to the practice of ecological terrorism (ecoterrorism) by which they set out to hurt the people whom they said were damaging the environment such as the logging companies, for example. As to the people who purported to defend human rights, they were sought after by interests that offered to back them financially but with conditions and with strings attached.
What is important to understand here is that the authentic and legitimate cause of human rights began in the United States of America by people of African descent whose ancestors were brought into the country as slaves and were themselves still segregated and still discriminated against. The reality is that the cause of these people was a natural one, preceding that of the other groups by several decades and having almost nothing in common with them. Another distinction to be made here is that the struggle of the African-Americans was different from the struggle of the people in other continents because those in America were not out to liberate their country; they were out to become full citizens of it.
The struggle of these people was different from that in South Africa, Rhodesia and Palestine because the White oppressors in America were alien to the land as much as the Blacks themselves were alien to it. Also, whereas in Africa and the Middle East, the oppressors were invaders that came to colonize the land of an indigenous people, the indigenous of America whose skin color was closer to red than White or Black, were all but forgotten while the newcomers fought to forge a working accommodation by which to insure the installation of a system of equality under which everyone was to receive a share of the pie.
All the while, a few other things were beginning to change in America. For example, the fact that the slaves and their descendents were exploited because they were different, gave new ideas to some people. They thought of ways to highlight their own differences thus claim they were discriminated against and deserving of a special accommodation with the rest of society. This is how the causes of human rights (civil rights in America) proliferated to the point that the Supreme Court threw its hands up in the air and asked the people to stop asking it to find new rights on which to adjudicate. But there were some beneficiaries, and the biggest of these were the women who had been fighting for their “liberation”. More than anyone else, they managed to ride the momentum generated by the African-Americans, and they reached their goal long before the Blacks had been liberated from segregation and from discrimination.
Exploitation is so American there would be no America without it. From the moment that the newcomers to the Continent began to exploit what used to belong to the natives, waves of newcomers came to exploit – in their own little way -- the existing setup, or be exploited by it. One particular wave that came to America after the Second World War of the Twentieth Century were the Jewish immigrants whose penchant for exploitation germinated and bloomed in the New World faster than it did anywhere else during the centuries that the Jews roamed the Planet in search of people and situations to exploit.
What is different about the Jews is that their technique consists of studying the psychological soil of the culture with which they came to interact before they threw onto it the seeds of their exploits. What they found in America was extreme toleration for exploitation but only as long as it was done within the rules, however poked with loopholes those rules may be. The Jews also found that the American desire for exploitation had a hidden side. It is that the Americans are so terrified of foreign competition, they view as a potentially dangerous juggernaut anyone that does not come under their legal jurisdiction. In their mind's eye, they will either win the fight or lose to the foreigner, will lap him for breakfast or become his lunch, kill the competition or be killed by it. Thus, live and let live is talked about in America but almost never practiced.
To eliminate this threat, the American would want to remake the world in his image. He will want to extend American law to a foreign land where it will be feasible and when possible to protect himself from unfair competition – or so he will claim. But the truth is that the American will never tolerate someone running away with an idea lest the idea grow into something so big, he will never catch up with it or respond to it effectively. In fact, one telling moment came when the Soviets launched their Sputnik into space, and a number of Americans questioned the right of these people to invade what they saw as being private American property. They later satisfied themselves by calling the moon American cheese.
And this was the psychological landscape in which the Jews planted their seeds of exploitation. They became the lawyers who infiltrated both the Congress and such outfits as Human Rights First. They made the laws in the Congress to serve their numerous causes, and they used the human rights outfits to force the executives in the Administration to implement those laws. This is how and why you see Neil Hicks begin his article like this: “The [Obama] administration must decide, pursuant to the 2012 appropriations law, whether … military and other foreign assistance can be paid over to the Egyptian government.”
To America and its people, to Egypt and its people and to all of humanity, the rest of the article is not worth a dog's poop. Look at this passage, for example: “Now is not the time for giving Egypt's current rulers … the U.S. government's seal of approval. That is exactly how the release of U.S. aid would be seen by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces...” No, no -- what is exactly false is the pretense that Hicks and company of idiots know something that no one else knows. They have no idea how the Council in Egypt will view America's gesture, period. Moreover, no one needs a bunch of lawyers who could not earn a living practicing their profession honestly, taking up the cause of someone that never hired them while being paid by a piper with a tune to orchestrate them and a string to gesticulate them.
Look at this other passage: “The U.S. government should not delude itself that it can protect its strategic interests...” In fact, the reference to self-delusion was started by John Bolton, the notorious operator who has been getting 50 million dollars a year (almost a billion since the start) -- extorted from the American taxpayers to run a place he calls the Holocaust Memorial. He practically lives there, a place of horror powerful enough to turn anyone into a self deluding and dangerous mental case. Bolton dropped the expression about self-delusion, and as always, dogs of the same taste gathered to lick from it. They were all afflicted by the same diarrhea, and they went crapping it everywhere, be it on the airwaves, the electronic media or the printed material.
Another theme you see repeated by these same running dogs (to revive a saying from the days of the Cold War) is that they now advocate a strategy not of “swagger, kick an ass and display your stiff erection” but of pursuing the gentle approach of the pussycat. Thus, they recommend that by adopting: “A phased roll-out of the annual aid package … the U.S. government could have the flexibility it needs to respond to the challenges...” Indeed, you now see them recommend this same gentle approach when it comes to dealing with the Chinese who have cultivated a powerful influence in Sudan, Syria and North Korea where America used to gently persuade but is now seen as no more worthy than the fart of a Jewish dog.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
From Seeds Of PC To Trees Of Incitement
He wrote this: “The camera did not answer, so I will.” This self-designated substitute for a camera is Clifford D. May who writes a column for the National Review Online. On March 15, 2012 he wrote a column under the title: “A Guide for the Perplexed Fareed Zakaria” to which I am not going to respond because what we have here is a debate that must be played out by the two antagonists, or end here if that is their choice. My interest, however, rests in the probing of the mentality that powers the contemporary Jew when he gets gripped by Zionist ideas. And because I have detected in the Clifford May article a facet of the mentality I never discussed before, I shall do so now.
What is shown in this article is how a demand for political correctness (PC) which starts small like a seed grows to become as big as a tree. In fact, the rabbis who decades ago used to whisper the supplication: “Please be aware of Jewish sensitivities” have managed to give to their successors a megaphone with which to blare the command: “bomb, bomb and bomb again, after that go ahead and bomb some more.” It was possible for the rabbis and their secular successors to accomplish all this because if you made a remark that was no worse than hint that the Jews were getting more than their fair share, you would be labeled an anti-Semite that is out to incite people against the Jews. And you would be accused of engineering a holocaust aiming to kill millions of Jews the way that Hitler incited the Nazis to do just that.
Because no one who wanted to respond to this sort of nonsense was allowed to, the Jewish approach of taking something as small as a seed and grow it into something as big as a tree became the vehicle by which the bellyaching crowd was able to portray any criticism of Israel as a call to annihilate the Jewish entity, and by extension annihilate the “Jewish people.” This trick then mutated to cover the international stage because the bellyachers latched on to every word that was uttered by a foreigner, and they said that it meant to advocate the annihilation of Israel and all the Jews. And this, in turn, is what started the practice of embroiling America in endless foreign wars.
Clifford May is a member of the crowd that never stops bellyaching. He quotes foreigners and howls the pain in his belly. He does it in his articles and, to give an example of what he means, he quotes the Iranian president. This is what he says the Iranian president has said: “We are in the process of an historical war between the World of Arrogance and the Islamic world...” There is a good reason at this point to ask: Where did that come from? There is a reason because the Muslim world -- which includes the Arabs, the Persians and dozens of other races – have complained about the notion that a “clash of civilizations” was said to exist between the Muslim world and the so-called Judeo-Christian world. And who was it that said such a thing? It was the Jews who had the temerity to call themselves historians.
It was, therefore, inevitable that the Iranian president should respond by characterizing his opponents as being the World of Arrogance. Nothing can be more rational, more civilized and more tame than this. And so, when Clifford May and his bellyaching crowd howl about that response, our response to them should be to display contempt and no less. But May does not stop here. He continues his quoting of the Iranian president with this: “...Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism? You had best know this goal attainable, and surely can be achieved.” This is no different from Khrushchev telling Nixon “we will bury you” when Nixon suggested there was a clash between capitalism and communism. Why then does the Jewish bellyaching crowd bellyache every time that someone responds to their challenge with a similar and equal challenge? Well, I have an answer for that. It is because they are who they are, and we allow them to bully us instead of saying to them: enough is enough; this far and no more.
To see why it is important to force these people to stop behaving the way they do, we only need to look at this passage: “One way to start would be for President Obama to speak directly to the Iranian people. He would say how much he regrets the suffering caused them by the economic sanctions implemented so far and still to come. He would make clear that the blame rests squarely on the shoulders of those who rule Iran...” What comes after that? you ask. This is what comes: “He would say without equivocation that he intends to do whatever is necessary to prevent Iran's rulers from resting their fingers on nuclear triggers.”
What the author is doing here is demonstrate, despite himself, that mission creep always starts like a seed of nice sounding words to then grow and become a tree of calamity. Look again at that passage and see how he asks President Obama to speak directly to the Iranian people knowing full well that no more than a handful of Iranians will listen to the speech, and none will give a hoot as to what is being said. And when this is all said and done, says Clifford May, the war on Iran should start because the Iranian rulers must be prevented from “resting their fingers on nuclear triggers.”
But how will we know that the Iranians have their fingers on the triggers? Oh well, he doesn't say how because if he did, the mission would not be that creepy, would it? You see, my friend, it is already known that while America says no bomb will be allowed, Israel says no capability to have the bomb should be allowed. Thus, the moment that the President will be finished saying what he is asked to say, the hordes of professional bellyachers will come out of hiding and howl in unison, as they always do, these immortal words: “You've gone this far already, Mr. President, it only makes sense that you go all the way to the end and launch the promised war.” It is mission creep after all; and it happens all the time. It happens over and over again, and America falls in the same trap each and every time. It is pathetic.
As an aside and just in case you wonder if someone named Clifford May can be a Jew through and through, look at this passage: “He [President] would add that he … looks forward to the day when sanctions can be lifted and Iranians can be helped to achieve peace and prosperity.” This is exactly what you see them do in Palestine. They have their boot on the necks of the unarmed people of Palestine, and when the world pressures them to lift it just a little, and the Palestinian economy starts to bloom as a result, the Jews rush to attribute the credit to themselves saying that they helped the Palestinians -- to which the world responds in unison: Shut up, you filthy dogs!
Clifford May is a Jew, alright, but this does not mean he is a Hebrew or a Semite. And so, he goes on to do something very Jewish in the contemporary sense of the word. That is to say, he goes on to make a mountain out of a molehill; to grow a good seed into a malevolent tree. Here is how he does it this time: “...he [President] would answer the question posed by the protesters on the streets of Teheran in 2009: 'Obama, are you with us or against us?' … Why would Obama not do this? And why, by the way, does that question not perplex Fareed Zakaria?”
Zakaria may or may not want to respond to that remark but I have something to say about the mentality that generates this kind of nonsense. I begin by citing the fact that a group of natives here in Canada have gone to the Iranian embassy in Ottawa and have asked for support – if only a moral one. There are also Jews who do not believe that Israel can be established before the advent of the Messiah, thus they view the existence of the state of Israel as an affront to the will of God even though they live in it. As to America, there are people in it who don't have the money to heat their homes, and so they asked for and they receive heating fuel oil courtesy of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez who did not take advantage of their plight to incite them to do anything illegal in their country.
The big point is that every country has its dissidents, which makes it so that every head of state who wants to mouth-fart the Netanyahu gas the way that the W used to do, has the opportunity to do it. But is this the world we want to live in?
Not me. Nothing is more sickening than watch grownups stand in safety miles away from a dangerous situation and encourage young people to keep fighting what in most instances are lost causes. These disgusting cheerleaders may look like grownups but they can only be incomplete men and women.
I hope President Obama never gets to be so diminished as to join them.
What is shown in this article is how a demand for political correctness (PC) which starts small like a seed grows to become as big as a tree. In fact, the rabbis who decades ago used to whisper the supplication: “Please be aware of Jewish sensitivities” have managed to give to their successors a megaphone with which to blare the command: “bomb, bomb and bomb again, after that go ahead and bomb some more.” It was possible for the rabbis and their secular successors to accomplish all this because if you made a remark that was no worse than hint that the Jews were getting more than their fair share, you would be labeled an anti-Semite that is out to incite people against the Jews. And you would be accused of engineering a holocaust aiming to kill millions of Jews the way that Hitler incited the Nazis to do just that.
Because no one who wanted to respond to this sort of nonsense was allowed to, the Jewish approach of taking something as small as a seed and grow it into something as big as a tree became the vehicle by which the bellyaching crowd was able to portray any criticism of Israel as a call to annihilate the Jewish entity, and by extension annihilate the “Jewish people.” This trick then mutated to cover the international stage because the bellyachers latched on to every word that was uttered by a foreigner, and they said that it meant to advocate the annihilation of Israel and all the Jews. And this, in turn, is what started the practice of embroiling America in endless foreign wars.
Clifford May is a member of the crowd that never stops bellyaching. He quotes foreigners and howls the pain in his belly. He does it in his articles and, to give an example of what he means, he quotes the Iranian president. This is what he says the Iranian president has said: “We are in the process of an historical war between the World of Arrogance and the Islamic world...” There is a good reason at this point to ask: Where did that come from? There is a reason because the Muslim world -- which includes the Arabs, the Persians and dozens of other races – have complained about the notion that a “clash of civilizations” was said to exist between the Muslim world and the so-called Judeo-Christian world. And who was it that said such a thing? It was the Jews who had the temerity to call themselves historians.
It was, therefore, inevitable that the Iranian president should respond by characterizing his opponents as being the World of Arrogance. Nothing can be more rational, more civilized and more tame than this. And so, when Clifford May and his bellyaching crowd howl about that response, our response to them should be to display contempt and no less. But May does not stop here. He continues his quoting of the Iranian president with this: “...Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism? You had best know this goal attainable, and surely can be achieved.” This is no different from Khrushchev telling Nixon “we will bury you” when Nixon suggested there was a clash between capitalism and communism. Why then does the Jewish bellyaching crowd bellyache every time that someone responds to their challenge with a similar and equal challenge? Well, I have an answer for that. It is because they are who they are, and we allow them to bully us instead of saying to them: enough is enough; this far and no more.
To see why it is important to force these people to stop behaving the way they do, we only need to look at this passage: “One way to start would be for President Obama to speak directly to the Iranian people. He would say how much he regrets the suffering caused them by the economic sanctions implemented so far and still to come. He would make clear that the blame rests squarely on the shoulders of those who rule Iran...” What comes after that? you ask. This is what comes: “He would say without equivocation that he intends to do whatever is necessary to prevent Iran's rulers from resting their fingers on nuclear triggers.”
What the author is doing here is demonstrate, despite himself, that mission creep always starts like a seed of nice sounding words to then grow and become a tree of calamity. Look again at that passage and see how he asks President Obama to speak directly to the Iranian people knowing full well that no more than a handful of Iranians will listen to the speech, and none will give a hoot as to what is being said. And when this is all said and done, says Clifford May, the war on Iran should start because the Iranian rulers must be prevented from “resting their fingers on nuclear triggers.”
But how will we know that the Iranians have their fingers on the triggers? Oh well, he doesn't say how because if he did, the mission would not be that creepy, would it? You see, my friend, it is already known that while America says no bomb will be allowed, Israel says no capability to have the bomb should be allowed. Thus, the moment that the President will be finished saying what he is asked to say, the hordes of professional bellyachers will come out of hiding and howl in unison, as they always do, these immortal words: “You've gone this far already, Mr. President, it only makes sense that you go all the way to the end and launch the promised war.” It is mission creep after all; and it happens all the time. It happens over and over again, and America falls in the same trap each and every time. It is pathetic.
As an aside and just in case you wonder if someone named Clifford May can be a Jew through and through, look at this passage: “He [President] would add that he … looks forward to the day when sanctions can be lifted and Iranians can be helped to achieve peace and prosperity.” This is exactly what you see them do in Palestine. They have their boot on the necks of the unarmed people of Palestine, and when the world pressures them to lift it just a little, and the Palestinian economy starts to bloom as a result, the Jews rush to attribute the credit to themselves saying that they helped the Palestinians -- to which the world responds in unison: Shut up, you filthy dogs!
Clifford May is a Jew, alright, but this does not mean he is a Hebrew or a Semite. And so, he goes on to do something very Jewish in the contemporary sense of the word. That is to say, he goes on to make a mountain out of a molehill; to grow a good seed into a malevolent tree. Here is how he does it this time: “...he [President] would answer the question posed by the protesters on the streets of Teheran in 2009: 'Obama, are you with us or against us?' … Why would Obama not do this? And why, by the way, does that question not perplex Fareed Zakaria?”
Zakaria may or may not want to respond to that remark but I have something to say about the mentality that generates this kind of nonsense. I begin by citing the fact that a group of natives here in Canada have gone to the Iranian embassy in Ottawa and have asked for support – if only a moral one. There are also Jews who do not believe that Israel can be established before the advent of the Messiah, thus they view the existence of the state of Israel as an affront to the will of God even though they live in it. As to America, there are people in it who don't have the money to heat their homes, and so they asked for and they receive heating fuel oil courtesy of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez who did not take advantage of their plight to incite them to do anything illegal in their country.
The big point is that every country has its dissidents, which makes it so that every head of state who wants to mouth-fart the Netanyahu gas the way that the W used to do, has the opportunity to do it. But is this the world we want to live in?
Not me. Nothing is more sickening than watch grownups stand in safety miles away from a dangerous situation and encourage young people to keep fighting what in most instances are lost causes. These disgusting cheerleaders may look like grownups but they can only be incomplete men and women.
I hope President Obama never gets to be so diminished as to join them.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Congressional And PBS Horror
A film was made about the Lord Resistance Army (LRA) in East Africa and went viral on the internet as the expression goes. This brought memories to me, some of which go back a few years and some a few decades. Because I did not write on this subject directly since I started the current website, the memories that came to the surface were spotty but they fit into a general pattern that indicated they were mostly related subjects. There were some oddities however. In fact, the memory of a few odd incidents came up as well, incidents that I could not see how they would fit into the pattern. Also, I could not at first understand why my sub-conscience (if there is such a thing) was insisting that a relationship existed between these odd incidents and the general pattern.
My dealings with sub-Saharan Africa began when, at the age of one and a half years, the great war was coming to an end, and my parents decided there were opportunities in Ethiopia they should pursue. Off they went, taking me and my brothers (my sisters were not born yet), and where my father met with success. I remember two things from my early childhood. One was probably the first moment that I felt anxiety, a moment of which I have a photograph to remind me of. It shows a child of maybe three years of age sitting on a horse. I don't remember a thing of that day except that I was left alone on the horse (for someone to take the picture) and the animal moved one step. I felt anxious and I still remember that feeling. Other than that, life in Ethiopia has been a very pleasant one during the years that we lived there. In fact, the other thing I remember is my mother telling anyone that asked, how the Ethiopian people were the most gentle and most helpful people she ever met. And this notion stayed with me as I was growing.
Eventually, we went back to Egypt in the mid-fifties after a stay of various durations in other places. It was then that I began to hear of strife, insurrection and tribal wars in Africa, something that did not make sense to me because I had grown with the idea that the Africans were not capable of violence. I was a teenager by then, an age at which other things preoccupied me, and so I paid little attention to world events and to the unfolding of history on the Continent. Seven years later we came to Canada. It took us a few years to get established after which I put myself through college working only part-time when I could afford it or full-time when I needed to replenish my bank account.
Things occur in college that you do not expect. One of those happened to me when I was taking a course in African films. What was shown to us were mostly newsreel footage about Africa, and documentaries that, in most part, depicted the ill-treatment of Blacks in South Africa. But there were a few exceptions, especially in West Africa where they made some excellent docudramas. In fact, a number of filmmakers from Senegal were invited to come to Canada and stay on campus during the week that their films were shown. Since I was living on campus, my professor asked me if I would accompany them and show them around when we were not in class or in the projection room. I said yes and took advantage of the situation by conducting interviews with them which I used to write several articles.
I also compared notes with them having lived a number of happy years as a child in East Africa. This is when I learned that my experience was so removed in time, in space and in circumstance from theirs, the two experiences had very little in common. Not only that, but one of the Senegalese had also lived in East Africa for a while, and he had horror stories to tell about White missionaries that went to the Continent for one reason only; to sexually abuse little Black boys and make pornographic films about them. The subject was so shocking to me and to them, we could not dwell on it long enough for me to gather enough details. All I could tell was that what happened to that man and to his friends was much worse than the footage and the documentaries I saw about South Africa.
A few years after that, I was out of college. Africa came up to my consciousness again when oil was discovered in Nigeria which is in West Africa, and a civil war erupted there. A province called Biafra became the focus of attention because unimaginable horror stories were coming out of there. Only then, did I understand the rage that was exhibited in some of the docudramas made by the filmmakers in neighboring Senegal. A few of the stories they told in their films dealt with the White man's exploitation of Blacks, and what was happening in Biafra looked like a replay of that scenario, situations akin to what those men had lived through in their own country.
I kept up with the developments in Africa since that time. Most of what I saw and heard was sad news but there was nothing I could do about it except refuse to associate myself with anything that would aggravate the situation for the people who live there. In fact, I received an offer at one time from a group to work on a project related to the Sudan, and I refused it on the spot despite the fact that I was desperate to have work in the field. What the group wanted to do was the exact opposite of what I knew was the truth. I knew that missionaries from England and from North America were buying and selling slaves in Sudan, and yet what the group was asking me to do was to work on a documentary that said the Arabs were the culprits. I suggested instead that we do a film about the Lord Resistance Army whose members were committing the sort of pornographic horror that the filmmaker from Senegal was saying happened in East Africa. And this suggestion of mine convinced the group that I should remain on the blacklist.
What I found disgusting over the years is the extent to which fanatic Jews and fanatic Christians from pedophile America got involved in the subject of Africa and took ownership of it. Their aim has been to kill the truth and to create an alternate reality to further their goals, especially after the discovery of oil in the Sudan. I could see Biafra playing itself out all over again. As it happened, the demons and their cohorts got hold of prominent people such as actors in their prime who seek accolades for something they can do outside their profession, and aging actors who will do anything to stay in the limelight for as long as they can while watching their star fade away with age. Those demons worked on the media and the US Congress to keep the Lord Resistance Army in business, keep the tribal wars going in Africa, maintain the exploitation of that Continent and get their share of the wealth and the sexual gratification they crave.
These were the memories that came to mind when the film about the LRA went viral on the internet. But then something happened, and what seemed to be unrelated subjects began to knock at my consciousness. There was a story I was told long ago but found too trivial to pursue at the time. It was the story of a televangelist that the Jewish organizations could not bring under their control the way that they did when they blackmailed the televangelists who had a skeleton in their closet. And so they played the trump card on this one. What they did was to get one of those low-life, stinking creature and dog-like, maximally disgusting and filthy prostitute in the United States Congress to threaten that he would trigger an investigation on the televangelist thus ruin him in the process if he did not relent and do as commanded by the Jewish organizations.
Eventually, the televangelist relented and did as he was told. It was to go to Israel, meet Netanyahu and praise him like a God while asserting at the same time that Israel belongs to the Jews and not the Palestinians. And yes, there is one more thing to reveal here; it is that the televangelist is of Palestinian origin. The whole episode was filmed by an ever present camera crew, and was shown in the synagogues and the basement of churches where the Christians who call themselves friends of Israel gather to learn of the many splendid ways by which to prostitute themselves and teach their children how to worship the Jew.
At first, I could not make out why this subject was retrieved from my memory. And then it clicked. It was the fact that when the film about the LRA was going viral, the Jewish organizations found it necessary to play their trump card again. And like before, they called on the low-life, stinking creatures and dog-like, maximally disgusting and filthy prostitutes in the United States Congress to trigger an investigation on the Sudan where the LRA did commit and still does the horrors I was told were being committed by pedophiles disguised as Christian missionaries.
The aim here is to create the noise that would dampen the effect of the LRA film, and to divert attention away from the horror that is plaguing Africa today. And if you want proof that this is the intention, suffice it to say three letters: PBS. Only this anti-Arab, anti-African virulent arm of the Jewish propaganda machine took up the story of the congressional investigation regarding the Sudan and ran away with it.
This alone should tell you that this whole stinking charade was organized by the Jewish organizations.
My dealings with sub-Saharan Africa began when, at the age of one and a half years, the great war was coming to an end, and my parents decided there were opportunities in Ethiopia they should pursue. Off they went, taking me and my brothers (my sisters were not born yet), and where my father met with success. I remember two things from my early childhood. One was probably the first moment that I felt anxiety, a moment of which I have a photograph to remind me of. It shows a child of maybe three years of age sitting on a horse. I don't remember a thing of that day except that I was left alone on the horse (for someone to take the picture) and the animal moved one step. I felt anxious and I still remember that feeling. Other than that, life in Ethiopia has been a very pleasant one during the years that we lived there. In fact, the other thing I remember is my mother telling anyone that asked, how the Ethiopian people were the most gentle and most helpful people she ever met. And this notion stayed with me as I was growing.
Eventually, we went back to Egypt in the mid-fifties after a stay of various durations in other places. It was then that I began to hear of strife, insurrection and tribal wars in Africa, something that did not make sense to me because I had grown with the idea that the Africans were not capable of violence. I was a teenager by then, an age at which other things preoccupied me, and so I paid little attention to world events and to the unfolding of history on the Continent. Seven years later we came to Canada. It took us a few years to get established after which I put myself through college working only part-time when I could afford it or full-time when I needed to replenish my bank account.
Things occur in college that you do not expect. One of those happened to me when I was taking a course in African films. What was shown to us were mostly newsreel footage about Africa, and documentaries that, in most part, depicted the ill-treatment of Blacks in South Africa. But there were a few exceptions, especially in West Africa where they made some excellent docudramas. In fact, a number of filmmakers from Senegal were invited to come to Canada and stay on campus during the week that their films were shown. Since I was living on campus, my professor asked me if I would accompany them and show them around when we were not in class or in the projection room. I said yes and took advantage of the situation by conducting interviews with them which I used to write several articles.
I also compared notes with them having lived a number of happy years as a child in East Africa. This is when I learned that my experience was so removed in time, in space and in circumstance from theirs, the two experiences had very little in common. Not only that, but one of the Senegalese had also lived in East Africa for a while, and he had horror stories to tell about White missionaries that went to the Continent for one reason only; to sexually abuse little Black boys and make pornographic films about them. The subject was so shocking to me and to them, we could not dwell on it long enough for me to gather enough details. All I could tell was that what happened to that man and to his friends was much worse than the footage and the documentaries I saw about South Africa.
A few years after that, I was out of college. Africa came up to my consciousness again when oil was discovered in Nigeria which is in West Africa, and a civil war erupted there. A province called Biafra became the focus of attention because unimaginable horror stories were coming out of there. Only then, did I understand the rage that was exhibited in some of the docudramas made by the filmmakers in neighboring Senegal. A few of the stories they told in their films dealt with the White man's exploitation of Blacks, and what was happening in Biafra looked like a replay of that scenario, situations akin to what those men had lived through in their own country.
I kept up with the developments in Africa since that time. Most of what I saw and heard was sad news but there was nothing I could do about it except refuse to associate myself with anything that would aggravate the situation for the people who live there. In fact, I received an offer at one time from a group to work on a project related to the Sudan, and I refused it on the spot despite the fact that I was desperate to have work in the field. What the group wanted to do was the exact opposite of what I knew was the truth. I knew that missionaries from England and from North America were buying and selling slaves in Sudan, and yet what the group was asking me to do was to work on a documentary that said the Arabs were the culprits. I suggested instead that we do a film about the Lord Resistance Army whose members were committing the sort of pornographic horror that the filmmaker from Senegal was saying happened in East Africa. And this suggestion of mine convinced the group that I should remain on the blacklist.
What I found disgusting over the years is the extent to which fanatic Jews and fanatic Christians from pedophile America got involved in the subject of Africa and took ownership of it. Their aim has been to kill the truth and to create an alternate reality to further their goals, especially after the discovery of oil in the Sudan. I could see Biafra playing itself out all over again. As it happened, the demons and their cohorts got hold of prominent people such as actors in their prime who seek accolades for something they can do outside their profession, and aging actors who will do anything to stay in the limelight for as long as they can while watching their star fade away with age. Those demons worked on the media and the US Congress to keep the Lord Resistance Army in business, keep the tribal wars going in Africa, maintain the exploitation of that Continent and get their share of the wealth and the sexual gratification they crave.
These were the memories that came to mind when the film about the LRA went viral on the internet. But then something happened, and what seemed to be unrelated subjects began to knock at my consciousness. There was a story I was told long ago but found too trivial to pursue at the time. It was the story of a televangelist that the Jewish organizations could not bring under their control the way that they did when they blackmailed the televangelists who had a skeleton in their closet. And so they played the trump card on this one. What they did was to get one of those low-life, stinking creature and dog-like, maximally disgusting and filthy prostitute in the United States Congress to threaten that he would trigger an investigation on the televangelist thus ruin him in the process if he did not relent and do as commanded by the Jewish organizations.
Eventually, the televangelist relented and did as he was told. It was to go to Israel, meet Netanyahu and praise him like a God while asserting at the same time that Israel belongs to the Jews and not the Palestinians. And yes, there is one more thing to reveal here; it is that the televangelist is of Palestinian origin. The whole episode was filmed by an ever present camera crew, and was shown in the synagogues and the basement of churches where the Christians who call themselves friends of Israel gather to learn of the many splendid ways by which to prostitute themselves and teach their children how to worship the Jew.
At first, I could not make out why this subject was retrieved from my memory. And then it clicked. It was the fact that when the film about the LRA was going viral, the Jewish organizations found it necessary to play their trump card again. And like before, they called on the low-life, stinking creatures and dog-like, maximally disgusting and filthy prostitutes in the United States Congress to trigger an investigation on the Sudan where the LRA did commit and still does the horrors I was told were being committed by pedophiles disguised as Christian missionaries.
The aim here is to create the noise that would dampen the effect of the LRA film, and to divert attention away from the horror that is plaguing Africa today. And if you want proof that this is the intention, suffice it to say three letters: PBS. Only this anti-Arab, anti-African virulent arm of the Jewish propaganda machine took up the story of the congressional investigation regarding the Sudan and ran away with it.
This alone should tell you that this whole stinking charade was organized by the Jewish organizations.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
The Rapid Poisoning Of Uncle Sam
I did mention on a couple of occasions the guy I once knew who, talking about “them” in the media, would say: They keep fornicating (he used another word) us in the eyes and ears, and they leave their syphilis in our sculls. At other times he would say they transplanted a dick in our heads and they keep ejaculating instructions telling us what to do. But I never had the occasion to demonstrate how this might work in real life because I did not have a concrete example I could discuss in detail. I do now.
Eric Trager who is a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy -- one of the most damned septic tanks parading as think tank – wrote an article: “Caught in Egypt's Political Cross-Fire” and had it published in the New York Times on March 14, 2012. When you read it casually without using a critical eye, you find it to be placid, lukewarm and inert on the surface which is probably how most people will read it. But in reality, this article is infernal in its goal. It is the poison that is slowly transforming Uncle Sam into a zombie of the Frankenstein model, a creature programmed only to respond to commands that come to it from the Judeo-Israeli propaganda machine.
The article discusses the foreign organizations that were caught operating illegally in Egypt. You no longer detect in this piece the shrill hysteria that used to fuel earlier discussions on the subject. Instead, you find this: “The prosecutions targeted the Americans, but they weren't really about them.” With this sleight of hand, Eric Trager has managed to wipe clean the historical tidbits that were left on the table and proven false given that they were the work of amateurs. Having cleared the deck, Trager then prepared it for the brand new history that he started to write, having in mind new goals specifically suited to the new circumstances.
Relax, he says, the way things are done in Egypt may have changed a little but “...the crisis didn't change America's core interests in Egypt.” And he makes it clear that instead of dealing with a single player the way it used to be, America will from now on have to deal with multiple players, thus: “Washington [should] develop a strategy for persuading the various political forces in Egypt to cooperate in pursuit of those interests.”
To develop a new game plan, however, he finds himself compelled to first admit to something that the amateur shrill voices of hysteria used to deny vehemently. Here is what he says now: “Both institutes, which Congress founded in 1983, train political parties … The support they offer dissidents … leads to … claim[s] they violate the host country's sovereignty.” Even though he is no longer denying that something happened, he still minimizes its gravity. But the reality is that these would not be empty claims because to support the dissidents of a country is by definition to violate the sovereignty of that country. And this is what the dispute was all about.
He now describes his new game plan by doing something that is as Judeo-Israeli as moral syphilism can ever get. He invents a whole new history to suit his new purpose, and he does it by first attacking someone. In this case, he attacks Fayza Abul Naga who is Egypt's iron lady, the minister of planning and international cooperation, whom they used to say was in cahoot with the Egyptian military. Not anymore because the new and improved history requires a new and improved truth, therefore, you get this: “By many accounts, Egypt's ruling military … was unaware that the prosecutor had placed travel bans on American … workers.”
And this is where he takes a few paragraphs to rewrite history after which he comes back to his original point and the goal of this whole exercise: “The fact that the Americans' ordeal wasn't really about them but about Egypt's own internal power struggle leaves American interests in Egypt essentially unchanged.” Okay you say, but what is America's interest? you ask. And he gives you an answer, but no matter what lofty words he uses, it remains that America's interest in the Middle East has been reduced to only one; maintain Israel on the life support system without which it could not survive on its own more than a few months. Here is his complete answer: “The greatest interest remains ensuring that the next government maintains Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel, counters violent extremism and upholds pluralism and minority rights.”
He now reveals his hand as to why he played the game the way that he did and why he rewrote history the way that he did: “But to avoid being trapped as a pawn among Egypt's squabbling parties, Washington should condition future economic aid to Egypt on an agreement by all parties to respect these interests.” Instead of dealing with only one party, America must learn to deal with several parties, he says, it is no more difficult than that. But to an observer, all this looks like intellectual masturbation of the most Jewish kind at the end of which comes the ejaculation in Uncle Sam's scull. Here it is: “There is good reason to believe that this conditionality could work: Egypt is approaching bankruptcy, and Washington has unique leverage over Cairo through its influence in international financial institutions.”
These are the words of someone who is totally ignorant about economics, history and social science. In economics, consider this: At most, what Egypt needs to fix its budgetary problems is 10 billion dollars. With a population that is only 4 times as large, America needs close to 2 trillion dollars (200 times as large) to fix its own budgetary problems. In history, consider this: America tried that same trick on Egypt. In the end, Egypt got its Aswan dam and the hydroelectric power station while America got scorn. In social science, consider this: The people of Egypt have said to their current and to future rulers they must stay away from America so long as that country will continue to stink the Jewish moral syphilism of barking idle threats. And Trager knows this because he said it himself that America is at this point in time very unpopular among the Egyptian masses.
Never before have so few so morally mutilated a culture that is this massive and this diverse at such a rapid speed. The devil and his army must be allied to them.
Eric Trager who is a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy -- one of the most damned septic tanks parading as think tank – wrote an article: “Caught in Egypt's Political Cross-Fire” and had it published in the New York Times on March 14, 2012. When you read it casually without using a critical eye, you find it to be placid, lukewarm and inert on the surface which is probably how most people will read it. But in reality, this article is infernal in its goal. It is the poison that is slowly transforming Uncle Sam into a zombie of the Frankenstein model, a creature programmed only to respond to commands that come to it from the Judeo-Israeli propaganda machine.
The article discusses the foreign organizations that were caught operating illegally in Egypt. You no longer detect in this piece the shrill hysteria that used to fuel earlier discussions on the subject. Instead, you find this: “The prosecutions targeted the Americans, but they weren't really about them.” With this sleight of hand, Eric Trager has managed to wipe clean the historical tidbits that were left on the table and proven false given that they were the work of amateurs. Having cleared the deck, Trager then prepared it for the brand new history that he started to write, having in mind new goals specifically suited to the new circumstances.
Relax, he says, the way things are done in Egypt may have changed a little but “...the crisis didn't change America's core interests in Egypt.” And he makes it clear that instead of dealing with a single player the way it used to be, America will from now on have to deal with multiple players, thus: “Washington [should] develop a strategy for persuading the various political forces in Egypt to cooperate in pursuit of those interests.”
To develop a new game plan, however, he finds himself compelled to first admit to something that the amateur shrill voices of hysteria used to deny vehemently. Here is what he says now: “Both institutes, which Congress founded in 1983, train political parties … The support they offer dissidents … leads to … claim[s] they violate the host country's sovereignty.” Even though he is no longer denying that something happened, he still minimizes its gravity. But the reality is that these would not be empty claims because to support the dissidents of a country is by definition to violate the sovereignty of that country. And this is what the dispute was all about.
He now describes his new game plan by doing something that is as Judeo-Israeli as moral syphilism can ever get. He invents a whole new history to suit his new purpose, and he does it by first attacking someone. In this case, he attacks Fayza Abul Naga who is Egypt's iron lady, the minister of planning and international cooperation, whom they used to say was in cahoot with the Egyptian military. Not anymore because the new and improved history requires a new and improved truth, therefore, you get this: “By many accounts, Egypt's ruling military … was unaware that the prosecutor had placed travel bans on American … workers.”
And this is where he takes a few paragraphs to rewrite history after which he comes back to his original point and the goal of this whole exercise: “The fact that the Americans' ordeal wasn't really about them but about Egypt's own internal power struggle leaves American interests in Egypt essentially unchanged.” Okay you say, but what is America's interest? you ask. And he gives you an answer, but no matter what lofty words he uses, it remains that America's interest in the Middle East has been reduced to only one; maintain Israel on the life support system without which it could not survive on its own more than a few months. Here is his complete answer: “The greatest interest remains ensuring that the next government maintains Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel, counters violent extremism and upholds pluralism and minority rights.”
He now reveals his hand as to why he played the game the way that he did and why he rewrote history the way that he did: “But to avoid being trapped as a pawn among Egypt's squabbling parties, Washington should condition future economic aid to Egypt on an agreement by all parties to respect these interests.” Instead of dealing with only one party, America must learn to deal with several parties, he says, it is no more difficult than that. But to an observer, all this looks like intellectual masturbation of the most Jewish kind at the end of which comes the ejaculation in Uncle Sam's scull. Here it is: “There is good reason to believe that this conditionality could work: Egypt is approaching bankruptcy, and Washington has unique leverage over Cairo through its influence in international financial institutions.”
These are the words of someone who is totally ignorant about economics, history and social science. In economics, consider this: At most, what Egypt needs to fix its budgetary problems is 10 billion dollars. With a population that is only 4 times as large, America needs close to 2 trillion dollars (200 times as large) to fix its own budgetary problems. In history, consider this: America tried that same trick on Egypt. In the end, Egypt got its Aswan dam and the hydroelectric power station while America got scorn. In social science, consider this: The people of Egypt have said to their current and to future rulers they must stay away from America so long as that country will continue to stink the Jewish moral syphilism of barking idle threats. And Trager knows this because he said it himself that America is at this point in time very unpopular among the Egyptian masses.
Never before have so few so morally mutilated a culture that is this massive and this diverse at such a rapid speed. The devil and his army must be allied to them.
Monday, March 12, 2012
The Freedom House Of Horror
On March 12, 2012, David Kramer who is president of an outfit that calls itself Freedom House published an article in the Washington Post in response to an article that was published two days earlier by Ms. Fayza Aboulnaga, Egypt's minister for planning and international cooperation. Her article was titled: “Why Egypt Moved on the NGOs” and his article was titled: “Egypt's full-frontal assault on civil society”. It is to be noted that Freedom House is one of the non governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in the incident discussed by the two parties.
My interest in writing this piece is not to adjudicate the case; it will take a number of judges and a full court setting complete with lawyers, prosecutors, clerks and witnesses to do this. Instead, my interest is to highlight the mentality that is here displayed by David Kramer and the likes of him, a mentality that has sent ordinary Egyptians into the street to demand that the military cooperation between Egypt and the United States be terminated forthwith, a demand that the newly elected parliament has taken seriously and is looking into.
He begins by saying that she did not repeat in her article the charges she made when testifying before a judicial body last fall. Well, no one does that; the record is there and if someone wants to look at it, they can do so. In fact, he looked at it himself and he reported a few things he did not like about it. This is normal; it is the reason why there is going to be a trial at which time the judges will decide what is what. One of the things she said that bothered him is this: “She also testified that 'Freedom House moreover was founded by the Jewish Lobbyists to hail accusations and criticisms against countries whose policies are not in line with US objectives.'” Well, well, well, all I can say about this is welcome to my world, Ms. Aboulnaga. It's about time that you get to know these things.
In fact, having lived here for nearly half a century without going outside of Canada or the United States, I have determined years ago from my observations that the so-called think tanks littering the moral landscape of the Continent were nothing but septic tanks full of intellectual discharges like only the Judeo-Yiddish mentality can produce, and only the Jewish organizations can excrete. As if to help me prove my point, Kramer does something that is right out of the Judeo-Yiddish culture. He writes this: “Interesting that she opted not to repeat these … allegations … The anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism at the core of these assertions belie her insistence that...” What he did here just before tackling the points that came in her article, is stir the hatred of the readers by calling her antisemitic and anti-American. Nothing can be more Jewish than that, and this should tell you who founded Freedom House.
He now tackles the article of the minister starting with this: “Aboulnaga wrote in The Post that the dispute involves a handful of NGOs … [But] beyond the 10 [foreign] organizations … some 400 Egyptian … organizations are under investigation … All could be shut down … In other words … Aboulnaga has unleashed a full-frontal assault [on] civil society.” And this is another way of presenting a case that is very much in the Judeo-Yiddish style. It is the filthy habit of accusing someone by speculating on what they might do. Nobody but nobody except the Jews had used this method of presentation, and now the Americans are absorbing it by osmosis and using it too. No wonder America is sinking deeper and deeper into the Jewish septic tank.
Having accused Aboulnaga directly of being antisemitic and anti-American, and having accused her of other things by the method of speculation, he now wants the reader to believe that his organization was operating as legally as did the Egyptian organizations. But the truth is that each group is regulated by a different law, and what applies to one does not apply to the other as he will himself demonstrate in a moment. But for now, he uses a cheap trick to commit his misrepresentation: “None of us is operating illegally.” He continues to misrepresent the case by stating this: “Freedom House's application … was acknowledged … three days before the raid.” But to acknowledge that an application was received does not mean to approve. Still, he goes on to cite law 84 which states that lack of denial within 60 days constitutes acceptance of the organization as a legal entity. What this means is that an organization that has been accepted will be allowed to operate but only after it is given a license containing a description of what it can and cannot do. The gang at Freedom House, however, started to do their thing before they got the license.
Kramer now does the bellyaching routine: “Heavily armed security forces stormed into our office and those of nine other organizations without … in some cases any legal authority … The actions of Egyptian authorities have been different from [those under] the rule of law.” First of all, when the military is in charge of a country deemed to be in a state of insurrection, ordinary rule of law does not apply. Second of all, Kramer implicitly acknowledges here that the 10 foreign organizations were treated differently from the Egyptian organizations; and this means he admits that he deliberately deceived the readers early on when he lumped together all the organizations. Third of all, there is this question: What difference would it have made if the security forces were less heavily armed? And this one: Would he have fought back? And this one: If not, why mention something as trivial as this unless he wants to stir up emotions?
He now does something that typically falls in the realm of the Judeo-Yiddish tragicomedy. In other words, he does it to himself for some strange reason. You want to laugh at him at the same time as you feel sorry for him. Look what he does: “Don't take my word for it … Egyptian NGOs condemned the 'ongoing slandering and intimidation.' They described the December raids as 'a crime' … A judge … told … Al-Ahram that the substance of the case was 'nonsense.'” Well now, my friend, if the Egyptians are capable of something to which he clutches like a crutch so as to stay on his feet, why the hell do they need him or need someone of his low caliber? What can he teach them that they do not already know?
Apparently, he has an answer to that question: “We are in Egypt to support civil society organizations, encourage respect for fundamental human rights … We would not be in Egypt were there no indigenous demand for the kind of work we do.” If he really believes he can do what he says he can, I have a few suggestions for him. How about leave the Egyptians alone and go to the District of Columbia where he will find characters so illiterate in the art and the science of governance, a monkey could teach them a thing or two about running their congress more effectively. How about coming to Canada and showing the folks here how not to blacklist people who have things to say that can enrich the audience. And how about going to Israel and showing them there how to behave -- not necessarily as human being which they will never be able to do – but as something that is a little more evolved than a snake.
David Kramer insists at the end of his article on showing his readers the sort of fantasy land in which he lives. First, he quotes Aboulnaga who wrote: 'Our friends must understand that Egypt will never be the same, that this is an Egyptian revolution and that the Egyptian people will determine its outcome.' And guess what he does next. Well, with the authority of a pope pardoning a sinner that came to confess, he solemnly declares: “I endorse these sentiments.” But a good pope would not stop here because there is the fear that the sinner may recidivate. And so he warns: “But this is a strange claim from an official who … is a holdover … from the previous … regime.” And he makes her feel guilty to deter her from sinning again: “The campaign she leads … is a betrayal of … the ultimate sacrifices made by … Egyptians.”
Hey, Mr. Pope of the land of fantasy, pick up your marbles and go to hell if you're worthy. If not, go to the District of Columbia or come to Canada or go to Israel where the houses to worship freedom are so full of horror, they feel worse than hell itself.
My interest in writing this piece is not to adjudicate the case; it will take a number of judges and a full court setting complete with lawyers, prosecutors, clerks and witnesses to do this. Instead, my interest is to highlight the mentality that is here displayed by David Kramer and the likes of him, a mentality that has sent ordinary Egyptians into the street to demand that the military cooperation between Egypt and the United States be terminated forthwith, a demand that the newly elected parliament has taken seriously and is looking into.
He begins by saying that she did not repeat in her article the charges she made when testifying before a judicial body last fall. Well, no one does that; the record is there and if someone wants to look at it, they can do so. In fact, he looked at it himself and he reported a few things he did not like about it. This is normal; it is the reason why there is going to be a trial at which time the judges will decide what is what. One of the things she said that bothered him is this: “She also testified that 'Freedom House moreover was founded by the Jewish Lobbyists to hail accusations and criticisms against countries whose policies are not in line with US objectives.'” Well, well, well, all I can say about this is welcome to my world, Ms. Aboulnaga. It's about time that you get to know these things.
In fact, having lived here for nearly half a century without going outside of Canada or the United States, I have determined years ago from my observations that the so-called think tanks littering the moral landscape of the Continent were nothing but septic tanks full of intellectual discharges like only the Judeo-Yiddish mentality can produce, and only the Jewish organizations can excrete. As if to help me prove my point, Kramer does something that is right out of the Judeo-Yiddish culture. He writes this: “Interesting that she opted not to repeat these … allegations … The anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism at the core of these assertions belie her insistence that...” What he did here just before tackling the points that came in her article, is stir the hatred of the readers by calling her antisemitic and anti-American. Nothing can be more Jewish than that, and this should tell you who founded Freedom House.
He now tackles the article of the minister starting with this: “Aboulnaga wrote in The Post that the dispute involves a handful of NGOs … [But] beyond the 10 [foreign] organizations … some 400 Egyptian … organizations are under investigation … All could be shut down … In other words … Aboulnaga has unleashed a full-frontal assault [on] civil society.” And this is another way of presenting a case that is very much in the Judeo-Yiddish style. It is the filthy habit of accusing someone by speculating on what they might do. Nobody but nobody except the Jews had used this method of presentation, and now the Americans are absorbing it by osmosis and using it too. No wonder America is sinking deeper and deeper into the Jewish septic tank.
Having accused Aboulnaga directly of being antisemitic and anti-American, and having accused her of other things by the method of speculation, he now wants the reader to believe that his organization was operating as legally as did the Egyptian organizations. But the truth is that each group is regulated by a different law, and what applies to one does not apply to the other as he will himself demonstrate in a moment. But for now, he uses a cheap trick to commit his misrepresentation: “None of us is operating illegally.” He continues to misrepresent the case by stating this: “Freedom House's application … was acknowledged … three days before the raid.” But to acknowledge that an application was received does not mean to approve. Still, he goes on to cite law 84 which states that lack of denial within 60 days constitutes acceptance of the organization as a legal entity. What this means is that an organization that has been accepted will be allowed to operate but only after it is given a license containing a description of what it can and cannot do. The gang at Freedom House, however, started to do their thing before they got the license.
Kramer now does the bellyaching routine: “Heavily armed security forces stormed into our office and those of nine other organizations without … in some cases any legal authority … The actions of Egyptian authorities have been different from [those under] the rule of law.” First of all, when the military is in charge of a country deemed to be in a state of insurrection, ordinary rule of law does not apply. Second of all, Kramer implicitly acknowledges here that the 10 foreign organizations were treated differently from the Egyptian organizations; and this means he admits that he deliberately deceived the readers early on when he lumped together all the organizations. Third of all, there is this question: What difference would it have made if the security forces were less heavily armed? And this one: Would he have fought back? And this one: If not, why mention something as trivial as this unless he wants to stir up emotions?
He now does something that typically falls in the realm of the Judeo-Yiddish tragicomedy. In other words, he does it to himself for some strange reason. You want to laugh at him at the same time as you feel sorry for him. Look what he does: “Don't take my word for it … Egyptian NGOs condemned the 'ongoing slandering and intimidation.' They described the December raids as 'a crime' … A judge … told … Al-Ahram that the substance of the case was 'nonsense.'” Well now, my friend, if the Egyptians are capable of something to which he clutches like a crutch so as to stay on his feet, why the hell do they need him or need someone of his low caliber? What can he teach them that they do not already know?
Apparently, he has an answer to that question: “We are in Egypt to support civil society organizations, encourage respect for fundamental human rights … We would not be in Egypt were there no indigenous demand for the kind of work we do.” If he really believes he can do what he says he can, I have a few suggestions for him. How about leave the Egyptians alone and go to the District of Columbia where he will find characters so illiterate in the art and the science of governance, a monkey could teach them a thing or two about running their congress more effectively. How about coming to Canada and showing the folks here how not to blacklist people who have things to say that can enrich the audience. And how about going to Israel and showing them there how to behave -- not necessarily as human being which they will never be able to do – but as something that is a little more evolved than a snake.
David Kramer insists at the end of his article on showing his readers the sort of fantasy land in which he lives. First, he quotes Aboulnaga who wrote: 'Our friends must understand that Egypt will never be the same, that this is an Egyptian revolution and that the Egyptian people will determine its outcome.' And guess what he does next. Well, with the authority of a pope pardoning a sinner that came to confess, he solemnly declares: “I endorse these sentiments.” But a good pope would not stop here because there is the fear that the sinner may recidivate. And so he warns: “But this is a strange claim from an official who … is a holdover … from the previous … regime.” And he makes her feel guilty to deter her from sinning again: “The campaign she leads … is a betrayal of … the ultimate sacrifices made by … Egyptians.”
Hey, Mr. Pope of the land of fantasy, pick up your marbles and go to hell if you're worthy. If not, go to the District of Columbia or come to Canada or go to Israel where the houses to worship freedom are so full of horror, they feel worse than hell itself.
The Sad Saga Of A Suicidal Leech
When Charles Darwin observed that nature offers survival to the fittest, he did not mean to say everything that is attributed to him. He only meant to say that when the environment produces less supply than there is demand for it, those who adapt to that environment stand a better chance at acquiring what they need to survive. Because the human brain has the capacity to draw analogies between subjects in different fields, it has what amounts to a blessing and a curse. The blessing is that this kind of analogy has led to the formulation of several scientific theories which, in the end, proved to be correct. The curse is that this kind of analogy can sometimes lead to erroneous conclusions -- which is what happened with the many erroneous interpretations that have appeared on the Darwin theory.
For example, some people make the analogy between what they believe is authentic Darwinism and the ideas they already have in mind. And what they believe about Darwin's theory is something they define as being a fight where the winner vanquishes the loser absolutely and takes all the spoils. They say that this happens in nature all the time, and it happens between the various cultures as well as the civilizations. This is why they predict that a final clash will take place between the civilizations after which the race that adheres to the correct philosophy of life will dominate the Earth and forever impose its will on everyone else.
These people look at the same history as everyone and attribute the fall of every civilization that came and went to the fact that none was so perfect as to remain dominant for ever. Sadly, they add, this also applies to the Roman Empire which they believe came the closest to being perfect but failed to cross the finish line. They think, however, that this does not mean crossing the finish line cannot be done. On the contrary, they view the modern “West” -- which adheres to the democratic philosophy of governance -- as having the perfect formula to take over the world and run it perfectly well. But there is much work to be done before the West can achieve the final victory it deserves, they say, because standing in the way is Islam, a religion and a philosophy of life that is adhered to by Muslims, a people who harbor ambitions antagonistic to those of the West.
But who are the people who interpret Darwin in this manner? The answer to this question is a complicated one because it ties in with subjects such as the science of eugenics, the philosophy of the White supremacists, the ideas of the self-styled master race, the wannabe Aryans and so on. In our era, such groups come; they have their moment under the sun then go away or lay dormant for a while to rear their heads on occasions, be silenced again and be sent back into hiding. Their claim rests on the premise that their historic idols who are the Nazis could make things such as ships and airplanes that no one else could make which proves they were better than everyone therefore entitled to rule the world. But the Nazis were eventually beaten by ships and airplanes that were made by someone else, an event that silenced them and had them accept the reality that they were equal to the rest of us, not better. But this part of history apparently does not register with their modern followers who still cling to the fantasy of Nazi superiority.
To be fair to all, however, it is true that the Nazis sat at the peak of Western Civilization for a time. They saw themselves as being a little better than their look-alike neighbors against whom they fought, and they saw themselves as being exceedingly better than the races from which they were separated by space and by physical appearance. Having failed to establish the thousand years Reich they wished for, and having been defeated militarily, a number of groups arose even in places like their former enemies, Britain and the United States, to idolize them. In fact, these groups idolized the Nazis so much that they claimed their mantle, and emulating them in style and in appearance. But the rule has always been that when they went too far, such groups were silenced by their critics and sent back into hiding. And when they took up arms and became violent, as they did on occasions, they were clobbered by the authorities and dismantled as a group.
There has been an exception to this rule, however. It is the story of a group that is operating with impunity in the English speaking world. It preaches the supremacy of an ill-defined ethno-religious race that is neither a group of any known ethnicity nor a race by any definition or even a religion by any sense of the word. The group advocates the violent transformation of other cultures in the Middle East, and it works feverishly to cause a clash between the Christian civilization and its Muslim counterpart. It is a group of Jews and their sympathizers who claim supremacy over the rest of us because they say that God has chosen the Jews to be his preferred children, therefore has chosen them to reign supreme over everyone and over everything else.
Unlike the other crackpots who claim supremacy because their idols could do things no one else could, the Jews and their followers are not required to prove they can do anything to deserve wearing the crown except demonstrate that they are Jews or wannabe Jews at heart. And since God is never available to be quizzed as to his choice, the supremacy of Jews is never disputed in the English speaking world where children now grow up in an environment that is saturated with things which say it is normal to view the Jew as a master worthy of their love; where it is normal to worship him like a god on Earth.
Because of this mentality and this state of affairs, and despite the promise made to them by that same God -- a promise to the effect that they will multiply and become as many as the grains of sand they see on the beaches and the stars they see in the heavens -- the Jews still cannot fill one mega city, when the religions that came after them easily fill a continent of nations each containing several mega cities. So the question becomes: With this reality staring them in the face, how can the Jews get into a fight to the death with bigger opponents, win decisively against them and come to dominate the world?
They can do it by riding on someone else's back. Here is what works for them; unlike the rest of the English speaking world which gives lip service to the Jewish causes and little else, the Jewish groups have found America to be the land of their opportunity because it is fertile ground that grows more goodness for them the more fertilizer they throw at it. And there is a reason why the American political system is well disposed to bloom with altruistic largess as it consumes the stinky discharges from the Jewish propaganda machine. It is that people originally emigrated to America for two reasons: to be free of tyranny and to get wealthy. In time, the two reasons have fused together, and the American ideal has transformed into the notion that happiness means the freedom to pursue wealth. Thus, if someone or something such as the government tries to curtail this freedom, the Americans lose their happiness which means they get angry. How angry? Well, they once had a civil war and they will not hesitate to have another one if pushed hard enough.
What is crucial here, and what must be understood is that the American culture is still imbued with the notion that you can only get wealthy by the process of exploitation, a process that the Jewish mind has painted as a commendable virtue. Some people see themselves get wealthy by exploiting an oil well or a mine; other people would feel just as comfortable exploiting someone the way their ancestors exterminated the natives to take their possessions or the way they used slaves as cheap labor. Thus, if the government is seen to take away the right to exploit by instituting a program that is deemed to be “socialist” at its core, some people react as if the government had declared war on them and they respond in kind. The resulting confrontation takes the shape of a cold civil war.
In this tumult, the meaning of freedom becomes confused. As it turns out, most Americans believe they enjoy freedom because they are willing to fight for it. But the truth is that the Americans do not have a concept of freedom in the abstract. They only understand the freedom that relates to something they want to do such as the right to bear arms, the right to travel, the right to exploit someone or something, and so on. And this is where the Jewish organizations score big with the Americans. To take advantage of this uniquely American trait, they give their interlocutors the right to choose freely as in the following example: I offer you ten thousand dollars to spend an hour with you little girl, or a hundred thousand dollars to have her for the night. Which do you take? Where a foreigner feel so insulted as to want to administer capital punishment on the spot, the American would feel honored that he was given a choice. He may choose one option or reject the offer but not feel insulted or violated for a moment. In politics, the offer that the Jewish organizations make comes in a form that sounds like this: Choose to do it my way and I'll take you to the promised land, to which the American responds: Show me the way to the promised land, my Lord?
This is what American freedom has come to mean. It can be seen at work in a column written by Clifford May under the title: “How to Stop Putting Gas in The Islamist Tank” and the subtitle: “Enriching your enemy may not be a brilliant strategy.” It was published on March 8, 2012 in the National Review Online. What the author tries to do at the start is respond to the fact that for the last dozen years or so, America has depleted itself in every field of its nationhood in order to fight a ghost that came under the rubric “war on terrorism.” It was a Jewish idea that was proven to be so ill-advised, the people who gave it and the people who took it should, in the name of justice, be locked in solitary confinement for life.
And the way that Clifford May responds is not to say let's back off, take a deep breath and allow America to rebuild itself, but say the following instead: tough luck, America. Our advice did not work this time but do not stop here; continue the fight because if the threat did not come, as we said, from a bunch of Muslim kids out to have fun playing cops and robbers with the biggest cop in the world, then the threat will still come from them and from the fact that someone called Hassan al-Banna once stated he would rather dominate than be dominated. And there is behind him the Islamists who support those same kids and his ideas too. And remember, America, that all these people have oil, a resource they were not smart enough to discover but one that was discovered by the “West”. It is a resource we need badly at this time but one we must wean ourselves off – or else we cease to exist as a civilization in no time at all.
And he offers a remedy. He says that America should drill to unearth more of its own oil and should rely on natural gas of which it has plenty. But the fact is that these ideas are not new at all; they have been discussed non-stop for a number of decades, the last time being a recent article written by Robert McFarlane -- a figure from the past to be sure -- but one he quotes in his column as if the ideas were a light that is starting to shine at the end of the tunnel.
But if those ideas have been around for this long, why is it that no one has acted on them by now? Clifford May has an answer to this question. He says this: “...government is not doing its economic duty. Nor is it doing its national-security duty … at the moment we are knowingly funding the 'violent extremists' who want to kill us, as well as the more moderate Islamists who merely want to dominate us.” And he wants to ram all this down your throat, so he goes on to say this: “...Islamists of both stripes must … wonder: 'How can people … be so stupid? … this must be a gift from Heaven.'”
What is wrong with all this is that there has never been a permanent winner on this Planet and there will never be one. On the other hand, there has been one permanent loser; the Jew who was kicked around for three and a half thousand years by a human race that always appreciated the authentic Arab Semite and the Muslim but never tolerated the real Jew or the fake one.
Clifford May who is a Jew is using everything at his disposal to scare people and to incite America, if not incite the Western world. He wants to maintain the war against the Christian Arabs and the Muslim world in the hope of weakening everybody to give the opportunity for people like himself to dominate the whole world. The scaremongering he does being the stick, he also has a carrot that comes in the form of a promise to the effect that at the end of it all, the West will triumph, will rule everywhere and rule for ever.
This is why it is generally accepted that those who claim to be Jews have always been their own worst enemies. Like a leech with a death wish, they get onto a host and abuse it to death thus come very close to extinction themselves. For thousands of years, everything they touched has turned into the poison that debilitated them as a group and reduced their numbers.
It remains to be said that if someone shows inclination to take the advice of Clifford May or the advice of someone like him, that person should check into a mental hospital and ask the staff to throw away the keys.
It would be the best thing that Clifford D. May could do to save the Western and the Arab civilizations as well as save humanity from himself and his likes.
For example, some people make the analogy between what they believe is authentic Darwinism and the ideas they already have in mind. And what they believe about Darwin's theory is something they define as being a fight where the winner vanquishes the loser absolutely and takes all the spoils. They say that this happens in nature all the time, and it happens between the various cultures as well as the civilizations. This is why they predict that a final clash will take place between the civilizations after which the race that adheres to the correct philosophy of life will dominate the Earth and forever impose its will on everyone else.
These people look at the same history as everyone and attribute the fall of every civilization that came and went to the fact that none was so perfect as to remain dominant for ever. Sadly, they add, this also applies to the Roman Empire which they believe came the closest to being perfect but failed to cross the finish line. They think, however, that this does not mean crossing the finish line cannot be done. On the contrary, they view the modern “West” -- which adheres to the democratic philosophy of governance -- as having the perfect formula to take over the world and run it perfectly well. But there is much work to be done before the West can achieve the final victory it deserves, they say, because standing in the way is Islam, a religion and a philosophy of life that is adhered to by Muslims, a people who harbor ambitions antagonistic to those of the West.
But who are the people who interpret Darwin in this manner? The answer to this question is a complicated one because it ties in with subjects such as the science of eugenics, the philosophy of the White supremacists, the ideas of the self-styled master race, the wannabe Aryans and so on. In our era, such groups come; they have their moment under the sun then go away or lay dormant for a while to rear their heads on occasions, be silenced again and be sent back into hiding. Their claim rests on the premise that their historic idols who are the Nazis could make things such as ships and airplanes that no one else could make which proves they were better than everyone therefore entitled to rule the world. But the Nazis were eventually beaten by ships and airplanes that were made by someone else, an event that silenced them and had them accept the reality that they were equal to the rest of us, not better. But this part of history apparently does not register with their modern followers who still cling to the fantasy of Nazi superiority.
To be fair to all, however, it is true that the Nazis sat at the peak of Western Civilization for a time. They saw themselves as being a little better than their look-alike neighbors against whom they fought, and they saw themselves as being exceedingly better than the races from which they were separated by space and by physical appearance. Having failed to establish the thousand years Reich they wished for, and having been defeated militarily, a number of groups arose even in places like their former enemies, Britain and the United States, to idolize them. In fact, these groups idolized the Nazis so much that they claimed their mantle, and emulating them in style and in appearance. But the rule has always been that when they went too far, such groups were silenced by their critics and sent back into hiding. And when they took up arms and became violent, as they did on occasions, they were clobbered by the authorities and dismantled as a group.
There has been an exception to this rule, however. It is the story of a group that is operating with impunity in the English speaking world. It preaches the supremacy of an ill-defined ethno-religious race that is neither a group of any known ethnicity nor a race by any definition or even a religion by any sense of the word. The group advocates the violent transformation of other cultures in the Middle East, and it works feverishly to cause a clash between the Christian civilization and its Muslim counterpart. It is a group of Jews and their sympathizers who claim supremacy over the rest of us because they say that God has chosen the Jews to be his preferred children, therefore has chosen them to reign supreme over everyone and over everything else.
Unlike the other crackpots who claim supremacy because their idols could do things no one else could, the Jews and their followers are not required to prove they can do anything to deserve wearing the crown except demonstrate that they are Jews or wannabe Jews at heart. And since God is never available to be quizzed as to his choice, the supremacy of Jews is never disputed in the English speaking world where children now grow up in an environment that is saturated with things which say it is normal to view the Jew as a master worthy of their love; where it is normal to worship him like a god on Earth.
Because of this mentality and this state of affairs, and despite the promise made to them by that same God -- a promise to the effect that they will multiply and become as many as the grains of sand they see on the beaches and the stars they see in the heavens -- the Jews still cannot fill one mega city, when the religions that came after them easily fill a continent of nations each containing several mega cities. So the question becomes: With this reality staring them in the face, how can the Jews get into a fight to the death with bigger opponents, win decisively against them and come to dominate the world?
They can do it by riding on someone else's back. Here is what works for them; unlike the rest of the English speaking world which gives lip service to the Jewish causes and little else, the Jewish groups have found America to be the land of their opportunity because it is fertile ground that grows more goodness for them the more fertilizer they throw at it. And there is a reason why the American political system is well disposed to bloom with altruistic largess as it consumes the stinky discharges from the Jewish propaganda machine. It is that people originally emigrated to America for two reasons: to be free of tyranny and to get wealthy. In time, the two reasons have fused together, and the American ideal has transformed into the notion that happiness means the freedom to pursue wealth. Thus, if someone or something such as the government tries to curtail this freedom, the Americans lose their happiness which means they get angry. How angry? Well, they once had a civil war and they will not hesitate to have another one if pushed hard enough.
What is crucial here, and what must be understood is that the American culture is still imbued with the notion that you can only get wealthy by the process of exploitation, a process that the Jewish mind has painted as a commendable virtue. Some people see themselves get wealthy by exploiting an oil well or a mine; other people would feel just as comfortable exploiting someone the way their ancestors exterminated the natives to take their possessions or the way they used slaves as cheap labor. Thus, if the government is seen to take away the right to exploit by instituting a program that is deemed to be “socialist” at its core, some people react as if the government had declared war on them and they respond in kind. The resulting confrontation takes the shape of a cold civil war.
In this tumult, the meaning of freedom becomes confused. As it turns out, most Americans believe they enjoy freedom because they are willing to fight for it. But the truth is that the Americans do not have a concept of freedom in the abstract. They only understand the freedom that relates to something they want to do such as the right to bear arms, the right to travel, the right to exploit someone or something, and so on. And this is where the Jewish organizations score big with the Americans. To take advantage of this uniquely American trait, they give their interlocutors the right to choose freely as in the following example: I offer you ten thousand dollars to spend an hour with you little girl, or a hundred thousand dollars to have her for the night. Which do you take? Where a foreigner feel so insulted as to want to administer capital punishment on the spot, the American would feel honored that he was given a choice. He may choose one option or reject the offer but not feel insulted or violated for a moment. In politics, the offer that the Jewish organizations make comes in a form that sounds like this: Choose to do it my way and I'll take you to the promised land, to which the American responds: Show me the way to the promised land, my Lord?
This is what American freedom has come to mean. It can be seen at work in a column written by Clifford May under the title: “How to Stop Putting Gas in The Islamist Tank” and the subtitle: “Enriching your enemy may not be a brilliant strategy.” It was published on March 8, 2012 in the National Review Online. What the author tries to do at the start is respond to the fact that for the last dozen years or so, America has depleted itself in every field of its nationhood in order to fight a ghost that came under the rubric “war on terrorism.” It was a Jewish idea that was proven to be so ill-advised, the people who gave it and the people who took it should, in the name of justice, be locked in solitary confinement for life.
And the way that Clifford May responds is not to say let's back off, take a deep breath and allow America to rebuild itself, but say the following instead: tough luck, America. Our advice did not work this time but do not stop here; continue the fight because if the threat did not come, as we said, from a bunch of Muslim kids out to have fun playing cops and robbers with the biggest cop in the world, then the threat will still come from them and from the fact that someone called Hassan al-Banna once stated he would rather dominate than be dominated. And there is behind him the Islamists who support those same kids and his ideas too. And remember, America, that all these people have oil, a resource they were not smart enough to discover but one that was discovered by the “West”. It is a resource we need badly at this time but one we must wean ourselves off – or else we cease to exist as a civilization in no time at all.
And he offers a remedy. He says that America should drill to unearth more of its own oil and should rely on natural gas of which it has plenty. But the fact is that these ideas are not new at all; they have been discussed non-stop for a number of decades, the last time being a recent article written by Robert McFarlane -- a figure from the past to be sure -- but one he quotes in his column as if the ideas were a light that is starting to shine at the end of the tunnel.
But if those ideas have been around for this long, why is it that no one has acted on them by now? Clifford May has an answer to this question. He says this: “...government is not doing its economic duty. Nor is it doing its national-security duty … at the moment we are knowingly funding the 'violent extremists' who want to kill us, as well as the more moderate Islamists who merely want to dominate us.” And he wants to ram all this down your throat, so he goes on to say this: “...Islamists of both stripes must … wonder: 'How can people … be so stupid? … this must be a gift from Heaven.'”
What is wrong with all this is that there has never been a permanent winner on this Planet and there will never be one. On the other hand, there has been one permanent loser; the Jew who was kicked around for three and a half thousand years by a human race that always appreciated the authentic Arab Semite and the Muslim but never tolerated the real Jew or the fake one.
Clifford May who is a Jew is using everything at his disposal to scare people and to incite America, if not incite the Western world. He wants to maintain the war against the Christian Arabs and the Muslim world in the hope of weakening everybody to give the opportunity for people like himself to dominate the whole world. The scaremongering he does being the stick, he also has a carrot that comes in the form of a promise to the effect that at the end of it all, the West will triumph, will rule everywhere and rule for ever.
This is why it is generally accepted that those who claim to be Jews have always been their own worst enemies. Like a leech with a death wish, they get onto a host and abuse it to death thus come very close to extinction themselves. For thousands of years, everything they touched has turned into the poison that debilitated them as a group and reduced their numbers.
It remains to be said that if someone shows inclination to take the advice of Clifford May or the advice of someone like him, that person should check into a mental hospital and ask the staff to throw away the keys.
It would be the best thing that Clifford D. May could do to save the Western and the Arab civilizations as well as save humanity from himself and his likes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)