What worked in the Balkans will not in Syria

If you ever had the feeling that the Jews have one crowning goal in life, and only one way to pursue it, but never had confirmation to vindicate your feeling, you now have a solid confirmation. It comes to you from the horse's mouth, none other than Bret Stephens, a prominent self-appointed leader of the Jews.

He wrote: “The Only Syrian Solution,” a column that also came under the subtitle: “A partition plan won't solve everything. But the Balkan example shows it can work.” It was published on September 5, 2016 in the Wall Street Journal. The title and subtitle may indicate that Stephens is suggesting the partition of Syria would have been his ultimate solution, but the text says otherwise.

Stephens begins the presentation with a news item, and debates it up to the conclusion he can live with. This is the news item: “Obama's efforts to reach a Syrian cease-fire deal with Vladimir Putin went nowhere again.” The author then observes: “To date, there have been 17 major peace initiatives for Syria.” He adds that none has worked, and concludes that the failures were due to President Obama giving up “on a policy of military leverage”.

As can be seen, he just made it clear that the ultimate goal of the Jews was the partition of Syria, and the way to get there would have been to use military means. What tells you that your feeling has been vindicated is that the partitioning of Syria symbolizes the larger goal of destroying the nation-states that reject the Jewish efforts to control the world. This, in fact, is the crowning goal of the Jews; that which they wish to pursue through wars.

To make his point as clear as he can, Bret Stephens cites the example of the Balkan: “The world was confronted by a similar spiral of horrors. The U.S. intervened with military force. What was Yugoslavia is today seven separate countries.” In a similar fashion, he wants to see Syria broken up into three countries. One that will be a home for the Alawites, one for the Kurds, and one for the Sunnis. He neglected to say where the other minorities – which include the Christians – will go.

Will this work? If you look carefully, you'll find that Bret Stephens himself does not give it much of a chance that it will. Here is what he peppered throughout the column: “The point of partition isn't to solve all of Syria's problems. A Kurdish zone would be viewed as a threat by the Turks. It's true that for each of these points there are reservations and doubts. Can the Turks accept an extended Kurdish state? Would the Assad regime's patrons accept a rump Alawite state? Will the rest of Syria be easy to pacify? No.” These are many points of doubt.

Somewhere in the article, he poses this question: “Why does Mr. Obama think that a new cease-fire deal will succeed where all previous ones have failed? My guess is he doesn't.” But we do not need to ask Stephens that same question with regard to the solution he proposes. It is that he already answered this hypothetical question with the series of doubts he expressed. What we can do however, is dispute the response he gave to the question he posed with regard to Mr. Obama's view.

To that end, we look at the model of Northern Ireland (Ulster) rather than that of the Balkans. It was a civil war that had gone on for almost a century. Dozens of attempts were made to achieve a cease-fire with no avail. Eventually George Mitchell was appointed mediator. His motto was: if you fail, you try again and again. And if you still fail, you start all over, and try again and again. He eventually achieved the desired result, and peace came to Northern Ireland. There is every reason to believe that the same result can be achieved in Syria.

For this to happen, however, we need to expose as Satanism the kind of logic that brought Syria to this point in the first place. Imagine the kind of gall it takes someone like Bret Stephens to say this: “It was foolish of the Obama administration to predict that the Assad regime, champion of four-million-strong Alawite minority, was going to crumble the way the Gadhafi regime did in Libya.” This is mutilating history like only a Jew can do it.

The fact is that the administration was not the one to make that prediction; it was the likes of Bret Stephens. The mistake the administration made was to listen to the charlatans who live by predictions that never materialize. The result of their advice was that America gave money to some factions, and followed that with weapons and the false hope that there will be regime change in Syria. This helped prolong and intensify the war.

The only conclusion to draw is that the Jews are responsible not only for the invasion of Iraq, but for the fact that the event metastasized throughout the Levant to become the biblical horror we are now witnessing. For them to suggest that more military intervention might alleviate the problem is to recommend sex in the name of virginity.

Carriers of the Middle Eastern Pathologies

There was a time when a handful of American Jews who wanted to do something for themselves or for Israel could go into the chamber of the House of Representatives in the middle of the night, vote to give themselves the power to pass a resolution without a quorum, pass the resolution that suited them at the time, and tell the world that America's Congress has given away the store to Israel and to the Jews.

These days are gone – most likely never to return – because the sleepy giant that used to be America woke up one day and discovered that he lost not only his shirt but his trousers and his underwear too. He stood naked before a world that laughed at a superpower whose influence was reduced to that of a Third World country while the Jewish pigmy stood beside him wearing the oversized attires and pretending to be a giant in his own right.

The Jews who never give up doing the wrong thing, found a way to modify that game and play it a little differently while seeking to achieve the same old goals. Seeing that their previous plan for the Middle East unfolded in a way they did not expect, they drew up a new plan and started paving the way to execute it. To this end, they created the “Commission on the Eastern Mediterranean, sponsored by University of Haifa and Hudson Institute.” They wrote a 45-page report and started selling it to the American public as the work of a: “blue-ribbon panel, the U.S.–Israeli Commission on the Eastern Mediterranean”.

Two of the ten panelists, Shaul Chorev and Douglas J. Feith, then wrote an article and filled it with extreme views under the title: “Middle Eastern Pathologies Chase after Those Who Run,” and published it in National Review Online on September 5, 2016. When you contrast this article against the full report, you realize that the two panelists used the other eight as a facade to give their message an air of respectability, then broke off and went on to play the game alone. Here is the title of the report's introduction: “Eastern Mediterranean: Always strategic, now in tumultuous transformation.” There is nothing in it about pathologies, or any talk of this kind.

Recalling that Douglas Feith is one of the Holocaust psychos who designed the invasion of Iraq ten years before his team was able to implement it, we ask: What could be worrying him now that he decided to warn America with these words: “Disengaging from the region [Middle East], America would forfeit its ability to shape events”? Why does he want America to rethink its decision to pivot away from the Middle East?

To answer that question is to describe a typical Jewish scenario of the kind that the Jews have been running for more than three thousand years. It is that they always promise the moon to themselves and to the suckers who go along with them, only to see the promise turn into a horror story. Instead of retrenching and rethinking their entire approach to the matter, however, they double down on it and urge the suckers who listened to them previously, to listen to them again and play the same scenario, even if they have to modify it a little.

The Jewish grand design for the Middle East has always consisted of using the might and influence of the big powers to destabilize the nations of the region, thus give the Judeo-Israelis the opportunity to fish in dirty waters. There have been numerous suckers throughout the centuries who went along with the Jews and got burned, but no sucker has been more devout to the Jewish causes than the Americans. Everyone distanced themselves from the Jews after the first experience, except for the Americans who went to the fire again and again.

At first the Jews conned Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union and got him to play their game. After that they turned to Guy Mollet and Anthony Eden of France and Britain respectively. After that they turned to George W. Bush of America. And now, Chorev and Feith are trying to con not only the President of the United States and the Congress, but the entire American population. They believe they will succeed because they control the media, and through it, they can reach everyone in America.

What they want to achieve in the end, is getting America to destroy Syria's air force and Lebanon's Hezbollah. They want this to happen because Israel needs to reoccupy the Eastern Golan before it can implement its grand design for the region.

In fact, it is this grand design that's the real pathology now plaguing the once peaceful Middle East. From the Garden of Eden it used to be, the region was transformed into the hellhole it is today. The transformation happened when the Jews began to infest it with the strain known as the Chorev and Feith disease.

A Secret that's talked about not so secretly

What happens when a twelve-year-old boy suffers the condition that most twelve-year-old boys suffer at that age? He believes he knows everything there is to know, and that no one else knows as much as he does.

If by chance he catches a teacher eat a bar of chocolate and drink soda, he gets the idea he made the greatest discovery since the rise of ancient Greece. It is that teachers also like to eat junk food.

Because this is such a great secret, he tells no one about it, but cannot get it out of his mind to be relieved of the nagging thought he is surrounded by inferiors who do not know what he knows. So he decides to share the secret with his twelve-year-old buddy who tells him that he too knows something most people do not know. He says he discovered there was someone called Socrates in ancient Greece. Now relieved of the burden each carried for being alone and lonely in the ivory tower of knowledge, the two go about growing up like a reformed Tweedledee and a Tweedledum.

This is a case we have come to know – in real life – under the two names “editors of the Wall Street Journal” and “David Albright.” Much has been written on this website that defines the editors of the Journal. As to David Albright, he is the guy that defined himself by blaming the blunder he made of asserting that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, on Saddam himself. It is that Saddam Hussein had told the truth about not having WMDs when he was supposed to have lied because Albright expected him to. This is so baffling a logic, even a great philosopher like Socrates would have to down a bottle of whiskey before he could make sense of it … if he'd ever wanted to bother with that.

I bet that the editors of the Wall Street Journal downed more than a bottle before they could come up with the editorial they wrote under the title: “Loopholes for the Mullahs” and the subtitle: “Secret side deals allow Iran to skirt limits in the nuclear deal.” It was published on September 2, 2016 in the Journal.

The editors begin their piece like this: “Socrates is rumored to have said that the only true wisdom is knowing you know nothing, and maybe we should adopt a version of the Greek philosopher's motto when it comes to the nuclear deal with Iran.” That would certainly be a way to relieve themselves of the burden they knew a secret that was never a secret. It is just that they – not being experts in nuclear issues – did not know details of the nuclear deal until it was revealed to them by the not so bright David Albright who was schooled in nuclear matters but not so much in logical thinking.

But why is it that when a Tweedledee gets together with a Tweedledum, they produce something that is so laughable it can never be taken seriously? This happens when the editors learn from someone like Albright they don't know everything, thus blame their ignorance on a White House that didn't instruct them enough – they who thought they knew so much, they didn't need a lesson from the White House. Go figure.

But what is it that's bothering them now? They tell you what it is: “We are learning that what the administration says Iran can do, and what Iran is allowed to do, are not the same.” They give the example of the agreement specifying that “Iran is to limit its stockpile of reactor-grade uranium to no more than 300 kilograms.” So now comes this guy Albright and says there are exceptions in the deal that must have escaped the editors.

Well, anyone that has worked in industry would know what that is. Logistics can at times compel you to have an extra kilogram here or there (not always in its final form) which you'll have to deal with eventually. But that's not how the Tweedles see things. Instead, they say this: “Had those exemptions not been created out of thin air, some of Iran's nuclear facilities would not have been in compliance with the deal.” What tells you that Albright has not fully instructed the dumb part of the Tweedles is that they say the exemptions were created – not out of necessity – but “out of thin air.” It is also obvious that none of the editors ever worked in industry.

They go on to give a few more examples of “discrepancy” that amount to no more than a hill of beans. This done, they try to strengthen their argument by doing what they always do. They say if you're not outraged yet, you will be when you learn that the administration did something similar on previous occasions. And they add: We're not going to fully discuss that now because we expect you to take it on faith that we're telling the truth.

Here is how they put it: “The non-denial would be more credible if the administration hadn't agreed to Iran inspecting its own facilities. It would also be more credible if Iran weren't testing ballistic missiles. Iran also chose to deploy its newly acquired S-300 air defense system”.

Being Jews through and through, they now shoot themselves in the foot. They do it saying this: “The [Albright] report notes that Congress was informed of the exemptions but there was never public disclosure.” They have just accused the Congress of being a part of the White House cabal of secrecy.

Convinced that they are the “public” they want to be as informed as the Congress even if they believe they know everything and don't need a lesson from the White House. Go figure.

Unseen Edge of a double-edged Sword

Chemistry is a good thing because it allows you to produce pharmaceuticals that cure people. But chemistry is also bad because it allows you to produce explosives that kill people and destroy property. We say that chemistry is a double-edged sword ... one edge being good; the other bad. Alas, the same thing can be said about nuclear energy and just about every scientific discovery.

That principle also applies in fields outside of science. For example, we trust some professions more than others because they do a great deal of good. But it can also happen that we misplace our trust in a priest that turns out to be a pedophile, or a firefighter that turns out to be a pyromaniac. Because of this, such professions can be thought of as double-edged swords.

The analogy does not stop here but extends to every social, political and economic movement you can think of. For example, capitalism, socialism and all the isms that come to mind do exhibit the properties of a double-edged sword in that they are used for good by some, and used for ill by others. However, one movement in particular has escaped much of the criticism that should be leveled against it. It is called “democracy”.

To get a full sense of how democracy can be used for ill, we need to connect an old event with a mode of thinking that is now beginning to take roots. When it became clear that America was going to be booted out of Vietnam toward the end of the 1960s, two trends began to take shape simultaneously. Ferocious North Vietnamese sappers were infiltrating the South and blowing up such heavily guarded installations as American air bases. At the same time, many of the South Vietnamese who collaborated with America were fleeing Vietnam and making their way to America.

Because the sappers were known to be commandos on a suicide mission, and because the refugees coming to America could be from the North and pretending to be from the South, some people raised the fear – at first jokingly – that they might be sappers intending to go sabotage America. Or maybe they intended to engineer their own accidental death so that their families get million-dollar settlements from America's insurance companies. Well, nothing like that happened, and the speculation turned out to be the work of paranoid minds.

We connect those events with what's happening now, half a century later. It is a fantastic story, parts of which are told in an editorial that came under the title: “Justice over terror denied as PLO escapes verdict of responsibility,” published on September 3, 2016 in the New York Daily News. It is about an appeals panel that threw out a ruling handed down by a court of first instance. The editors telling it set the stage this way: “The PA and the PLO were found responsible for attacks that killed and maimed Americans in Israel – and liable for $655 million”.

The editors of the Daily News are unhappy with that ruling, thus end their presentation like this: “The ruling must go to the Supreme Court, which cannot let it stand.” Think about it, my friend. More than 7,000 veterans in America commit suicide each year because they are in pain or because they are despondent they cannot provide for themselves or their families, if they have one. Would a favorable ruling not tell these people to go to Palestine which is a war zone, and have themselves killed or maimed there to get compensated handsomely?

And what about the youngsters who volunteer to go fight in Somalia or the Levant or Libya? Would they not be better off going there, not as potential soldiers to fight with faction or the other, but go as tourists and have themselves killed or maimed, thus be compensated with millions of American dollars?

The story of suicidal Vietnamese sappers seeking death in America turned out to be a joke that did not materialize. But look what the editors of the Daily News say happened in America that became a big story: “The case was brought under the Act designed to give American victims recourse in federal courts”.

Take note of that word “designed,” and never forget it because most of what the Jews have been doing in America was design and engineer concoctions that have turned the superpower into a bazaar of screwed-up ideas – some of which may have worked previously and some of which never did.

Because the Jews never let an opportunity to milk America go to waste, they reached into the bins of the bazaar and pulled ideas they incubated long ago, using them now to feed Israel and the Jews, always Israel and the Jews, and no one but Israel and Jews. What kind of a democracy has America become?

How the Haggle leads to outright Thievery

At first, the human concept of private property did not differ from that of animals. All members of the tribe shared the food that was gathered by anyone because everything that was owned by one member was owned by all. But if there was no such a thing as “mine,” there was one thing recognized as being “ours.” It was the territory which belonged to the entire tribe.

In fact, when that territory was threatened by an invader, everyone that could fight participated in its defense. The invading animals were wanderers that did not settle in a defined territory but lived on what they scavenged from other animals. The same was true of the human nomads who roamed the entire landscaped, raided the settled communities and robbed them of their possessions.

When the need arose for a tribe to organize itself … to thrive economically and defend against recurring invaders, the principle of the hierarchy began to enter the culture. Soon after that, the leader who forced himself to the top of the heap came to be seen as possessing divine powers that must not be challenged by anyone. He (or she) had privileges that no one else could have; among these a piece of real estate that was not shared by the tribe. This is how the idea of private property was born.

Thousands of years later, an age of “Enlightenment” descended on mankind, and the principle of private ownership – not just of real estate but of other objects too – became embedded in the various cultures. But like the invaders of an earlier era, there remained a group of people who continued to relish the idea of living off what they grabbed from their neighbors.

However, because life is now organized around the rule of law, the modern raiders were compelled to devise sophisticated schemes by which to relieve their intended victims of their possessions without being seen to violate the letter of the law. This game has evolved to become a sophisticated endeavor; and no one plays it better than those who call themselves Jews.

You see a stark – even grotesque – example of that in the article which came under the title: “Why Are We Giving Money to Iran?” It was written by Senator Ted Cruz and published on September 1, 2016 in National Review Online. The author tells of a letter he sent to various people in the Executive Branch inquiring about what he says is American money that was given to Iran. This being Iranian money impounded by the United States 36 years ago, you can see the grotesque nature of Cruz's false assertion calling it American money.

Two paragraphs later, Cruz does something that demonstrate he was not talking out of conviction but was responding to the kind of training that turned American legislators into Jewish style scavengers advocating that America turn itself into a petty thief unworthy even of a Third World country. Here is how Cruz did that: “If there is money to spare to settle outstanding disputes with Iran, our first priority should be to make the Islamic Republic pay for judgments...” These would be judgments issued by American kangaroo courts in trials that Iran will not attend because international disputes are supposed to be tried in international courts.

But having said at first that the money was not Iran's but America's, Cruz now says it was Iranian money after all, but that Iran lost it when an American court said so. What does that say about Ted Cruz? It says he is motivated by the desire to deceive his readers. Whereas he wants them to believe he grieves the transfer of America's wealth being sent to Iran, his intent is to rob Iran of its money so that the Jews whose habit is to sue everyone for compensation, may get their hands on Iran's money in a Brooklyn kangaroo court.

Ted Cruz would not have advocated a scheme such as that in the old days. He is advocating it now because he was recently armed with a weapon called the Jewish haggle. He has in effect become a mouthy henchman playing a dirty game for the benefit of the Jews who stand to benefit materially while America pays the price of turning into a superpower that's powered by a Third World mentality.

To get there, Ted Cruz wants Congress to investigate if the payments to Iran were legal. He is calling on the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Foreign Relations Committee and the Banking Committee to drop everything they do and start haggling for the benefit of the Jews, always the Jews and no one but the Jews.

This is how the haggle prepares America to steal from the world and give to the Jews.

They want a one-sided MAD

Here is an example that is solid proof one must be a mental case to think the way that Jews are trained to think. Be they recent Jews, old-timers, practicing Jews or pretenders, when they go through the drill of training how to be a Jew, they remove the part of the brain that gives human beings the ability to behave rationally. And they start making judgments the way that only a mental case can make them.

To understand the example, we must first recall an old theory that used to be called Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). When it became clear to NATO and to the Warsaw Pact nations that each side had enough nuclear weapons to destroy not only the other but the entire planet several times over, they expressed the desire to end the arms race.

They negotiated and reached the conclusion that to deter both sides, each side should retain the capability to absorb a first strike and still retaliate with enough force to severely damage the other. This meant that each side could only have so much of an offensive force and so much of a defensive shield. They signed a treaty to that effect, and this is how any attempt to add to one's defenses was considered a violation of the treaty.

That was then, and had to do with the two alliances only. Today, in the absence of such treaty, leaders that feel their nation is threatened, have the obligation to take the necessary measures to defend their people. Yes, there are those – such as the Jews – who profess that the best defense is an offense, thus arm themselves offensively and attack the defenseless anywhere they find them. But the Jews are the exception that comes nowhere near being the rule, thus have been shunned by humanity throughout history everywhere they went.

The Jews aside, the leaders of a regular nation such as Iran have every right to strengthen their defensive shield, and so they did. Considering that Iran was repeatedly threatened by none other than the Jews and their American puppets, their decision can only be considered a rational choice. In fact, the Iranians bought the best defensive shield that money can buy, and guess what happened; the Jews hollered foul. They called on their American echo repeaters to join the shouting, but when the latter did not perform as well as expected, the Jews moaned their song of sorrow.

You can see an expression of all that in black and white by examining two pieces on the subject. The first is an article that came under the title: “Obama Official Excuses Iranian Missile Deployment Near Nuclear Facility,” written by Jenna Lifhits and published on August 30, 2016 in the Weekly Standard. The second is an editorial that came under the title: “The mullah's missiles” and the subtitle: “Iran does nothing to assure West of its true nuclear aims,” published on August 31, 2016 in the New York Daily News.

What is striking about these two pieces is that they report and they comment on the same event yet sound like they were on two different planets. Taking different paths, however, they still reach the same conclusion, which is that Iran did a bad thing, and the Obama administration did not respond as well as it should.

Here is how that went. The editors of the Daily News say: “The State Department has declared itself 'concerned' that Iran has deployed sophisticated Russian surface-to-air missiles to defend its Fordow facility.” By contrast, Jenna Lifhits of the Weekly Standard heard this: “A top aide to President Obama forgave Iran's deployment of an advanced missile defense system around one of its nuclear facilities”.

Also, despite the fact that a security adviser to the White House had explained: “It's not prohibited under any U.N. Security Council resolution because it's a defensive system,” Lifhits says this: “The administration has not sanctioned the sale, despite being able to do so by law”.

Despite all that confusion – or perhaps because of it – the editors of the New York Daily News saw fit to complain that “the mullahs have given themselves an insurance policy,” and they don't like it one bit.

Moreover, to show that when it comes to talking absurd, the Congress of the United States can outdo even the Daily News, Senator Mark Kirk said this: “The administration is failing to enforce U.S. laws that mandate sanctions against countries that export destabilizing advanced conventional weapons to Iran.” This is contrived sensationalism, a specialty of that man, but a true reflection of a Congress in a state of Jewish disarray.

What must be said about this cacophony is that all these people wish to enforce the MAD doctrine on Iran without the mutual part. To borrow from a Zen saying, they want to hear the sound of one hand clapping, and want to see the tango performed solo by Iran.

In fact, they wish to turn a real life situation into a theater of the absurd; something that happens every time that the Jews take charge of a situation. Wake up, America!

Who do they think they are talking to?

If you follow what the Jewish pundits are saying and writing these days, you'll get the same feeling as if you were eavesdropping on the get-together of a street gang specializing in theft, gang-rape and murder. The Jews seem to forget that what they publish on the electronic and print media does not circulate among them only but goes out to the general public.

How else should we interpret the lamentations of a prominent Jewish leader who publicly whines that President Obama failed to provide Iranian dissidents “with communications, money, and even arms”? These are not dissidents whose land is occupied by a foreign military that peppered the landscape with checkpoints; they are reckless youngsters who called for the death of their head of state and also shouted: “President Obama, are you with us or against us?” How would you feel if a foreign leader provided communications, money and arms to groups that protest one thing or another in America, and call for the death of the President?

You may also try to imagine something like that happening in occupied Palestine. What do you think a Jewish pundit like Clifford D. May would have written to describe what's imposed on the Jewish settlers? When you have imagined all that, read what Clifford May actually wrote about the Iran situation and be amazed. It came in an article under the title: “Iran and the future of the Middle East” and the subtitle: “Obama's bet on the Islamic republic moderating is a long-shot.” It was published on August 30, 2016 in The Washington Times.

The occasion that prompted our author to decide on writing his article is a new book that describes “the opportunities Mr. Obama missed – or, more precisely, dismissed,” says May. What he saw in the book, which strikes him, is that President Obama refused to back the Iranian dissidents and went further by ordering the CIA to turn its back on their movement. Moreover, Mr. Obama turned his back on imposing new sanctions on Iran, or even tightening the old ones, says May.

And neither is he satisfied with the explanation that Secretary of State John Kerry gave to justify the measures taken by the administration. He did not see the merit in Kerry’s saying: “Many wars have been fought over misunderstandings, misinterpretations and lack of effective diplomacy … War is the failure of diplomacy.” In response, May quipped “I suspect Clausewitz and Sun Tzu would beg to differ,” whomever they are.

But these are not the only characters whose views Clifford May seems to like. He mentions the names of six members of Congress who believe that when you deal with Iran's rulers, talking softly is not enough. May also likes the idea that “congressional staffers partnered with several think tanks to find new ways to squeeze Iran's oil profits and ability to conduct financial transactions”.

He takes pride in the fact that one of those tanks is that which goes by the comical name, Foundation for Defense of Democracies – his own creation. He says the outfit came up with a “financial bomb,” an American dominated clearing house that uses the SWIFT software. Its function is to facilitate financial transactions between different jurisdictions. He explains: “The Obama administration opposed expelling Iran from SWIFT but Congress overrode the White House and de-SWIFTed Tehran”.

What Clifford May did not explain is that the move turned out to be another “financial bomb”; one that began the process of eroding America's financial supremacy in the world. It was this act, more than anything else that prompted the major banks of the world – including the Japanese – to subscribe to the new China-based SWIFT.

Yes, the process of eroding America's financial supremacy has finally begun thanks to the Jewish clowns who perform at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. They entertained the dodo birds of the Congress, and got the members to lay eggs like a perpetual goof machine.

When a street gang behaves in that manner, we call its actions: theft, gang-rape and murder. When the Congress of a major power behaves in that manner, we call it an act of war. However, because America is a superpower, no one will risk confronting it directly.

But even a superpower cannot defy death administered by a thousand cuts. Subscription to the Chinese SWIFT will not stop till America goes flat on its face. When this happens, you'll have the Jewish Fifth Column to thank. You'll recognize it because it is one that no longer hides its ugly face.