The Jewish-trained Monkeys blew it for America

To see how and why America––that used to be a superpower worshiped by friends and former foes alike, and used to be a welcome policeman in any neighborhood––became the despised bully in every corner of the globe, we need to understand two developments.

First, we need to mentally grasp the methods that the Jews employed to abuse America's democratic system of governance, and how they got away with it. We also need to grasp how this approach has allowed them to take over the country and reorganize it to serve their interests … chief among these being the non-stop promotion of Israel, and the unending catering to its unlimited needs.

Second, we need to understand how the challengers to America's supremacy took advantage of what they interpreted as being the Jewish sabotaging of America. We need to appreciate the effort that these challengers put into making themselves seen as the defenders of law and order, protecting the world against the outlaw state of America and its terror arm, the worldwide criminal syndicate of Israel and World Jewry.

While some of the Jewish abuses were implemented at the Executive level of the American government, most were implemented at the Congressional level. What needs to be said is that the Congress is governed by its own rules. This means a small number of the members can get together and instantly create the rules that suit their current purpose – as long as they do not violate the Constitution.

But given that the Constitution is both precise and limited in reach, it leaves a great deal of room for the members to mess with the old rules or enunciate new ones on the spot. Thus, by amending the quorum rule, for example, a handful of Jews and their lackeys can pass any law they want, and claim that it passed by a unanimous vote. They do this to convey the false impression that the full chamber sided with Israel.

Another trick that's frequently used by the Jews is the rider provision. That is, if a bill is important to the business of America, it tends to command a bipartisan support, which means its passage is assured. This is when the Jews add a pro-Israel attachment to ride with it. Because a line-item veto is not allowed in America, the President finds himself blackmailed into signing the bill into law, however abhorrent the rider may sound to him. Well and good; but having this leverage in their hand, what can the Jews accomplish?

To answer that question, we take the example of an actual case. Using a host of parliamentary sleights of hand, the Jewish lobby was able to have the Congress pass a law (The Jerusalem Act) violating two international laws. They are UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, crafted and adhered to by America for fifty years. Well, believe it or not, this beastly behavior, played out as it was on the international stage, has turned America into an outlaw nation in the blink of an eye.

To take advantage of the situation and build on it, China and Russia, who love what North Korea is doing a thousand times more than they loved North Vietnam when the latter was kicking America's ass, now join the other nations in voting to sanction North Korea at the UN Security Council. They do so to look like they stand on the side of the law, thus make themselves seen as the new policemen of the world. What's more, they cherish taking on the allure of protecting humanity against outlaw America and terrorist Israel.

While that reversal of fortune is taking place in the Pacific region, a similar drama is unfolding in the Middle Eastern region. A quick way to get acquainted with the details of what's happening there is to read “Stabilizing Lebanon Is Iran's Way of Helping Hezbollah Take Over,” an article that was written by Hanin Ghaddar, and published on December 20, 2017 on the website of the Washington institute.

While it is important to read the full article – given that it was written by an experienced journalist and researcher from Lebanon – the passages under the rubric marked “conclusion” tell how much America was marginalized in the region because of Israel's doings. In this regard, it is worth recalling that Israel was supposed to protect America against non-existent threats, but turned out to be the albatross that did more than anything or anyone to rub America's nose in the mud.

Here is the pertinent segment that's unveiling that reality:

“Hezbollah and Iran do not want war in Lebanon; the status quo works for them. Tehran is trying to establish its presence in Syria while awaiting the Iraqi elections, which it hopes will consolidate its influence in Baghdad. Lebanon is important because Iran wants to keep using it as a stable operations room for regional conflicts”.

It sounds like Hezbollah and Iran have taken on the allure of elder statesmen, having become the new force that's establishing itself solidly in the region. The force is here to protect the region from the activities of a former policeman now gone rogue and working for the Jewish syndicate.

Who do they call Evil and past Redemption?

Winston Churchill once remarked that “you can always count on Americans to do the right thing after they've tried everything else”.

And like everything else, there are two ways to look at this quote. You can think of America stumbling when trying something new, but then discovering the correct way to handle it and staying on the right path. Or you can think of America going through the endless cycle of alternating between doing the right thing and doing the wrong thing, thus prove it is made of human beings like the rest of us.

You don't have to dig deeply into America's past to discover that it stands on the remains of massacred “New World” natives, and the slavery of human beings imported from Africa. In fact, this history is being unveiled at this time by a movement that's dedicated to removing the statues of Confederacy and other evil doers who used to adorn a number of public places in America.

The Republic seems to have entered an era of normalcy with the start of the Twentieth Century. Coincidentally, however, the world was entering a period of conflict that involved the newly industrialized powers of Europe and Western Asia. Timid, America wanted to stay out of that conflict but the sinking of a ship called Lusitania forced it to change its mind.

That was World War One which was supposed to end all wars but did not. Barely two decades later, mainly the same powers got tangled in World War Two, and America was again nudged into joining the side that eventually won the war. With so much destruction heaped on the Old World and so little of it heaped on the New World, America could afford to be magnanimous, if only to atone for the sins of the past, and redeem itself. It helped rebuild the nations it destroyed, thus acquired the moniker: “force for good”.

But was America a force for good during the second half of the Twentieth Century and the start of the Twenty First? Or did America foul up after it helped rebuild its old foes? At long last, history is beginning to reveal that the same people – namely the colonial powers and the Jews – who instigated America's participation in the two world wars, were the ones that instigated America to launch the Cold War, and participate in such ill advised wars as the Korean, Vietnamese, Iraqi and Libyan disasters.

This says that America never was and never will be the eternal force for good that some people believe it was created to be. America did redeem itself previously, and the movement to reexamine its sordid past proves it is trying to redeem itself again. But what this says on the whole, is that America is prone – like everyone else – to go through the endless cycle of alternating between doing the right things and doing the wrong things.

From this, we draw the conclusion that in the same way America – which stands on a past of genocide and slavery – can at times be a force for good and at times not, so can other groups that did not have a glorious past. One of these could well be Austria's Freedom Party which joined a governing coalition with the People's Party.

Responding to that announcement, the Jewish influenced editorial board of the New York Times acted in the typically Jewish manner of going apoplectic over the event. The editors wrote: “Austria's Welcome to a Party With a Nazi Past,” the title of a piece they published on December 20, 2017.

Apparently, the people that reacted with fear and loathing when Kurt Waldheim was elected President of Austria, have not learned a thing about the gentiles' ability to rid themselves of the characteristic Jewish lust for eternal vengeance. They did so by submitting to the healing powers of redemption, a concept that is alien to the Jews.

Kurt Waldheim was an officer in the German military during World War Two where he served as innocuously as any nondescript soldier. He then became Secretary General of the United Nations where he did as good a job as any that filled this position before returning to Austria and getting elected President.

Motivated by Jewish-concocted fear and loathing, the editors of the New York Times went on to describe a European Continent that is descending into the kind of horror you see committed by the right-wing group that's governing Israel at this time. And they end their piece with the following advice:

“Ms. Merkel should be wary. The return of the far right in Austria is a sign of Europe's vulnerability, having failed to address citizens' concerns”.

Let me assure the editors of the New York Times that the Europeans know what they are doing. They try a little of this and a little of that without going to extremes, and when they find the right combination, they codify it and implement it. They have been operating in this fashion for several decades now.

This is how America used to be during the best of times. It is no more because unlike Ms. Merkel who told Netanyahu he will not veto German decisions, America's politico-journalistic establishment handed the Jewish lobby full powers – not just the veto – to run America's affairs.

A reliable Test to detect incipient Madness

Let's do a thought experiment.

You work in a big office with hundreds of other employees. You are the supervisor of one division, the reason why lower ranking employees come to you (as they do to other supervisors) in anticipation that an opening will occur in your division, and you'll want to promote someone to fill the position from the existing staff.

The culture in the office is such that people not only boast of what they can do to set themselves apart from the rest; they denigrate the others to make themselves look better by comparison. And so it happens one day that rumors begin to circulate to the effect that someone will soon retire in your division. The hot topic among the employees is that you're engaged in a kind of informal vetting to get acquainted with potential candidates.

The effect of the rumors is that the circulation around you increases dramatically during the lunch hour, the coffee breaks and when you look like you have little to do. People come to tell you success stories about themselves, and humbling stories about the others. They load you with so much information, you wonder if there is a way by which you can separate the real from the noise. You think up all sorts of approaches you might take, and when nothing seems promising, you give up on trying to zero in on the perfect candidate. What you do instead is try to avoid choosing the worst candidate.

You find that this approach is easier to handle because those who come around you, exhibit a certain amount of madness in their exaggerated talk and their demeanor. You think about this aspect of human nature, and hit on a surefire and quantifiable way by which to gauge each candidate's level of madness. If this works, you'll have identified the least mad of the candidates, and you'll promote him or her.

You try your theory on the first candidate that comes to talk to you this morning. He tells you how bad Rocco is, and so you ask if someone else is as bad as him. He says no, Rocco is the only one he can think of. You ask: what's wrong with Rocco, and the candidate says, he is a little crazy. You do the same thing with every aspiring candidate that comes to say how good he or she is, and how bad the others are.

The difference between the candidates is that the number of others each candidate names as being crazy varies from one to five, with one saying that everyone around here is crazy. This is how you are able to quantify the level of madness. No, it's not the madness of the people who are fingered as being crazy; it is the madness of the candidates who fingered them. The more crazies a candidate thought he was seeing around him or her, the madder you consider that candidate to be. The one that said everyone is crazy is the one you consider to be the maddest of all, and he is the first you reject.

Now, my friend, if you think this is a far fetched story that cannot possibly be used as metaphor to illustrate a real story, I have news for you. There is an ongoing real story that is a thousand times more far fetched than our thought experiment. Many articles have been written about it already, and many more will be in the coming days. They deal with the United Nations having rejected the notion that occupied Jerusalem can be considered Israeli territory just because a bunch of fake Jews say they woke-up one morning and felt connection to that city.

One of the articles is an editorial that came under the title: “UN-acceptable madness as United Nations attacks America over Jerusalem,” written by the editors of the New York Daily News. It was published on their website on December 21, 2017.

Here is what the editors wrote: “Nikki Haley rejected the UN General Assembly's descent into the insanity of mob rule on a vote that labeled 'null and void' the Trump administration's decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel … Insanity indeed. The two-thirds of the body that supported this act encompassed some of the world's most despicable regimes … Jerusalem has been the capital of Israel since 3,000 years ago”.

The editors of the Daily News are saying that the whole world is insane. This should make them the most insane in your eyes but you withhold judgment. If you ask why they believe the world is insane, they’ll say it’s because it is made of despicable regimes that suckered the righteous ones, and got them to vote in favor of the wrong side.

They call despicable regimes the ones that do not occupy a neighbor, and yet defend Israel which is occupying Palestine. This makes you strongly suspect that the editors of the Daily News, and all those like them, of being really insane.

If you ask them how they know that America is correct, and everyone else is wrong, they’ll say that Jerusalem has been the capital of Israel for 3,000 years. They say so with a straight face even if Israel has been around for only 70 years.

If you ask for an explanation, they’ll say that if you cannot grasp this logic, you are as insane as everyone else. That does it, you certify these people as being insane beyond redemption.

The Hooker that failed to weinstein the World

When it comes to weinsteining somebody – whether they do it themselves or they pick surrogates to do it for them – the Jews only manage to weinstein American women, American men and their institutions. Every time they try to pull a stunt of this nature on someone else, they get castrated.

Still, the Jews spent the last half century telling America's elites they are so big and so stiff, they can screw anyone they want and they'll get away with it. Hell, they can even screw the whole world all at once, and they'll get away with it. America believed these charlatans because America loves to be flattered.

Then came Donald Trump who picked the hooker that screwed the people of the state that elected her. He thought that Nikki Haley will be perfect at representing America to the world. He wanted her to be the face that will scare the world into bending to his will. And so, he made her ambassador to the United Nations (UN) and sent her to make the standard Jewish threat of taking the names of those who would defy his decision on Jerusalem. The instructions sounded so Jewish, she embraced them, absorbed them, and went to regurgitate them at the feet of the UN delegates.

Absorbing what she is told is the natural state of this woman. When you study her performance, you discover that she has no organic matter between her ears. Instead, she has – in that cavity – an old fashioned tape recorder in which the Jewish talking points (JTP) that were created during the last half century were stored. Watch her respond to questions in any interview, and you'll conclude she knows one hundred percent of the JTP, and zero percent of anything else. In fact, she was programmed to rattle off the Israeli points of view while getting paid by America.

And so, when the day of reckoning came, and the vote was taken at the General Assembly of the UN, no one displayed the slightest sign of fear. The delegates voted as dictated to by their conscience, and not in accordance with the size or stiffness of America's instrument of rape that Haley had been lauding.

That day was December 21, 2017. Three days before that, on December 18, 2017 the Security Council of the UN had held a vote on a resolution condemning America's decision to move its embassy to Jerusalem. Fourteen of the fifteen members voted for it, and America – the fifteenth member – did what the Jews wanted Haley to do, which was to veto the resolution. This is why the world moved to the General Assembly where it secured the Justice that was due to the people of Palestine.

It happened on the same day that Benny Avni rushed to his computer and complained in print about Britain's vote against America, which he considered a betrayal. In fact the column he wrote came under the title: “Britain just betrayed America at the United Nations,” published on December 18, 2017 in the New York Post.

The column rests on what Avni says was a contradiction committed by the British UN Ambassador Matthew Rycroft. To explain it, he set the stage by saying that “Haley berated the UN members for their hypocrisy. They complain that Trump prejudges final-status issues. [And yet] they rely on the UN to weigh in on all kinds of issues regarding the Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking”.

Haley's point was proven, says Avni, when the British Ambassador first stated that the status of Jerusalem should be determined through negotiations between the two parties, but then saying that Jerusalem must ultimately be the shared capital of Palestine and Israel. And so Avni asks: “With these, what's left for Israelis and Palestinians to negotiate?”

In making that statement, and asking that question, Benny Avni has shown he was too young during the time that resolutions 242 and 338 were debated; and that he may be too busy now or too lazy to read up on the subjects he writes about.

What he needs to know is that those resolutions established a formula called “land for peace.” They are laws, and like any law, they spell out conditions that must not be violated, and they allow for no other conditions to be added.

A condition of those resolutions is to the effect that a land swap will have to be negotiated between the parties. Another condition is to the effect that Jerusalem must remain an open city in the sense of being an international city.

That will necessitate negotiating the modality of troop withdrawal from Jerusalem and the entire West Bank.

Don't worry, Benny Avni, there is plenty to negotiate here.

They never imagined; they'll never re-imagine

Clifford D. May wrote an article under the title: “Reimagining a more realistic 'peace process'” and the subtitle: “President Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital could be the beginning.” It was published on December 19, 2017 in The Washington Times.

What is needed to end the occupation of Palestine is not imagining or reimagining a peace process; what is needed is imagining peace, and implementing it. In fact, the Jews in Israel and America have reimagined the process over and over again for half a century, and used this trick as a substitute for the real thing: ending the occupation and implementing the peace.

What Clifford May did this time, is openly advocate use of the formula the Jews have used during all these years to sabotage the quest for peace. They kept reinventing the process to maintain the status quo while implementing the measures that made the end of occupation impossible to achieve. They did so while denying they were stalling to buy time. Clifford May changed all that by admitting it is what he wants to see happen for an indefinite period of time.

This time, however, the excuse that Clifford May has latched on, is a meaningless American pronouncement recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Never mind that Jerusalem is not in Israel, and that no one except a Congress of Jewish-trained circus monkeys makes that assumption. Still, the pronouncement was good enough for May to suggest that an endless Jewish process of haggling should be started while the cultural genocide – and in some cases physical genocide – of the Palestinian people continue unabated.

Speaking of Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority, Clifford May said the following: “He has been orchestrating a campaign to delegitimize and wage economic warfare against Israel (through BDS) to cast doubt on whether the Jewish people has any historical connection or claim to Jerusalem where Jews have lived since long before those lands were conquered by foreign empires”.

This guy, Clifford May, is a lawyer, and the one thing that lawyers depend on to show how smart they are, and what a strong case they have, is encapsulated in the word “nexus.” For this lawyer to say that engaging in BDS leads to the rejection of the claim that Jews have a connection to Jerusalem, without him showing where the nexus between the two situations begins or ends, tells why this guy is not practicing law. He would be kicked out the courtroom in a minute. Maybe he should find a twelve year-old kid who will help him develop a taste for logical thinking because his level of comprehension does not seem to have reached that stage now.

Perhaps a few words regarding the Palestinian side of the case will help him understand enough of it that he'll want to know more, thus study the subject earnestly. Here, in brief, is the logic that's involved:

An authentic Egyptian – like yours truly – that left Egypt more than half a century ago and has adopted the Canadian citizenship, cannot go back to Egypt, push someone out of their property and take it. I would have to be a criminal gangster to do that.

Likewise, an authentic Hebrew, no matter his current religion – Jewish, Christian or Muslim – that left Palestine, cannot go back, push someone out of the land and take it. He will have to be a criminal gangster to do that.

A descendant of authentic Hebrews that left Palestine a generation or two ago has even less right to claim ownership of a piece of Palestine no matter how much of a connection he feels for that place.

A descendant of Jews that intermarried with non-Jews over centuries – whether he is now a Jew, a partial-Jew or whatever – would be lying if he said he feels so much connection to the land of Palestine, he must go back, push someone out of their property and take it. That's a dangerous mental case that should be locked up.

A non-Jew that converted to Judaism only recently, and claims he suddenly began to feel connection to the land of Palestine has earned the name: animal.

Well, my friend, all those who say they are European Jews, yet claim they have the right to the land of Palestine, fit that last category. They cannot prove they have one drop of Hebrew (or the generic Semitic) blood in their veins; but even if they did, they have no divine right to thievery.

Despite the accepted norms of human behavior, a few millions calling themselves Jews are willing to kill Palestinians and steal their properties while hiding behind religion. Do you know why that is, my friend? It's because there is an American Congress of Jewish-trained monkeys willing to sacrifice their own country to turn Palestine into the sacrificial lamb they'll offer to their Jewish trainers in return for one favor or another. No, these are not just monkeys; they are animals.

Thus, what must be done to bring sanity to our planet is not to begin by recognizing the false connection suggested by Clifford May; it begins by recognizing the bogus nature of the Jewish claim to Palestine. And start the bargaining from this point.

The Snakes that keep mesmerizing the Rats

Just think about it. For a moment they imagined they will soon have the whole world in their hand. They thought the Levant was going to disintegrate, and the pieces will fall in their lap. The Gulf Arabs were going to quake in their boots for fear of Iran, and rush to hide behind Israel's skirt.

Other than that, Britain was going to cheerfully exit Europe and join the new Judeo-Anglican-Hindu Alliance (JAHA) made of Australia, America, Canada, Britain, Israel and India. The rest of Europe was going to decay, with each jurisdiction opting to forge a separate deal with the JAHA. Together, all these jurisdictions will form a rising utopia governed by Jews assisted by such lackeys as John Bolton and Dick Cheney.

And then, they woke up from their daydream and discovered that the Levant was put back together by Russia and Iran. Europe was solidifying, and the Brits were having second thoughts about exiting the union that benefited them enormously. Australia and Canada were developing an allergic reaction for being ideologically too close to America. And India was reviving the golden age of non-alliance by rekindling the love affair it had with Egypt, its bosom buddy of yesteryear.

Far from being in disarray, they discovered that the world was only shaking off the useless baggage it had accumulated over the decades. It was rationalizing the situation surrounding it to prepare entering a new era. In fact, this will be the start of a new epoch; one that will last till there is no more snakes on this planet, and no more rats to be mesmerized by them.

Snakes and rats? Who might be the snakes, and who might be the rats? The snakes are the self-appointed leaders of the Jews who also carry on the business of lobbying for Israel and all the Jewish causes. As to the rats; they are the people who allow themselves to be mesmerized by the snakes. Most prominent among these are the characters that make up the politico-journalistic establishment in America.

You can see how two snakes are still trying to mesmerize the American Congress of rats by reading the article that came under the title: “Actually, Egypt Is a Terrible Ally,” written by Andrew Miller and Richard Sokolsky. It was published on December 19, 2017 in the New York Times. The goal of the two snakes being to isolate America and monopolize it, they became alarmed by the relationship they saw burgeoning between America and other nations, one of these being Egypt. And so they set out to drive a wedge between the two countries.

Knowing that they can mesmerize the Congress of rats and get them to do what will serve the interests of Israel before swallowing them whole, Miller and Sokolsky used the tried and proven techniques they perfected over the decades. The ingredients that go into these techniques are (1) false promises that good things will result in doing what Israel is asking. (2) False promises that nothing bad will happen. (3) Practicing the Jewish pastime of slandering others because it is the thing to do. (4) By doing what Israel wants, America can regain the credibility it lost the last time it refused to do what Israel wanted.

Here is how the two authors elaborated on those points to tell what will happen if America decided to take their advice and reduce payment to Egypt:

First, “in addition to saving taxpayers' money, this would send a message to other recipients of American aid.”

Comment: It is not clear whether or not Miller and Sokolsky meant to include Israel in this deal given that it has received hundreds of billions of dollars already, and is slated to receive at least 38 billions more.

Second, “The risks are limited. Egypt is unlikely to change its behavior in response to less aid”.

Comment: Unlike Israel, Egypt does not depend on aid to stay afloat. It has been afloat for seven thousand years, and no one knows that better than the Jews. Thus, the only reason the two authors are making this suggestion, is to drive a wedge between the two countries as discussed earlier.

Third, “Egyptian government's human rights abuses, which fuel radicalization, increasing the global threat from terrorism.”

Comment: Global terrorism does not happen because of internal considerations unless what happens internally is instigated by outside influences. This is why most terrorist acts in Continental Europe are committed by individuals with roots in the former French colonies of North West Africa. Those which are committed in England and America are carried out by individuals from Central and South East Asia. 9/11 was carried out mostly by Saudi individuals in response to America overstaying its welcome in Saudi Arabia. And now that the idea of a Caliphate is capturing the imagination of kids who are made to believe the West is out to exterminate them, they join the cause and spread throughout the world.

Fourth, “If the administration does this, it will take a step toward restoring America's tarnished credibility and reputation in the region.”

Comment: In fact, America's credibility in the region was tarnished when the populations realized that their governments were being influenced by outsiders. In Egypt, for example, the people demonstrated against the Muslim Brotherhood government for accepting “aid” from Qatar. They demonstrated when Egypt handed 2 islands to Saudi Arabia. They pelted Hillary Clinton with eggs and Tomatoes when she went to tell them how to run their affairs. And the Copts of Egypt told the American Evangelical pedophiles who offered to pay for the construction of churches in Egypt to get the f**k out of here, and never show their faces around this place again.

The lesson to be learned from all this, is that America will be respected around the world again if it minds its own business. For this to happen, it needs to shut its ears to Jewish advice, and start listening to other voices.

Jewish Mob of Pundits maligning the ICC

As surely as night follows day, you can expect the mob of Jewish pundits and their echo repeaters to come out in force and badmouth the International Criminal Court (I.C.C.) now that the Palestinians are almost certain to take their case against Israel to the only place where they can still get a semblance of justice.

Badmouthing everything and everyone that does not serve their purpose is the double-edged sword that the Jews have used throughout the centuries to hurt other people. In the process, they also hurt themselves, though they do not realize it. Their favorite method is to speak ill of people behind their backs even as they smile in their faces. It is an incurable disease that has earned the Jews the contempt of everyone, everywhere and at all time.

Now that the Jews have discovered the reality that the International Criminal Court will not be serving Israel's agenda, they started badmouthing it. In fact, not only will the Court not serve Israel, it will eventually establish what everyone knows is true, namely that Israel is as bad a criminal as any organized crime can get. For this reason, the anticipated court judgment will severely impact Israel's ability to continue benefiting from the crimes it has been committing with impunity since the day of its establishment.

An article vilifying the ICC––that will most certainly open the floodgate for similar articles to gush out the echo chamber––came under the title: “Can the International Criminal Court Be Saved from Itself?” It was written by Thierry Cruvellier and published on December 18, 2017 in the New York Times.

Without once mentioning Israel––on whose behalf the echo chamber is about to blow a storm of slanderous opinions hurled at the ICC––Thierry Cruvellier has managed to build a case in which he ended up telling the ICC to keep its hand off Israel. To get there, however, he was forced to violate the heretofore taboo of throwing America under the bus.

What Cruvellier did is begin the article by giving the impression he was prompted to write the thing, not because of the recent developments regarding the Palestinian decision to take Israel to Court, but because of something that happened a month ago. It was the Court's decision to open an investigation in the role that American troops have played with regard to the crimes that were committed in Afghanistan, he says. Who is he kidding?

He quickly got out of telling this story, and went after the credibility of the Court. Like a highly trained henchman, he started the attack at the moment when the Court was created. Here is what he said in this regard: “The court was controversial from the moment it was created: the U.S., China and Russia opposed its foundational treaty, the Rome Statute.” This done, Cruvellier went after the apparent impotence of the Court to do its job, accusing it of being too slow, inefficient and sloppy.

What he dished out under the rubric of impotence, is the standard criticism the Jews invented to use against the international institutions that refuse to turn themselves into assemblies of the brain dead, modeled after the American Congress. But when the so-called critics used it against Boutros Ghali, former Secretary General of the United Nations, he told them that the World Body is as good as the members it is made of. Using different words, he went on to explain that when Jewish America sabotages the good work that the UN is doing, the kettle is not making the tea black; it is the tea that is calling the kettle black.

In his article, Thierry Cruvellier continued to insist that the ICC has a problem of credibility due to its own doings. He then seized on this contrived premise to advise the Court on how it can work to regain credibility. To this end, he basically laid out a plan in three steps, one of which may be called the stealthy step. It consists of not mentioning Israel in conjunction with the ICC, or when crimes against humanity are discussed.

The other two steps deal with Afghanistan and Libya. As to Afghanistan, his recommendation is a simple one. He says the Americans will not cooperate with the ICC, so why waste time and continue to look slow, inefficient and sloppy. The solution: Do not bother with America’s role in Afghanistan either.

This leaves Libya, about which he says the following: “In this instance, the court has a better chance to have an impact. The prosecutor is more likely to be able to act swiftly.” Cruvellier is taking the world for the kind of imbeciles you find only in the American Congress.

Brace yourselves, my friends, because an ill-wind of unprecedented stench is about to blow out the mob's echo chamber.