Pompous Impotence of the Obstreperous

Bret Stephens – a sometimes funny columnist – calls the Obama administration pompously impotent which means it is a eunuch pretending to be a stud. And he calls the Iranians obstreperous which means they are defiant and recalcitrant. Stephens follows with this: “The only thing Iran has to fear is an Israeli military strike,” and supports the argument with this: “The Israelis may sit still through all this,” but he warns that: “Mr. Kerry shouldn't count on it.”

Stephens does all that in an article he wrote under the title: “Iran Doesn't Want a Deal” and the subtitle: “Strike three for John Kerry's diplomacy,” which he published in the Wall Street Journal on May 13, 2014. So, you want to know: What's this all about? You comb the article to find out, and detect telltale indications of what you might call a psychological inversion. That is, the funny columnist seems to wish that Israel were in the strong position that Iran is in; and he wishes that Iran were in the weak position that Israel is in. He cannot perform a miracle to accomplish all that physically, so he fantasizes about it and spreads the fantasy via the Journal.

An inversion is usually hard to make when the two characters you wish to invert are too far apart on the scale that spans the spectrum from good to evil. Because he always portrayed Israel as being at the extreme end of the good, and portrayed Iran as being at the extreme end of evil, he has no choice but to backtrack and bring them closer to each other, thus avoid the failure of his inversion. But this necessitates that he finds someone else to play the role of evil; and he does that by choosing John Kerry of the Obama administration.

In fact, he starts the article by attacking the Kerry record, saying that the man struck twice already this year, and that he is about to strike a third time. When and where will this happen? Here is the answer: “This week, U.S. negotiators and the P5+1 will meet with Iranian negotiators to work out details of a final nuclear agreement.” This introduces the Iranians to the readers which is what he wants. But he also needs to portray them – for this one occasion – a little less villainous than he used to. He finds a way to do that without losing face by reporting on what someone else thinks of the Iranians.

This is how he does it: “There's been a buzz … with Western diplomats extolling the unfussy way their Iranian counterparts have approached the talks. Positions are said to be converging; technical solutions are being discussed. Iranian foreign minister said there was '50 to 60 percent agreement' … All this is supposed to bode well for a deal to be concluded by the July deadline.”

And this is the point at which Stephens first transposes the image of Iran and that of Israel, then separates them, attributing to Iran the evil particulars usually attached to Israel; and to Israel the good particulars usually attached to Iran. Thus, he goes on to give Iran the advice that the world has been giving to Israel all along: “If the Iranians are wise, they'll take whatever is on the table. It can sweeten the terms later on through the usual two-step of provocation and negotiation.”

To reinforce this view, he sticks in there a paragraph that is usually written in conjunction with Israel, but where he should have written Israel, he writes Iran. Thus, in the interest of clarity, I hereby re-invert the inversion and write the paragraph as it ought to have been written in the first place. Here it is: “But Israel is not wise. It is merely cunning. And fanatical. Also greedy, thanks to a long history of being deceitful and still getting its way without having to pay a serious price. So it will allow this round of negotiations to fail and bargain for an extension. It will get the extension and then play for time again. There will never be a final deal.”

This done, he goes back to the old habit of scaring the readers about Iran's intention. Speaking about the head of its Atomic Energy Organization, Stephens says: “he wants Iran to produce 30 tons [of enriched uranium] to fuel the civilian nuclear plant. That's 30 tons a year. A single ton suffices for a single atomic bomb.” The thing is that this last comparison is meaningless. It is so because to operate a 1000 megawatt power station with hydrocarbon fuel, you need somewhere between 1.5 and 2 million tons of it a year depending on the station's efficiency and its rate of down time. This is the equivalent of about one million tons of TNT which is enough to make something like 50 Hiroshima size bombs – one a week. Given that chemical explosives are made with hydrocarbons, are we going to ban them too?

The world is so complicated, it is a relief to be treated to a comical moment every once in a while, and the act of impersonation can be very funny. So is Bret Stephens at times.

Good they won't qualify as Sorcerer Apprentices

Can you imagine what the world would be like if the editors of the Wall Street Journal qualified to become the sorcerer's apprentices? In the original story, the apprentice was so ill prepared, he messed up everything he touched and made them worse than when he started working on them. Likewise, if left in charge of the world, our editors will make the current situation look like the period when Genghis Khan was in charge of the world.

The editors tell all about it in a piece they wrote under the title: “Obama's Power Lament” and the subtitle: “The President frets about the consequences of doing nothing in Syria and Nigeria.” They published it on May 12, 2014. When you have looked at it closely, you will have only one thing to say: Thank God, these characters will not even qualify to become apprentices to a sorcerer.

If you can imagine a bunch of babies left without supervision to play in a pool of mud, you can picture the editors of the Journal as they sat around a table to discuss and then to write this editorial. Here is the solemn occasion they describe: “Mr. Obama was addressing the USC Shoah Foundation created to tell the stories of Holocaust survivors.” Here is Obama's mood as it was: “The President devoted most of his remarks to the duty to educate so such horrors never happen again.” And here is how the mud slinging babies interpret the scene, and so describe it: “President Obama … his most candid moments come when he is talking to his most ardent liberal supporters. Perhaps he seeks their approval … during a speech to his Hollywood admirers.” No matter what these characters touch, they see it as political mud, and they sling it in every direction.

The President's remark on which stands the editor's edifice of mud is this: “I have this remarkable title right now – President of the United States – and yet every day when I wake up, and I think about young girls in Nigeria or children caught up in the conflict in Syria – when there are times in which I want to reach out and save those kids – and having to think through what levers, what power do we have at any given moment, I think, 'drop by drop by drop,' that we can erode and wear down these forces that are so destructive, that we can tell a different story.” Instead of hearing these words as being a cry from the heart, they see their delivery as a perfect occasion to advance their own blood agenda.

To this end, they spin the event to fashion the following construct: “Mr. Obama referred to two events that are different from the Holocaust, which ended when U.S. troops … intervened with military force against the Nazis.” And they milk it for all they can: “Yet Mr. Obama has spent his Presidency telling that the U.S. needs to withdraw from military obligations because it often does more harm than good.” Ignoring this last part of the speech, the editors take up and discuss the subjects of Syria and Nigeria as if they were living in a parallel universe.

About Syria, they say this: “Mr. Obama has expressly rejected U.S. involvement … that abdication has had its own moral consequences, including millions of refugees and some 150,000 deaths so far.” The first thing they do here is establish a false cause-and-effect relationship. The truth is that staying out of the conflict did not create those refugees or cause those deaths. The second thing they do is ignore the real possibility that an involvement by the big powers would have created what has come to be called: “megadeaths.” That is deaths by the millions, which is a number higher than 150,000.

As to Nigeria, they praise what the President's wife has done so far, but go on to say it won't rescue the girls. This is true but what they do next is ignore all indications to the effect that Obama is preparing to use what means he has at his disposal to rescue those girls without causing their deaths in an operation that can easily be botched. Instead, the too-useless to be apprentices suggest: “Only the threat of military force will be able to do that.” They want Obama to telegraph to a bunch of sick young men, he'll be sending a team to play hide and seek with them … which is what they crave. Are the editors as sick as those young men out there?

And they close with their version of the Right Wing Internationale also known as the Neocon Marseillaise: More than anyone on the planet, the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed forces could do something … Moral sentiments are nice, but they are no substitute for U.S. military power.

What America needs badly are mental hospitals to care for exceptionally sick editors of all sorts.

From his Mouth how to make a Horse drink

Good news! If up to now you could take a horse to the water but could not make him drink, you can now because you have it from the horse's mouth how to do it. This is the mixing of two metaphors into one, of course, but they describe a real situation that has vexed mankind for a long time. The reluctant horse represents the group of Jews who are incapable of drinking from the waterhole of civilized behavior, a situation that has damaged the interests of humanity too deeply for too long.

Believe it or not, the potential for the impossible to suddenly become possible has been communicated to us by none other than Elliott Abrams who is one of the most stubborn horses at rejecting everything resembling civilized human behavior. He tells about the potential for transformation in an article he wrote under the title: “Martin's Myths,” published in the Weekly Standard on May 9, 2014. But make no mistake, Abrams did not set out to deliberately yield information that would help us understand the likes of him; he set out to communicate a bunch of falsehoods not realizing that precious nuggets of gold were buried in his trash.

He is not the first to have created trash containing precious metals, but in the thousands upon thousands of articles that were written by Jews over the decades on the Middle East and the other subjects which are of interest to them, a critical mass was never formed to assist in cracking open the case – like does the current article. What you have in the Elliott Abrams piece is at the origin a complete story that develops around an intriguing plot having a beginning, a middle and an end. It unfolds by the sheer force of interesting characters that can move the emotions of the audience in several directions. But the origin is one thing, and the way that Abrams tells the story is another thing, something that will soon become apparent to the chagrin of the readers.

In the beginning there was not “day one,” says Abrams, but “day two when the president selected former senator George Mitchell as his special envoy.” What happened as a result is the following: “It was downhill from there,” he goes on to say. And why is that? Because Mitchell who is a moderate and affable person of Arab descent wanted something for the Palestinians that even they never asked for, according to Abrams. It is that Mitchell insisted “on a 100 percent Israeli construction freeze … a condition on which [even] Arafat and Abbas had never insisted.” This is where the beginning of the story ends, and where it connects with the middle.

The plot starts to thicken in that middle as Mitchell becomes ever more frustrated by the games that the Israeli officials played, and the obstructionist tactics they employed. He resigns his commission with the net result that the President of the United States is left with nothing to show for his Middle Eastern effort during the first term of his presidency. Then, early in the second term, the President appoints Martin Indyk who is an Australian Jew that became American, having acquired a reputation for being an anti-Palestinian fanatic hawk that could make a Jewish settler in occupied Palestine look and sound like a dove.

Indyk worked for the State Department, was appointed ambassador to Israel for a while, and upon his return to America got together with like-minded fanatics with whom he founded a so-called think tank where they developed pro-Jewish and pro-Israeli viewpoints to promote in the corridors of the American power structure. Now appointed a special envoy to the Middle East talks by President Obama in the expectation that he will do the work that Mitchell left undone, Indyk produces exactly zero result.

And this is where the ending of the storyline begins to take shape. Having chided the President for appointing Mitchell and producing “four years without any negotiations” Elliott Abrams now fulminates about Indyk who produced the sought after negotiations but no result. And this goes to show that even if Mitchell had produced negotiations, they would have come to naught. Which leaves the audience with the question: What's the moral of this story?

Well, Mitchell and Indyk had one thing in common. They were both preoccupied with the settlement issue. Mitchell started with the proposition that construction should stop “100 percent” whereas Indyk seems to tolerate a little of it but not too much. As a result, Mitchell did not go through the charade of having phony negotiations whereas Indyk had the negotiations and something else. That something else is what makes the bulk of the Abrams article. Of the 1250 words he wrote, 200 are devoted to recounting the full drama unfolding in the Middle East. The other 1050 are employed to bicker about the settlement expansion being rampant or not; the land confiscation being large scale or not, and other Jewish-to-the-core trivial nonsense.

The lesson that comes out the horse's mouth loudly and clearly is that when you negotiate with the Jew, do not give and take like you would with a human being. Instead, send him a signal like you would to a dog, and wait to see if he gets the message. If he gets it, collect. If he does not, walk away and seek an alternative. Anything else you do will be a waste of time and energy.

In fact, this is how Russia has dealt with Israel throughout the years. And this is why it happened that when push came to shove over Ukraine, Netanyahu started drinking from the Putin Kool Aid.

If these are Poodles, imagine the Jackal

If Kenneth Pollack who is with the Brookings Institution, and if Shmuel Rosner who is with the Jewish Policy Institute, are not the moderates they appear to be, imagine what Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel would be like. Pollack wrote: “The Right Way to Press Iran” and had the article published in the New York Times on May 7, 2014. Three days later, Rosner wrote: “Kerry's 'Mideast' Failure was a success” and had it published, also in the New York Times.

You will find that despite the facade of moderation which these two articles project, they carry ideas and deliver tricks with the potential to alter the American culture. And the authors use them to reshape the world in which America lives and influences deliberately and inadvertently. Given that Iran – which is Pollack's concern – and given that the Middle East peace process – which is Rosner's concern – are also the preoccupations of Benjamin Netanyahu, a man that does not even try to appear moderate, you can imagine what lurks in his head and his heart. You will conclude that if Pollack and Rosner are poodles, Netanyahu is by comparison a jackal.

Six months into the negotiations between Iran and the other powers, Pollack describes what has been accomplished so far, and adds this: “Washington seems focused on … But those issues are not the keys to getting the best deal with Iran.” This means scrap the whole thing and start from scratch. Well, the lesson to draw from this is that the pattern of coming near the end of a negotiating process, and torpedoing it from the inside to then insist that the negotiations proceed along a different track, is not a Pollack thing but a Jewish thing. This is what the Israelis have been doing for twenty years in their negotiations with the Palestinians, and no one has played this trick more frequently and more brazenly than Netanyahu.

So you ask the obvious question: How does Ken Pollack believe the Iranians will react when told about that suggestion? In fact, he does give an opinion, and this is how he begins to explain it: “Of course, the Iranians will probably object to all of this.” Well, when you see “of course” and “probably” in the same sentence, you know that the author is joking and could not care less what develops after his torpedo. Sadly, however, this has also been the Israeli attitude with the Palestinians all along, though it was done in subtle ways before Netanyahu, and has become in-your-face since he came along.

But unlike Netanyahu, Pollack is not dealing with a disarmed Palestine that is under occupation and that sits helpless. He is dealing with an America upon which Israel and the Jews the world over depend to eat, feel safe and enjoy a normal life. So he knows he has to be a little more subtle; and the way he does that is best described by the Italian saying which goes this way: “Screw them but do not show them your dick.” Pollack is doing exactly that to America by following a ritual that is as Jewish as the Star of David.

Writing about the Iran negotiations, the first thing Pollack says is that the law and the facts are on “our side.” He points to language in the agreement he interpreted in such a way as to assert that Iran has accepted something it did not. Here is this part: “Iran would be treated as a normal nuclear power after the terms of the treaty had ended. That was an implicit acceptance by Iran it would not be treated as normal until then.” In reality this is self-delusion because if he believes that Iran had accepted a provision that can be so interpreted, he would not have started this segment of the presentation with the warning that the Iranians will object. Obviously he knew better but chose to play with the words – a typical Jewish pastime.

Sensing that most readers will laugh at this idiocy, he backtracks a little by signaling that his interpretation may be less important than other things. Here is how he puts it: “More importantly, the Iranian government desperately needs to rid the economy of the sanctions.” But here too, he senses that most readers will think it is idiotic to state the obvious which is that most of the sanctions are still in place, and the agreement spells out a protocol for their removal.

What Pollack does next is inflate the ego of the readers by denigrating the Iranians. He does it by saying basically that the readers should not have a high regard for these unprincipled people. Here is his version: “Iran's leaders have demonstrated they sacrifice principles for benefits. They can be convinced to do the same in a comprehensive agreement [that] will grant them the economic revival and prosperity they crave.”

As to the Rosner article, this author tells what happened to the Palestine negotiations, and then adds the following: “Many consider this a failure. But it's actually, in a way, a success.” From this point on, you sense that you're being fed a series of reversals. Recalling that in Israel, truism had always been: Jews and Americans stand against Arabs and Palestinians ... you are surprised to know that Rosner now says: “Israelis and Palestinians were wondering whether they should admire Mr. Kerry or consider him a fool.” You think about it for a moment and conclude that there has been a shift in the Israeli strategy, but you ask: a shift to what?

It does not take you long to see the shape of the new strategy. Speaking in the name of the Jewish hierarchy, Rosner basically states the following to the Americans: Do not feel bad that you failed because the Palestinians and the Israelis got what they wanted which is the status quo. In fact, while he may be speaking for the Jews, he also pretends to speak for the Palestinians who want to put an end to the status quo. If somebody is desperate about something, it is not the Iranians as asserted by Pollack, but the Palestinians who have lived under the yoke of Jewish occupation for several generations already, and have suffered savage treatment.

To explain his view, Rosner performs an act of gesticulation that can only be called intellectual self-massaging of the most Jewish kind. Sensing that this will not persuade a regular audience, he sets out to destroy the most important premise upon which Israel built the old arguments. Look at the following and marvel at the tailored for the occasion hubris: “There are two false perceptions that repeatedly distort discussions of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. First is the misguided idea that everybody knows what a final deal will look like. And second is the unfounded belief that Israelis and Palestinians want peace more than anything else.”

Well, the second point has already been discussed. As to the first, it is necessary to recall that when the Jews repeatedly justified building new settlements on Palestinian land, the excuse they gave was to the effect that everybody knows what the final deal will look like. They went on to say: It is that the settlements will go on land which is destined to remain in Jewish hands so why wait for the final deal? Let us build now and negotiate later. To this, the world replied that talking this language invites humanity to seek implementing the Final Solution, so why wait? Let us finalize now and mourn your passing or celebrate it later.

Rosner is not smart enough to realize what he just did. On the contrary, believing that he is riding high, he now moves to make a major point that will tackle John Kerry head on. But he wants to soften the blow a little, so he backtracks somewhat from what he said earlier. To do so, he throws a qualifier into the mix: “Mr. Kerry and numerous other observers, including many Israelis and Palestinians, don't think that waiting is a good strategy.” With this, he tells John Kerry he is not alone but that “numerous” observers and “many” Israelis and Palestinians are with him. He now moves to deliver the blow: “they keep warning of doomsday scenarios – the latest of which was Mr. Kerry's comment about Israel becoming an apartheid state, for which he had to apologize.”

No, Kerry did not apologize because there was nothing to apologize for. But what you see here are two examples in one sentence harking back to the days when the Jewish propaganda machine was driven by rabbis. First, they used to hound people with their incessant barks: apologize because you slandered me, apologize because you defamed me, apologize or I'll sue you. Apologize, apologize, apologize. Second, they used to portray their enemies as being capable of responding only to coercion – just like animals. The twist this time is that the enemy is no longer the Palestinians or the Arabs but John Kerry and the Americans. He “had” to apologize, says Rosner, which means Kerry responded to coercion like an animal.

At the end of the article you see one more thing that is Jewish through and through. It is that when they encounter something new, they describe it as having been there since the beginning of time and that it will remain there to the end of time. They do not believe that something can just happen here and now, or that it might disappear sooner or later. Look how Rosner expresses this belief: “the mediator's inability to imagine and respect that other people might have other priorities – a shortcoming that is quite typical of American administrations.”

In other words, he says that America's shortcoming is so entrenched, successive administrations have been and will remain hopeless. And this is what the Jews have said about every country they went into with high hopes, and got out of with a kick in their behind.

You look at life and see all the groups study their past. They keep what has worked and discard what has not. All groups, that is, except one. The Jews study their past, discard the best they see in it and preserve the worst. This is why the best is yet to come for humanity; the worst is yet to come for the Jews … unless they change.

Cut the umbilical Cord to save the Mother

While the destructive Jewish influence in America has many aspects, it is possible to pick out a number of faces and consider them icons of America's slow motion apocalypse. One of these faces is John R. Bolton who has been consistent at telling America she must sacrifice herself for the glory of Israel, and relentless at showing her how to do just that.

Every time that Bolton opens his mouth, he does so to explain what America must do to serve Israel; and every time he writes something, he does it to air the false message that what is good for Israel is good for America … also what threatens Israel threatens America and the world. His latest piece of writing came under the title: “Syria is a sideshow” and was published in the New York Post on May 5, 2014.

He is following in this article the formula he has adopted for a time now which is to begin by saying that the sky is falling. He blames the Obama administration for the troubles he sees festering in the Middle East, and attributes them to what he says the administration is doing and not doing. This said, he describes what is being done, and calls it the wrong thing for America to do. Thus, he recommends another course of action, which is to stand up to Iran, Israel's chosen enemy for the day. It is the same old wine in the same old bottle.

Having said that Syria was a sideshow, he explains how it got to be that, before he goes on to tackle the subject of Iran's threat. And this is how he explains Syria: “When Assad's opponents took to the streets, many in Washington believed he would fall quickly. When Assad cracked down, those same observers predicted his rapid defeat. When Assad fought back ruthlessly, they called for arming the rebels. When the rebels became dominated by terrorist groups, the observers went largely silent.” A chain of errors by people who knew not what they were talking about, according to John Bolton.

However, the one crucial point he does not mention in that explanation is that the situation in the Middle East has been the exclusive preoccupation of Jews for the past half century. This means it must be understood that anyone speaking on the related subjects is either Jewish or has been indoctrinated by them as to the talking points from which no deviation is tolerated. These people would be the sort you see parade on the Fox News channel – the type that worships or pretends to worship the Boltons of this world. And they happen to be the ones who committed the chain of errors he is now complaining about. Go figure.

He also neglects to mention the possibility that in the same way those advisers turned out to be wrong; his own advice could just as well turn out to be useless. Instead of doing that, he points out what he says were the reasons why everyone else failed, and he goes on to give his own advice on how to remedy the situation. But guess what; his remedy is not really a remedy, it is a bridge that takes him from the description of the current situation as he laid it out to where he wants to go. And this happens to be the warning that Iran is a threat to America and the world, therefore a country that must be opposed to the end.

Look how he does that over the next four paragraphs: “Obama and rebel supporters have consistently misunderstood what's actually going on … It was delusional from the start to think we had anything like common interest with Russia … Even more mystifying was Obama's unwillingness to acknowledge the underlying reality in Syria: Assad has long been effectively a satellite of Tehran.” So there you have it, the bridge is now complete, and he can talk about Iran – his intention all along.

He prepares the groundwork for telling what he wants to see Obama implement. He does so by first putting Obama on the defensive. Here is this part: “Obama either refused to see Tehran's dominance or feared to confront it.” And here is what he wants to see implemented: “an effective US Middle East policy must recognize that Syria is a strategic sideshow. The real threats come from … Iran through its pursuit of nuclear weapons … Instead of focusing on overthrowing Assad, we should be pursuing regime change in Iran.” It was a long journey but in the end, he got to where the formula told him he ought to be after all will have been said, and all will have been done.

Had it not been for the well documented history of the Jews panicking every time that a neighbor of Israel achieved progress in technology or economic development, this latest drive to have America destroy Iran would have come and gone with little fanfare and no public interest. But coming after a tall stack of interference to sabotage the progress of Israel's neighbors, the story took on a life of its own to become what it is today.

It all started with the Aswan hydroelectric station in Egypt six decades ago when the Jews pressured America to pressure the World Bank to do what it can to block the project. After that came the destruction of the Iraqi civilian nuclear power station, the repeated bombing of the infrastructures in Lebanon and Gaza, the bombing of an irradiation station in Syria and, of course, the current Jewish rage over Iran's progress in nuclear energy. It is a manifestation of the age old Jewish menace rearing its ugly head to remind the world what evil looks like.

And every time that Israel has committed a criminal act of that magnitude, it embroiled America into it as if the baby could drag the mother into the abyss by pulling on the umbilical cord. With money, weapons and diplomatic cover flowing from America to Israel as dispatched by the congress of imbeciles, Israel has obtained the means to commit crimes against humanity which are beginning to stick to America herself. The mother is now made to feel the effect of the abyss.

Bolton mentions Alexander Haig who said something about going to the source. This is what the world is doing now: going to the source where it holds America to account for her complicity in the crimes committed by her baby; the monstrosity that is Israel.

Cut the umbilical cord, America or perish with the monstrous baby that is pulling you into the abyss.

Healthy Antisemitism thriving in America

In an article that came under the title: “Israel Won't Stop Spying on the U.S.” Jeff Stein has exposed – for all to see – the extent of the damage that the “strong” ally of a congress made of low-life criminal traitors is doing to America. The article was published on May 6, 2014 in the online magazine Newsweek. Shortly after that, cries arose in several quarters both in America and in Israel, calling the article a demonstration of antisemitism.

Well, there is only one thing to say about those cries: if this is antisemitism, it is a good thing it happened in America now, and that it is beginning to thrive in there at this time. May it blossom to full potential as fast as can be. However, there is a long history behind this phenomenon, and it has a modern component that is truly astonishing. What follows is a brief history of this part of the phenomenon.

There was a time when the Arabs cringed at the thought that antisemitism existed somewhere in the world ... let alone that it thrived in this day and age ... let alone that it did in America. And this is because the Arabs along with the Hebrews make up the entire Semitic race. But given that you cannot find a thousand authentic Hebrews throughout the planet today, the three hundred million Arabs become the intended targets of antisemitism. What is surprising is who really stands as the source of modern antisemitism.

Still, there was also a time when people such as me dreaded the reality of antisemitism taking roots anywhere in the world, thus sought to combat it all we could. What confused the matter subsequent to that time, however – a confusion that rendered the combat against the phenomenon a difficult thing to do, was the fact that people from every race began to embrace a strange sort of ideology. They called what they did, an act of conversion to the Jewish religion, and they explained in weird and roundabout ways that the conversion had the effect of altering their genetic makeup. They claimed, in effect, that it turned them into instant Hebrews therefore instant Semites. And so they complained that they had become targets of antisemitism.

The converts added to the confusion by claiming the right to kick the Palestinians out of Palestine and settle where the latter have lived since the beginning of time. The newcomers confiscated the land and the properties of Palestinians, arguing that the Hebrews too used to live in that patch of land thousands of years ago. They further explained that they left Palestine but then decided to return to what they now insist is their ancestral homeland. Moreover, whereas it was possible in the old days for two peoples to live in that place, only one can live there now, they say, which is why the Palestinians must be pushed out to make room for the invaders.

Meanwhile, having lived outside the old homestead for thousands of years, they want the world to know they became Europeans. This makes them European Semites which, they say, is different from the Middle Eastern Semites. Therefore, logic dictates (their logic and no one else's) that they should be viewed as more eligible than the Semitic Palestinians to live in the Middle East. Go figure. But if this sounds weird to you, it is because you are not versed in the modern philosophy of the Jews. You are missing something important, and ought to be ashamed of yourself.

And this is why the Jewish organizations felt it necessary to start a program to educate the “Western” public to the fact that no one ought to be more ashamed than the Arabs who consistently fail to appreciate the right that the Europeans have to claim Palestine. And so, the Jews have mounted a two-pronged massive effort to rob the Arabs of their Semitic identity. Accordingly, when they refer to the Arabs collectively, they use the term Middle Easterners. Otherwise, they refer to each region by its geographic location such as North Africa, North East Africa, Arabian Peninsula, Gulf States or Levant.

When the need arises to stir hatred against the Arabs, the Jews use the method of projecting into the “Middle Easterner” the stereotypes that used to define the old antisemitism. This is why, the Arabs who know they are the only Semites on the planet, have determined that the Jews are today the most rabid anti-Semites. Furthermore, after robbing the Arabs of their Semitic identity, the Jews made it sound that to be anti-Arab is to be anti-Muslim. And they made it sound that to be anti-Jewish is to be antisemitic. This is why they continue to complain about antisemitism when, in reality, they are the anti-Semites. This is mind boggling to someone new to this business, but those with experience know it as vintage Jewish logic aimed at winning friends in a congress of morons.

As to the Arabs who used to cringe at the thought of antisemitism spreading in America and the world, they had a change of heart. They now say: Bring on this kind of antisemitism. It is what the world needs to cleanse itself.”

Posting 1000 and slowing down to rest

A while back when I reached the milestone of 100 postings, I celebrated the achievement in the knowledge that I was now beyond the reach of the Canadian Jewish Congress and its army of evildoers who always managed to sabotage my efforts at getting published. I developed the sense that they will not be able to stop me now from telling my story or discussing my ideas. And this made me view the sky as being the limit.

But even in that state of high spirits, I did not dwell for too long on the idea that I might get to 1000 postings given that I was averaging only one a week. A quick crunching of the numbers demonstrated that it will take 18 more years to reach that distant milepost. And this is a length of time that will render me a very old man provided, of course, I live this long.

It is not that the material was not there for me to develop into essays; it was there in abundance. Indeed it had been there during the decades that I was blacklisted and was “watched” by the Jewish thought police and their non-Jewish army of running dogs, both of which committed the most cowardly and most heinous acts you can imagine to stop me. It was that by the time the internet had come along and given me the chance to do what I always felt I must do, I was having trouble already with my vision. Even wearing glasses, my eyes would get tired quickly but were not so deteriorated clinically to warrant a cataract operation.

When that time came and I had the first operation, I started writing more frequently. After my second operation, I could read and write during all the time that I was awake. It meant that I could review enough material, develop the insight and write as much as 3,000 words a day when necessary. I can still do that if I need to, and promise to do it if I must. But unlike the time immediately following the operation when I forgot I was not sixteen anymore and fell into the trap of believing I was indestructible, I now feel my age. I feel it because even after the two eye operations, my vision continues to suffer the normal rate of deterioration. And the rest of the body has joined the conspiracy of reminding me of my age by crying out: slow down and take a rest. I hear and promise to slow down but not stop entirely.

Even though there is more that I want to say before going to where we go at the end of our sojourn in this life, I do not feel the urgency of having to say it as much as I felt it when I was muzzled and the thought that I may never get to say it haunted me. I knew what picture of me the evildoers had painted to justify the work of their horror machine; I also knew what they were plotting to do to the world, and knew how capable they were of carrying out horrific acts – as well as incite others to commit them – without feeling an iota of remorse or being restricted by anything resembling a human conscience. Sadly though, I could not see someone relieving me and doing enough to stop the evildoers or restrain their capacity to do harm. I had to hang on in there because I felt I was now obligated to do so.

As to the lost decade during which time I could have written and published several times as much as I have during the last 7 years, the intensity of sorrow I used to feel has diminished a notch every time I posted a new article. I was developing ideas and insights as regularly as I do now but was forbidden from expressing them anywhere except to the evildoers who were blacklisting me. They encouraged me to “publish or perish” which meant to continue writing in the hope that they will take me off the blacklist and let me practice my vocation the way things are done in civilized societies.

What they did, instead, was to turn my material upside down and use it themselves to describe the causes that were dear to me in the way that I described the situations that bothered me. They also took the language I chose to describe the good things I saw in life, and used it to describe the evil things which they and their cohorts were committing. Thus, the suffering Palestinians became the suffering Jews, and the hard working Sudanese became the hard working Israelis. Worse of all, the monstrous axis of New York to Tel Aviv became the Iraq-Iran-North Korea axis of evil; an epigram that was used to justify the disastrous Iraq war.

These were cowardly and heinous acts they thought were a demonstration of Jewish superiority. In a sense, they were because they demonstrated that the Jews were better at it than anyone else. What they did not do, however, was make the Jews better for it. Yes, they were better at it but not better for it. These people – adhering as they do to the ideology that is now powering them – will never develop the ability to come to grips with that reality. They never did in more than 3 millenniums, and they never will. They must be watched all the time and restrained like wild animals.