What can be learned from the lumpish?

 How far must schizo-paranoia go to be considered advanced enough and capable enough to commit acts of criminal insanity?

 

This is the question we must ask, and for which we must try to find an answer because things are murky now and promise to become even murkier.

 

Suppose you live in a fairly quiet neighborhood, but there is this one neighbor who occasionally disturbs the place with outbursts that can be described as paranoid in nature. He goes around warning the neighbors that bad people are eyeing the neighborhood, intending to rampage it, beat the residents and rob them.

 

His outbursts become more frequent with the passage of time, and the paranoia now seems to have mutated into a case of schizo-paranoia. It is that he dresses like a soldier of an earlier era, wields a sword, and claims to be the only one capable of slaying the gang that's threatening the neighborhood. You and everyone else begin to fear that he will soon commit an act of criminal insanity.

 

Do you live in a neighborhood such as that? You may think you're not, but if you live anywhere in America, you live in that neighborhood because America is it. You see, my friend, America is the only one going around the world and getting involved in fights while claiming that the world is full of quarreling dictators who wish to harm America without being provoked. And the only way to be safe, say these Americans, is to buy safety, security and peace by increasing America's military strength. And so, they want America to arm itself more than it does now. Do you know what this is? It is schizo-paranoia that's serious enough to be viewed as bordering on criminal insanity.

 

What's adding to America's troubles is that it has a split personality. In addition to being schizo-paranoid, its ruling class is not sure whether it is patriotic nativist American or dual-loyalty Jewish American. These people have enough pride in what America has accomplished in science and technology, and at least during the Second World War, to sacrifice all they have and serve America's interests. But as if hypnotized by a force they do not understand, they also feel driven to trample all over the American flag and Constitution when such acts serve the interests of the foreign entity known as Israel.

 

Like a window that has opened on this epic tale, Clifford D. May offered himself to be probed as to his sentiments with regard to the performance of Donald Trump who served one-term as President of the United States, and was rejected by the voters when he ran for a second term. To that end, Clifford May wrote: “Will Biden learn from Trump and keep making America secure again,” an article that also came under the subtitle: “Trump recognized threats, and at least began to address them.” The article was published on December 22, 2020 in The Washington Times. Here is the most pertinent passage in that article:

 

“Mr. Trump came into office with limited knowledge of international relations, and the complex mechanisms by which policy is formulated and implemented. He did know a thing or two about deal-making, and he intuitively grasped the logic of 'peace through strength.' On that basis, he increased defense spending”.

 

Even though May has said that Trump instinctively grasped what role the military should play in foreign policy, he proceeded to give credit to Gen. H.R. McMaster for bringing into the White House the process that engendered the 2017 National Security Strategy. As to how or why Trump brought the general into his team remains a mystery even to Clifford May. In fact, this is how he described the event: “He [Trump] was either smart or lucky to appoint McMaster...”

 

This revelation is of enormous importance because it shows that Donald Trump relies on his instinct as it speaks to him this minute, subject to change the next. He has no analytical capability, which causes him to hire and fire people, not based on their ability to perform, but on the strength of loyalty that would make them put up with his foibles and pretend to like it.

 

In time, history will look at the decisions that Trump has taken while in office, and attribute to each the method by which it was taken. The estimate at this point is that a third of the decisions were taken accidentally, a third incidentally, and a third were calculated to serve his own personal purposes.

 

Well, Donald Trump came and went like a flash in the pan. And like they say, “you get the government that you deserve.” So, this may have been all that America deserved at that time. True or false, there is no reason for someone like Clifford May to come along and recommend that the agony be prolonged the way it is suggested in the title of his article: “Will Biden learn from Trump and keep making America secure again.”

 

No country deserves to suffer this much punishment.

The etched in Stone and the Living Document

 Why are some things so unassailable, they are said to be etched in stone, and other things are meant to be adjusted if and when it is necessary, thus are said to be a living document?

 

Commands that are etched in stone, such as those which God supposedly gave to Moses, as well as the Hammurabi Code of Laws, are meant to be permanent. Whatever else future legislators may come up with, must conform with the commands etched on the stone tablet.

 

The reason why the constitution of a country is treated as if it were etched in stone, is that it is made coherent in all of its parts. Because of this, everything that's legislated later on, are made compatible with the constitution so as to be coherent with each other. This is necessary even though the laws which are meant to work for their time, deal with circumstances which are markedly different from when the constitution was framed.

 

Like it or not, there are three levels of accomplishment in the endeavors we undertake as human beings. Such levels would be detected, for example, in a report that was written by a single author, or one that was written by a committee. You'll find that the first is coherent and that it flows smoothly. And you'll find that the second looks like a quilt made of parts stitched together when they match and when they do not.

 

But there is also a third way, which is referred to as team work. The image here is borrowed from the sports where a team is well rehearsed, and the many players work so coherently together, they perform like one and the same operator. Thus, to sum up, the three levels of human performance boil down to the single operator, the team players and the committee of operators.

 

Anything that is accomplished in life, is done by human beings operating at one or the other of these levels. It is detected in every field of human exercise, especially in international diplomacy where the foreign policy of a country ends up looking coherent, semi-coherent or totally incoherent.

 

Observers who specialize in tracking the performance of countries in the field of foreign affairs, easily detect the defects in a country's work when its team of diplomats performs below par. This has been the case with the United States of America for several years now; a case in which you could not see the difference between America's team of diplomats and teenagers pulling pranks on each other in the schoolyard.

 

This is what upset Daniel Davis so much, he wrote about it in an article that came under the title: “End decades of foreign policy disasters with principles that stand the test of time.” It was published on December 19, 2020 in The Washington Examiner. What follows is a condensed version of what Daniel Davis said about the subject:

 

“America's foreign policy since September 11, 2001 has been one of perpetual conflict abroad. Our military-first policies have failed to make our country more secure. A better way to do foreign policy was used in the past. Three presidents produced a booming economy and a secure nation. In 1965, the Soviet Union sent tanks into Hungary, and Eisenhower kept America out. In 1962, Kennedy was faced with an existential threat when the USSR deployed nuclear missiles to Cuba. Kennedy negotiated an end to the crisis. Reagan sent a contingent of Marines to Lebanon in 1983 where a terrorist blew up the Marine barracks. Reagan pulled the troops out of Lebanon. We need a policy based on three principles: Reduce or eliminate engaging in small wars. End all our current unnecessary forever-wars. Strengthen our national security by focusing on the adversaries who may someday pose an existential threat”.

 

The main point here is that the current situation is one of those rare moments in life when the right thing to do is having your cake and eating it too. Three presidents have shown that you can produce a booming economy and a secure nation, says Daniel Davis. All you have to do, is mind your business unless there is a clear existential threat to America, in which case you respond militarily where necessary and when it is appropriate.

 

This is how America behaved in the past, says Daniel Davis, but then America adopted the foolish policy of forever-wars. The change happened because the team that used to play the foreign policy game coherently, was pushed out and replaced by high school level bunch of amateurs.

 

Unfortunately, this group cannot change because it is a fundamental precept of their system of beliefs that they must never change what was promulgated for them and their descendants since the Stone Age of biblical time. They are Jews, and the tablets in the hands of Moses will wear out long before they'll learn to interact diplomatically with their counterparts around the world.

 

And while they remain in charge of America’s foreign policy, the country pays the price and suffers enormously in the way that it is perceived around the world.

 

Not only that, but the fact that America’s military is spread out thinly, as it fights small wars around the world, it is kept from preparing to fight a big war if and when it will come knocking at its door.

 

A new administration is about to take over the governance of America. It should know by now what needs to be done in terms of personnel change and policy change to become respected again around the world.

Monica Showalter wants to tell the World who she really is

 Monica Showalter wrote an article that seems to serve more than one purpose.

 

The article came under the title: “Georgia's Senate candidates campaign with Farrakhan's man in Atlanta,” and was published on December 20, 2020 in the American Thinker.

 

Showalter's first paragraph is a single sentence that goes like this: “When people tell you who they are, believe them.” So, you go through the article to see who she’s talking about that she wants you to believe. You find not just one, but two people. They are Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff, both of whom are running to fill the State of Georgia's vacant seats in the Federal Senate.

 

So, you have these two gentlemen who, in her words, are talking about themselves. And so, the question that comes to mind is this: What does Monica Showalter say they are saying about themselves? In fact, she answered that question as follows: “[They] claim to be Democrat Party 'moderates.'” Okay, we take Showalter's earlier directive seriously, and believe the two men saying that they are moderates. But because we do this, Showalter is forcing us to believe that she too is telling the truth.

 

Great! We're having such a harmonious time with everyone agreeing with everyone else, is it time to throw a party and celebrate? No, not yet because we seem to have hit a snag. A snag, you say? What kind of a snag? It is that Monica Showalter is talking about herself throughout the article. But why is that a snag? It's a long story but it has to do with the Zeno paradox. Zeno paradox? What the hell are you talking about?

 

Do you know about the fellow that says he is a liar? I heard of him. Well, if you believe he lied, then it must be that you believe he told the truth about having told a lie … which is absurd because he cannot be telling both the truth and a lie at the same time. But if you do not believe he lied, then it must be that you believe he told a lie about having told the truth … which is also absurd because he cannot be telling both a lie and the truth at the same time. Okay, okay, I get the paradox. But what has that got to do with Monica Showalter?

 

It has a great deal to do with her because she now seems to be saying she is a liar, just like the fellow in the Zeno example. And she causes us to wonder if we should believe her or not. But whatever we believe, we hit an absurdity, which is the snag I told you about earlier. Come now, you're going over my head. Explain this to me in plain English because I'm getting confused.

 

As you wish. Here is the thing. Monica Showalter says that Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff are bad people because they are campaigning with a guy named Marion who is Louis Farrakhan's man in Atlanta. And she says that Louis Farrakhan is bad because he says bad things about other people. These people happen to be Jewish but that's beside the point because what matters is that Farrakhan is badmouthing people.

 

So then, do we take it that in her philosophy of life, badmouthing people is considered to be a bad thing? That's exactly what it means. Well, you said that she is talking about herself excessively in the article. What is she saying? She says she is disgusted, and she finds it repugnant that Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff will participate in a forum with Derrick Johnson who is CEO of the NAACP and Dr. David A. Marion who, as chairman of the Howard University's National Pan-Hellenic Council of Presidents, initiated Louis Farrakhan, into his fraternity; Farrakhan being the bad guy that's badmouthing people.

 

Does that mean she badmouthed Derrick Johnson and Dr. David Marion, both of whom happen to be Black and non-Jewish? That's exactly what it means. But did she not say she was disgusted, and she finds it repugnant that some people are badmouthing other people? Yes, she did. Well then, does that not mean she is saying she lied about her being believable? That's exactly what it means. Yes, of course. Now I see how the Zeno paradox factors into the equation. But is there not another explanation that might solve the paradox instead of accusing her of being paradoxical?

 

The only other possibility is to think that Monica Showalter is a mental case. What? Are you saying she might be a psycho? That's exactly what I'm saying. Well then tell me this: You've been referring to David Marion as a Doctor. Is he not the one that's interested in mental health issues? Yes, he is. Well then, do you think he might want to help her with some good advice? If asked, he probably will, but I would not advise it. Why not? Because she might get cured. You're against that? You see, my friend, she is such an embarrassment to her kind the way she is, I want her to remain that way because she reflects the true nature of her kinfolks, and that's a good thing for the survival of the human species. What's needed is that everyone on Earth be aware of what these people are like so as to keep humanity in a constant state of safety and security.

The old Ostrich and the aging Democracy

 The ostrich is a big bird that has been around for millions of years. It developed habits that made it appear to bury its head in the sand. This prompted humans to weave a false story about the ostrich. In turn the false story spawned an erroneous metaphor about human beings.

 

The false story about the ostrich is that it buries its head in the sand so as not to see a predator that’s coming at it. The ostrich does that, says the story, because it believes that when it does not see the predator, the predator disappears and ceases to threaten it. But the truth is that the ostrich does not bury its head in the sand in the first place. It is that human beings think it does because it satisfies their imagination.

 

Despite the story being false, however, it has spawned the metaphor about people “burying their heads in the sand” to ignore a danger they are too lazy or too helpless to do something about. Well, my friend, take this as a preamble to the review that follows about an article that came under the title: “Heads in the Sand,” and the subtitle: “Why We Fail to Foresee and Contain Catastrophe.” It was written by Elke U. Weber, and published in the November/December issue of Foreign Affairs. It must be noted for reference that the author of that article, is a professor of psychology.

 

When you start reading Elke Weber's long essay, you get the impression that he will eventually tell you how people in power make good or bad decisions. These would be the kahunas who come together, think collectively and decide on a range of issues in the “boardrooms” of big corporations, the “situation rooms” of the political elites, and the “war rooms” of the generals. Unfortunately, however, the writer disappoints you.

 

What Elke Weber does past the first two paragraphs, is that he quickly switches to discussing how ordinary people respond to events in their mundane daily lives. It is only after writing something like two dozen paragraphs that he makes a feeble attempt to connect what he said in 2,700 words to the way that the political elite ought to make decisions and be correct most of the time, as has been the case during the tenure of Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany.

 

This is a shame when you consider that the writer is an American living in America where the current preoccupation is that “China is eating our lunch,” and that Russia has cyber-invaded the most secretive of America's institutions at a time when it was thought that America was light years ahead of Russia in cyberattacks and cybersecurity. You would think, therefore, that Weber would have tried to show the difference between the way that political decisions are made in the American democracy, and the way they are made in what is called the autocracies.

 

The fact is that the areas of the globe that used to be called First World, are the ones still hanging on to the system of governance known as democracy. They do so without differentiating between the old democracy and the new democracy. As to what was the Second World –– once liberated from the clutches of Communism –– they adopted the way of the First World, but found it wanting, began to discard it and looked for a better way to govern themselves. They are now experimenting with other systems. As to the Third World, each country is trying to invent the system that suits it best.

 

So, the question is this: Aside from the psychological considerations enumerated and discussed in detail by professor Elke Weber –– as they apply to ordinary people in the course of their mundane lives –– what is there that has allowed the Chinese and Russian systems to prevail over the American democracy? You know what, my friend! You should get ready to be surprised by the answer.

 

The answer is that they have adopted the style that was developed for and has been successful in the boardrooms of corporate America. The Chinese, the Russians and a few others have adapted that system, and made it work in their boardrooms as well as their situation rooms and their war rooms.

 

The main difference between what they have and what America has, is that they brought into their political situation rooms throughout the government the kind of protection that has guaranteed the survival of America's corporations, whereas the American government never duplicated that level of protection in its political rooms.

 

So, let it be known that popular democracy no longer works in the political rooms whereas the hierarchical chain of command has become the protective shield that works as well as it does for China and Russia.

 

Still, America did well in the past because it never came under a serious attack. Things have changed, however, and the American system proved incapable of defending itself against the new attacks.

 

Furthermore, America's democracy has been altered not simply by the foreign attacks on it, but also the tinkering that's done to it internally by a Fifth Column that’s trying to turn America into a weapon in the hands of a worldwide Zionist regime which seeks to use America to dominate the world. The old democracy has been strangled, and the new democracy is a Zionist monster that devours the hands that feed it.

 

It is now obvious that America’s salvation does not rest on purging the State Department of its Arabists, but purging it of its disloyal Jews whether they claim dual loyalty or singular loyalty to Israel and World Jewry.

 

Burying heads in the sand regarding the Zionist menace has become America’s one-way ticket to oblivion. Let’s hope those heads will come out soon to breathe the fresh air of freedom once again … or it will be game over for America.

Meet the Banana Plantation's new Vice-Regent

 His name is Daniel N. Hoffman, a veritable Jewish name. Handpicked by the high council of the Jewish establishment 30 years ago to serve as junior, he rose through the ranks from petty officer to chief of station to other high-level positions at the CIA.

 

He was then appointed in the banana plantation that is America to serve as vice-regent, and to speak in the name of King Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. Now, Hoffman communicates the royal proclamations using the print outlet known as The Washington Times, and the audio-visual outlet known as Fox News.

 

His latest proclamation came under the title: “Not so fast on rejoining a badly flawed Iran deal, Mr. Biden,” which can only be thought of as a stern command from the Regent to the presidential commoner who was elected by the plebeian masses to be the King's sword hanging over their heads. An explanation, at times referred to as subtitle, also came with the proclamation. It said this: “The new administration must take into account what has transpired since the deal was first signed.” It was published on December 17, 2020 in The Washington Times.

 

It must be said that America did not become a colony of the Jewish Empire overnight. The event happened over several decades of Jewish scheming, the pulling of intrigues, bribing and blackmailing throughout the land but especially inside the Washington Beltway. It is the game that Jews have played for centuries throughout the planet, and were ultimately punished for their demonic deeds by everyone. And then, the Jews sailed to America.

 

That's where the Jews found a situation like nowhere else in the world. Whereas they were quickly unmasked everywhere they went as to what they were like, and what they wanted, the American masses, but not the elites, took much time before they finally realized what a danger the Jews represented being in their midst. As to the elites, they remain in a lethargic state, waiting for a catastrophe to wake them up.

 

Meanwhile the Americans had allowed the Jews to inch their way into every venue where an important lever of American power sat untouched, waiting for a hand, any hand at all, to come and take command. One by one, such posts were occupied by Jews who reconfigured America's trajectory from aiming to become the shiny city upon a hill to becoming the prized plantation in the Jewish imperial swamp.

 

This is the history that paved the way for Daniel Hoffman to come around, be what he is, and issue the proclamations that he does. He operates in the knowledge that the proclamations he puts out still command weight in the Washington Beltway despite the fact that grumbling is beginning to rise throughout the land. It is grumbling about the intolerable new tyranny that is messing the lives of the common people by messing the heads of their leaders in the federal and state capitals.

 

The aim of the Jews being to prepare America for the ultimate confrontation with Iran, Hoffman wasted no time telling Joe Biden that reconciling with Iran was out of the question. Shown below in condensed form, is how Daniel Hoffman transmitted the royal command that came from Israel to his presidential servant in the American colony:

 

“Shortly after Mr. Biden's victory, Israel's Netanyahu laid down a marker, insisting that there must be no return to the previous nuclear agreement. Iran's leaders would be less motivated to return to the 2015 deal if the incoming Biden administration is unable to restrain Israel from future attacks on Tehran's infrastructure and scientists. Mr. Netanyahu's government therefore might have eliminated any chance for Mr. Biden to make the same bad nuclear deal twice over”.

 

As can be seen, Hoffman the regent could not have been more categorical as to the wishes of Netanyahu the Israeli royal, than to say he “laid down a marker,” insisting that “there must be no return to the nuclear agreement.” And because the commands of a barbarous monarch always come with a threat, Hoffman did so in a not-so-subtle manner by reminding the American elites and the plebeian masses that no one will restrain Israel from launching terrorist attacks on Iran's scientists. This is meant to say that Israel will drag America into a war that nobody wants except for the Jewish leaders and their Evangelical moral prostitutes.

 

To make all of this sound logical and feasible even if it can never be, Daniel Hoffman has once again invoked the discredited notion that if maximum pressure is maintained on Iran, it will eventually come begging to renegotiate the nuclear deal. The astounding part is that he is also citing the evidence which proves that instead of softening in the face of harsher sanctions, Iran is hardening its stance. Here is how Hoffman repeated the false claim:

 

“Mr. Biden's intention to eliminate the Trump maximum pressure sanctions risks removing the incentive for Iran to negotiate course correction to the 2015 deal”.

 

And here is how he cited the evidence that proves the absurdity of the claim:

 

“Iran now enriches uranium and stockpiles low-enriched uranium in violation of its commitment. Earlier this month, Iran's parliament approved a bill to suspend UN inspections and resume enriching uranium to 20%”.

 

What remains to be said is that the two realities about which history has been consistent, are that an end will come to this story, and the common people rather than the elites on both sides, will suffer the most when this will happen.

Washington Examiner Editors inciting Americans to hate Americans

 Most people are familiar with the law of supply and demand. It is the one that says if the supply of a commodity is greater than the demand, the price of the commodity goes down. On the other hand, if the supply is smaller than the demand, the price of the commodity goes up.

 

But that's only half the story because it assumes that the amount of the commodity on the market remains above the critical level even if deemed to be in short supply. But when that supply goes below the critical level, another kind of mysterious law kicks in.

 

This happens in commerce when the commodity that's traded is a tangible product, usually referred to as goods. But services are also traded in the marketplace of an economy, and the law of supply and demand applies there too in the same way that it does for tangible goods.

 

Now, remember this, my friend: Whenever we talk about goods or services, we talk about the human need for something that's vital to us, such as food or medical care. But there is another kind of human need that can also come in abundant or short supply, and mean a great deal to some people. It too can go below the critical level and kick in the mysterious law. We may call this human need: the goodwill of other people.

 

You have an opportunity to study an example of how a goodwill that's in a critically short supply to people that hunger for it, forces them to act. The example is a The Washington Examiner editorial that came under the title: “Raphael Warnock's embrace of anti-Semite Farrakhan is disqualifying for Senate service.” It was published on December 17, 2020.

 

The editors of the Examiner are Jews and their obedient lackeys. Raphael Warnock is a Christian pastor that happens to be African American. Louis Farrakhan, who is mentioned in the title of the editorial, is a Black Muslim minister and a well-known leader to both the Christian and Muslim communities in both Black America and White America. Not mentioned in the editorial, but having played a role in the story yet to be told, is a wealthy Jewish bootlegger with family ties in America and Canada. He was once the leader of a Jewish world organization of some kind.

 

For a reason that is yet to be revealed, a feud exploded in the open between Farrakhan and the Jewish bootlegger a long time ago. As usual, the Jews who hunger for goodwill and never seem to get it, expected Farrakhan to knuckle under and kiss the ring of the Jew. When this did not happen, the entire attack machine was put on full throttle by the Jews, and made to go after Farrakhan, aiming to destroy him, thus send a “cleeeeear” message to Blacks everywhere that Jews will not tolerate their disobedience. Farrakhan gave the Jews his middle finger, and they have been boiling made about him ever since.

 

Not only have the Jews been attacking Farrakhan personally, they repeated their cowardly habit of calling on others to avoid him the way they have themselves been avoided like the plague or was it, leprosy? In any case, that's what the Washington Examiner editorial is about. This time the editors are calling on the voters of Georgia not to vote for Raphael Warnock in the upcoming senatorial race, because he refuses to hate Louis Farrakhan who gets them boiling mad by his steadfastness and stalwart intellectual honesty. It is the thing they could never match even when they piled a thousand Jews on top of each other.

 

In fact, there was a time when the Jews were discriminated against in America as they started coming into the country in droves. Stereotypes that were thrown at them elsewhere in the world since the beginning of time, were now thrown at them in America. One specific stereotype was to the effect that when you give the Jew a finger, he goes on to ask for the arm and more.

 

The only people that tolerated the Jews and comforted them in America were the Blacks. And guess what the Jews did to thank them. They threw at Blacks the stereotypes that were thrown at them, and did so in a most cowardly fashion behind the backs of Blacks. Thus, despite the fact that it is the Jews who continually cry out: “Gimme compensation, gimme compensation,” they vehemently oppose the right of Blacks to get any kind of relief for being so badly treated today as they were in the past. And despite all of this, the editors of the Examiner have the gall to write the following:

 

“Warnock praised Farrakhan's Nation of Islam at a public forum in 2013, declaring that 'we've needed the witness of the Nation of Islam' to put a fire under us and keep us honest about the meaning of the proclamation coming from our pulpits. At the time Warnock was praising Farrakhan, the latter was spreading lies about what he called 'Jewish, anti-black behavior.' Warnock has nice things to say about Farrakhan; he is an embarrassment. His willing attachment to Farrakhan should be disgusting to anyone. Georgians should not let him in the US Senate”.

 

Seeing Christians and Muslims get together to heal the world at a time when they are trying to get the Christians to join them in the oxymoronic compact of Judeo-Christianity to start wars and conquer the world, the Jews are going crazy full throttle. And they will not stop till something gets smashed pretty bad the way it happened to them time after time since the beginning of written history.

Indoctrinated to holler the same old bark

 There can only be one truth about the occurrence of one and the same event. There can never be a scintilla of truth about the repeated occurrence of one and the same opinion.

 

What this means is that if one or more witnesses describe the same event differently, then it can be said that at best, only one of the witnesses is telling the truth and everyone else is lying. That's because an event can occur in only one version –– there can never be alternative truths.

 

As to the opinion, if one or more pundits express the same opinion the same way, then it can be said that at best, only one of the pundits is the author of the opinion. That's because an opinion can never occur to a multitude in one and the same version. Therefore, it must be that one pundit has created the opinion whereas the others are parroting the creative author.

 

It is crucial to remember those maxims because we live in an age where the culture has been shocked by communication waves it has not yet absorbed, let alone demarcated into what is opinion and what is fact. We can see how this is playing out in the propaganda war that the Jewish distortion machine has unleashed on the American public and the governing elites inside the Washington Beltway and in State Capitals.

 

A good example to study would be the article that came under the title: “Expectations regarding US re-implementing Iran nuclear deal should be tempered,” and the subtitle: “Knowing what's at stake, Western governments cannot return to status quo ante with Iran.” The article was written by Tom Ridge –– who was America's first Homeland Security secretary and governor of Pennsylvania –– and was published on December 16, 2020 in The Washington Times.

 

What is notable about Tom Ridge's article is that it uses a new trick to parrot an opinion that was put out long ago by the Jewish propaganda machine, and has been in circulation ever since. Ridge seems to argue that the opinion may be old, but its renewal is based on new facts, which makes it his own. Here is how he presented his case:

 

“The European parties to the Iran Nuclear Deal are hoping that Joe Biden will return to the deal upon assuming office. They should temper their expectations. Re-implementing the deal would be a tall order even if the status quo remains unchanged in other areas of Iran policy. Iran's rulers have injected complications into the process by their belligerent stance. That posture became visible in June 2018, when Tehran attempted to carry out a terrorist attack in France. The terror plot began to take shape after a nationwide uprising in January 2018, revealing that the regime is in a vulnerable position. The perpetrators of the June 2018 terror plot went on trial in Belgium over the past several weeks”.

 

Thus, Tom Ridge says that the attempted terror which took place more than two years ago in France, attesting to the vulnerability of the Iranian regime, has gone to trial in Belgium a few weeks ago, and this is proof that what was said then about the vulnerability of the Iranian regime is valid today. And this is why it sounds like he is parroting the Jewish propaganda machine of yesteryear when in reality he is not. But what's the utility in doing so, anyway? It is to caution Joe Biden not to return to the Iran nuclear deal, and to ask the Europeans, who don't believe in anything peddled by the Jewish propaganda machine, to nevertheless temper their expectations.

 

But the truth is that the 2015 Iran nuclear deal was opposed by the mob of Jewish pundits, the neocons the warmongers and every Israeli diplomat that addressed the subject, even while it was negotiated. And it has been rejected by them after it was signed. Its abrogation by Donald Trump was cheered, and its expected re-implementation by the upcoming Biden administration, has been dreaded by the usual suspects.

 

Having claimed ownership of the opinion that was created long before he thought of it, Tom Ridge proceeded to build on it. Having learned from the Jews how to play the game, his first order of business was to scare the public, which he did as follows: “Had the [terror] operation been carried out [which it never was,] the casualties would have been significant.” Next was to attribute the horror that did not happen to his primary target: the Iranian regime and Western complacency.

 

Thus, even though nothing happened, Tom Ridge spoke as if something did, and he connected that nothing-something to the cause he is articulating. It was the necessity to continue abrogating the Iran nuclear deal by the incoming Biden administration. This is how he put it: “The 2015 nuclear deal reflects a longstanding Western tendency toward conciliation or even appeasement”.

 

Finally, like the cry of a dying cause, the last wish of the pleadings delivered by Tom Ridge, sounded like the relentlessly repeated AIPAC list of demands. It went like this: “Western governments can place Tehran in a position that it will make concessions on terrorism, missile development, interventionism and human rights. Tehran is in no position to make the calls. The US and Europe collectively are”.

 

It seems that Tom Ridge forgot this has been the bark that got no one's attention, least of all the Europeans who got so tired of Jewish America's incessant barks, they decided to block the sound whenever someone like Tom Ridge let it out.