They want American self-immolation either Way

If you've been following Jewish propaganda lately, the opinion most likely to have stuck in your memory would be that of the need to destroy Iran.

No matter who spoke or wrote, and no matter what they spoke or wrote about, if it had anything to do with the Middle East, these people always ended the conversation by saying something to the effect that America must not try to contain Iran; it must bomb it out of existence.

And what might have impressed you the most would be the set of cunning skills these people possess to approach the subject matter from any angle yet always find a path that leads to their saying: This is proof that the only way to handle Iran is to cripple it and render it incapable of hurting its neighbors or America or the world, even if it never tried to do such a thing.

And if you wanted to know why they said that containment will not work on Iran when it worked so well on the Soviet Union, you would have encountered a response to the effect that unlike the secular Soviet Union, Iran is ruled by a mystical, Messianic movement. It is a regime that sees itself on the right side of Allah; one that will not respond to reason, and must therefore be countered with military force.

So consistent was the Jewish propaganda machine in putting out these messages, you would have wondered what happened to the view that the Jews will always blow their theory to smithereens trying to have it both ways. But you would not have waited too long for an answer because the answer did come at last. It is to the effect that, true to their nature, the Jews have once again blown their theory to smithereens trying to have it both ways.

To see this, you'll have to read: “The Lessons Obama Could Learn from V-E Day,” an article that also came under the subtitle: “America after World War II practiced containment. U.S. foreign policy now is self-containment.” It was written by Josef Joffe and published on May 11, 2015 in the Wall Street Journal. That's where you'll encounter the two passages that follow:

First, there is this: “In 1947 George F. Kennan published his article 'The sources of Soviet Conduct,' in which he laid out Washington's strategy toward the U.S.S.R. The watchword was 'containment' – to 'confront the Russians with unalterable counterforce at every point where they show signs of encroachment upon the interest of a peaceful and stable world.'”

Second, there is this: “Let's consult Kennan again. He argued that Soviet Russia was ruled by a 'mystical, Messianic movement,' as is revolutionary Iran. A regime that sees itself on the right side of history – or Allah – cannot be killed by kindness. Magnanimity toward it is seen as betraying weakness while validating the Messianic faith.”

Alas, Josef Joffe does not explain why containment worked on the Soviet Union, but says will not work on Iran. He does not explain because there is no explanation to give. It is that he is a Jew, and Jews cannot explain anything they say or do without resting on the notion that they must not be “compaaared” to normal human beings because they are above all that … being the chosen children of God. That's that. Period.

This is why when it comes to a subject matter that is even remotely connected to a Jewish or Israeli interest, considerations that would be normal when viewed from the human angle, are rendered moot and irrelevant when viewed from the Jewish angle. Thus, nothing less than what used to be sacred in America, has been rendered moot and irrelevant by Israeli greed and by the Jewish hold on America. Look at the following passage and marvel at the gall of these people: “Superpowers cannot go on vacation, not even for 'a little nation-building at home,' to invoke Mr. Obama's mantra.”

This Jew is saying that to do even a little nation-building in America, such as reinforce bridges that crumble or fill potholes that cause accidents, is like going on vacation. More important than all that, he says under his breath, is the need to wipe Iran off the face of the Earth so that the Jews may get a step closer to inheriting the Earth.

For this to happen, America must immolate itself promoting the glory of Israel and that of the Jews while standing on one argument and then the other, even when the two arguments contradict each other.

'Zey know nossing about za Mutation Effect'

I am trying to talk to them in the manner and accent of Yitzhak Shamir. This is because I tried to warn the folks in America that their approach wasn't working but they ignored me, whereas Shamir's saying was taken to heart and followed to the letter. The trouble is that the Shamir saying resulted in America going from superpower to super-joke … the reason why I must now tell these folks about the mutation effect using 'za languitsh of za Shamir' so that they understand what I'm saying, and take it seriously.

The Jewish establishment that's in charge of these things has revived the use of the good-cop/bad-cop idea to try and have it both ways for Israel and for World Jewry. It gave Fareed Zakaria of CNN the role of good cop, and gave Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu of Israel the role of bad cop. That is, while the Bibi will scream at the Congress: gimme, gimme, gimme because we're dying out here; Zakaria will calmly reassure the Jewish rank and file that Israel is not dying, and their continued support will not be in vain.

The way that Zakaria does this is to pick on something Netanyahu says; something that would indicate he is fearful Israel has become vulnerable, and correct him by dropping the two magical abracadabras: (1) “The armies of Israel's adversaries are in disarray, while the Israeli army has become the region's superpower,” and (2) Israel has a powerful deterrent, as many as 200 nuclear warheads, many of them on submarines.” He dropped them in his latest article as he has in every article he authored since being made to play this role.

You can see Zakaria do that in the article he wrote under the title: “Will Israel miss its moment?” published on May 7, 2015 in the Washington Post. It is neither an accident nor a coincidence that so many things are converging at the same time in the Middle East. It is that the drama of a new order is approaching its climax with the promise that the denouement will be expressed as a happy ending with an Israel that is left out in the cold like a wino-pauper that's looking at the window of an upscale store at Christmas time.

Like drama that was written by a master, the events concerning the Middle East have taken a turn so unexpected, it is almost like watching a movie where you see the hunting dogs stop, turn around and run in the opposite direction; a move that prompts the horse riders to stare at what's coming, and do likewise. Finally, you get to see what is coming; it is a fox that has grown to the size of a hungry looking dinosaur. This is the story of what used to be virtuous America now exposed as the biggest sponsor of terrorism – sponsoring the murderous activities of Israel; recognized as the only terrorist state on the planet.

And you realize that the reason why this is happening at this time is because the Jews have been whispering in the ears of a mentally retarded Congress how to help Israel suck the blood of America so that the Jews may protect the country from the Arabs and the Muslims who wish to harm it because it is free and they hate freedom.

But instead of America being protected, what happened instead was that the Americans were hit by one surprise after the other as they watched a handful of Muslim kids mutate from goons patrolling the back-alleys of Third World towns to a Caliphate-size state that has managed to develop more influence among America's youngsters than America ever had among the Muslim nations.

And now that the same Jews have instructed their Jewish and gentile proxies to go around and advise the Americans to the effect that: “it is better to fight them over there than be forced to fight them over here,” the time has come to remind the Americans that the natural process of mutation will once again surprise them as they watch the current order of Arab militias re-invent itself, adapt to the new circumstances and go after America like never before. So here is my reminder: You know nossing about za mutation effect. Learn about it before you listen to za Yews.

Instead of finishing off the militias over there, recent history indicates that the chances are greater the movement of these kids will grow to something bigger still, at which time they will come after America in greater numbers with a greater ability to harm it seriously.

The best way to end this nightmare is to stop motivating the young of this world to join such movements. And the way to do this is to prevent the mouth of a Jew from coming close to your ear, intent on whispering in it the chant of death that has been plaguing mankind for centuries.

If you cannot transcend, you cannot mend

Despite the fact that the realities of war are talked about once in a while – if only because their effect is displayed at every turn – David French continues to exhibit an astonishing inability to incorporate those realities in his mental processes. He wrote: “Cultural Sensitivity Does Not Win Wars,” an article that was published on May 8, 2015 in National Review Online.

This is a work that shows to what extent this individual (as are a few others like him in the English speaking West) is deficient when it comes to transcending the walls of the sphere in which he operates; and how incapable he is at looking out the window where the opportunity exists to see what lies past the walls of the sphere where he maintains himself out of touch from the people he says he wants to mend fences with.

The gist of the article is that we must not worry about acts such as the publication of the Mohammed cartoons because this is not what preoccupies the people of the Middle East. He adds that he knows from experience what the people of the region want; and he gives examples of that. This is when you realize that French is living in a sphere beyond whose walls he cannot see ... because he doesn't want to look and doesn't want to see.

The proof of this is that David French attacks the arguments of the people who looked outside their spheres and saw a vast and complex world out there. Sensitive to what they saw, they transcended the walls of their enclosures and responded to the world by reaching out to it. To counter those arguments, and counter the responses to them, David French describes what he sees inside his own sphere, and concludes that the kind of sensitivity displayed by the others is not at all necessary.

Among those others is Gregory Aftandjian who is a senior fellow at the Center for National Policy. He wrote that the publication of the cartoons alienates “many mainstream Muslims – the very allies we need to discredit the extremist ideologies of ISIL and al-Qaeda.” And there is Haroon Moghul, a fellow at the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding who said that the cartoons alienate the American Muslims who report on planned terrorist attacks. There is also Stephen Kinzer, and “our leaders who compliment Islam at every opportunity,” and deluge our soldiers “with cultural-training sessions.”

To French, this is a waste of time and effort because: “Our allies on the ground don't really care about cartoons.” But recalling the demonstrations that happened in Muslim and non-Muslim countries every time that a cartoon was published, you wonder where French has been during the past few decades. And so, you realize that he was imprisoned in his own sphere; the one beyond whose walls he does not look and does not see.

So you decide you want to know what he sees inside the sphere. You find it in the article where he tells the story of what happened to him while serving in Iraq. He says that one day, he and his comrades met with local police leaders to discuss the conduct of their operations. The police told them of a terrorist cell that met in a local mosque where the imam himself was the leader of the cell. He goes on: “They begged us to raid the mosque but we couldn't do it … The cell kept meeting and was finally wiped out when our soldiers were ambushed from the mosque, triggering a firefight that destroyed much of the village.”

The question as to whether it would have been better to provoke the firefight a day or a week earlier, thus destroy the village that much earlier, is beside the point. What is relevant about this story is that David French has finally described his sphere. It is a village that was caught in the nightmare of the Iraq war.

Given that the Muslim world comprises more than a billion and a half people living in a largely peaceful zone that stretches from Mauritania on the Atlantic to Indonesia on the Pacific Rim – not to forget the millions who live in Europe, sub-Saharan Africa and the Americas – David French's vision turns out to be a very narrow one.

Moreover, people caught in a war, think and act in ways that are different from the way they think and act in peacetime. The problem with David French, however, seems to be that coming out of the war did not translate in the war coming out of him. He stayed inside the small sphere, refusing to see or interact with a world that is not the Iraqi town that suffered the ravages of war.

Unable to transcend the walls of his sphere, he fails to see how he can help mend the world.

The Need to deprogram Heads and Computers

Imagine I ask for some things, and people agree to do as I ask. So I ask that anyone who will be writing about the Middle East begins by acknowledging in print: there are hundreds of times more rail accidents in North America than in Egypt.

What do you think this will do to the conversation? In case you didn't answer the question, such act will dramatically alter the conversation because it will help deprogram the heads of the writers who cannot say something about Egypt without calling up the computer subroutine that adds to the article something to the effect that Egypt suffers frequent train accidents due to poor maintenance. It will deprogram the heads of writers who will, in turn, erase the misleading subroutine from their computers.

And while they are at it, those writers will want to deprogram their heads of the other false ideas that have been hammered into them. They will also want to erase the corresponding subroutines they have been keeping in the computer memories. It would be nice if this were to happen because the disinformation viruses that the Jewish propaganda machine has planted in the heads of people as well as the memories of computers, have reached such epidemic levels, the West is now doing the equivalent of cutting its nose to spite its face when it comes to dealing with the Arab and Muslim worlds commercially, diplomatically and militarily.

It would be even nicer if the North American writers understood that what they were told about the prevailing attitudes toward religion in the Middle East is pure disinformation. Take for example this assertion: “Our nation's 'elite' knows of the 88 percent support in Egypt for the death penalty for apostasy, and the 62 percent support in Pakistan.” Well, let me tell you, this is hogwash put out by pollsters who lost the confidence of the public in their own countries (bear in mind how wrong they were in Britain,) and so they got into the business of cooking survey results that stir up the hatred and the fear of the public.

The story that came out is to the effect that the people who say they conducted these polls first went to Iran, which is Muslim but not Arab, and asked for statistics on the death penalty for apostasy. They discovered that despite the fatwa on Salman Rushdie, no one was executed for apostasy in that country. Disappointed, the pollsters who wanted to remain relevant pretended to conducted surveys in several Arab and Muslim countries. But instead of being truthful about their work, they practiced demagoguery because they knew that hate and fear interest people so much, it pays to dabble in them.

Knowing all of this, suppose now that people agree not to write about the Middle East until they put down this set of truths: Islam never attacked Christianity and does not attack it now. What happened was that Western Christians started attacking Islam a thousand years ago, and never ended the habit. Despite all this, Islam is now protecting the Christians in its midst as it has done throughout the centuries.

If this were to happen, the relationship between the two religions will change so much that no one would ever again think of doing what Pamela Geller did. And there would be no writing like the two articles that appeared in National Review Online. There, you'll find: “Pamela Geller's Critics Are proving Her Point,” a piece written by David French and published on May 7, 2015. You'll also find: “Why Won't Pamela Geller Shut Up?” a piece written by Rich Lowry and published on May 8, 2015.

It is in the David French article that you'll find the quote on statistics mentioned earlier. Without it, there would not have been that article. Also, there would not have been a Rich Lowry article without the following misleading assertion: “Coptic Christians won't concede error for worshiping wrong God.” Instead, there would have been an acknowledgment that the Muslims of Egypt descended into the streets by the hundreds of thousands to circle and protect with their bodies, the homes of Christians and their churches.

And why is that? Because evil people from outside the country believed they saw an Egyptian “vulnerability” and decided to take advantage of it. They paid a few local provocateurs to stir up trouble, but got back very little for their money. It turned out that the bond connecting Egyptians to each other was stronger than the destructive power of the most demonic maniacs – Jews and their gentile running dogs – that feed on chaos.

There is a great deal of beauty in the Arab and Muslim worlds. Too bad the likes of David French and Rich Lowry cannot see it or be enchanted by it. They don't know what they are missing.

Burlesque Performance by a resolute Fanatic

William (Bill) Kristol is signaling he is in this fight to the bitter end. He published: “The Kerry Guarantee,” an article that appeared on May 8, 2015 in the Weekly Standard. In it, the author makes the general point that “there can be no guarantee – let alone an absolute guarantee – that we will know everything the Iranian regime is doing in its effort to acquire nuclear weapons technology.”

Had he stopped here, he would have sounded like a level headed man stating the obvious, a point upon which he intends to build a case that will most probably sound reasonable and worthy of consideration in any rational debate that may ensue. But Kristol did not stop here. Instead, he went on to say what follows: “This would be the case even if Kerry were able to secure a thoroughgoing and intrusive inspections regime, which he is not.”

What this means is that Kerry or no Kerry, it is absolutely impossible to make certain that “we” shall be able to tell what the Iranians are doing in the nuclear field from the moment that every Iranian who is working on the project gets up in the morning, till they all go to bed at night … (and not even dream about their work?). So you wonder in the quiet of your thoughts: if this is the case, what's the point of the Kristol presentation?

You search the article for an answer but find no direct answer to your question. However, you stumble on a passage that tells you what William Kristol is attempting to do. You read it and get the sense he is putting down an argument by which he hopes to set up the readers for a spoof. Here is how he begins that argument: “one could imagine a sophisticated case for a not-fully-reassuring deal, made by a more sophisticated negotiator than John Kerry.” Removing Kerry from the picture in this manner is step one on the way to achieving his goal.

As for step two, Kristol mentions a probability and not the certainty of catching the Iranians red-handed. He says this: “we'll probably pick up cheating once it's been going for a while.” But what if we don't? He does not answer this question … but before you get to ask it, he throws a distraction that takes your attention away from it: “and, as Clint Eastwood put it, 'If you want a guarantee, buy a toaster.'” Now certain that he got you off the track, he delivers a coup de grace to Kerry and to his project: “But we don't have a serious negotiator. We have John Kerry. So the deal will be catastrophic. And the defense of it will be dishonest.” And he wants you to believe he is being honest.

You still want to know what he believes a good deal would look like. And again, you comb his article to see if there is an indication of that. But all you find is the mention of an attempt by a handful of senators that got nowhere: “That's why a group of senators fought to strengthen the Corker-Cardin legislation – seeking to add to it standards that would make clear what an acceptable deal would be.” They failed, he says, and he blames Corker, the Democrats and senior Republicans who displayed no general urgency “about acting to stop a bad Iran deal.”

And this is where Kristol betrays himself. First, he does not give a hint as to how the group of senators wished to modify the legislation. In fact, there was nothing worthy of mention which is why the senators failed. Second, he clearly states that the intent was to stop the deal. He does so by admitting that those senators were not there trying to improve on the deal, they were there “acting to stop it.”

Being the resolute fanatic that he is, he refuses to give up at this point, and goes on to tell of plans for a continued attempt at killing the deal: “What is crucial now is that opponents of a nuclear Iran focus on the fundamental task: preventing – or laying the groundwork for defeating – a deal that paves the way toward an Iran whose economy will be strengthened with sanctions removed.”

He now demonstrates, one last time, the burlesque side of his personality: “For our part, we 'absolutely guarantee' that if there is no further effort to rally opposition to this deal until after it's signed, it will be too late … The fight goes on … it is a fight for a secure Israel.” And he closes: “The battle over Corker-Cardin may be over. The fight to stop the Iran deal has just begun.”

Even though he avoided saying that America must destroy Iran, the sum total of what he said was that no matter how you look at this subject when positioning yourself inside the perimeters of his frame of mind, you can only conclude that there is no escaping the use of the American military to destroy yet another Muslim country.

He connects the imagined Dots of Delusion

After half a century of Jewish monopoly on power in America – especially when it comes to foreign policy – the American people have finally learned what the rest of the world has known for centuries. It is that the Jews are the most damaging fakes you can listen to because they feel no shame giving advice on everything when, in reality, they are a bunch of zeros in every domain, especially those relating to the real world that's out there.

No one knew until now why the Jewish mistakes turned out to be so big, why these people made so many of them, and why they kept making mistakes for such a long time. What was known about the Jews was that they did what everyone else did, which is to connect the dots. Thus, for a while, the theory had been that the Jews were connecting the wrong dots, or connecting the right dots the wrong way. Now, however, it has become evident that neither of these were the case. They were not because something else had been at work.

This becomes apparent in the article that Michael Ledeen wrote under the title: “Iran's Greatest Vulnerability” and the subtitle: “The Iranian people hate the regime.” It was published on May 7, 2015 in the Weekly Standard. What comes out the article is that the Jews did not work with real dots. Instead, they imagined at every turn, the dots that suited the delusion of the moment, connected them with an imaginary line, and came up with plans of action that may have worked in a parallel universe but not in this universe.

Still, we are here, and there is among us a Michael Ledeen showing us how the Jewish mistakes were made, and why they were instrumental at taking America from the status of superpower to that of super-joke in no time at all. At work has been a fantasy that the Jews articulated every time they saw the edifice they were erecting come close to crashing down. In the same way that they exploded a cluster of false reports about Egypt going bankrupt at the very moment that the country was pulling itself from the temporary difficulties it had experienced, Ledeen is now exploding a similar cluster about Iran because the country is about to flourish to its full potential.

Here is how the author is communicating his fantasy: “Of all the worries that torment the Supreme Leader Khamenei and President Rouhani, the greatest is the menace represented by the Iranian people, who detest the regime.” But why say that at this time when, in fact, he has no idea what these people think or how they feel? He said it because the world saw the Iranian people dance in the streets upon learning that their leaders have reached an agreement with the West to end the sanctions imposed on their country.

Thus, Ledeen has deemed it important to tell the world that what it saw was not real. He then offered his fantasy as a substitute vision to hold on to. Of course, he did not expect anyone sane to believe this, but that was acceptable to him because his real aim had only been to convince the retarded American legislators of the soundness of his vision. These would be the Congresspeople who roam the District of Columbia with lava that overflows their ventricular cavities, spines that are made of jelly, and a moral clarity that is made of toxic waste.

He now connects that imagined dot to the next, which is this: “Khamenei's nephew made the point that there are forces in the Iranian opposition that can organize and assist the civil disobedience of the Iranian people.” He goes on to connect it to the dot that follows: “The country is a shambles [where] the fear of popular anger is catalyzed by regime incompetence and corruption.”

But from where did he get these notions? He got them from the hearsay of a hearsay, both of which are self-serving. Here is how they came to be: “There's little hope that Iranian agriculture will improve, as the country is in the grip of a water shortage, made worse by the regime building dams all over the place … according to an Australian report that cites an Iranian document.”

As if this were not enough, things are happening in Iran that happen everywhere else in the world, says Michael Ledeen: teachers have gone on strike. But what's wrong with that? He responds, we must “conclude that Iran is in what we used to call a 'prerevolutionary situation.'” How does he make that out? Simple, he says: “Khamenei and Rouhani certainly agree.” The only trouble is that “Obama doesn't want to hear that this would-be partner is going wobbly.” But Ledeen assures us: “wobbly it is.”

What does all that mean? It means we must “take a giant step toward a rational policy,” connecting the imagined dots the way that he did. And he ends: “It would be nice to hear the presidential candidates say so.” He wants them to say that the Jewish delusion which broke America's back is more rational than what we all observe.

If only he had a higher IQ, or does he?

Look at this passage: “there is such a thing as self-restraint … but it shouldn't be the self-restraint of fear. Pamela Geller is a bomb-thrower, but only a metaphorical, not a literal, one. That's the difference between her and her enemies – and between civilization and barbarism.” This is what Rich Lowry wrote; but he lacked the IQ to realize that the notion he articulated was but a small part of a larger package he failed to see. Or did he?

Lowry who is the editor of National Review Online (NRO), wrote: “Americans Have a Right to Insult Islam,” and published it on May 5, 2015. The article discusses the events that took place in Texas when Pamela Geller staged an event that motivated two young Muslim Americans who were so offended by the theme of the event, they tried to attack it but were shot dead by a security guard hired to protect the gathering.

Lowry makes the point that the difference between Geller and her enemies is the same as that between civilization and barbarism. Well, there is no denial that this linkage forms some kind of a package, but it is the small package that diverts attention from the larger one – the massive package that seems to have eluded Rich Lowry. Or did it?

It is surprising to see that the editor of a publication which has carried numerous articles linking the expression of antisemitism with violence done to the Jews, would fail to see that anti-Islamic expressions will have the same effect on Muslims. And if it was good enough to muzzle the “anti-Semites” for decades, it must be good enough to muzzle the anti-Muslims now, or at least ask them to tone down their rhetoric ... rather that shout they have the right to insult Islam as did Rich Lowry in his article.

But if this reality has (deliberately or absent-mindedly) eluded the editor of NRO and those like him who publish and edit many of the North American print and audio-visual publications, it could not have eluded the Muslims who live on this continent, and those who live elsewhere in this interconnected world.

When day after day, dozens of English articles and talk shows carry the message that Islam is evil; and when night after night, thousands of Muslims are murdered as they sleep in their homes, the young Muslims who survive this Judeo-Christian killing orgy, are bound to take matters in their own hands, and try to defend their kinfolks in any way they can.

And if what these kids do can be called barbarism, what the Judeo-Christian air forces do to provoke it must be seen as a million times more barbaric. Logic and a little bit of intelligence should tell you that when you have more than a billion and a half Muslims in the world, you cannot destroy Iraq then relentlessly advocate the destruction of Iran, and not see a few Muslim kids rise up and challenge those who bring a never ending stream of holocausts to their families and their people.

Having wondered what it is that Rich Lowry lacked: a high enough Intelligence Quotient or the necessary presence of mind, you now stumble on a passage in the article which comes close to answering your question. Here it is: “That prospect didn't stop CNN from interrogating Geller … The implicit assumption was that Geller and her cohorts were as much of a problem as the fanatics who planned to censor them at the barrel of a gun.”

Do you know what this is, my friend? It is the signature that says: This is Jewish morality through and through. It began when Fox News came on the air that a network started to push what it calls the “mainstream media” to report on events the way that Fox News does: from the Jewish/Israeli point of view. A number of publications, such as NRO (that used to be mainstream) followed the advice and started, in turn, to push or at least criticize the other outlets (such as CNN and the New York Times) for not being Jewish enough … even though they are very Jewish already.

This being an odd thing to do in a place that calls itself democratic, Lowry felt it necessary to turn reality upside down. He wrote: “In today's circumstances, criticism of Islam is at the vanguard of the fight for free speech.” No Rich; no Sir. You're all wet when you talk like that. Islam is not at the vanguard of that fight; the Jews are now and have been for half a century. And they have the power to shut you up that's a million times greater than the power the Muslim kids could ever muster.

I know. I've been battling Jewish censorship for half a century; and let me tell you they are beastly. Wake up, kid.