What was kosher proved to be unclean

There are those of us who spent our adult lives warning the North American establishment it was conned into believing that the Jewish attacks on foreign countries and their peoples, were meant to make the world a better place. We explained that the attacks were meant instead to achieve nefarious goals. Now that time has passed, the proof is in to the effect that what sounded like kosher talk, turned out to be unclean lies.

We, who did the warning, could see that the Jewish attacks on foreign nations were designed to impress not the people overseas, but the people here at home. The goal was to acquaint the North American population with the Judeo-Yiddish culture of slander and insults so as to normalize such behavior over here and fuse it with the prevailing culture. We could see that the Jewish leaders in charge of the scheme were paving the way for the full exploitation of the continent, and we raised our voices but nobody listened.

Despite the fact that our predictions came true in the sense that no one sane will now deny that North America is being exploited politically, culturally, diplomatically, financially and militarily by the Jews – nobody except for one or two women, has for a long time, complained loudly enough to be noticed. But as it happens in a good drama, the unexpected did occur, and someone has finally raised his voice somewhat loudly enough to shake things up. Regrettably, however, he did not discuss the cause and effect of the situation; he only discussed the effect without even suggesting there may have been a cause.

He is Victor Davis Hanson who wrote: “Journalism R.I.P.,” an article that was published on June 6, 2016 in National Review Online. As the title implies, the author is suggesting that journalism in North America has died. Now, given that journalism is practiced both by the Left and the Right of the political spectrum, you expect to see a critique of the two sides. But that's not what Hanson does in this article or any article, for that matter.

Instead of laying out a non-partisan view of what journalism is doing that's wrong or incomplete, he paints a picture of the deficiencies he detected in the leftist publications. This is probably why he failed to see that he is himself deficient, and that his shortcomings are adding to the deterioration of the profession in North America. In the end, he wrote an article that's as damning of the Left as ever, and nothing else that’s redeeming.

Still, there is one thing that's new in the article: the mention of a recent incident. It is that Donald Trump who is running to be President of the United States, is being sued by someone, and the case is overseen by a judge of Mexican descent. It is a complicated case that's still ongoing, but there have been hearings during which the judge made rulings. Trump believes that the rulings were unfair to him, attributing the judge's biased attitude against him to his Mexican ethnicity because Trump promised that if elected President, he'll build a wall on the border and have Mexico pay for it.

There has been uproar about that saying, and Victor Hanson came to Trump’s defense. Hanson's point is that if Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor could point to her Latin background as a measure of her qualification to be a good judge, so can Trump point to the Mexican background of Gonzalo Curiel as a measure of his disqualification to oversee this case. And so, the question we must ask is this: Is there equivalence between the two situations? And the answer we must give is: no, there is no equivalence between them.

The reason is that in a country that's made of immigrants from all over the word, everyone is proud of their heritage, and many wear their pride on their sleeve. Because it is acceptable to do so, Ronald Reagan exhibited pride in his Irish heritage, and Joe Lieberman in his Jewish religion. What is not acceptable, however, would have been someone trying to disqualify them because of who they are. And yet, this is what Trump is trying to do to Judge Curiel.

Yes, something like that did happen long ago. It was a time when John Kennedy felt compelled to state that his Catholicism will not affect his judgment as President of the United States … but these days are gone. Now, you can be proud of your heritage, and no one can disqualify you because of it.

So we ask the question that Hanson did not address: What is the cause of all that confusion? The answer is that the noble values of the American culture were ripped out and replaced with the mean values of the Judeo-Yiddish culture. Is there a way to fix that? Yes there is. It is to be honest and tell it like it is.

Ugly Logic spawned by lasting ancient Madness

Look what a savage attack is delivered to your sense of moral rectitude at the start of the latest New York Daily News' editorial. The first sentence says this: “Bernie Sanders … plans to make the section related to the Middle East more 'even handed' toward the Palestinians.” As to the title of the editorial, it reads as follows: “Bernie Sanders' anti-Israel push,” published on June 5, 2016 in the Daily News.

Look closely at that first sentence, and note the logical horror that's packed into it. First, the editors make the concept of even-handedness a bad thing in itself. Having done that, they suggest that Sanders chose to favor the Palestinians. What is atrocious about this logic is that even-handedness means to be unbiased towards any side … and yet, the editors assert that to be unbiased in the Middle East is to side with the Palestinians.

Whether or not the people who think that way are conscious of the contradiction that's inherent to their logic, there is utility in turning the concept of even-handedness on its head. It is that it opens the door for them to say that even-handedness in the Middle East makes you anti-Israeli, anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic.

However, there is not here the suggestion that even-handedness in other circumstances does not mean what it says: to be unbiased toward any of the sides. Thus, what the editors are establishing, is the principle that when it comes to Jewish affairs, to treat the Jews the same as anyone else, amounts to favoring someone else. That is, either you are one hundred percent on the side of the Jews no matter what they do, or you are against them. In fact, against their right to even exist.

And so, they ask the question: “What might that mean?” And they answer: “Nothing good”.

They go on to tell what Bernie Sanders has done wrong in their view. It is that he “appointed to the platform committee two activists who view Israel as an occupying power.” The implication here is that in their view, the existence of Israeli soldiers in Palestine – half a century already – does not constitute an occupation.

Well, up until today, the unwanted presence of soldiers in a country that's not their own has been called occupation. So, once again, a question poses itself: Has the definition of occupation changed for everyone? Or is it that things have changed on this occasion only because it concerns the Jews? It should be obvious by now that the Jewish editors of the Daily News have again singled out the Jews for special treatment.

They go on to tell who the two appointees are, and what preoccupies them: the normal humanitarian concern that anyone would have for the plight of a people under occupation. However, standing for the right of the Palestinians to be rid of the occupation and live freely like everyone else, the Sanders appointees have displeased the editors of the Daily News, and may even have frightened them.

Look what the editors complain about: “The unifying viewpoint is that the Democratic Party must reduce emphasis on standing with Israel as a nation under existential siege and increase emphasis on the suffering of Palestinians.” What the editors mean is that Israel exists because the existence of Palestine is denied. If Israel is forced to terminate the occupation to end the suffering of the Palestinian people, the result will be that Palestine will come into existence and Israel will cease to exist.

That's a rephrasing of the old fantasy which goes like this: It is us or it is them because God has said there is a place for only one, not two. And when you look closely at everything that the Jews have said and done, you'll find that this mentality has accompanied them throughout time everywhere they went. In fact, it is the core of their religious belief as spelled out in the book of ideology they call the Old Testament. And this is why the Jews have been treated so badly by the entire human race since they came into existence.

To buttress their argument, the editors repeat the Judeo-Israeli talking points which basically say that the Jews are good people deserving to enjoy all the rights that are due to them. On the other hand, those same talking points say that the Palestinians are evil people who must not be given any of the rights enjoyed by everyone.

And the world says to the Jews: Like always, you're gonna pay dearly for your morbid mentality.

A Reality that's curiouser than Fiction

Let's think up a fictional story, and then guess if it can happen in real life.

You have a prime minister of Israel named Benjamin Netanyahu that's losing members of his coalition. They are defecting to the opposition parties, leaving him one or two members away from a vote of non-confidence that could bring down his government.

Waiting in the wings for that day has been the consummate opportunist, Avigdor Lieberman. He wipes the smile off his face having heard about the latest defection. He adopts a serious look and goes to whisper something in the ear of Netanyahu the Bibi. He tells him that his problem is not just here in the Knesset but out there in Africa. Explain, says Bibi, but don't lie to me Avi because I know you too well.

So Avi tells Bibi that the continent of Africa is slated to become the next economic tiger. “And guess what,” he goes on to tell Netanyahu. That's when the face of the Bibi goes pale because he knows that when Avi talks like that, he'll have bad news for him. Hit me with it, says Bibi. So Avi says that Egypt's GDP has surpassed that of South Africa.

He also explains that the country is on the rise economically while South Africa – that's heavily dependent on selling resources – is stalling along with the rest of the world. And there is the fact that Egypt is sitting on the Security Council of the UN for the next two years, and taking many leadership positions on behalf of Africa.

Wait here, says Bibi. He goes into the sound proof washroom; lets out a shriek of distress that shatters the mirror of the medicine chest, grabs a hammer from the plumber's closet and smashes the toilet bowl. He soaks his head with cold water, dries it, combs his hair and goes back to stand alongside Avi. He clears his throat and says in a grievous voice: What can you do for me, and what do you want in return?

Give me a cabinet position, says Avi, and I'll blow Egypt out of Africa. This way you’ll not face a vote of confidence in the Knesset because me and my boys will vote for you … and Egypt will lose the confidence of the members in the African Union because I'll see to it that she does. How is that for a win-win situation, hey Bibi my boy. And the Bibi asks: You sure you can pull this thing? Of course I can, says Avi. Do you doubt my abilities?

He pulls the chair that's near the table beside them; he pushes Netanyahu down on it; sits on the chair in front of him; takes a sip of water and murmurs in a low voice: Remember the time when an American delegation went on a tour of goodwill throughout Africa? Yes I do, says Bibi the Netanyahu.

Well, let me tell you. It happens that the suckers took me with them, and I got to do lots of fabulous work. What's that? Bibi asks. I got to know the who's who of America's experts in African affairs, says Avi. And guess what I've been doing ever since. I've been gathering dirt on all of them … and I have been telling them about it. So now they know they must fear me because I have the goods on them.

Puzzled, Bibi raises both eyebrows and asks: How's that gonna help?

Well, guess what they have been doing for me already, Bibi. They have been gathering the names of officials who are hungry for a bribe in Africa … and I have some of those names in my drawer. You won't believe the extent of the infrastructure and the size of the human resources the Americans have in Africa. We couldn't replicate all that if we spent a billion dollars a year for the next ten years.

Bibi cuts him off: What can these people do for you, for me, for Israel? Well, says Avi, there is going to be a conference on the environment in Africa very soon. I already have in my pocket the name of the dame who'll play my game and blow Egypt out of Africa. What she'll do is complain that the Egyptian delegation has called the Africans dogs and slaves. And she'll demand that Egypt never again represent Africa in a world forum.

Great job, Lieberman, great job. I never doubted your ability, says Bibi, wearing a big smile on his face. You're hired as defense minister, you Avigdor Lieberman, says he. Upon hearing these words, Avi runs to his office and starts working on blackmailing the American experts on Africa, telling them to organize for a scenario he wants to see played out at the right time. And he promises them a bribe that will make their heads spin.

So I ask you, dear reader, can something like this happen? In case you wonder, look at the headline this past week: “African Diplomatic Corps delegate wants Egypt minister censured”.

And look at the response to it: “Egypt wants Kenya diplomat fired over fabricated charge”.

Who else could have organized for this to happen but the Jews using America's resources in Africa and elsewhere in the world as if they were their own?

The wacky Method to whack a good Man

One more wacko pundit – one that started his professional life as a psychiatrist – has joined the wacky chorus of Jews who decided to whack Bernie Sanders. The latter happens to be the Jew running to be President of the United States, who broke ranks with the Jewish establishment on the matter of unconditional support for Israel.

The psychiatrist-cum-pundit is Charles Krauthammer who wrote “Lovable Bernie whacks Israel,” a column that was published on June 2, 2016 in the Washington Post. The wacky thing about this piece is that the author is openly and honestly arguing for the need to be dishonest when handling Jewish and Israeli issues.

What drew his ire in the first place is that Sanders chose to appoint two people considered by the Jewish establishment to be undesirable. He appointed them to the platform committee of the Democratic Party that will draft the document which nobody reads, says our writer, but is nonetheless important because it “expresses quite literally the party line, a written record of its ideological trajectory.” Krauthammer says he is stunned by Sanders choice.

One of the appointees is Cornel West who called Netanyahu of Israel a war criminal, and openly supports the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. This will ostracize Israel, says Krauthammer, which is what boycotts are meant to do – no surprise here. But there is a catch in the view of our pundit.

It is that the boycott will also “delegitimize Israel,” he says. Well, when it comes to an organism or an organic-like organization, either you are legitimate or you are bastard. If you are legitimate, you cannot be delegitimized because it means you can be bastardized. And that's impossible to do because chromosomes cannot be unscrambled anymore than eggs can be.

Thus, we must conclude that Israel is a bastard entity that's given the aura of legitimacy by America's support for it – a support that has depleted America's own reserve of political capital and brought it near to zero. The thinking is that when Israel will be fully ostracized, it'll prove to be the bastard entity it has always been.

The other appointee is James Zogby, a distinguished American of Palestinian origin who champions the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as do the American people and every human being on the planet. What annoys the Jewish establishment, however, is that West and Zogby together “vowed to upend what they see as the [Democratic] Party's lopsided support for Israel”.

It must be that the Jewish leaders view such support as being the umbilical cord which keeps alive the Israeli fetus. This is the growth that refuses to leave the womb of America, its surrogate mother. But Krauthammer calls the Sanders move “a gratuitous provocation,” and this can only mean he thinks of the move as an attempt to abort the fetus. If this happens, it could be that he fears the fetus will not be what's expected of it, but will prove to be the monstrous symbiotic parasite it really is. To hide all that, Krauthammer inadvertently reveals that honesty is the enemy of Israel. This is how he does it:

“Cornel West doesn't pretend to be opposing Israeli policy in order to save it from itself. He makes the case that occupation is oppression and that until Israel abandons it, Israel deserves to be treated like apartheid South Africa – cut off, made to bleed morally and economically. The Sanders appointees wish to encourage such diminishment unless Israel redeems itself by liberating Palestine”.

But South Africa did not bleed morally or economically, and was not diminished or delegitimized when it abandoned apartheid. So why does Krauthammer believe this will happen to Israel? He so believes because South Africa always wanted to grow and become a normal nation which it did eventually, whereas the Jews started with the dream of establishing a super-parasitic something that will forever feed off the human race – and they never abandoned the dream.

In fact, this is something Krauthammer feels so strongly about, he prefers to see Israel remain unredeemed rather than shown to be the parasitic creature which it is. He advocates for the occupation to be maintained, for America's approbation of the entire situation to continue, and for the world's boycott of Israel to end.

To back these claims, he repeats the two big lies that have confused the issue for a long time. First, he says that Israel made numerous peace offers to end the occupation but that the Palestinians rejected them all. Second, he says that Israel evacuated Gaza on its own accord.

The first claim is contradicted by the fact that the Israelis are now bragging about deceiving the Americans to win concessions when in fact, they never had the intention to evacuate what they continue to say is land given to them by God.

As to the evacuation of Gaza, the truth is that Israel did not give back one inch of Arab land on its own accord. It is out of the Sinai, the Easter Golan, the Gaza Strip and Southern Lebanon because it was kicked out of these places.

However, given that Gaza has only limited means to defend itself, the Israelis maintain a cowardly sort of occupation by controlling the Strip's air space and maritime economic zone.

Let’s be honest and realistic; Bernie Sanders spoke like the good man that he is. Charles Krauthammer accused him of whacking Israel to legitimize his own whacking of Sanders because Krauthammer may be realistic, but he’s not always honest. It's all a part of the human condition, you see.

Nothing to fix but the Heads of Fanatics

Jews are being Jews when they incessantly do the wrong thing. And right now the fanatics among them are going after the Iran nuclear deal like a serial rapist goes after the girl he is obsessed with.

A manifestation of this reality is in the column that came under the title: “How the next president can start fixing the Iran Deal,” written by Benny Avni and published on June 1, 2016 in the New York Post.

The impression you get when reading this piece is the same as that of listening to someone that's totally out of it. Given that the writer makes as much sense as someone that's right out the “Twilight Zone,” you wonder if he is a space alien that shape-shifted into a human form, or if he is a human being that's possessed by an alien entity or worse, possessed by a demon right out of hell.

Having called the Iran nuclear deal “downright dangerous,” look what it is that's stirring Benny Avni, and decide for yourself if this is the response of a space alien or that of a demon:

“Iran was supposed to reduce its stockpiles of heavy water. Oops – turns out it overproduced and has 70 extra tons … America will buy some even though Iranian access to US currency wasn't part of the deal … But where is that excess stock now? Olli Heinonen told reporters 'It looks that it isn't in US possession' while the purchase details are finalized … If Iran still legally owns that stock today, that's a violation of the deal … As a former inspector at the IAEA, Heinonen should know. He says the IAEA report on that file is 'fairly thin,' missing details.”

Let's go over that brazenly non-human logic. Avni makes it clear he is stirred up because America will buy heavy water that Iran is required to get rid of. He is unhappy because he assumes that America will pay in US currency despite the fact that having access to US currency “wasn't part of the deal,” he says.

Well, let's assume America will pay in US currency and not any other. What might have forbidden America from doing this would be a specific ban written into the agreement. But like Avni has noted, there is no such ban in the agreement. And yet, he still calls the transaction a violation of that very agreement. Well, my friend, adhering to this kind of logic has immense ramifications when it infests the agencies of government and the other cultural institutions – as we shall see in a moment.

In addition to that, Benny Avni is also stirred up because Olli Heinonen said “it looks like” the heavy water isn't in US possession while the purchase details are finalized. He is unhappy because, if true, it means that – on paper – Iran still owns the stock. And that, says he, is a violation of the deal. To give credence to the “accusation” (if true,) he says that Heinonen should know because he was inspector at the IAEA. But what exactly does Heinonen know? Well, he actually admits he knows nothing because, as he says, the report on that file is “fairly thin, missing details.” There you go with that same logic again.

Now imagine someone being endowed (more like plagued) with that kind of logic. Imagine he also believes that when something is not specifically allowed or forbidden – he, as a Jew, can arbitrarily declare it to be legally binding on others. What kind of a world do you think he will build? The answer is not too difficult to imagine; just look at the uselessness that is the American Congress of the brain dead – so rendered by the Jews who took control of it. Do you want a world that looks like that?

Now that Benny Avni has explained how he views the existing situation, he starts arguing how the next president can fix the Iran deal. He says that because the current director of the IAEA “has taken the line that everything is OK,” the next president of the United States can only do a limited number of things, among them the following:

Rethink closing the Iran nuclear file because the deal contains many deficiencies, he says. He does not suggest that the agreement should be altered or renegotiated because he wants no deal at all. Instead, he wants to impose more sanctions on Iran for testing missiles, even if this is not part of the nuclear deal. Moreover, he wants to impose new sanctions for human-rights violations, and he wants America to do what it can to deny Iran access to world financial institutions.

He is also adamant about the next president signaling early on that Iran will no longer have it easy. That's because the current paradigm is this: “It's the deal or the war,” and must be changed to become this: “Let's have both the deal and the war”.

Now you know why more and more people throughout the world are coming around to saying: We tried all sorts of humane solutions and nothing worked. We are now obligated to try the Final Solution.

So I call on Benny Avni and all the fanatics who think like him to get their own heads fixed because there is nothing wrong with the way that humanity handles its affairs. What's wrong is not with humanity; it is with the Jews, always the Jews and no one but the Jews.

Will the real America please stand up

Whereas the mainstream publications in Washington and New York are beginning to soften the fanatic look they have acquired while promoting the Jewish causes, the Pittsburgh Tribune continues to move in the opposite direction.

It is as if the Tribune wants to be thought of as the flagship of Jewish fanaticism and incitement – that which never misses an opportunity to call for militarism and military violence. To wear this mantle, the Tribune revived the old Jewish habit of creating a feature on its pages to “watch” someone and badmouth them like the nagging whore that's never satisfied. In fact, the tribune has been watching the U.N. and barking nags at it like a bitch in heat that no dog wants to mount.

In addition to that, the Tribune comes up with a one-off piece every once in a while, thus adds new objectionable displays to the lamentable canvass it continues to paint about itself. The latest such work came under the title: “The Iran mess” and the subtitle: “Appeasement's aftermath,” an editorial that was published on May 31, 2016 on its opinion page.

That piece is supposed to be about the Iran nuclear agreement. The editors wrote it to say it was a bad deal from the start, and that subsequent events prove it. In fact, they call today's Iran a “widening morass,” explaining that it is due to President Obama appeasing the Iranians who continue to commit aggression. The editors add that instead of the adversary being transformed, “Iran has escalated its hostilities toward the U.S.”

That's the point at which you raise an eyebrow and scratch your head because from all that you know, Iran has fastidiously kept its end of the bargain, violating not the smallest of its provisions. So you go through the article to see what evidence the editors are presenting to back their claim.

The first thing you encounter is this: “Iran has launched ballistic missiles while Vice President Joe Biden was visiting Israel.” So that's what it's about, you say to yourself; it is about Israel, always Israel and no one but Israel. You stop scratching your head, you wipe your eyebrow with a finger, you shrug both shoulders and you continue to read the rest of the piece.

You discover that the editors too continue to do what they started doing. That is, they try to convince the readers that Iran is violating the nuclear deal just because it conducts itself legitimately. Here is an example: “The Revolutionary Guard continually challenges U.S. forces in the Gulf.” Wow! you exclaim. Did they come into the Gulf of Mexico – America's backyard – and started challenging commercial shipping?

Oh no! No, no, no, no. What's meant here is the Persian Gulf; the backyard of the Persian people. Moreover, they are not challenging commercial shipping; they are challenging the “U.S. forces.” That's right; it's the American military that's in their backyard menacing them, not the other way around. All they are doing is signal their displeasure ... as would anyone sane.

So then, what's the worst thing that happened in the standoff that's created between the two forces following America's provocations? Actually two major incidents happened, one of which was mentioned by the Tribune's editors. It is this: “Iranians boarded a U.S. vessel and videotaped the detained sailors.” Well, the vessel had strayed into their territorial waters, and the Iranians detained it ... which is the normal thing to do.

But if you think that's bad, contrast it with the Americans shooting down an Iranian civilian airliner full of innocent passengers in Iran's own backyard, and you'll begin to realize that the American provocations are deadlier and infinitely more serious than anything the Iranians have done.

When you digest all that; when you add to it the talks that come out of New York and Washington, you begin to understand why someone in Iran has noted “we have no enemies in the region except for America.” After all, there is a not-so-subtle menace in this: “Iran will interpret U.S. inaction as an invitation to stage further interventions … The next president must [make clear] the days of U.S. appeasement are over”.

And so you must ask, as do the Iranians: Is this the voice of an America that belongs to Americans? Or is it the voice of Jewish America?

The Prankster that short-circuited the Clown

Has it ever happened that you found yourself in the awkward situation of having to deal with someone that's incessantly exhibiting a bad habit? Have you raked your brains trying to find a way to let him or her know how you felt, but could not find an appropriate way to do so – and felt even more frustrated?

Rejoice, my friend, because an expert on the subject has now written an article that should tell you how you might go about solving your problem. Be careful though because the expert and writer of the article is not the frustrated victim that found a solution; it's the annoying guy that caused the frustration in the first place. I know, I know, it sounds complicated, but bear with me and you'll be rewarded in the end.

The writer is Jackson Diehl, a columnist at the Washington Post who wrote “America gives Egypt free armored vehicles. Egypt gives America a slap in the face,” an article that was published on May 29, 2016 in the Post. What happened according to Diehl is that an Egyptian man – that must have been frustrated with the Diehls and the Posts of this world – decided to see them as the clowns they are, and pulled a prank on them. Guess what happened next. They swallowed the thing hook, line and sinker … and produced a semi-comical new situation.

The condition on the ground looks like this: Egypt – like most non-members of the mutual admiration sorority whose members call themselves liberal democrats – has been battling two kinds of terrorism. One is of the asymmetric kind, conducted by young thugs who wish to make a name for themselves doing hit-and-run operations against the civilian population and the security apparatus of the country they happen to dislike on a given day. The other kind is what's unleashed by the armies of the sorority, equipped as they are with the most modern and most lethal weapons you can imagine.

To give their aggression an aura of legitimacy, a subgroup of the sorority calling itself something like “Jews in the business of fixing the world” does what it can to foster dissent in the countries it plans to attack. When, in a country, the dissent reaches disruptive levels, the Jews call on the other members of the sorority to invade it and occupy it. Most of the time, the sorority responds positively, but then suffers the consequences.

In time, this pattern of behavior caused so much damage to the Middle East and the world, even the Americans concluded that enough was enough. They pledged they will no longer intervene in the affairs of others; a decision that caused the Jews – who never give up doing the wrong things – to mobilize all the tools and tricks at their disposal, and prepare to use them in creating situations that will be so dire, America will be forced to violate its own pledge, and interfere.

Having mastery over, and being in command of “modern communication channels, psychological warfare and media outlets,” the Jews finalized the design, and started to implement what came to be known as the “fourth generation war.” To make this thing work in practice and produce the sought after result, the Jews needed to organize the proverbial “nuts and bolts” of the machinery that will be doing the work in the field.

To that end, they took advantage of the polarization that's plaguing America these days; a situation they had themselves engineered over the decades. They mobilized the American Congress, and added to the so-called Freedom House which they already own, the services of the International Republican Institute (IRI) and that of the National Democratic Institute (NDI). These are creatures of a Congress that designed them to go around the world and teach unwary locals how to sabotage their own countries. The idea is to remake those countries in a way that will better serve Israel, always Israel and no one but Israel.

The Jews gave Freedom House and the two congressional creatures the task of openly subverting the regimes that refuse to turn the country over to them, the same way that the American Congress gave them America ... bit by bit, on a silver platter amid 29 standing ovations. The most important prize they eye these days being Egypt, they mounted a savagely demonic campaign to have America punish that country in the hope that this will break it and cause it to fall in their arms.

This being a situation akin to the irresistible force that's pushing against an immovable object, everything remained frozen in place, and frustrations piled on. To break the logjam, an Egyptian man – most probably a high school prankster – suggested to Jackson Diehl what America could do to get things moving in one direction or another. The following is how Diehl explained it all:

“An Egyptian offered a friendly suggestion. Forget about trying to stop Sissi's shuttering of [IRI and NDI] he said. But tell the generals that future U.S. [cooperation] will depend on a prime-time televised statement by Sissi, in Arabic, assuring Egyptians that the United States has nothing to do with a 'fourth-generation war'”.

The thing is that the people of Egypt already know this. They also know that America no longer belongs to the American people but to the Jews. The quarrel they are having is not with Americans; it is with their Jewish masters.

Finally, the moral of this story is that when you're forced to live with a clown that's constantly annoying you, it is legitimate to pull a prank on him or her, thus short-circuit their thinking process if only for a brief moment during which time you may catch your breath. And that should be your reward.