An insidious Agenda by the Master of Deception

John Bolton who wants to rearrange the world in such a way as to better serve the interests of the United States of America, and by extension those of Israel and World Jewry, is temporarily turning his attention to Europe; away from the Middle and Far Easts where he had been dabbling for some time.

He is laying out his ideas on the subject of Europe in an article he wrote under the title: “Why EU's problems should matter to Americans,” published on December 9, 2014 in the Washington Examiner. As suggested by the form he employed to write the title (when compared to the titles that used to head the articles on the Middle East and Asia,) Bolton has attenuated his combative approach. He did so by shedding the image of the uninvited participant in the debate, replacing this image with that of the observer who has an innocent interest in what is happening.

And so, he legitimizes the observations he is about to make by stating that: “Important American interests are at stake.” He further explains: “Whether EU members chose deeper integration, affects U.S. global security interests.” He now establishes a strong nexus between Europe and America: “beginning with the Marshall Plan, Washington encouraged cooperation among Europeans, perhaps leading to a 'United States of Europe.'” But given the way that things have developed, he judges that this policy was bad: “In reality, however, [the policy] has produced a regulatory maze and a weak politico-military influence in world affairs.”

Had he been discussing the Middle East or Asia, he would have, at this pointy, expressed what he believes must be done in no uncertain terms. But this being Europe, he lets others say what he would have said. There is, for example, Pope Francis who “recently admonished the European parliament.” There is also the American entrepreneur who told the Financial Times that Europe was a slacker with low expectations … pessimistic and demotivated. There is even the Europeans themselves, says Bolton, who “recognize that the EU project has gone badly awry.”

Having erected an edifice that can deflect attention from what he is about to say, Bolton hides behind it and pushes forward his insidious agenda. It is made of two parts. He wants the Europeans to drop the common currency, and he wants them to be more open to outside influences such as America's influence, for example.

He is so serious about that, he cites the example of Britain exiting the EU being a real prospect. He does not say whether this is a good thing or a bad one, but says this: “If anything wakes Americans up to the seriousness of the EU's political and economic disarray, it will be the UK,” which sounds like a gloat disguised as bereavement.

All that taken into account, he prefers to sit back and watch the events unfold in Europe. He does so in clear contrast to the interventionist policy he has developed for the Middle East and Asia. He also counsels everyone else to do likewise: “Washington has limited influence over the raging European debate. There may even be a downside to expressing our opinions … criticism could simply cause the Europeans to cling more tenaciously to their vision.” How considerate of him!

But that does not mean he wants to see Europe weakened. On the contrary, from all that he says, it is clear he wants to see a weakened European Union that will set free strong independent European nations, each connected bilaterally to the United States of America. If this happens at the political and economic levels, he sees a revitalization of NATO … a development that means America will again be in a position to monopolize the three pillars of power in the world: political, economic and military.

John Bolton calls those pillars America's vital interests, and he reminds the readers that a 2016 presidential campaign is about to unfold. He counsels those who will run to address “the tectonic forces now at work in Europe” without forgetting entirely the Middle East or Asia.

Whether the 'Protocol of the Elders of Zion' was an authentic document or a fake one, it pales when compared to what this one Jew has done to cement the idea that Jews are trying to take over the world by shaping it to suit their vision. And he is only one in many who have come, who are here, and who will continue to come

This is not an illusion. It is real, it has been here for centuries, and has been the major source of Jewish misery throughout time and throughout space.

A tragic Situation promising no Solution

Did you hear of the latest rumor that's circulating among a number of websites, and now spilling over to the major publications; one of these being the Wall Street Journal? The rumor is to the effect that the ingenious scientists of Israel were able to invent a new machine that can do more than decode the DNA; it actually translates the language of DNA into plain English.

And what the Israeli geniuses did in collaboration with their mouthpieces abroad is that they got blood samples from every race on the planet, and started reading their DNA secrets. One of the collaborators is Brendan O'Neill who wrote: “Rinsing Israel Out of Europe: The Zionistfrei Movement” and the subtitle: “In Britain, France, Spain and beyond, a drive to ban products from the Jewish state is picking up speed.” The article was printed in the Wall Street Journal on December 9, 2014.

Guess what the geniuses and company discovered. They discovered that the DNA of each race says something different from the other races, but they all have one thing in common. They have the following instructions etched into the DNA: You are a natural anti-Semite, and you must never try to change that. To demonstrate your antisemitism, you must boycott all products made in the Palestinian territories which are occupied by Israel.

Is this true? Did the Israelis invent a machine like that? Of course not. This was a ploy put together to make a point. And the point is that O'Neill is saying there is nothing wrong with what the Jews or Israel are doing. But there is something very wrong with the human species. It suffers from a disease called antisemitism that is so widespread, it has become the accepted norm everywhere you look.

In fact, something comes up in the first paragraph of the O'Neill article which points to what the Jews do that is wrong, and why they perceive the result – not as their own failure – but as the failure of humanity. Look at this passage: “Across the Continent [Europe], cities and towns are insulating their citizens from Israeli produce and culture. It has ugly echoes of what happened 70 years ago.” This is like the recidivist who is released in a different town each time, and commits the same crime or something similar. When apprehended, he protests that the entire human species (not just the people of this one town or that one) is defective because it singles him out, and punishes him for doing nothing that is wrong.

To see how hopeless these people are, study this passage: “Leicester City Council voted to boycott goods made in Israeli settlements in the West bank … The Mayor insists there's nothing anti-Semitic about that … it's simply about expressing dismay with 'the behavior of the Israeli state.' But Kaufman isn't convinced. He wants to know why, 'of all the horrible things going on in the world.' the council singled out Israel for punitive treatment. 'It's blatant anti-Semitism,' he said.”

O'Neill does not say whether or not Kaufman got a response to his question. But any member of the human species looking at that give-and-take, will conclude that Kaufman is begging for a holocaust. This is so because someone that cannot be convinced when spoken to convincingly, is one that asks to be spoken to with action.

And because Kaufman does not want Israel to be singled out with a boycott when there are many horrible things going on in the world, he can only be asking that Israel be actively treated like everyone else. But what happens in the ugly world which he sees, is that Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Afghanistan are being bombed. It must, therefore, be that he is begging for the bombing of Israel – so as to treat it like everyone else. But does he know what Netanyahu will say if and when this happens? He'll cry out: Help! It's holocaust again like I predicted.

To show that he understands the concept of what's good for the goose is good for the gander, O'Neill reports that the council of Dunbartonshire instructed local libraries to stop stocking books printed in Israel, and then quipped: Why not just burn them? Perhaps aware that here in Canada, the Jewish owners of a chain of bookstores emulated the Nazis by banning books they don't want people to read, O'Neill has asked the council of Dunbartonshire to respect and continue the tradition.

These people have had 3,400 years to learn how to get along with the human species and live the normal life they yearn for. But they are no more educated today than they were during the Stone Age. Their existence has been a never ending tragic situation that still shows no sign of being resolved.

Danger in citing the End to justify the Means

Given what has been happening in the world lately, Marc A. Thiessen's article that came under the title: “Waterboarding's role in identifying a terrorist” is flabbergasting. It was published in the Washington Post on December 8, 2014.

Thiessen is telling a long story of intrigues having to do with the CIA torturing people to extract from them information that led to other people – who, in turn, led to yet other people – that were then captured and brought to justice. And it is this ultimate end (or maybe not so ultimate,) says the author of the article, which justifies the means of torture that were employed to bring about the long chain of events. There is one problem with this story; however, it does not rise to the level of the “ticking time-bomb” theory. And you know what? it does not even pretend to.

You see, the idea of torture as an acceptable means to an end, is an import from Israel that was introduced to America by the CBS program 60 Minutes a number of decades ago. This is when the world was abuzz with reports that the Israelis were using savage methods of torture on the Palestinians to extract information from them. And so, the Israelis called on 60 Minutes to come and do a segment on them so that they may explain their thinking to an America that needed to be “educated” on the subject. And this is when the Israelis unveiled their theory of the ticking time-bomb.

They said that if you become aware there is a time-bomb planted somewhere, and that it will kill a large number of people when it goes off, you catch the terrorist that planted it and torture him till he tells you where he planted the bomb. The Israelis never gave an incident that matches this description because in real life, things do not happen this way. And the CIA example that Marc Thiessen is describing does not match this description either. In fact, he is happy to report – not that some time-bomb was diffused before it exploded – but that some guy was brought to justice years after the torture that led to him. Thus, to Thiessen, employing torture on someone as a means to bring another one to justice, justifies the original torture. And that's his new Jewish lesson to America.

But wait a minute, the Thiessen story does not even end as “happily” as that because the guy that was supposed to represent the end of the line was never captured, says the Washington Post author. All what happened was that a “Be on the Lookout” was issued on him, and the lookout remains in effect to this day. Meanwhile, no bomb went off, and there is not the pretense that a timer attached to a bomb is ticking somewhere in America or elsewhere in the world.

And while this is the truth of the matter according to Thiessen, he still celebrates what he considers to be a victory because: “It has obviously been many years since CIA officials extracted those initial leads … But it was CIA interrogations – including waterboarding – that made it possible to identify and target [the man that got away] in the first place.”

Because of this, he chides Senator Feinstein for saying that “nothing of value came from the CIA's interrogations.” Also, he fails to put into the correct perspective the reality that “releasing the report at such a sensitive time posed an unacceptable risk to U.S. personnel and facilities abroad.”

Instead of drawing the lesson that torture is a savage act that can turn into a two-way street, and that the Israeli “education” of America was a bad thing that must never again be repeated, he tells Feinstein to use a face-saving excuse to bury the truth.

Burying the truth is a lie. And that, my friend, has always been a big part of the Jewish education of America. No wonder America is in such a mess having been subjected to half a century of Jewish teachings.

The time has come to put an end to this tragedy by shining the light, not only on the experiment of horror that must never be repeated, but also on the Jewish “education” that led to it.

The new demonic Israeli Scheme

The gang of Israelis and their Jewish and non-Jewish backers worldwide has a plan for just about everything in the world that has the slightest connection to Jewish or to Israeli matters. When it comes to Israel proper, the occupied territory of the West Bank and the blockaded Gaza Strip, what the gang wants is to maintain the status quo while siphoning off money from the world, especially America. The Israelis and their mouthpieces in America manage to pull this off by making the false promise that they have a plan to bring peace to the region.

Up to now, the plans for maintaining the occupation have rested on stirring up the sort of trouble which provoked the Palestinian masses to respond. When this happened, they blamed the unrest on the head of the Palestinian Authority and asked America for money, money, money to shore up Israel's defenses. They did that in an earlier era by desecrating the holy places, and blaming the ensuing intifadas on Yasser Arafat who had nothing to do with them. So very cowardly, so very Jewish.

Moreover, knowing that they will be asked to explain why they need hundreds of millions of dollars to cope with a bunch of kids throwing stones, the Israelis mounted operations in which they sent warplanes to bomb an empty place in Lebanon or Syria in the middle of the night without causing the kind of damage that would invite retaliation. And they used these incidents to argue that they not only must cope with an insurrection in the occupied territories, but that they must also defend against outside threats.

The Israelis have repeated this scenario recently by desecrating the holy places yet again; an act that stirred up trouble as expected. They also sent a couple of warplanes to throw bombs somewhere in Syria. But having just received money, money, money to shore up defenses that did not need shoring up, they could not ask for more. So they came up with a new scheme.

They now say they want money, money, money to fix the Israeli economy as well as those of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. And they promise that in 10 years time, a veritable utopia will have risen in the godforsaken place called the Middle East. Notice that whereas the old promises used to extend 5 years into the future, they now extend 10 years into the future. These people never had the intention of ending the occupation, and they will not develop such intention now.

So then, what's the solution? Well, America is beginning to understand that the crimes against humanity which are generated in the Middle East would not happen if it were not for the American settlers, American money, American weapons, American incitement, American diplomatic cover, American encouragement, American twisting of the arms and so on ... taking place 24 hours a day, 365 days a year … year after year after year on behalf of Israel everywhere on this planet.

And the world is saying enough is enough, America. You have allowed yourself to be immersed up to your eyeballs in the Jewish sort of crimes that brought to them pogroms and holocausts since the beginning of time everywhere on this planet by all sorts of people. Your hands are dripping too much with innocent blood, and you must back off because humanity cannot love you anymore than it loved the Jews for what they did.

And backing off means not only to stop feeding the Jewish beast with anymore settlers, money, weapons, incitement, diplomatic cover, encouragement and twisting of the arms, but also by applying the kind of sanctions that will force the Israelis to end the occupation now.

Their plan for nearly half a century has been to maintain the occupation and get money, money, money from America and elsewhere. And the promise has been that this will bring peace, will end the occupation and will build a utopia.

Since none of that happened, there is no sense in doing the same thing and expecting a different result. What America must do now is reverse that old policy and keep ratcheting the sanctions until Israel complies.

America has created the current situation and must reverse it or be responsible for the most horrible calamity to have plagued mankind.

The Hoaxes are the Jewish 'isms'

Matthew Continetti wrote an article under the title “Liberalism is a Hoax” and the subtitle: “Contemporary liberalism is a scheme for the already affluent and influential to increase their power.” It was published on December 6, 2014 in National Review Online.

Without defining liberalism, without telling what makes a liberal what he or she is, and without explaining what a liberal act may look like, Continetti goes on to mention incidents that have taken place in America lately, citing the names of people who were connected to them, whether directly or indirectly, and concluding that liberalism is a hoax. The readers are supposed to make deductions as to what's what without the author committing himself to any position. Why could he not do a better job?

He could not because he is hiding a mystery, not knowing he is doing just that, not knowing what he is hiding. In other words, he is operating out of ignorance, motivated only by the power of indoctrination. The early Christians debated how many angels danced on the head of a pin; the latter day Jews are debating the merits of being a Jewish liberal versus being a Jewish conservative. Both debates being hoaxes, not because they concern political orientation, but because the first debate occurred during the dark era of early Christianity whereas the second is taking place among the never enlightened Jews. And Matthew Continetti is no more enlightened than any of these people.

Before discussing the New York Times which has been identified long ago as a liberal newspaper, Continetti had written several paragraphs packed with names of people and organizations which he seems to view as being liberals, and other names and organizations which he seems to view as being conservatives. The liberals would be: the St. Louis Rams, Michael Brown, protesters and rioters, a St. Louis television station and the movement to de-militarize the police. As to the conservatives, they would be: the white police officer known as Darren Wilson, the grand jury that refused to indict him, the convenient store, a clerk at that store and the people who came up with the idea of militarizing the police.

And now that he is discussing a liberal newspaper, Continetti seizes on its moment of soul-searching to countenance his own brand of absolutism … perhaps judging that moment to be a relativistic one. He does so by first telling of the questions that the newspaper has asked but has admitted that it did not have answers for. He then makes two assertions that stand on speculation and nothing more. First, he writes: “What I do know is that the Times would be more definitive and emphatic...” Second, he writes: “What I do know is that the assertions made by liberals have a habit of being untrue.”

He tells what the liberals do that is supposed to be untrue. He does not express such ideas in specific terms but in generalities, which is a formulation that gives him the chance to define himself as a conservative opposite. Here is this part: “Liberal myths propagated to generate outrage; to organize, coordinate and mobilize grievances, often have the same relation to truth as a [television] commercial.”

This done, he cites a number of published stories which he says were put out by liberals, and turned out to be false. And he concludes: “It is the goal of contemporary liberalism to command institutions resistant to the left such as police and fire departments, fraternal societies and private clubs, the military and extractive industry – and to alter them according to theories of equality and justice.” Wow, it's like getting a ton of bricks on the head.

This prompts a number of questions: Are the liberals doing what they do for a reason? Yes, they are, he says: “Much of contemporary liberalism reeks of a scheme by which affluent people increase their margins.” But who are they? Ah ... huh … are you asking who the liberals are? Well, get ready for a surprise. They are who they are, where you can find them … like: “Liberalism, mind you, in both parties.” Both parties? Can you elaborate? Elaborate you ask? Maybe … actually yes: “The Republican elite seems as devoted as their Democratic cousins to diversity and immigration even as they bemoan the fate of the middle class.” Ouch! That hurts.

And this is where the mystery lives that young Matthew has not yet uncovered. It is that the conservatives with whom he mixes are new conservatives or neocons who were liberals in an earlier incarnation. They turned coat and changed the mask on their faces, but they remain the Jews they always were. They carried with them the old Jewish hoaxes when moving from the ism of the liberals to the ism of the conservatives. It is that the more the Jews change, the more they remain the same old Jews.

Jingoistic Hype collapses when scrutinized

Joseph Rago who is a member of the editorial board at the Wall Street Journal made a heroic effort to keep it “in the family,” so to speak. The “family” being America and “it” being the power to influence the price of oil on world markets … having wrested that power from OPEC.

Rago made the effort in an article he wrote under the title: “The Oilman to Thank at Your Next Fill-Up” and the subtitle: “The 'accidental CEO' Mark Papa says even he underestimated the shale revolution, which will continue despite lower prices.” It was published on December 6, 2014 in the Journal. There is one problem, however. It is that, when scrutinized, the numbers tell a different story; and the real picture that emerges from the totality of the work, differs from the one that is hyped.

The problem is that aside from a scant reference to Libya, the American hero of the story, Mark Papa whom Rago quotes selectively, does not seem to be aware of the existence of OPEC. This, despite the fact that Rago wants the readers to believe is the unmentioned organization that Papa has wrestled to the ground and trounced decisively. This being the case, the report creates an incongruity – not because Papa said the wrong things or gave false numbers – but because the narrative that Rago has spliced together from cherry-picked bits and pieces, gives a distorted picture of reality.

This is what Rago quotes Papa as saying: “an additional million barrels of new oil daily … Some of that is 'supply coming out of Libya,' but the major driver is U.S. shale oil.” And the consequence is that “WTI has tumbled by about $30 per barrel since June, after hanging out at $100 for three years.” Having made no mention of OPEC, the article leaves the readers with the impression that the organization does not figure in this scenario. But those who know the history of OPEC, and know the way that it responds to price changes, quickly reach out to their calculators, and do some crunching of the numbers to discover that Rago is deceiving his readers … and does so deliberately.

Here is the true story. OPEC supplies the worldwide market with 30 million barrels a day. Normally, it would have cut the production by a million barrels to soak up the excess on the market, and thus would have maintained the price at $100. But cutting the production by a million barrels would have cost the members $100 million dollars a day. In choosing not to cut, it cost them $30 dollars for each of the 30 million barrels they produce every day. This is a loss of $900 million dollars a day ... 9 times the $100 million they would have lost by cutting the production. In fact, OPEC would have cut under normal circumstances but not this time. Why not?

The answer to that question is that OPEC – led by Saudi Arabia – has always wanted to maintain stability in the oil markets because it meant stability in the finances of its members, and certainty in the steadiness of their development. Opposed to that idea are the speculators – mostly in America but also in Europe and Asia – who thrive by the chaos they create when they depress the price of a commodity at which point they buy low, and then inflate the price at which point they sell high.

That is how a handful of people live the good life at the expense of millions of others who lack the power to do anything to protect themselves. Well, OPEC has been able to do something about it in the past. It did it for the sake of its members, and did it for the sake of many others around the world. It did it by putting some of the more reckless speculators out of business, which is something it is trying to do again this time. Will it prevail? Rago seems to say that Papa is of the opinion it will not, even if nothing in what Papa has said suggests as much. In any case, we shall have to wait and see.

Something else comes out the words of Mark Papa. It is that under the most optimistic scenario which he envisages – mainly that the reserves of shale oil and shale gas will double over the next few years – peak unconventional oil will be reached in 50 years, and total depletion shortly thereafter. This will make it less than half the time it took the planet to reach peak conventional oil, and a fraction of the time it took to deplete it.

This should be a signal for Joseph Rago and his fellow editors on the board of the Wall Street Journal that they must stop playing the jingoistic game and concentrate instead on probing the best minds as to how the world can manage if a breakthrough in the production of energy is not achieved.

The Fiction that begs to be fixed or trashed

You can tell that a script was written by a beginner when you see at least one character in the film described by the other characters as being a magnificent human. It would be said that he or she is capable of extraordinary feats. The trouble is that you never see him or her do something that shows they live up to that description; it's only cheap talk. A good example of this is the 'Number One' character in “Star Trek, the Next Generation” who will be remembered by fans not for the qualities that the other characters have attributed to him but for the number of times that he shouted in a panicky voice: “shields up!”

That's a metaphor which almost parallels the relationship America has with Israel. You have here an army of political and journalistic lackeys – Jews and non-Jews alike – running around and constantly mouthing off the great relationship and strong alliance that exist between the two countries. Well, the same thing is said when the Americans speak of Canada, but they don't stop here. They describe that relationship by what defines it. And that would be things like the size of trade between the two countries, the common border they live with, the shared military experiences they are having in different parts of the world, and so on.

So the question: Who are the political and journalistic operatives in charge of maintaining the myth of a relationship in existence between America and Israel which, in reality, is nothing more than a parasitic one … always eroding America, yet talked about as if it were an alliance benefiting the superpower? The simple answer is that these operatives are treasonous Americans whose lives depend on eating from the Jewish carrot to avoid being hit by the Jewish stick. They are bribed to perform the role of mouthpieces for Jewish and Israeli interests, and they are blackmailed to the effect that if they don't perform, the skeletons they hide in their closets will be dragged out and put on display for the whole world to see.

This says that the script – asinine as it is – was bound to start fraying at some point along the line. It happened once under the governance of Bush 41when his administration sanctioned Israel for violating international law. And the situation seems to beg for something similar or stronger to happen now … before America is made to pay a high price in blood and treasure for sponsoring the criminal activities of a primitive ideology that came wearing the full mantle and the savagery of the Stone Age, never attempting to change since biblical times.

What is happening at this time is that reports are circulating to the effect that the current administration is thinking along the lines of the Bush 41 administration. It is apparently preparing a package of sanctions that will dissociate America from Israel's criminal activities, and serve as a reminder that America remains committed to the rule of law ... meaning that it can no longer make an exception for Israel by turning a blind eye to the fact that the continued occupation and robbery of Palestinian territory is made by mostly American settlers who come financed with American money, and equipped with American weapons, always counting on American protection and American diplomatic cover in world forums. It is a system of primitive savagery made to look and sound like a part of the American system of values.

And so, you should now expect to see the bribed and the blackmailed of the American politico-journalistic realm come out their rat holes and their cockroach hideouts to protest on behalf of Israel against their own people and their own government. Those who are happy to do no better than the infamous 'Number One' in Star Trek, will keep shouting their version of “shields up!” Others, however, will see that they are standing on a ship which is going nowhere if not heading straight ahead to disaster. Unlike 'Number One' who stayed with the ship to the end, they will abandon it, and do what Denise Crosby, who played Natasha Yar, did.

She said, after leaving: “I couldn't wait to get off that show … I didn't want to spend the next six years going 'Aye, aye, captain.' It just scared the hell out of me … I think you have to take your chances … I didn't have to make house payments or support people. I was free to make those kinds of decisions … God forbid you go through your life thinking, 'What if?'”

Likewise, those congressional and journalistic traitors will have to think: What if America was free again? What if these people could look in the mirror and say to themselves: I am proud to be me because I am not sucking up to the Jew that pays my salary or the one that maintains a file on me containing what I hide from the public? What if, America? What if?