It used to be Gang, now it is Mob

For half a century, every time that a country – especially an Arab or a Muslim country – was reprimanded by an international body for whatever offense, the American pundits and politicians harped on the event as if they were all Jews clamoring for the blood of the enemy. But when Israel was reprimanded for a serious offense, those same pundits and politicians spoke of a world that is “ganging up” on Israel.

For a reason that remains obscure at this point in time, the world is no longer viewed as a gang having Israel in its cross-hairs, but a mob that is appeasing the enemies of Israel. This is what Jonah Goldberg is saying in a column that came under the title: “Israel vs. the Mob” and the subtitle: “Politics is in large part a numbers game, and Jews are at a numerical disadvantage.” It was published on January 21, 2015 in National Review Online.

Goldberg makes the point that Israel is a small country, and that the Jews worldwide are small in numbers. He goes on to say that all the troubles which are experienced by Israel and the Jews stem from those two realities. He then builds a case based on this assertion to ultimately conclude that nations may be realistic when it comes to dealing with each other, but this is also worshiping the powers they seek to appease.

Why does this sound like the useless rant of a delinquent recidivist who believes the world is conspiring against him simply because he is small? Well, it is because that's exactly what it is. The fact is that Israel is not the smallest country in the world, and the Jews are not the smallest group of people in it. There are many smaller countries which the world adores, and there are many smaller groups of people that the world worships. There are also big countries with big populations that the world does not care much about, and says so. Thus, the Goldberg rant is no more than a useless rant which is neither here nor there.

If Jonah Goldberg had started writing his column with those realities in mind, he would have been compelled to draw parallels between Israel and the other small nations; between the Jews and the other small groups. In doing so, he would have realized that Israel and the Jews do things as a matter of course that others may do only on rare occasions. And when they do, the rest of the world reprimands them the way that it does Israel. The fact that the UN Human Rights Council has condemned Israel 50 times, but not once any of Iran, Saudi Arabia or China says that the Jews miss something they ought to learn about if they want to be treated like everyone else.

And the fact that Goldberg has mentioned the number of times which Israel was condemned without mentioning the number of times it violated human rights, demonstrates a deficiency in logic. Worse, the fact that he compared that number with those of Iran, Saudi Arabia and China demonstrates that the deficiency is not only in logic but also in the ability to think in the way that human beings are wired to think.

That harsh reality poses a serious question: Is there something about the Jewish ideology which physically alters the wiring in the brain of those who adhere to it? In other words, is Judaism a brain disorder that can be induced by indoctrination?

The answer seems to be yes. And that's because these people have for centuries been luring individuals from every race and every ethnic background into their religion. The remarkable thing is that all those converts end up displaying the same deficiency in logic, and the same deficiency in the ability to think like human beings.

At first, the sum total of their belief system boils down to them being eligible for a reward every time that someone else is rewarded, even when they do noting to deserve the reward. It also boils down to someone else being punished every time that they are punished, even if the other party did nothing to merit the punishment. This is how they view what they call balance.

Before long, however, you see them upgrade that system of beliefs. What they do now is demand that they never be compared with someone else. They rationalize this on the basis that no equivalence can ever exist between what they are and what someone else is; between what they mean to the act of creation, and what someone else may or may not mean.

And they are surprised to know that the world does not see things the way they do.

The Tom Friedman Politics of the Genitals

Some people “don't get no respect,” and some get more respect than they wish for. Two of the latter type would be Charles Darwin who would be horrified by what is called “Darwinian economics,” and Sigmund Freud who would be horrified by the mention of sexual repression to sex-up every argument that is going nowhere.

We set aside Darwin and concentrate on Freud's predicament because Tom Friedman of the New York Times saw fit to return to an earlier era when everything was explainable by Freud's theory of sexual repression. Friedman does it in his latest column: “Say it like it is” which is a bastardized version of the old “Tell it like it is,” an admonishment that was given to the Pentagon a million times a day during the Vietnam War. Tom's column was published on January 21, 2015 in the New York Times.

Here is the part where Friedman reverts to his fixation on the genitals: “It is the struggle over modernity and women's rights. That struggle … has left these societies with too many young men who have never held a girl's hand, who then seek to overcome their humiliation at being left behind.” When in the past, this kind of argument was used to describe some of the ills in “Western” societies; it was defeated by the mention that if it were true, the most violent people on the planet would be the nuns, the Christians brothers and the Catholic priests who take a vow of chastity. But no one has seen a nun wear the vest of a suicide bomber.

Moreover, the people who fight on their own soil, such as Chechnya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya and what have you; have a cause defined as the liberation of the homeland. It is something that has been done for ages everywhere on the planet – by men and by women. What can be difficult to explain at times, however, are the activities of young men (and now women) that were born and raised in Western societies, and have embraced jihad. These people cannot be said to have suffered sexual repression given that they leave behind girlfriends, boyfriends, wives or husbands to go die for a cause that sounds more like seeking the thrill of an adventure than the quest to gratify a sexual urge.

The irony is that Friedman begins his argument by saying: “When you don't call things by their real name, you always get in trouble.” And here he is getting in trouble because he sees genitals where there are none. This reminds me of a correspondent who once wrote something to the effect that our so-called vibrant democracy is vibrated only by the gadgets which are bought in sex shops. This observation is reinforced by the fact that more rapes are committed against men and women in the two largest so-called democracies, India and the United States, than anywhere else in the world.

Thus, instead of telling it like it is – which is that every time a prominent figure is caught practicing sexual impropriety, the figure turns out to be a Jew – Tom Friedman tells it like it is not. In fact, he writes: “the real issues [that] many Muslims know and are actually starved to discuss, especially women.” And guess what he does right after that. He quotes prominent Muslim women who discuss the very issues he says are not being discussed.

And guess what it is that he does not mention even though he should be. He does not mention the fact that no Jew – man or woman – was ever allowed to criticize the Jewish practices which are known to lead straight to the gas chamber and the incinerator.

Tom Friedman would do well to tell his readers about the shortcomings of the Jewish approach to “educate” the American public because this is the time bomb that needs to be diffused before an uproar is raise to the effect that “the Jews came with a smile on their faces, a plan in their heads and a poison in their pockets.”

And the uproar will continue: “They lulled us into trusting them, they poisoned our culture and took everything that used to be ours.”

“The Palestinians in Palestine are fighting for their rights. We have been turned into Palestinians in our country, and we don't know how to fight back.”

A Jew more depraved than ISIL's Depravity

It was bound to happen, a Jew in the caliber of Dennis Prager would someday forget to wear his saintly mask and meet the world with a naked face that is more horrifying than horror itself. What Prager has done is tell the world how Jews evaluate what is good and what is evil, and then tell the parents of children everywhere how to deprive their little ones of a good education, and fill them instead with depraved ideas of the most Jewish kind.

Prager wrote: “Oxford and the crisis of the university,” a column that also came under the subtitle: “A debate on Hamas and Israel illustrates the moral confusion that reigns on campus.” It was published on January 20, 2015 in National Review Online. In it, he tells of a debating moment he had at the Oxford Union, which he describes as “the world's most prestigious stage for competing ideas” housed at Oxford University “the most prestigious university in the world.”

He and his partner went head to head against two opponents in a debate that sought to resolve the proposition: “Hamas is a greater obstacle to peace than Israel.” To his surprise, the proposition was defeated, which means that the Oxford students, who listened to a “fair and square” debate and then voted, thought that Israel was a greater obstacle to peace than Hamas.

Look now how Dennis Prager, who is Jewish, chose to present his case to the readers. He writes: “When first apprised of the topic, I was so certain that an error had been made that I called both my debating partner and Oxford to confirm it.” What this means is that he believes, it is a self-evident dogma that Israel is good and Hamas is bad. Therefore, anyone who does not blindly and on faith accept this Jewish “truth,” needs to be educated on the principles of Jewish moral clarity.

And this is no joke, my friend, because the Jews had the public classroom in North America all to themselves during which time they “educated” the public as to the kind of Jewish sensitivities that turned out to be the poison that killed freedom of speech on the continent, and led to horrors of horrendous dimensions. One of those was the attempt to set a fake precedent in Canadian jurisprudence that would have allowed any Jew to point a finger at someone, call him a former Nazi, and see him or her dragged like a dog to be sent to Israel for further humiliation and moral torture.

That was the principle you may call: “the word of the Jew is dogma” which made a Canadian Prime Minister quip: “What were these guys doing in a war zone anyway” when told that the Israelis had murdered Canadian peacekeepers stationed in Lebanon – soldiers that were sent there by the Canadian government. It also happened that the same government gave a Jew more than eleven million dollars without contesting the claim because: “we know that's how the courts will rule. So, why bother going to court?” You see, my friend, a Jewish dogma is something you obey without question.

This was in keeping with the Jewish view that Israel can take anything it wants because the Jews know that if there is going to be negotiations, this is what Israel will get from the Palestinians. So, why wait till then or even bother to negotiate? Israel can just take and take and take because nothing can be morally clearer than that.

As to the massive Jewish whorehouse that America has become; as to the stinking toilet in the Jewish whorehouse that the Congress has become, the examples flush out that place – day in and day out – like neutrinos escaping an exploding star. And the stink is suffocating this planet.

This is the Jewish dogma that the rabbis started to inject into the North American culture half a century ago, having stabbed freedom of speech in the heart, and monopolized the public square. It is now the disease which fuels the kind of moral clarity that motivates Dennis Prager to tell parents: “It could be a big mistake to send your children to college … prepare them morally and intellectually and, if possible, do not send them to college right after high school. Let them travel … a trip to Israel would be morally clarifying and maturing … The sad fact is that if you value moral clarity, the university is the last place you would want to send your 18-year-old.”

Whatever Judaism was meant to be, it is not now a religion but a satanic cult in the form of an octopus that is trying to spread its tentacles around the globe.

America vs. Israel Battle to govern America

You know someone is playing with a weak hand when he associates something that is happening now with something that is unrelated and worse, has happened some time ago, having left no clue as to its worth.

Look at the first paragraph in the editorial of the Wall Street Journal which came under the title: “Obama, Congress and Iran” and the subtitle: “The President objects to support for what he claimed was his policy,” and marvel at the extent to which these people will go to let the world believe that the Israelis govern America. That infamy was published on January 20, 2015.

What you encounter in the first paragraph is the argument of the Journal's editors on the Iran nuclear deal; an argument they try to buttress with this: “The President's interpretation of 'six months' turns out to be as elastic as his reading of U.S. immigration law.” What was that again? Was it the invocation of a debate regarding immigration policy to reinforce the premise of a debate on the Iran nuclear deal? This debating style may sound acceptable when done by Jews having a heated discussion in Yiddish. But when done in English, it sounds like desperate idiots latching on to a straw they hope will make their argument sound worthy.

Having done this, the editors attack Mr. Obama, accusing him of being exercised because the Congress wants to hold his administration to its word. And what was the word? It was something that John Kerry had written some time ago. Here it is: “The United States and our partners will not consent to an extension merely to drag out negotiations.” Thus, the editors lament: “Two deadlines to finalize a deal have come and gone.” But why lament when the administration made it clear the extensions were consented to because the negotiations were going well, and were NOT “merely” being dragged out?

The inescapable conclusion is that the editors are lamenting precisely because the negotiations are going well, which means that if a final deal is reached, the Obama Administration will take credit for a foreign policy initiative. This being the nightmare scenario terrifying a Jewish Establishment that has been telling the world it controls American foreign policy; the editors of the Wall Street Journal have gone out of their way to call on the traitors in the Congress to prevent Obama from americanizing America's foreign policy.

And here is another strange thing these characters have done. First, they explain that neither the Administration nor America's allies want to see the Congress interfere. Second, they call this stance “remarkable claims about legislation that would penalize Iran only after the current deadline expires and if Iran does not come to terms.” But the reality is that these claims are not what's remarkable.

What is remarkable in all of this is the fact that every administration negotiated with foreign powers, and the Congress often gave them “fast-track” authority even in matters which, under the Constitution, fall under the jurisdiction of the Congress. Thus, to call remarkable what is normal is to make themselves look and sound abnormal … which is how the world has become accustomed to seeing the Jewish logic.

So the question: Despite all that, why would the Journal want the Congress to do something that the world will see as being abnormal and threatening to world peace? Because the Journal editors want to see the Jews get credit for negotiating a deal they want Israel to own and have the right to interpret anyway it will want in the future. It will have to be this, or the America-Iran negotiations will have to be sunk, and the deal torpedoed.

Another remarkable aspect of this affair is that the editors acknowledge: “Moscow is an outlier in this negotiation, if not bidding to be a spoiler.” And if the Jews manage to sink the negotiations and torpedo the deal, they will have handed Putin of Russia yet another victory over America, courtesy of the Jews who prefer to see this outcome than see an American victory over Israel.

Knowing that the future will be “full of foreign-policy dangers” as Jews seek to exploit the Kirk-Menendez act of treason thus weaken Obama's position, the editors of Rupert Murdoch's Journal are telling all of America's enemies out there: Cheer up because if it appears to you that the “American people are not pliable” now, wait till 2016 when “help will be on the way.”

M. Continetti suggests America commit Suicide

Matthew Continetti says he has an idea that will resolve the ongoing confrontation between what he calls radical Islam and what he calls the West. He suggests at the onset of his discussion that: “We need to kill them over there – in the Middle East – before they reach the West.” He follows with a long explanation as to why this strategy will work, and he ends with the following: We must fight over there, or be resigned to terrorist attacks over here. Again and again and again.

Continetti reveals his strategy in an article he wrote under the title: “Fight Them Over There” and the subtitle: “The central front of the war on terror is no longer Iraq. It is the West.” It was published on January 17, 2015 in National Review Online. He says that “Until 2001, the US treated Islamic terrorism as a matter of law enforcement” despite the fact that the terrorists were busy terrorizing Americans everywhere in the world. Then came 9/11, he says, at which time the terrorists were called “unlawful combatants,” and America went on the offensive against them.

Without explaining why it happened, he then reveals that “America invaded Iraq in 2003.” And this is when “Aspiring jihadists, enemies of the West, traveled to Iraq where they encountered US pilots, soldiers, and Marines” who killed them, he says. The strategy to deter the terrorists worked according to him because the American message was this: If you choose jihad, you will spend your life in Guantanamo or you will die.

Then Obama came on the scene, says Continetti, and things went haywire. That is because: “Our troops were removed from the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan … The words 'Islamic terrorism' would not be uttered,” he says. And the result, according to him, was “a dramatic uptick in Islamic radicalism.” He gives examples to illustrate that last point: the FT. Hood massacre; the assault on the US consulate in Benghazi; the Boston Marathon bombing, and the public beheading of Lee Rigby.

And this is where you stop and try to evaluate what this guy is throwing at you. Is he saying that kids who had been fighting America since before 2001, had their spirits dampened by the American threat of being killed or sent to Guantanamo, and then had their spirits buoyed when America pulled out of Iraq? Is this what gave those kids new impetus to plan and execute FT. Hood, Benghazi, the Boston Marathon and the beheading of Rigby? Or was there something more profound that motivated them before 2001, that continues to motivate them, and will continue to motivate them for perhaps a long time to come?

Matthew Continetti's own assessment is that the global movement, as he calls it, now possesses more than 2 billion dollars in assets, commands 40,000 fighters, has become an expert at propaganda by deed, and much more. Not only that, but similar groups have sprung up in Yemen, the Maghreb, Nigeria and Somalia. As well, the Taliban who were here before 2001 are getting ready to come back to Afghanistan. And all these groups are attracting what he calls disturbed and alienated men and women hungry to join a winning fight. So the question: Where will the fight take place? In the West and all lands associated with the West, says our author.

But does that not tell him that there must be a more profound reason why these kids are fighting the West, especially that many of them do come from the West? In fact, he has acknowledged at one point that “aspiring jihadis” came from around the world to fight in Iraq when America got involved there without a good reason, and without an acceptable explanation.

But instead of using these realities as a starting point to make his final argument, Continetti goes on to lament that the Obama administration seems to be scaling down America's aggressive move against groups that are motivated to fight – and die fighting if necessary – to do away with the unfairness which America brought to their people.

This choice says that the writer is not seeking an equitable resolution to the conflict – perhaps one that all parties can live with. On the contrary, he wants a perpetual war that will end when one side will be dead. But given that his own description of the events says the terrorists are winning, the question must be asked: Is Matthew Continetti asking the West and America to commit suicide?

He sees the World from behind a twisted Lens

Jewish America is so screwed up when it comes to understanding the topic of free speech, it is important that we begin the discussion on this subject by showing the difference between “speaker” and the “spoken” word; and showing the similarities between one constituent speaker and another.

When Ben Carson says that courageous is the person who dies defending what he believes in, he tells the world he has not sunk to the level of say, a Rich Lowry who believes that if de Tocqueville and Ahmadinejad say the same thing, de Tocqueville would be correct and Ahmadinejad would not. Carson makes the point that in this case, the spoken word is the same, having an intrinsic value that does not depend on who the speaker is. The same goes for an act that may be committed by two constituents, one we may like, and one we may not.

This being the case, de Tocqueville could have said things that should offend Rich Lowry, except that the latter would not know it because to him, de Tocqueville could never have said something wrong. By the same token, Ahmadinejad could have said things that should please Rich Lowry, except that the latter would not know it because to him, Ahmadinejad could never have said something right. And the same goes for an act that may be committed by two constituents, one we may like, and one we may not.

When it comes to the Jewish transformation of American culture, things are even more horrid than comes out the Rich Lowry example. The reality is that the Jewish propaganda machine does not cast in stone the values it attributes to every de Tocqueville and every Ahmadinejad in the world. Depending on the direction from which the political and diplomatic winds blow, de Tocqueville can be good or evil today and change tomorrow. As well, Ahmadinejad can be evil or good today and change tomorrow.

With this in mind, the reader may now review the Victor Davis Hanson article which came under the title: “Can the West Stand up for Free Speech?” and the subtitle: “False moral equivalence and blatant cowardice threaten our tradition of free expression.” It was published on January 15, 2015 in National Review Online, the publication that is edited by Rich Lowry. Early on, in the article Hanson makes the point that “Westerners cannot return to the Middle Ages to murder those whose ideas they don't like.” He does not, however, tell what it is that brought the change of attitude from the Middle Ages to our time.

As a historian, Hanson could have reminded his readers that in the Middle Ages, people killed each other in wars where religion was used as a weapon. When those wars ended, the people ended the practice of insulting the religion of the other, and started to criticize their own religion so as to humble the powerful clergy, and bring it down to earth. When in the modern era, the hot war between the Christian and Muslim worlds started – regardless as to the reasons why it did – it was inevitable that an attack by one side on the religion of the other be viewed as the addition of religion to the arsenal of the enemy. This made it fair game for either side to use religion for what it can accomplish in a war that was expanding.

The war between the two sides being an asymmetric one with a Christian world that is technologically advanced battling a Muslim world that is more resilient, each side is using the resources it controls to inflict maximum pain on the other, and do so as efficiently as possible. Thus, while the Christians kill Muslims by the hundreds of thousands and display on television the explosive power and accuracy of their ordnance, the Muslims kill Christians by the dozens and display the aftermath of what they can and will do in response to being attacked, thus warn the Christian world that they will do to it what the Christians will do to the Muslim world.

Calling that situation “false moral equivalence” as he does in the subtitle, but failing to explain his point in the body of the article, Victor Hanson goes on to tell that Obama could have hurt Iran's “theocracy” but did not. That he could have defended free speech from “radical Islam” but did not. That he could have joined Egypt's effort to maintain discipline among its own but did not. In his eyes, all these were battle opportunities that Obama could have waged against Islam but did not. And he considers this non-performance to be a dereliction of duty on the part of the commander-in-chief.

Hanson does that, having made the point that the Judeo-Christians have the right to do as they please but that the Muslims have no right to respond because to do so would set a false equivalence between the two religions and the two peoples. How much more screwed up can America get to be?

Aimless Mumbling conveying false Messages

There are times when Charles Krauthammer has a central point to make, and so he writes a column which he fills with core arguments that lead to a conclusion which happens to be the point he is making. At other times, however, he does not have a point to make but writes a column anyway; one that he fills with flimsy arguments of the kind that are usually based on half-truths and fantasies.

He did that in the column he wrote under the title: “Obama: Charlie Who?” and the subtitle: “Our president seems to have forgotten that the war is still on. The Islamists haven't.” It was published on January 15, 2015 in National Review Online. Relying on a half-truth and a fantasy, Krauthammer erects a construct which he holds together with arguments no sturdier than a castle made of sand and nothing more.

The half-truth he cites is to the effect that Obama abdicated leadership “for which the White House has already admitted error,” he says. That is not entirely true because in response to a trivial question, the White House spokesman only did what was necessary to pacify a reporter trying to start a silly discussion about a non-event. It was most likely a Fox News reporter that wanted to know if it was not an error for America not to send a high ranking representative to the Paris rally.

Well, anyone that has seen Ed Henry ask this kind of questions is reminded of the dog that cannot walk by a pole or a tree trunk without lifting a leg and peeing on it even when the dog has not a drop of pee in its bladder. And so, the White House spokesman said something like, maybe the Administration should have send a higher ranking someone than it did, a remark that put an end to this line of query.

As to the fantasy, Krauthammer claims that the Obama Administration has knowledge to the effect that thirty percent of the Guantanamo detainees who are released, return to the battlefield. This is false because the Administration has repeatedly stated that only 6 or 7 percent of those released have returned to the battlefield.

Still, using his sandcastle as a fortress to protect and defend his conclusions, Krauthammer begins the article with the conclusions, and sets out to defend them. Alas, he ends up agreeing with the Administration on almost everything while trying in vain to show that he disagrees on everything. Here is his main conclusion: “the veneer of solidarity was exposed as tissue thin. It began dissolving as soon as...” To show how this happened, he explains that “within 48 hours, new protests, denunciations, and threats evinced a round of doubt and self-flagellation about the limits of free expression. Hopeless.”

Take a good look at that word “hopeless,” and ask yourself why the author would want the leader of the “free world” to put his administration in a hopeless situation. If apathy is the response you get from the rest of the world when it comes to involving the nation in a perpetual “war on terror,” is it not time for Krauthammer and those like him to acknowledge that Obama is following a wise course? Would this not be better than reprimand the man for displaying a “profound ambivalence about the very idea of the war on terror”?

And yet, brushing aside his own presentation and his conclusions, Charles Krauthammer asserts: “Paris shows that this war is not over.” Instead of calling the situation he just described as being a breakdown in world order caused by the Jewish inspired American military assault on Iraq, he advocates the open ended continuation of a war that should never have been.

And here too, he uses an upside down logic to make a point. Anyone sane would say that: because we made the situation worse each time that we interfered, we must now impose a moratorium on ourselves and watch the situation take its course rather than participate in it.

But not Krauthammer who describes the situation as having reached a point where “the Paris killers were well trained, radicalized, jihadist warriors,” then argues it is why America must get involved even more.

Get involved even more? To do what? To fix the situation, he says. And how would this happen if the more that the Jews dig, the deeper the hole in which America sinks? No response there.

But Krauthammer lets it be known that he will continue digging.