The Jewish Jihad strikes again

When you have a twenty-one page document that wants you to believe it contains the observations of its author, you believe it. You begin to read the document and find that it deals with ongoing operations in the Sinai. These being events that filled the news lately, they grab your attention. You are happy to be in possession of an eyewitness account of what's happening, but then bump against stories that set off sirens inside your head.

That, in fact, is what happens when you start reading the Washington Post editorial that came under the title: “Egypt's state of repression” published in the Post on December 3, 2015 ... and the editors direct you to read a twenty-one page document titled: “The War in Sinai: A battle against terrorism or cultivating terrorism for the future?” It is said to have been written by an Egyptian researcher who lived in many places around the world except Egypt, but found himself in the Sinai when he needed to … at a time when no one could get there, which is what he laments at the start of his paper. Go figure.

But what is it that this guy is really saying? Well, he reveals the dates at which time he went into the Sinai Peninsula, but does not say how he managed to get in there, or where he stayed when he got there. He also wants you to know that he found himself in the Peninsula every time that there was a confrontation between the local armed groups – which he never calls terrorists – and the Egyptian military. And he says he was there for the duration of each confrontation, no more and no less than that.

Now, here is a word that was not uttered since the 1970s as far as I can tell. The word is 'spiffy.' Do you want to know what spiffy means? It means better than 'groovy.' And if you want to know what groovy means, it is less than spiffy. But enough of that. Groovy or spiffy; that's what describes the stories which this guy is telling in his twenty-one page account of what he says he saw in the Sinai. If you can mask your sadness at the loss of life you'll read about, and if you can let yourself be entertained by those stories, you may call them, the greatest fish stories ever told in our era.

That's because the man says he saw non-terrorist armed groups who were so smart and so efficient, they kicked the crap out of an Egyptian military that could not shoot straight; a military that always gunned down civilians of the women and children variety – never male or female combatants. But do not despair, my friend, because that's when the cavalry arrived and saved the situation as well as the face of those incompetent Egyptians. But who was that cavalry? Do you really want to know? Here is the answer: It was the Israelis. Yeah, the Israelis! They were the ones who came with drones and whatever else the cavalry comes with, and finished off the nasty non-terrorist groups who used to terrorize the Sinai. Neat huh!? Or should I say, spiffy?

There is something else you need to know about this so-called Egyptian researcher. Not only did he refrain from calling the Sinai armed groups terrorists, he did not mention that they consider the Sinai a province of the ISIS Caliphate. But guess what. He talked about it as if it should be; calling the Sinai a territory that is occupied and colonized by the Egyptian military. Honest, that's what he is saying.

What's more, after you've read the Washington Post editorial and you've read the twenty-one page document of that “Egyptian researcher,” you begin to suspect something but you're not quite sure what it is. So you go back and reread the Post editorial, and the mystery unravels. It is that those who wrote that damnable document also wrote that damnable editorial. It is an elaborate Jewish conspiracy through and through.

You see, both works aim to accomplish the same thing. And just by coincidence, that thing happens to match what the ISIS characters want. That is, in the same way that ISIS wants to cut-up the Levant into pieces it can swallow, so does Israel and its supporters in America. But that's only the beginning, because both ISIS and Israel wish to do the same thing in North Africa, beginning with Libya and Egypt. Get it now?

Faithful to their pattern of behavior, the conspirators have resumed their march towards a new adventure now that they are confident the current one is nearing a successful end. They left the task of effectuating the final touches on Iraq and Syria to the capable hands of Richard Haass and John Bolton, and they called on their dogs at the Washington Post to start the drive of pulling the Congress of clowns into the play that's the North African adventure they are beginning to shape.

The aim of that editorial is so very Jewish and so very obvious.

Two Sides of the Mouth; one Side of the Coin

If you're not convinced that Rupert Murdoch is a miracle man, he is providing you with proof that he is. He did so using both sides of the mouth to argue that the coin has only one side. In the final analysis, whether or not you consider this to be a miracle is up to you. But the one thing to which you must admit, is that for someone like him to be and to thrive, is in itself a miracle.

As executive chairman of News Corp., which owns the Wall Street Journal, Murdoch delivered a speech at the Hudson Institute on November 30, 2015, excerpts of which were published in the Journal the next day. They came under the title: “America the Indispensable” and the subtitle: “Like so many naturalized citizens, I felt that I was an American before I formally became one”.

After mocking “college students, progressive academics and all other deeply sensitive souls” whose prejudices he warned might be challenged by his words … and after paying long homage to Henry Kissinger who introduced him to the guests, Murdoch set out to argue that everything America did – whether they turned out to be good or bad – were actually good things. Needless to say, he also implied that everything good in the world could not have happened were it not for America – even when America opposed it strenuously and lost to those who made the thing happen. That's talking from both sides of the mouth to tell that the coin has only one side.

The puzzling part about the Murdoch dissertation is that he ended it with these thoughts: “We are here … to celebrate America … The world, as we know it, depends upon our great country.” But what exactly does he say America did that is worth celebrating? And what does he say America can still do … upon which the world may depend? Well, this is where his ability to fashion a miracle comes through. Watch him and marvel.

To highlight and amplify the glory of America's pre-Obama past, Murdoch begins by taking a swipe at the current President, Barack Obama. He does that by telling Henry Kissinger who was in the audience, “your insightful volumes have taught us much on leaders and leadership, a quality in short supply today, an age defined by narcissism … Moral relativism is morally wrong.” How is that for poetic flight?

But the truth is that Murdoch has always exhibited a dogma-like absolutism of the most rigid kind – something that Kissinger never was. For him to say now that he learned dogma or absolutism from Kissinger – reputed to be the consummate diplomat – is to misunderstand the man or to insult him in the face. Kissinger was also reputed to be a narcissist. In fact, a revealing cartoon showed him kissing himself in the mirror. Too absorbed with himself to pronounce his name in full, he keeps repeating: Kiss, Kiss, Kiss.

Having mocked college students and progressive academics, the people who will soon be running the country, Murdoch takes up the notion of America being an exceptional nation and accuses those same people of being embarrassed by that fact. He laments that they have no sense of direction because, he says, they suffer from an identity crisis. And this is where he invokes a past whose glory he amplifies. He says that during WW II, America saved Australia from the Japanese. A few years later, it saved South Korea from the North.

So far so good, but the problem is that he now moves into the realm of fantasy ... again using both sides of the mouth to argue that the coin has only one side. To this end, he says that South Korea served as “the buffer that Japan needed to rise and be a great economy.” What was that again, Rupert? Did you check with the Japanese?

He also suggests that America was exceptional when it intervened in Vietnam. He doesn't explain how or why that is, but lashes out at the 'left' which he says was “happy for the incarceration of millions in Vietnam and China.” What? What's the logic here, Rupe?

Guess what he does next. Having given credit to America for the economic success of Japan, he now does the same thing with China. Instead of telling the truth about America having opposed China every step of the way till President Nixon realized it was a futile exercise and worked to reconcile his nation with the “Rising Dragon” of the East – Murdoch says that in the era of Ronald Reagan “the U.S. provided a stable background for the rise of China.” Wow! What this man, the Rupert, can do using both sides of his mouth!

To that, I can only say this: don't tell it to the Chinese who hold two trillion Yankee dollars they can use to punish America for exhibiting insolence and lack of scruples.

Still, to reiterate his views with regard to China's rise, Murdoch attacks the 'left' once more with this: “The Chinese appreciate the efficacy of American influence. The left cannot countenance that remarkable human success.” That amazing one-sided coin!

Finally, the Rupe has one more swipe to throw at the left. He attacks it for not embracing the fracking revolution.

All of that leaves you with one question, my friend: How can the world depend on an America that took in a guy like this and gave him citizenship?

America, the World's foremost Exporter of Terror

The undeniable fact is that there are on average more than one mass shootings in America each and every day. That's according to the way that they define mass shooting, which is this: an armed act that results in four or more dead and wounded per incident.

Now imagine how many more shootings there might be in America that do not fit this definition. Add to that the violent acts which are committed by people who use different means to hurt or kill each other, and you'll obtain a mournful picture of the savage culture that is America's. The trouble is that what's in America does not stay in America. It has a tendency to migrate to the rest of the world where it stirs up terror in three possible ways.

The first way goes under the banner of America's official policy – such as the Monroe Doctrine which seeks to fashion the world into an image of America. The second goes under the banner of Foreign Policy vigilantes, who are individuals that provoke nations like Cuba, North Korea, Egypt and Iran, then call on their government to bail them out when they get into trouble … unless they get shot down, as it happened when Cuba took out the cowboys of the sky who violated its airspace. The third way goes under the banner of American officials pandering to a Jewish minority whose lobby has gathered enough dirt on each of them to blackmail them all into serving Israel like obedient dogs.

Under the Monroe Doctrine – later reworked and renamed the Sharansky-W doctrine – America seeks to shove down the throat of nations what has come to be referred to as “za damacracy of za Shamir” according to which the targeted nations are pressured into adopting a political system that would turn them into Jewish private washrooms fashioned in the image of the American Congress of bimbos.

As to the Foreign Policy vigilantes, these are usually half-demented individuals or small groups of them who believe they can – in a clandestine way – go into places at a time when no one else would venture, and come out with stories, pictures and videos that have the potential to win them such accolades, riches and fame as to set them for life.

And then, there is the work of the Jewish lobby, an institution that never stops gathering dirt on prominent personalities so as to recruit them, and have the specter of blackmail dangle before their eyes while talking them into working to mobilize America politically, financially and militarily for the benefit of Israel. The aim is to boost that entity's capacity to attack its neighbors and loot what it can from them, as well as maintain the criminal occupation of Palestine and Syria's Western Golan.

The effect of these policies is that people everywhere in the world have organized to fight America, its proxies and its puppets. The result is that you have American and European Jews pouring into the West Bank of Palestine where they murder innocent families and loot their possessions. You also have American and European youngsters volunteering to go to the Middle East and fight on the side of one cause or another. In addition, you have organizations that seek to grab enough terrain from existing nations to establish a religious entity that would be modeled after Israel – precisely to balance the Jewish effect on the region.

And there is more. Unexpectedly and without warning, a number of the European and American youngsters who got inspired and/or got trained fighting in the Middle East, have returned to their home countries where they started conducting operations that avenge what their countries have done to the innocent families of the Middle East. This is how the American terror has spread around the world, and has come home to roost.

Would you think that America might now have absorbed and understood that lesson? Not on your life. Look what the proponents of those policies think. They are laying it all out in the editorial which came under the title: “The Terror This Time" and the subtitle: “The FBI confirms what President Obama refuses to admit.” It was published on December 5, 2015 in the Wall Street Journal.

Here is how they start the editorial: “Obama entered the White House believing that the 'war on terror' was a misguided overreaction ... Seven years later Obama is presiding over a global jihadist revival that threatens the American homeland more than at any time since September 11, 2001” And this is how they end the editorial: “America shouldn't have to endure more San Bernardinos before Obama faces up to the jihadist storm that has gathered on his watch.”

Setting aside the fact that the San Bernardino incident is a run-of-the-mill sort of thing in the daily life of America when compared to the “worse than Pearl Harbor” incident of 9/11, incurred under the Presidency of the W., the Wall Street Journal editorial begins with the Jewish style politics of falsely blaming everything under the sun on their enemy of the day – which today happens to be the President of the United States – and ends with the Jewish style politics of telling him what to do next.

And that, my friend, is what's flushing America down the tube, and into the Jewish cesspool of confusion and mental disorder. And no one in that country has learned a thing during those 14 years.

Neither Guns nor Religion kill, Madmen do

The editors of the Wall Street Journal could not have written a more inviting editorial to start a debate and help make a few points about an issue that is of utmost importance to North America at this time. They wrote: “The Motive in San Bernardino,” a piece that also came under the subtitle: “Obama blames guns, but some evidence points to sudden jihad,” published on December 4, 2015 in the Journal.

A backgrounder needs to be laid out before we tackle the core of the subject. And the best way to do this is to ask the following question: What is more substantive; the means to an end or the end itself? Okay, let's be more specific: What is more substantive: giving a poor man a fish to eat, or giving him a hook and a line, and teaching him to fish?

You see, eating is the end. While it's a good thing to help a hungry man fulfill that end, it's even better teaching him to fish for; he will have the means to obtain a meal each time that he feels hungry, whether or not you are around to help him. Thus, the answer to the question posed earlier is that most of the time, the means to an end is more substantive than the end itself.

That was the positive way to formulate the question and the answer to it. Unfortunately, the same can also be done in a negative way. Here is an example: What is more substantive; the murder of someone or the climate that leads people to murder each other? And the answer is that murdering someone is a bad thing, but worse is the fashioning of a climate that leads to murder.

Up to now, this discussion has been conducted in the abstract. It is no longer sufficient because in real life, you need a tool to murder as much as you need a tool to fish. However, introducing these elements into the discussion can complicate things, but we should be smart enough to navigate around the complication. There is also another complicating element called motivation. While hunger is the most powerful factor motivating people to eat, murder has many factors … among these are fear, theft, jealousy, religious fanaticism and others.

At this stage of the game – the way it is playing itself out in America – the most worrisome tool used in the commission of murder is the firearm, also referred to as the gun. And the most worrisome element motivating people to kill is religious fanaticism. But while the gun itself does not kill, neither does religion. Rather, it is “madmen” using the gun and/or religion who do the killing.

That realization forces us to ask the question: Should we ban the gun or religion or both to reduce the murderous tendency that is the hallmark of our species – more so in America at this time than anywhere else in the world at any time? Well, because the means to an end is more substantive than the end itself, we better ask this other question: What are the means which motivate someone to grab a tool – be it a gun, religion or both – and go kill someone?

If we go by what the editors of the Wall Street Journal are saying, Islamic radicalization is the means by which young people are motivated to commit murder. At the same time, however, they reject the notion, advanced by President Obama, that if we curtail the ownership of firearms – like taking away the hook and the line form a fisherman – we could reduce the frequency of such acts.

This takes us back to the question: What is more substantive; the means to an end or the end itself? At first blush, it looks like the editors of the Journal make a stronger argument than the President. That's because curtailing the ownership of firearms is an end in itself whereas the motivation to kill is the means to that end. As shown earlier, as long as the means is there, the end will always be done … which means that the killing will continue despite the effort to curtail it by curtailing the ownership of firearms.

But when we recall that people – the editors of the Journal among them – who used to say that the gun does not kill, are now saying that religion kills, we pull back and take a closer look at who is talking. We realize that we are facing a mix of motivations; that of the people who commit murder as an end in itself, and that of the double-talkers who use motivation as a means to manipulate those who commit murder.

While the editors have not – this one time – come right out and said that everybody must get on the bandwagon and utter the words “radical Islamic terrorism,” they and others like them have been saying it all along, and will say it again when the circumstances will be more amenable.

This being the mentality that has alienated the European Muslims and pushed them into the arms of those who would radicalize them, the people in America – such as the editors of the Journal and its contributors – are adopting that same mentality in a deliberate attempt to fashion a climate that will lead to murder. It is clear, therefore, that the aim of these people is to start a war of the religions on the American continent.

Under these circumstances, President Obama's argument proves to be the strongest, and the approach of curtailment he has espoused should be used as an interim solution to dampen, if temporarily, the killing spree that America is going through at this time.

If this can be achieved, it will help cool the unnecessary rhetoric about radical Islamic terrorism. This, in turn, will dampen the motivation that has been helping to radicalize young Americans. This being their invitation to join a cause that would lead them to commit murder, America will be better off with fewer guns.

It’s Israel that’s crying on America's Shoulder

For nearly five decades, the alliance of Jews, Israelis, Jewish propaganda machine, its noise making unit, American running dogs, congressional prostitutes, male bimbos and echo repeaters, have all been mumbling that Israel was protecting America – the reason why the latter must pay all this money to keep Israel afloat because Israel is the useless little thing that cannot even feed itself. And many Americans believed that crap.

Then came the numerous wars and the skirmishes in the Middle East; and each time that America needed partners, fellow warriors and supplies for its troops, it turned to the Arabs who joined it in a coalition that took on the aggressors and beat them. But where was Israel during all that time? Well, contrary to what ran off the mouths of Israelis and the Jews of America, Israel never did anything to protect America … because it can't.

What Israel did was run to the rat hole where it always hides, and worked its propaganda machine; its noise making unit, its American running dogs, congressional prostitutes, male bimbos and echo repeaters – urging them all to tell the people of America that Israel is protecting their country – the reason why they must pay all this money to keep Israel afloat because Israel is the useless little thing that cannot even feed itself.

And now that America has decided to intensify its presence in the wars that flared in the region, Israel's propaganda machine and the rest of the cabal have come out their hiding places – not to claim that Israel is protecting America, this time – but to cry on America's shoulder and ask for help because Israel needs charity to feed its people. Worse, Israel cannot even protect itself from the kick in the ass it is about to receive, having provoked everyone of its neighbors, precisely to get kicked and be eligible to receive an American package.

So, my friend, guess what the package consists of this time. Are you ready for the shock? Here it comes. The package contains a whopping fifty billion dollars worth of cash and hardware. That’s correct; those sitting in their Israeli rat hole have asked America for a fifty billion dollar package. It is not to protect America; it is to feed Israel and protect it from a fictitious threat for which Israel has received more than a quarter trillion dollars already.

To fool the American people and make it sound like Israel needs this package for its protection, the leaders of Israel and World Jewry have called on their propaganda machine, noise making unit, American running dogs, congressional prostitutes, male bimbos and echo repeaters – asking them all to start a campaign against Iran, accusing it of preparing to wipe Israel off the map.

Benny Avni being a public member of that cabal, he participates in the campaign with an article that came under the title: “The Iranian scorpion stings us again,” published on December 1, 2015 in the New York Post. Being a Jew, he is playing the game in an ambiguous manner, saying for example 'stings us' without saying what he means by 'us'. Of course, he wants the readers to believe that us means “us Americans” when in reality, he means “us Jews.” And that's because Israel and not America has reason to fear Iran's rise.

Here is the proof of that. First, Avni laments that “Tehran's proxies hit Israeli and Jewish targets in Azerbaijan, Thailand, Bulgaria, India and Cyprus … as in Buenos Aires...” Second, he ends the article like this: “American policymakers continue to bet on rosy scenarios that include Iranian cooperation in fighting global terrorism...” This means that America and Iran have nothing to fear from each other, whereas Israel may, after all, get the kick in the ass it has been begging for.

So the big question is this: What do Benny Avni and his fellow cabalists do to convince the running dogs in America; the congressional prostitutes, male bimbos and echo repeaters that Iran is a bad player, executing a dirty game on the world stage? What they do is look at the lamentable state of politics which the Jews have created in America, and write a stage play about it, substituting American characters with Iranian characters.

This is how it sounds: “The Iran deal was supposed to empower Tehran's moderates, those who plan to advance their political aims … To be fair, at least now Iran would be nuke-less … Also, some mullahs urge openness to the West. Yet others believe that for survival, the nukes must be preserved. Increasingly, the latter seem to be winning that political skirmish … But remember, the moderates' goal is to merely propose slight priority tweaks.”

If that sounds familiar it's because it reflects what’s unfolding in America.

Inculcated to misunderstand the Social Contract

Have you ever asked yourself why it is that when reading a presentation that was put together by someone discussing what they want for themselves or what they would deny to others, you can easily identify one that was put together by a Jew? If you did, the answer is that the Jews are raised to be absolute about the rights they believe they are entitled to; the very rights they absolutely believe no on else is entitled to.

That approach strips every presentation they make (be it to give themselves or to deny to others) of any sense of understanding that we live in a society bound by a “Social Contract” we have among ourselves. We constantly invoke the provisions of that contract to bargain for what we wish to give ourselves or what we would deny to someone else. In doing so, we are never so absolute as to believe that our rights cannot be reduced or that the rights of others cannot be expanded.

This view contrasts sharply with that of the Jews who believe that their “Compact” is not a social contract drawn up with their fellow man; it is one they made with God long ago, a compact that is full of promises they believe God wants them to grab by hook or by crook … by deception or by hypocrisy … by pounding on the table or by groveling on their knees.

You will detect these tendencies when you read two articles published on December 1, 2015 in National Review Online. One article came under the title “Airbrushing Our Collective Memory,” written by Victor Davis Hanson. The other came under the title: “A Response to the 'Trauma' of Institutionalized Racism at Columbia University,” written by Dennis Prager.

Rather than review the two articles – which eloquently speak for themselves, anyway – what follows is a discussion on how the social contract came to be, and what it stands for in a diverse society.

Words that relate to a system of governance such as 'liberty', 'individual rights' and 'democracy', are abstract concepts that acquire a concrete meaning when processed by the cultural disposition of the recipient hearing them. This is why it is imperative to define these words before we start a conversation on the related subjects, or we end up living a dissonance of the kind that fated the Tower of Babble.

When I hear any of those words and wish to find out how I would define it, I start with the idea that all organisms begin life as free agents, motivated by their instinct and what they must do to stay alive. This being the case, all species live a good part of their lives free to do what they decide for themselves. But as we get higher on the evolutionary ladder, we see that the species tend to have a more rigid hierarchical social structure; one that imposes stricter limitations on the individual. This is necessary because the welfare of the species and its progress depend on rules that apply to everyone in the group.

Because we, human beings, are situated at the highest rung of the evolutionary ladder, we developed a set of social norms that is exceedingly elaborate. It helped us achieve all the things that we enjoy – things that go beyond anything the other species were able to muster or to give themselves … and yet, we always yearn to return to the simple life. We dream of a life that does not rob us of the liberty to follow our instinct – one that would allow us to live free of the rules that restrict or forbid us from fully engaging in certain activities.

Alas, it is getting evermore difficult to live that kind of a life for even a short vacation we might take once or twice in a lifetime. And so, we accept being condemned to live the bargain we made; that which is spelled out in the social contract; the set of documents which bind us to the larger group with rules we obey or become an outcast. It is a social contract that is a testament to the tradeoff we must make at every moment between personal liberty and the benefit that we draw from living in an organized society. As law abiding citizens, we strive to honor that bargain the best way that we can while enjoying the fruits of leading a civilized existence.

The trouble is that all of our wishes cannot be fulfilled just for the asking. Instead, we find ourselves constantly negotiating with other individuals, with institutions or with the state itself to acquire a little more of what we believe is due to us. Most of the time, we give up something to get something; at other times we give up nothing in return for what we get because the right of citizenship allows us certain preordained entitlements which the state is obligated to deliver to us in accordance with the provisions of the social contract.

Now, depending on how we define the words that pertain to the system of governance under which we live, each of us has a different view as to how much we are entitled to receive in return for what we are asked to cede. In a pluralistic society where varied cultural groups live together, things become even more complicated because the interpretation of what the social contract promises, differs from group to group. This happens because each group would have a different definition for words like 'liberty', 'individual rights' and 'democracy', a situation that leads to the varied views we develop for the rules by which we must all live.

By and large, however, most newcomers hire a lawyer who bridges the gap between them and the institution they sue or the state they petition to ask for benefits they believe are due to them. By the time we get to the second or third generation, everyone would be on the same page; everyone interpreting the social contract the same way. This happens to all the groups except the Jews who never seem to get in synch with everyone else.

The Concern is Jewish, not Liberal or Conservative

Political movements the world over, evolve and get altered if and when it is necessary for them to do so because they need to harmonize with the time and the places where they are adopted. The alterations, however, are usually minor, and take place gradually.

But that's not the impression you would have gotten if you lived in North America during the past decade or so. That's because you would have seen the group that calls itself Liberal, and the one that calls itself Conservative go at each other like cats and dogs, each accusing the other of being dangerous to the nation, and beyond it to the entire human race.

And if you are familiar with the way that people interact with each other in the Jewish tradition, you would have realized that you were not witnessing a struggle between traditional Liberalism and traditional Conservatism, but a struggle between a Jew and a Jew. This phenomenon started when the Jews who used to be Liberal, split into a faction that remained Liberal and one that became Conservative, also referred to as Neocon.

It is these two factions which are now fighting what is really a Jewish civil war. They do not call it by that name, however, but refer to each other by what is supposed to be their respective political bent, whether or not a recognizable Liberal or a Conservative bent is displayed by either of them. What you see and hear, instead, is the tribal celebration of diatribes that each faction throws at the other while both continue to drink from the same cup of spite they inherited from their insult ridden Yiddish tradition.

And that's exactly what you detect in the article that was written by “Conservative” Bret Stephens. It came under the title: “Liberalism's Imaginary Enemies” and the subtitle: “In Paris, it's easier to battle a climate crisis than confront Jihadists on the streets.” It was published on December 1, 2015 in the Wall Street Journal.

Stephens is not hinting that the Conservatives have no enemies or that the Liberals should have none. He simply says that the Liberals have the wrong kind of enemies – or at least imaginary trivial notions like hunger, campus-rape, institutionalized racism and climate change. And while they fear these things, says Stephens, they neglect to be terrified by the real enemies: the barbarians of Mosul and Molenbeek as well as global jihad.

To articulate his point of view, he sets out to debunk, minimize or otherwise dismiss each of the threats that the Liberals see in the imaginary enemies which he says they chose to have. He does that in the context of the world leaders meeting in Paris to discuss climate change ... Paris being “the same place where a real enemy just inflicted so much mortal damage.”

But what Bret Stephens neglects to do is demonstrate why the threat posed by his barbarians is long lasting and more serious than climate change – assuming this change is real and has the potential to turn Planet Earth into another Venus as predicted by the work of the late Carl Sagan who concluded that carbon dioxide has the potential to cause a greenhouse effect, thus lead to the destruction of all life forms on Earth. Surely, if this were true, it would be long lasting and more serious than what happened in Paris a few days before the gathering of world leaders in that city.

Instead of debunking climate change on its own merit, he mocked what he says were bogus studies done on the notions of hunger, campus-rape and institutionalized racism, and then argued that by the same token, the supposed scientific studies that were conducted on climate change must also be bogus. And this is where his argument collapses … I might add, unfortunately.

But something worthwhile came out of his effort. It is that in describing what he says are the methods of persuasion used by the Liberals, he described the methods which are used by all Jews – be they Liberal or Conservative – not by the traditional Liberals or the traditional Conservatives. Thus, when he says: “crises for which evidence tends to be anecdotal, subjective, invisible, tendentious and fabricated...” he is describing the methods that allowed the Jews to take control of the American Congress and through it the American Republic.

He goes on with a few more paragraphs which can be condensed as follows: “Bogus studies and statistics survive because mindless repetition has a way of making things nearly true. Besides, falsehood and exaggeration can serve a purpose if they induce virtuous  behavior … Since reality-substitution is how political business is conducted … the hysteria generated … the belief that even if the crisis isn't what it's cracked up to be, it does us all good to be more mindful about the [crisis]”.

Here it is from the horse's mouth how they did it. Will someone now lead the fight to undo what they did by reverse engineering their method, thus liberate America from the yoke of Jewish domination? We can only hope because if there is one threat that has remained consistent on this Planet, it was the Jewish threat … that which never seems to vanish.