A deadly Alliance of Thieves and corrupt Police

What would you do if a gang of thieves invaded your house, shoved you and your family into a room, and kept pressuring you to sign the house and its content to the gang?

Imagine that during the invasion, a member of your family managed to escape. He called on the neighbors and the police to help. The neighbors offered to assist the police find a solution to the situation but discovered that the police were in the pocket of the thieves. Instead of apprehending them, the police have been trying to convince you to sign the house to the thieves. The police also tried to have the neighbors take you and your family into their homes, thus empty the house and leave it to the thieves.

This is the metaphor that comes to mind when you look at the current situation in the home that is Palestine, as well as the entire neighborhood that is the Islamo-Christian Arab world. The tragedy began when Palestine was invaded by the Jews who managed to hypnotize America, that chronically failing, self-styled policeman of the world. The Jews got America to stand with them by trampling on the international laws that America helped formulate when it was sane and free from the effects of the Jewish spell.

There has been a new development in the case. It was written about by a friend of the thieves who appointed himself propagandist for the crooked police force. He is Benny Avni who tells the story of, “The Palestinians' eternal 'no,'” which is the title of his latest column. It was published on July 4, 2019 in the New York Post. Reading it, you'll find that instead of telling what happened the way it happened, Avni is diverting the attention of readers to irrelevant matters –– most of which is transparent fiction of the mediocre kind.

The column is supposed to be about a comprehensive solution to the occupation of Palestine by Jewish armed forces, which are supplied, equipped and financed by America. Instead of telling the truth, which is that the Jews came up with a plan to have the Palestinians sign their patrimonial house to members of the crime syndicate known as Israel in return for easing the pressure that kept the Palestinians underdeveloped during all these decades –– Benny Avni has repeated the usual lies. Here are some examples:

While admitting that the Palestinians saw through the gimmick and told the Americans to take a hike, Avni spoke about the Palestinians releasing someone “under US pressure.” This is indicative of a pathology that keeps the Jews from setting themselves free of their eternal state of misery. You see, my friend, the Jews have convinced themselves that human beings do not act on free will, but act because the Jews tell them to. They believe that nothing important happens in the world till they manipulate America, and have it pressure others to act in accordance with the Jewish wishes. This is when those other ones comply with the Jewish demands or do the opposite in protest. Otherwise nothing happens. So very Jewish, so very sick.

Here is another typical Jewish misrepresentation. Speaking of the Israeli army being kicked out of Gaza, leaving behind symbols of their American-financed colonial undertakings, Benny Avni repeated (with added exaggeration this time) that “outside donors raised $13 million to assure that the settlers' hot houses, growing flowers and vegetables for export to Europe, would be transferred to Gazans … The Palestinians burned those hot houses to the ground”.

The truth is that no money was raised to transfer the hot houses to Gazans. The hot houses were built on farmland that was producing indigenous foods to feed the local population. Then, under the policy of populating the land with imported Jews while starving the local Palestinians to force them fleeing their patrimonial heritage, the land was taken by force. The growing of local foods was terminated, and hot houses were built to grow foreign plants suited for export to Europe from where the settlers had come. When the people of Gaza liberated their land, the first thing they did was burn to the ground the relics of colonialism and went back to growing their indigenous fruits and vegetables to feed their people. A happy ending.

Wanna see another Jewish style dirty lie? Here is a multi-legged one told by Avni in these words: “Arab leaders ignored Abbas' call to boycott the Bahrain conference … An unnamed Arab leader [said of Palestinians] they are no longer a priority; we want strategic and economic ties with Israel … Peoples in the Arab world have yet to join such leaders in overcoming anti-Israel and anti-Semitic animus”.

The truth is that not a single Arab leader attended the Bahrain conference. A handful sent an observer to see what's going on, and report on it. As to the “unnamed” Arab leaders who whisper things about the Palestinians in Jewish ears; well, this is another manifestation of the self-annihilating Jewish pathology. These people cannot live without giving life to their fantasies, which they treat like realities and act on them.

And then there is something that demonstrates how the Jews shoot themselves in the foot, both in the long-term, slow-motion mode and the instantaneous, fast-motion mode.

Here is how it works in the long-term, slow-motion mode. Avni said this: “Peoples in the Arab world have yet to join such leaders in overcoming anti-Israel and anti-Semitic animus.” Well, having spent decades telling America's Jewish rank-and-file and America's political leaders that they want to see regime change in the Arab world because those regimes are failing and attributing their failure to Israel, Avni and the other propagandists are now saying that the leaders are innocent of those accusations, but that the Arab multitudes are the ones who sympathize with the people of Palestine and demand their liberation.

And here is how it works in the instantaneous, fast-motion mode. Look at the end of the Benny Avni column. First, he said this: “A two state solution –– a misnamed formula, as one state already exists.” In the same breath, he said this: “The main stumbling block to creating a Palestinian state is none other than Palestinian leaders.” Well, creating a Palestinian state being the two-state formula, Benny Avni did not have a level of IQ that's high enough to realize he just shot himself in the foot by contradicting himself.

What can you do? He is a typical Jew, this Benny Avni.

With the Whip chewed up, they offer the Carrots

Up to the middle of the 1960s, the nations of the world looked up to America. They surmised what its leaders might wish to see them do, and they did exactly that.

In fact, big or small, friend or foe, most nations wanted to win the approval of what they saw as the all-powerful and benevolent superpower. But then, the Jews conquered America in the mid-1960s. Operating as a Fifth Column, they turned the superpower into a Jewish cultural plantation.

The first thing the Jewish leaders taught America's leaders was never to forget the adage of the carrot and the stick. They told the Americans that the world was full of bad people. They were of the kind that America must chase and slay, said the Jews. They further explained that America should slash and burn instead of appeasing these people or be nice to them. Thus, instead of carrying a simple stick, America carried a long whip. As per the Jewish advice, America cracked the whip left and right to show the world it was boss.

The Jews continued to educate America's leaders, telling them that everyone in the world should bend out of fear. But if someone refuses to do so, America must beat them up the way that a hammer clobbers the nail that sticks out. To the misfortune of the human race, America absorbed this hypnotizing message, took it to heart and treated it like gospel from Heaven that must be obeyed to the letter. And so, little by little, America that was boss by virtue of being a benevolent superpower, turned itself into the hated bully that nobody wanted to associate with.

Now, America finds itself at a loss, as do the Jews who brought it to this point. Their original plan being that the more savage America became, the better they could use its power to make the world bend to their will, they now see how badly they failed. And so, they began to change their approach. Having made enemies out of former friends such as Turkey and Iran, the Jews are now scrambling to appease these people in the hope that they will not turn against Israel or work to belittle it.

But lacking the experience to handle a situation like this, the Jews are trying to be nice to those countries any way they can. Also, realizing that the whip they placed in America's hand has been chewed up, they are suggesting that America revert to the carrot approach. They hope that this will encourage Israel's enemies to forget the regrettable behavior that brought the situation this close to disaster.

One of the Jewish leaders that gave himself mandate to do just that, is Jonathan S. Tobin who wrote: “Iran Would Be Unwise to Play the Long Game with Trump,” an article that also came under the subtitle: “Tehran's best chances of a face-saving exit from the current impasse hinge on coming to the table in the next year,” published on July 2, 2019 in National Review Online.

Tobin's problem is that he waited too long to come up with this idea. The situation at this time is such that the Americans have stationed ships and warplanes in the Persian Gulf, representing the proverbial gun that's pressed against the head of the Iranians. America's aim is to force-feed the Iranians a mafia-like offer they cannot refuse. But if you are Iran, how do you ramp down when you're perched so high preparing for war, and the ramp underneath you, is wobbly and crumbling piece by piece?

In fact, when you read Jonathan Tobin's article, you get the sense that he is describing a scene akin to a crooked lawyer telling the buyer of a property, he must vacate the property he bought after long negotiations, because the member of the family that sold it to him was overruled by another member of the family. And so, he either accepts to renegotiate the deal –– dropping many of its good provisions –– or the property will be brought down over his head and his family's.

Despite that pessimistic view, Jonathan Tobin is using an unusually mellow tone to give the Iranians friendly advice, hoping they will accept it as a gesture of goodwill, that they will respond by welcoming the Trump invitation and come to the negotiating table. Here is a condensed version of what he said in that regard:

“Trump's decision to back away from military action on Iran was criticized. But by opting not to use force, he weakened Iran's hand: A military conflict is what Tehran wanted. If trump is not suckered into a no-win military exchange, that leaves Iran's leaders back where they started: the need to proceed with caution. The ayatollahs can still hope that if they hold out another 16 months, Trump will lose the White House and all their problems will be solved. Given that Trump trails the major Democratic presidential contenders in national polls, and that they pledged to return the US to the nuclear deal, waiting the president out seems like a wise strategy”.

Will it work? Or have things gone too far for the parties to find a formula that will diffuse the situation and preserve the peace? We'll find out in a few days.

Haggling over the Actual and the Potential

There is a headline that will make you realize it speaks of an endemic question requiring a major treatment of the subject. The headline is this: “Why Ocasio-Cortez's 'concentration camp' comparison still matters,” written by Kaylee McGhee, and published on July 3, 2019 in the Washington Examiner.

The headline forces the question: Why do normal people such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) see the things that brainwashed fanatics such as Kaylee McGhee, are incapable of seeing? A quick answer to this question goes like this: AOC and normal human beings, see and react not simply to the horrific acts which are committed by someone; they see and react to the demonstrated potential of that someone to commit even more horrific acts.

This is an abstract concept that begs to be illustrated with an easy-to-understand mechanical model. So, imagine you have a gun that shoots ordinary bullets through a sheet of steel that's a quarter of an inch thick. You now fire a bullet into a piece of wood that is a foot thick, and the bullet goes through it. Someone hands you a box of newly engineered bullets, claiming they will go through two-feet of wood –– twice as thick as what your bullets would go through.

You don't have a piece of wood that's two feet thick to test the new bullets, but you have a sheet of steel that is twice as thick as the quarter inch you used previously. You fire the new bullet into it, and the bullet goes through the sheet of steel. This performance convinces you that even if you did not fire the new bullet on wood, it has the potential to go through two feet of wood.

The point of that imagined experiment is to show that the best way to obtain proof of something, is always to witness the actual event. But if this cannot be done, you may conduct a similar kind of experiment, and extrapolate from it what would happen in case the actual event was duplicated. In fact, because we don't always have the full slate of information that we need to make the correct decision, ordinary human beings rely on that kind of thought experiment to navigate through the vicissitudes of the daily life.

It is what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez did when she saw the condition in the Texas detention center. She concluded that the people who are responsible for this situation, had the potential to commit the horrific acts that were committed in the concentration camps of World War II. It is just that the Americans were not given the opportunity to go as far.

In fact, the same can be said about the monsters who committed the “No Gun Ri” massacre in South Korea in 1950, the “My Lay” Massacre in South Vietnam in 1968, the “Abu Ghraib” atrocities in Iraq and the waterboarding torture. Because they had it within them to do what they did when given the opportunity, it must be concluded that these American soldiers and border guards would have committed the atrocities that the Nazis did, had they been given the opportunity to unleash their savage instinct on those who cannot defend themselves. The potential was there –– thankfully, the opportunity was not.

So then, what does that say about the Jews who jump at every occasion to create an artificial gap between what happened to Jewish adults in a war situation almost a century ago, and what happens to infants and toddlers in today's peacetime America? What it says is that the Jews are not reacting to observed facts or to what can be extrapolated from them; they are reacting to a deeply ingrained cultural belief that is divorced from reality. And so, here is another experiment we can conduct to unveil what that belief is made of:

Ask those Jews what they would do to a ninety year old man that only stood guard at the gate of a concentration camp during World War II, and they'll say he should be deported so that justice be served decades later, even if he did not interact with the prisoners or mistreat them. The Jews will explain that having accepted to stand guard at the gate of a concentration camp, proves that if the man were given the opportunity to be as bad as those who committed horrible acts, he would have done the same thing. He had the potential that just did not come to fruition, they’ll insist. Thus, the Jews would punish the man, not because of what he did, which was little but for what they extrapolate was the potential within him to do. In their mind, he stands at par with the worst of the Nazi monsters.

Does that tell us what belief is deeply ingrained in the Jewish culture that keeps them divorced from reality? Yes. Simply put, it is the belief that they are so different and apart from the human race, they ought to be judged by a different set of rules … or not judged at all. It is why the Jews will not allow any kind of comparison between the Texas detention centers, set-up for ordinary mortals, and the concentration camps of an earlier era, set-up for extraordinary Jews.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who is not handicapped by that sick fantasy or anything like it, observed a situation the way that normal human beings do, reacted to it the way that normal human beings do, and spoke out the way that normal human beings do.

And so, the self-declared abnormal Jews reacted by protesting being considered normal human beings. They want to remain separate and apart, especially when it comes to the application of the law.

It is their choice. Who are we to insist that they be treated otherwise?

The Virtuous fending off the Duress by Villains

The Jews have the gun of occupation to the head of the Palestinians, trying to force-feed them a mafia-like offer they cannot refuse.

But guess what. The Palestinians did refuse the offer despite the enticement and the blackmail. Why? Because the Palestinians are the virtuous party in this high-stakes game, whereas the Jews and the Americans (read Jewish-Americans) are the villainous parties.

You can see how this drama is playing out in print, reflecting as it does, a world that's made of the virtuous and the villains who are locked in a never-ending battle. It happened that on July 2, 2019 Clifford D. May scripted the Palestine/Jewish chapter of the conflict under the title: “Palestinians' 'opportunity of the century,'” published in the Washington Times.

As you can see, the aggressors holding the gun to the head of the victims are the ones advising what's opportune for the victims. It follows that the victims are being warned that if they reject the offer, they will suffer a consequence of sort. Well, this form of advice has a name; it is called ‘subtle blackmail.’ Thus, we must consider the Jews to be the attacking villains, and the Palestinians to be the virtuous victims.

The scene that Clifford May has described in his article, is akin to that of a bank robber and his gang of thugs who just robbed a bank. The chief robber is telling the manager and his staff to sign the bank over to the gang, for which he and his staff will be given compensation and let go. But if he or the staff refuse the offer, they will be kicked out without compensation –– or maybe suffer a worse fate than that.

Look how Clifford May went about justifying the Jewish robbery of Palestine. He made this point:

“The primary goals of Palestinians –– or at least those who lead them –– are peace, prosperity and self-determination. What if that's wrong? What if these people want something else? Would that not mean those seeking to end the conflict will be dismissed?”

Of course, they would be dismissed. That's because their Jewish definition of peace, prosperity and self-determination is different from the human definition of peace, prosperity and self-determination. When human beings speak of peace, they mean peace with honor. When they speak of prosperity, they mean the right to earn prosperity and enjoy its fruits without strings attached. When they speak of self-determination, they mean being left alone to choose what they want without being told what's opportune for them.

As to the Jews, the peace they offer has always led to the peace of the grave. The prosperity they seek for themselves is what they can steal from others. The prosperity they offer to others is conditioned on the forfeit of the right to their heritage. The self-determination they seek for themselves is the right to rape their neighbors at will and be protected by America. The self-determination they offer to others is to choose between kissing the ring that's on the left hand of the Jew or the ring that's on the right hand of the Jew.

And we have an example as to how this criminally insane charade is being implemented. The way that the Jews have been behaving since they were kicked out of Gaza, tells what they envisage for the Palestinians in terms of peace, prosperity and self-determination. The reality is that Gaza has good potentials in agriculture, fishing, natural gas, manufacturing and trade. Left alone to live in peace with the rest of the world, the people of Gaza can create their own prosperity as well as anyone in the world. But they were never left alone.

What happened was that the Jews of Israel used the air force and navy, given to them free of charge by America, to deprive the Gaza Palestinians of the right to determine their destiny. It is that Israel imposed an air and sea blockade on Gaza, preventing its people from realizing their fishing and trade potentials, as well as preventing them from developing their natural gas potential. This has been going on in addition to Israel constantly bombing the Gaza infrastructures, such as the water supply network, the power station, the sewage treatment plant; and the roads, bridges, public buildings, schools and what have you.

The Palestinians of Gaza responded to this level of Jewish savagery in the way that human beings respond when they are pushed to the limit. They fought back. The Palestinians continue to fight back because they want to achieve the peace, prosperity and self-determination that suits their humanity.

Aware of all this, what the Jews want now, and what Clifford May is advocating, is that the Palestinian leaders in Gaza and the West Bank, willfully and deliberately forfeit their right to the human definition of peace, prosperity and self-determination, and adopt the Jewish definition.

And they want those Palestinian leaders to take the steps that will lead to the forceful imposition of their definition on all the people of Palestine, be they in Gaza, the West Bank or the diaspora.

There is only one term that expresses a fitting response to that proposition: Fat chance.

Is it Python or Rattle Snake consuming itself?

A dog chasing its tail may never catch it, but snakes that mistake their tails for an edible snake, have been observed to consume themselves beginning at the tail.

Whereas it can be said there is some truth in the above statement, it remains to be seen if there is truth in any of the assertions that Scott Lingamfelter makes in the article he wrote under the title: “Keeping a python's grip on Iran,” published on June 30, 2019 in The Washington Times.

It is not a far-fetched proposition to equate the saber-rattling United States of America to a snake, be that a rattle snake or a python. But we must question whether Scott Lingamfelter's description of the scene that's playing out in the Persian Gulf is accurate. He said this:

“Like a python gripping prey, Mr. Trump has applied pressure [on Iran] in the form of sanctions … Like the prey in the clutches of a python, the more the victim struggles, the tighter the python grips it. The United States is squeezing the life out of the Iranian economy, and by extension, the viability of the mullah dictator”.

He went on to say that Iran lashed out by downing a US unmanned drone. He said so without repeating the claim, put out earlier by the Pentagon, that the drone was in international space. It is that Iranian fishermen found and collected debris of the drone from well within Iran's territorial waters.

If anything, this proves that Iran was not lashing out. It was simply exercising its right to defend itself under international law. In addition, the incident proves that either the Americans don't know what they are doing in the Persian Gulf, or they deliberately provoked the Iranians in the Strait of Hormuz to see how far they can bluff them by rattling sabers, without the Iranians responding militarily.

But if America wanted to test Iran's military preparedness, why do it now? The answer to this question may lie more than a thousand miles northwest of the Strait of Hormuz. It is that a scenario similar to the one described by Scott Lingamfelter, is unfolding not in the Persian Gulf but in Syria. It is there that the Assad forces and their allies are tightening the grip on Israel with the assistance of the Iranian military.

In response, Israel is lashing out, trying to engage the Iranians into a fight that will force the Americans to intervene and save Israel from defeat. But the Americans must have calculated that the Iranians might want to spare themselves, letting Syria and its regional allies tackle Israel while they take care of the Americans in the Persian Gulf. And so, the question that the Americans are facing now is this: Can they fight on two fronts simultaneously, away from home, without being so overstretched they'll do poorly in both places?

There is no doubt that every time Israel conducts a raid in Syria, the Assad forces and Iran gain valuable information about Israel's capabilities, which is why they welcome rather than condemn the Israeli raids, and why they refrain from responding. They must have figured by now that they can absorb all of Israel's hits till it has depleted its ammunition, without them suffering serious damage. In short, Syria and its allies are ready for war with Israel should it be foolish enough to start one.

Thus, the accepted view at this time, is that unless America rescues Israel, the latter will be defeated in a flash. It also means that the Syrian grip, which is tightening around Israel, is making America dread the choice it will be forced to make in case of an all-out war. The choice is this: Should America abandon the Persian Gulf to go rescue Israel, or should it remain in the Gulf to protect the shipping lanes, and see Israel become Palestine again … the way it has been since the beginning of time?

Yes, all of that is conjecture. But if we assume that the analysis is correct, can it explain why President Trump ordered a military strike on Iran in retaliation for the downing of the drone, but then rescinded the order minutes before it was carried out? To answer that question, we need to unveil one more piece of information. We can extract it from the incidents that took place over Syria on previous occasions.

It happened that the Assad forces needed the assistance of the Russian air force to defeat the Islamic State. But those forces were accused to using poison gas at a time when Donald Trump had said he would bomb Syria if it did just that. When Assad was said to have done it, Trump wanted to keep his word to appease the warmongering savages at home without damaging his relationship with Russia's Putin.

To accomplish the two goals, Trump called Putin and told him to tell Assad to designate three already demolished buildings against which America will lob a hundred or so Tomahawk missiles and call the operation mission accomplished. When this was done, it looked like a piece of theater that cost America a hundred million dollars in ammunition plus related expenses, while costing Russia and Syria nothing.

Trump tried to duplicate that performance with the Iranians, but the response he got was the middle finger of the Ayatollah. This left Trump with the choice of bombing three Iranian sites, doing little damage but starting a tit-for-tat cycle that will escalate to become a full-scale war at the end of which there will be a humiliated America and a Palestinian state. The alternative to that choice was to abort the retaliatory strike and call the operation a victory of sort. Trump chose the alternative.

Now that you have read this analysis, go ahead and read the Scott Lingamfelter article, and decide for yourself which conjecture is more plausible.

The weird Habit of favoring Backroom Accords

I lived nearly all my adult life in North America, and there is something I still cannot get used to. It is that the culture here favors the secret backroom deals over the transparent deals of the open door.

I have been curious about this phenomenon in all its manifestations since I detected it a number of decades ago. And so, I developed the tradition that when I have the opportunity, I quiz immigrants who came here when they were old enough to remember how things were like in the “old country,” and how different they are from those they encounter here.

I can report that whichever country these people came from, they sensed that the “nativists” prefer to talk around the point rather than go directly to the point where they can quickly resolve the issues under discussion and dispose of them. But it appears that the North Americans enjoy having an elephant in the room and talk about it without acknowledging its existence, more than they enjoy reaching a solution to the issues they say they wish to resolve. And so, they go round and round talking about everything in the hope that they will stumble on the solution that will reveal the nature of the elephant in the room.

In all fairness, I cannot attribute this habit to the Judeo-Yiddish influence because all indications are that it predates the Jewish cultural conquest of the continent. However, I can see how much the Jews have taken advantage of this North American habit, and made it an essential component in the practice of attacking the people they don't like.

What the Jews do, is exploit that North American habit, to engage in the business of slandering the people they don't like behind their backs. The Jews do that by running to the authorities who, unfortunately, assign a higher value to a stranger's whisper in their ear than they do to what they see with their own eyes. Their motto seems to go like this: “I don't care what I see, I like better what you tell me.” And once you've seen this scenario unfold, my friend, you understand why Washington and Ottawa are such screwed up places.

Still, there is no denying that every culture has the occasional quirk that can irk the people of another culture. But the difference between these quirks and the one that's plaguing North America, is that they play-out only within the social games of mundane living without rising to a higher level. In contrast, the North American quirks, rise to the highest level of the social ladder and then spill onto the stage of foreign policy.

You can see a stark example of that in the piece which came under the title: “Jared Kushner's Middle East Development Project,” and the subtitle: “His conference in Bahrain hears of big dream plans divorced from reality.” It is an editorial of the New York Times that was published on June 28, 2019.

You know that a quirky habit has overwhelmed a culture as powerfully as the craving for a fix can overwhelm an addict, when you see the editors of a publication as prominent as the New York Times first criticize the quirky habit and then exalt it. This is precisely what the editors of the New York Times did. Look how much they criticized the Kushner plan for Palestine throughout the editorial before exalting its “unrealistic” potential at the end of the same editorial:

“The publication described an investment in the Palestinian economy like a fantastical promotion. There's little new about the plan, which relies on the construction of projects made in previous failed efforts. It deals only in generalities. While tantalizing, it is unrealistic. Making it even more surreal, is that it arrives after the administration cut funds for programs that support schools and health care. There is broad international discomfort about the plan. Mike Pompeo admitted that it may be ‘unexecutable.’ The only enthusiastic cadre appeared to be the billionaire investors”.

After all that pessimistic withdrawal, look how these same editors ended their piece:

“But if Mr. Kushner can mobilize powerful investors and international businesses as cheerleaders for Mideast peace, he could make a real contribution”.

What happened here? What happened is that the esteemed editors of the New York Times were caught between the two jaws of a pincer.

On one side of the pincer, there is the evidence which suggests that this kind of approach has never resolved the Palestinian issue because the wishes of the Palestinian people were never given serious consideration.

On the other side of the pincer, there is the editor's burning desire to see America resolve the issue and take credit. But because one side or the other had to give for the issue to be resolved, the editors did what an addict would do: They made the wrong choice.

Thus, in the same way that an addict would choose to give himself one more last fix after the last fix … indefinitely; the editors of the New York Times chose to ignore the wishes of the Palestinian people one last time after the last time … indefinitely.

The perpetual haggling Machine on full Throttle

How many words are there in this sentence: “Maintain the sanctions on Iran”? You'd be correct if you said there are 5 words. In fact, that's all it takes to convey the message contained in the sentence.

Let's qualify that assertion by saying that such would be the case if you're a normal human being. But if you're a lawyer that's heavily influenced by Jewish logic, you'll need sixteen hundred haggling words to say that same, “maintain the sanctions on Iran.” This, in fact, is what Andrew C. McCarthy did in an article that came under the title: “For Regime Change in Iran” and the subtitle: “We do not want to invade to achieve it, but it should be our objective.” The article was published on June 29, 2019 in National Review Online.

How did Andrew McCarthy do it? He did it by studying the lessons in the book of the Jewish mob of pundits, issued to justify Israel's wicked attitude toward the human race, and its horrific behavior toward its neighbors. For example, the first thing that Andrew McCarthy did was to employ a reverse technique of the trick known as shiny object. That is, instead of distracting the audience by giving it something amazing to mesmerize it while he pushed forward another discourse, he gave the audience something to stir its hatred while he got busy pushing another discourse. Here are the four words with which McCarthy started the discussion: “President Obama was dishonest.” How much more hate can you pack in a four-word sentence?

With the adroit use of vague language, McCarthy went on to misrepresent the facts. Here is an example: “Obama lined Iran's pockets with $1.7 billion in cash and other curious money transfers.” Well, there is nothing curious about Iranian investments in America earning $1.7 billion in interest. When the investment assets were unfrozen, the interest they earned was handed back to Iran along with the assets. How a simple notion like this can stir the bile of haters is beyond comprehension.

Another trick that McCarthy learned from the Jews and used in his discussion, is how to redefine the words to suit his current need. Look how he did that: “Trump pressured other nations to resist dealing with Iran for fear of being cut off from the US financial system. Increasingly a pariah, Iran has seen its revenues shrivel and its economy contract”.

The fact is that you don't become a pariah because a screwball put the gun to someone's head and told them not to deal with you. The truth is that those who become pariah, earn the label by bringing it on themselves. They do it by behaving in a villainous manner. The closest example to fit this description in today's world, is non-other than Israel. It is the self-created villain that has managed to turn off humanity everywhere on the planet for ever and ever. Unfortunately, America that associated itself closely with Israel, is moving toward earning that same label.

Also, a consequence of someone earning the label pariah, is that when they get involved in a violent dispute, the public automatically considers them the aggressor. This is why McCarthy's assertion that: “Iran remains the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism,” sounds hollow to audiences that regard Israel as the only terrorist entity on the Planet, and that America is the leading sponsor and bankroller of its terrorist acts.

Thus, when the whole world hears America repeat the chant, “all options are on the table” and then hears the Israelis repeat the same chant to the Iranians, the world expects the Iranians to respond with the Farsi chant “down with America, down with Israel.” And because the world speaks many languages, most people know that quirks in translation will make the chant sound differently in different languages. It might, for example, sound like “death to America, death to Israel” in English and a few other languages.

But did Israel or the Jewish mob of pundits in America that promotes its interests, take any responsibility for what the Jews say has gone wrong with the world? The answer is absolutely not. In fact, they blamed the failure of the Iraq adventure on someone else; the very invasion that’s known to have been the crown jewel of their handiwork; the one and only invasion that turned out to be America's biggest mistake. Here is how McCarthy repeated the Jewish slander which made it that the Jewish idea of America attacking Israel's nemesis was correct but that the non-Jews who carried out the attack messed up its execution:

“The combat phases in Afghanistan and Iraq were swift and successful. What bogged us down was the experiment built on a fiction that our liberty and security hinge on the promotion of freedom in Muslim countries. The invasion of Iraq was a mistake only because of the way it was carried out. Bush said he was targeting regimes that supported terrorism. He then proceeded to prioritize Iraq, which was less a culprit than Iran, thus got bogged down in a project that drained America”.

There are two more sacred cows the Jews don't want Donald Trump to mess with. They are that endless wars are not a bad thing, and that disproportionate attacks in response to actual or anticipated provocation––however minor it may be––is the right thing to do.

In fact, this is how Israel has been treating the unarmed Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. It is how the Jews want America to treat Iran as well as the Arab and other Muslim majority countries. In fact, here is how Andrew McCarthy ended his article:

“The president should drop the nonsense about 'disproportionate' attacks and 'endless wars.' If he is serious about stopping Tehran, he must convince the regime that he is keeping all options on the table”.

And you, my friend, you should not be surprised to hear the Iranians chant, “death to America, death to Israel,” should the president of the United States obey the Jewish directive, and utter the words: All options are on the table.

Iranians are human, after all.