History of Presidents vs History of Issues

 Reviewing and building on a book that was written by Tevi Troy, Clifford D. May's latest article leaves you wondering: What kind of history do these people write and review and talk about?

 

Yes, history begins with people because without them there would be no history. And yes, history is created most of the time because there is conflict between people. But the quality of the history that someone writes will be evaluated by how thorough the issues and policies that led to the conflict, are elaborated on and explained by the writer. The historian that makes the personalities in conflict bigger than the issues, reduces his work to being a treatment for a movie script, not a history book.

 

If Clifford May's article truly reflects the content of Tevi Troy's book, then it must be said that both gentlemen missed their calling. If this is the case, then Tevi Troy should go back to being a specialist in health issues, his original profession, and Clifford May should move to California, to a place called Hollywood where they need new scripts to turn into movies.

 

May's article came under the title: “We can't predict what Biden's foreign policy advisers will advise,” and the subtitle: “Gurus, Svengalis or yes men?” It was published on December 15, 2020 in The Washington Times. As to Troy's book he reviewed, it came under the title: “Fight House: Rivalries in the White House from Truman to Trump,” to which May added the following observation: “advisers to the commander in chief compete –– sometimes productively, sometimes disastrously –– over both power and policies”.

 

By the time you've read Clifford May's article, you'd have realized that Tevi Troy's book is just another American attempt to write yet another presidential history book, this time by an aspiring “Presidential historian.” And this is the defect in the telling of history by Americans. They believe that America is the center of the universe and that the president is both the core and center of American life. In fact, they believe that the intrigues unfolding inside the White House are more important than what is accomplished, if anything is accomplished at all, by those intrigues outside the White House.

 

Clifford May seems to be conscious of that defect, which is why he tried to excuse it at the start of his article with this lame explanation: “In theory, such analysis makes sense. Personnel is policy, and personnel have track records.” Maybe so, but a book of history must be big on the policies that shaped history than the vanity of the people who may or may not have engendered those policies.

 

After all, except to a Hollywood story teller, the inevitability of what ultimately happened to Rome and Egypt is more important than what happened to Julius Caesar and Cleopatra. This is so, unless the historian can show that there is a direct link between what happened to the two countries and what the two leaders did or failed to do.

 

Of the many examples that appeared in Tevi Troy's book, Clifford May chose to mention three of the stories in his article. The following is a condensed version of how he presented them:

 

“For example, during the Nixon administration the rivalry between National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger and Secretary of State William Rogers escalated into a feud. President Jimmy Carter chose Cyrus Vance as his secretary of State and Zbigniew Brzezinski as his national security adviser. Initially, they liked each other. It turned out, however, that Brzezinski and Vance disagreed on virtually every key issue that came their way. Unfortunately, the fights contributed to a worsening global situation. The result was unnecessary confusion. President Barack Obama gave Ben Rhodes the title of deputy national security adviser for strategic communications and Speechwriting. Mr. Rhodes' rivalry was with a mindset. Mr. Obama supported his deputy's assault on the blob, the established foreign policy experts”.

 

Upon this, Clifford May saw an opportunity to play contemporary politics. To that end, he first asserted, without explanation, that Mr. Rhodes’s policies have led to failures with regard to the situation in Syria, and the relations with Russia, Cuba and China. Clifford May then added this: “At least regarding Syria, Antony Blinken, whom Biden plans to nominate as secretary of state, has been candid. He admitted, ‘anyone who had responsibility for our Syria policy [must] say we failed –– period’”.

 

This done, Clifford May went on to exploit the occasion, bringing forth and scoring points with regard to his pet beef: the Iran nuclear deal. This is how he played it: “That failed policy was intended to appease Iran’s rulers. With this in mind, it would be logical for Mr. Blinken to advise Mr. Biden against jumping back into Mr. Obama’s Iran nuclear deal with both feet”.

 

Thus, Clifford May has shown that when historians concentrate on the intrigues that go on between the personalities rather that the issues, the result is the creation of fodder for use by subsequent generations who will want to play endless politics and accomplish nothing.

The frequent Coat-Turning Neoliberal Neocons

 The American Federation is composed of 50 sovereign states which are nevertheless associated with each other, and have a Constitution that puts a central (federal) government in charge of issues common to all the states, such as interstate commerce and foreign policy.

 

Each state has a national guard to defend its interests. It is an army from which the central government can borrow to defend the federation against domestic and foreign enemies. It means that the national guard of any state can be deployed abroad at the whim of the federal president, provided he obtains permission from the federal Congress, which has the sole authority to declare war.

 

What happened in America that caused an unusual sort of commotion in this realm, is that an ill-wind of lazy cowardice began to sweep the land, overturning every precept upon which stood the American colonies of yesterday, as they strove to become the superpower that America is today. But, when they were hit by the ill-wind, the governing elites of the superpower began to slouch like tired old men in search of someone to relieve them of the burden to govern the nation.

 

This may not have been an unusual occurrence except for the fact that those who came to relieve the tired old men, turned out to be the neocons who were the blowers of the ill-wind in the first place. They took over the helm of the ship of state, trampled all over the American Constitution, and started governing America like they would a banana colonial plantation. 

 

A plank in the grand scheme of the Jewish neocons, guides them on how to start the takeover of the world using a plan they call Pax Americana. It begins by getting America involved in endless wars abroad. In fact, this is what the neocons set their sights on, once President Trump, who opposes the idea of endless wars, will be out of the way next month. To counter this diabolic scheme, one State legislator from among the thousands who swarm the nation, has finally developed the courage to tell it like it is. And so, he worked out a plan to push back against the Jewish idea.

 

He is Stewart Jones, a member of the South Carolina House of Representatives. He wrote an article to explain to the nation what he plans to do, and he urges other state legislators to do likewise. His article came under the title: “States must take the lead to get US out of pointless and endless wars,” and the subtitle: “Why state legislators should follow the example set by South Carolina's Defend the Guard Act.” The article was published on December 14, 2020 in The Washington Times.

 

To understand what Stewart Jones is saying, it must be noted that “neocon” means new conservative. These were the Jews who came out the Communist world and started life in America as liberals. Once they became well established in their new home, they felt bored again and so, turned coat and became conservatives. This would be “new conservatives” as opposed to the old conservatives who are still there, but were muzzled by the neocons, except for a handful, such as Stewart Jones, and his two friends, Senator Rand Paul and Representative Thomas Massie, both of Kentucky who are voicing their discontent.

 

It looks now like the cycle has completed its full course, returning to the starting point, and the neocons have become bored yet again. And so, they began the process of turning coat to become neoliberals once more, the way they must consider were the good old days for them. To that end, they teamed up with the hardcore neocons that did not flip, to start working on maintaining America at war abroad for an eternity. Here is how Stewart Jones explains this part of the story:

 

“It appears the neocons and pro-war left will soon regain the levers of federal power, plunging America into another four years of stupid, pointless, endless wars abroad. With America's armed forces soon to fall under the control of a Congress that will, in all likelihood, do everything they can to keep our troops overseas, it's time for the states to step up. This is why I will soon be filing the Defend the Guard Act in South Carolina, a bill that would allow the governor to withhold national guard troops from being brought under federal control”.

 

Whatever the fate of that bill, there is no doubt that Stewart Jones has started a movement that will go far. It may experience the inevitable fits and starts along the way, but it is a movement of the kind that cannot be stifled for long, much less crushed for good. In addition, Stewart Jones has a compelling story to tell that should motivate others to join the effort, and work on liberating America. Here is that story in his own words:

 

“In 1950, my grandfather was drafted into the Korean conflict. The problem with American involvement in Korea was that it didn’t follow a declaration of war, but a UN decision to get the US to intervene. Undeclared war plunges our country into foreign quagmires based on the whims of politicians, rather than American interests. In the US Constitution, Congress is given the authority to declare war; history shows that this check on war is critical to the survival of our republic”.

 

So, let the Jewish neocons argue against the survival of the American Republic, and you’ll see the tired old men who abandoned their posts at the helm of the ship of state, return as fast as eighteen-year-olds would run to catch a love boat full of single women on their way to Fantasy Island.

Imprecise Language and precise Meanings

 Perception is the interpretation of what you see.

 

Test for perception is conducted in a literal sense in some psychological tests. What happens there is that an imprecise picture is shown to several candidates who are then asked to tell what they perceive. The different answers they give point to the psychological condition of each candidate.

 

Such test is also used metaphorically every day in real life. What happens there is that an author writes a fictional piece that's meant to move people. After many have read the piece, it will have evoked a different emotion in each of them depending on his or her experience in life. This will become apparent when they get together and discuss the book as they do in book-clubs.

 

What this says is that we go through life interacting with each other in imprecise terms because we speak of things that each of us perceives differently, using a language whose words we do not bother to define, and reach agreements that each of us will interpret differently.

 

However, when it comes to the business of determining what is owed to whom, we enter the realm of the legal profession. This is where precision of the language becomes paramount. It is why legal texts usually contain a glossary that defines the key words which appear in the text. But despite all of this, serious squabbles do occur at times when a legal document that's in force is invoked by one party or the other to make their case. This is how, despite the best effort to define the terms, different perceptions can still cause different interpretations of the legal language.

 

But here too, the squabble can be made in good faith or in bad faith. When it is done in good faith, calling on a third party to mediate between the two, usually brings the litigating parties to see each other's point of view, thus helps to solve the problem. But when the squabble is done in bad faith by one of the parties, the dispute becomes haggling, and goes on forever. The thing is that disputes going forever is what normally happens with Jews, and happens in almost every case.

 

You can see how an example such as that, is playing out when you go over an article that came under the title: “Obama and His Revisionist Take on Israel,” written by Jeremy Rosen, and published on December 13, 2020 in the Jewish online publication Algemeiner. It is the story of Rabbi Rosen doing the normal haggling with himself, and doing it in bad faith about a book that former President Barack Obama wrote. It is that the former President had mentioned a few things about Israel that do not sit well with the Rabbi. So, what’s new!

 

Here are two of the pertinent passages that appear in the rabbi's article:

 

First passage: “Obama writes: The British were occupying Palestine when they issued the Balfour Declaration. It is true that they were well on the way to defeating the Ottoman Empire at that moment, but the Ottomans were not yet defeated and did not concede until 1918, whereas the Balfour Declaration was in 1917”.

 

Second Passage: “It was the League of Nations that said: Recognition has hereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country”.

 

As to the first passage, it is an example of the imprecise use of language such as we speak every day. That's because when we see the words, “The Ottomans did not concede until 1918,” we think of the presidential elections in America when the loser concedes, and power is transferred from the incumbent president to the incoming one. But this is not how things happen in a war, especially one that was as brutal and messy as the First World War.

 

What happened then was that the Ottomans surrendered piecemeal: one garrison at a time, one town at a time, one military base at a time … and where the British flag replaced the Ottoman flag one at a time. Then, in 1918 a representative of the long-defeated Ottoman Empire was summoned to a British warship where he was made to sign an armistice treaty, promising not to attack the allied forces. But Jeremy Rosen being a rabbi, had to haggle with himself over this moot point.

 

As to the second passage, it is an example of the precise use of language. That one was written by lawyers as precisely as lawyers write a legal document for the ages. What comes out clearly in this text, is that it speaks of Palestine as being a country, and speaks of the Jews having a home in that country, not having the country as their homeland.

 

Thus, as you can see, the rabbi was so consumed with attacking President Obama, he saw fit to haggle about two points, not realizing that they make Jewish lawyers who defend Israel, fret when they are brought into the debate.

 

Rosen may or may not have upset the former president, but he slaughtered the Jewish lawyers who take up Israel's case, arguing that Palestine was never a country, and that it is the homeland of the Jews not the homeland of the Palestinians.

 

Who says that idle haggling does not come useful at times?

The Choice between Editing and Editorializing

 Imagine a society that has lived on an island for hundreds of years, having no contact with other humans, and believing that the island is all that exists as dry land. The inhabitants believe that the blue water extends from the shoreline to the horizon then goes up to form the blue sky above them.

 

The people also believe that once in a while, gray water moves into the sky and comes down as rain, which they drink and use to plant vegetables. The religion to which they adhere, is based on the dogma that they live on the one piece of dry land that has ever been and ever will be. They also believe that the island exists inside a bubble of the blue water that surrounds them in all directions, and forms the blue roof they see over their heads.

 

This is the image that comes to mind when you, my friend, read the article that came under the title: “Media mixing news with opinion signals the end of journalism,” written by Gary Anderson and published on December 9, 2020 in The Washington Times.

 

When you go through the article, you begin to understand that the author believes in the dogma which says that in journalism, there is only rock-solid news which stands out like a solid island. Surrounding it, Anderson imagines a sea of opinions that may or may not be relevant, but would go over your head if and when you neglect to keep track of what's going on around you.

 

Gary Anderson begins his argument by repeating the advice that his high school teacher of journalism drilled into her students’ heads. He recalls her saying “that the fastest way for any news outlet to lose its professional reputation and credibility was to editorialize in the pages advertised as straight news.” Anderson then laments that: “In the past few years, that ethic has been steadily degraded in outlets such as...”

 

Worse than all this in his view, is that “Instead of responsibly supervising their reporters, it now appears that some editors are encouraging this practice. In a column in The Washington Post, Margaret Sullivan celebrated this rise in advocacy journalism and encouraged her colleagues to do more of it”.

 

Why is that? Well, the justification seems to be that, “because so many Americans increasingly get their news from social media and partisan sites on the internet, mainstream outlets must become advocates for the correct point of view which represents ground truth as Margaret Sullivan and presumably omnipotent group of fellow journalists define it”.

 

This means that Gary Anderson is rejecting Margaret Sullivan's observation that the island of news on which we stand, is already surrounded by the blue water of opinions we see all around us as well as above us. But given that Margaret Sullivan has been an editor for several publications whereas Gary Anderson has not, could it be that she knows something he does not?

 

To answer that question, we first draw a distinction between the two words “editing” and “editorializing.” Does an editor such as Sullivan was, edit (in the sense of redact) the pieces that come to their desk as news? Or do they editorialize (alone or together with the board) the opinions, they feel need to be purveyed?

 

You see, my friend, editorializing is an act of commission. That is, you add something to the pool of ideas so as to make a point or rebut someone else's point. If you don't like what you read or hear, you exercise your right to edit the thing in your own mind, or turn off whatever is blaring the opinion at you. In fact, like John Dewey said: The “solution to the ills of Democracy is more Democracy,” whether you take it or leave it.

 

By contrast, editing is an act of omission. Whether it is self-editing done because of fear, or editing done by the editorial board of an outlet, the audience is deprived of the knowledge that there was something which isn't there anymore, not to mention being deprived of the substance of that something.

 

So, I ask you this question: If you were invited to choose between editing and editorializing, which will you consider to be the greater evil? Is it someone adding something you can remove if you don't like it, or is it someone removing something you'll never know was there for you to decide what to do with?

 

When you think about it seriously, you cannot evade the conclusion that social media has proliferated because editing had gone far beyond what was tolerable; in fact, had become full blown censorship. The people are now saying that if the choice they must make is to get garbage with the desired goods, or get no goods at all, they'll take the garbage and the goods.

 

They'll do the triage themselves, say the people, and decide what to keep and what to reject rather than hear the Anti-Defamation League and its army of mobsters tell them that Linda Sarsour should be censored because she does not hate Louis Farrakhan, the outstanding citizen who never said anything disparaging about celebrated citizens of the Linda Sarsour caliber.

 

You see, my friend, if a journalist tells a story that’s in the news in 100 words, and another journalist tells the same story in 150 words, it means that the first journalist unwittingly censored something in the story. And this means he did not just edit he story, he editorialized it.

 

The moral of this story is that nothing that’s said escapes being editorialize. We do, indeed live in a bubble of blue water whether we believe we’re alone in it, or believe other islands exist out there beyond the horizon.

Destructive Criticism for a declining Culture

 If you've been a teacher that has dealt with students in their late teen years, or students just starting the life of young adults, you can see the difference between those who grew up in a household where the parents knew there was a demarcation line between teaching and criticizing, and the parents who didn't know.

 

The natural order of things is that babies––born in a tabula rasa state, which means that except for what's written in their DNA regarding how to suckle nourishment and cry when they feel discomfort––begin the process of learning about the world surrounding them almost instantly after birth. A great deal of what they absorb is passed on to them by their parents, a situation that lasts a number of years.

 

After 5 or 6 years or just about, children would have learned some of what's permissible and what's not, but learn very little or none of what continues to stir their curiosity ... and so they experiment. They try things they suspect are forbidden, just to see how their parents will react to such behavior. And this is where the reaction of the parents becomes crucial because it will determine what kind of a teenager or young adult, the child will grow up and become.

 

If the parents are of the short-tempered kind, and they react by leveling destructive criticism at the child, the latter will grow up to be a difficult teenager and young adult. But if the parents continue the teaching process by explaining why what's bad is considered bad, and letting the child know that unpleasant consequences may follow a repetition of bad behavior, the child will grow up to be a curious student who will ask questions to learn something new. And when you give them a comprehensive explanation, they'll thank you for it.

 

What happened lately in America is that the election of a new government has caused two writers, among many others, to tackle the subject in different ways. They seem to reflect a difference in their upbringing. Commenting on President-elect Joe Biden's choice of members for his cabinet, the two stood at opposite sides of the spectrum, thus begged for a comparison to be drawn between their approaches.

 

One of the writers is Matthew Continetti who wrote: “Obama III,” an article that was published on December 12, 2020 in National Review Online. The other writer is Mark Episkopos who wrote: “Joe Biden's Picks Show Washington Establishment is back,” an article that was published on November 29, 2020 in The National Interest. Here is how Continetti, a Republican leaning author, started his article:

 

“Biden's recent moves provide little comfort for Americans looking for a way out of the polarization, acrimony, catastrophism and hysteria that have characterized politics for many years. Biden is filling his administration with people who made a hash of things from 2009 to 2017. He selected progressive ideologues who believe it is the bureaucracy's job to pick new fights in the culture war. You are right to feel anxious”.

 

And here is how Episkopos, a Democratic leaning author, started his article:

 

“Joe Biden is forging ahead with key national security picks. He tapped Antony Blinken whose policy approach is tightly integrated with his own. From the Iran Deal to the Paris Climate Agreement, Blinken seeks a negotiated return to most Obama-era politics. He sees international politics through the prism of multilateralism. Biden and his team have stated that their first order of business is to repair the damage that has been inflicted by the Trump administration on US alliance structures. America is back”.

 

The difference between the two quotes is clear and pronounced. But does that have to do with the personality of the writers, or is it that they belong to different schools of thought? The answer is that it does not matter; the question is moot because we can imagine that if the president-elect were a Republican instead of a Democrat, the reactions of the two authors would be reversed.

 

What matters here is that human beings never cease to learn. Even as adults going about our daily lives, the culture that's practiced by society becomes the alma mater (i.e., the parent) that teaches us what's right and what's wrong. Thus, to each of Continetti and Episkopos, the other is behaving badly. To a disinterested observer, however, it is the American culture as a whole that leaves much to be desired. But does it not look like America is made, not of one culture but of two cultures, opposite in orientation and constantly going against each other?

 

Yes, this is how things appear on the surface and yes, it is true that a society must have one overarching culture to be considered the home of that culture. But this, in fact, is what's happening in America. You see, my friend, America has adopted the singular culture of the “forked tongue” in that it advances two opposite discourses at the same time as if they were driven by one and the same screwed-up Jewish logic.

 

The only unifying force that brings the two sides together is the interest of the Jews and Israel. This is where you see an agreement between the Republicans and the Democrats, which tempts you to call this artificial concoction, the bipartisan Yankee-Yiddish culture of self-destruction.

 

It is the fusion of the ancient Hebrew savagery with the Yiddish subculture that took roots during the European Dark Ages. It is now taking America into a graveyard marked, “RIP – shortest-lived superpower in history.” In other words, to future historians, America like the Minoan Civilization of Crete, will look like a flash in the pan, killed by the Yiddish parasite.

A rotten Congress for a Banana Plantation

 What does “divide and conquer” really mean, and how does it work?

 

When a colonial army entered a country, it usually met with resistance by the entire population. It could not occupy the country for an extended period of time under this condition, and so it used all kinds of tricks, most of them costly in terms of lives and resources, to pacify the country or at least pacify parts of it.

 

This done, a colonial power worked on identifying the differences that exist between the various parts of the country, and started the game of accentuating and amplifying those differences. Exploiting them further, the colonial power pitted tribe against tribe, religious belief against religious belief, ethnic habits against ethnic habits and so on and so forth.

 

Added to that game, the trick of rewarding one faction while punishing another for no apparent reason, caused the various groups to fight each other instead of fight against the occupying power. In fact, at times, the factions even asked the army of occupation to protect them against what used to be their neighbors and kinfolks.

 

This is how the colonial powers were able to divide the populations they occupied. It is how they turned the initial conquest into an occupation that lasted a long time and cost little to maintain. This marked the start of the real business of economic exploitation, which was achieved by turning the country into the proverbial plantation, be that a banana plantation, a rubber plantation or the provider of raw material of any kind.

 

In time, colonialism came to be seen as an abomination, and was terminated throughout the planet … but not without leaving a residue that turned out to be so insidious and far reaching, it now threatens the human race more than it did at any time in the past. It is that the Jews who grow up with the lesson that humanity is broken and they are here to fix it, also believe that humanity owes them much more than a high standard of living without them having to work. And they are determined to get what they believe is theirs.

 

After centuries of attempts, the Jews have succeeded in turning Palestine into their colony. But like some of us foresaw decades ago, because the Jews relied on others to help them commit evil, they were bound to inflict that very evil on those who helped them commit it. And sure enough, while turning Palestine into a colony, the Jews worked on turning America, their benefactor, into a colony. In fact, what America is allowing the Jews to do in the Middle East, the Jews are doing it to America as well.

 

The result has been a country that is divided when it comes to serving its own people, but united in a bipartisan way when it comes to serving the Jews and Israel, their pet project. The best that America can do for them, which they cannot do for themselves, being to fight Muslim nations that Israel cannot reach, it is where America has been emasculating itself for the benefit of the Jews and Israel.

 

You see an example of this in the article that came under the title: “Congress is supposed to constrain war, instead it's constraining peace,” written by Bonnie Kristian and published on December 11, 2020 in The Washington Examiner.

 

What has angered Bonnie Kristian is that in a bipartisan spirit (meaning Jewish commanded effort) the Congress of the United States wants to write a specific-to-Afghanistan National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that will reverse the role which the Congress is supposed to play. Kristian explains that instead “of constraining the president's ability to extend a military intervention, it constrains his ability to end it. Instead of constraining war, it constrains peace”.

 

The Jews have reached this level of control over America by starting their conquest with the simple trick of calling any criticism of them, an act of antisemitism that aims to pave the way for the next holocaust to happen. This shut everybody up, leaving the field for the Jews to play on it alone.

 

Having a diverse and open society to play with, the Jews pitted group against group, skin color against skin color, creed against creed, political persuasion against political persuasion, gender against gender … and you get the idea. The result has been that the Jews divided America and conquered it, turning it into a colony that's not much different from the banana or rubber plantations, the old colonial powers used to own.

 

And this is how the Jews did it in the past and continue to do it to this day:

 

Long ago, they painted a picture of what they wanted America to look like. They turned that picture into a mosaic of little pieces. Knowing that they could not put the pieces in place all at once, they plotted a scheme well ahead of time to put each piece in the right place at the right time.

 

They asked the Congress and state legislatures to pass what looked like innocuous resolutions. But in time, these resolutions turned out to be poison pills that America was forced to swallow. A notorious pill was the one that allowed the wannabe-Jew Donald Trump to give East Jerusalem to the Jews as if it were his private property.

 

And that's the kind of game that the bipartisan Jews are now playing with the debated NDAA resolution. It is another piece in the mosaic that will allow the Jews to establish an even more dictatorial regime on the American Congress, the Executive, and ultimately the American public.

The Iran Nuclear Deal Front and Center again

 If you are truly interested to know why America is in such a mess today, watch the individuals that used to advise its government in one capacity or another, but are now out of government, serving instead as pundits who contribute to the print or electronic media outlets or both.

 

One such adviser-cum pundit is Abraham Wagner who wrote: “Can Biden simply rejoin the deal with Iran?” an article that also came under the subtitle: “Not without some major changes.” It was published on December 8, 2020 in The Washington Times.

 

Regardless of the suggestion's merit, what is expressed in the title and subtitle of the article, tells you that Abraham Wagner wants to continue the Donald Trump policy of rejecting the Iran Nuclear Deal that was agreed to by the (P5+1). He is asking for the deal to be modified substantially, something he knows that Iran has refused to accept, and took savage punishment for its stance during several years. But Iran came out of the ordeal better off than when the punishment was started and yet, here is Abraham Wagner telling Joe Biden to continue Donald Trump's failed policy.

 

There is no doubt now that no matter which way you look at it, the evidence is overwhelmingly pointing to the effect that yesterday's official advisers who became today's unsolicited advisers, have proven to be the unmitigated disaster which cost America life, limb and treasure on a scale that no enemy ever dreamed of inflicting on America. But what is it that makes these people think the way they do? And what is it that makes the people who listen to them so foolish as to take the useless advice the advisers advance time after time?

 

The answer is that they are worse than foolish. In fact, one is driven by religious fanaticism, the other is afflicted by it. The advisers are the fanatic lot whereas the solicitors of advice are the ignorant and desperate lot. In the end, the toxic combination of the two has created the right mix for one blind to take the other blind on the road that leads to the edge of the foreign policy precipice.

 

You know that the advisers are driven by religious fanaticism because they show signs that they know the Iranians will reject what they propose, that this will maintain the stalemate between America and Iran, and that the Iranians will get stronger with time rather than weaker. For the advisers to recommend the same thing despite all of this, says only one thing: They believe that no matter what they do or fail to do, a supernatural force will intervene and defeat the Iranians at the end of the day. That’s what tells you these people are fanatic beyond redemption. And you know what else, my friend? There is only one group on planet Earth today that is fanatic to this extreme; they are the Jews.

 

What this means is that America's calamitous losses happened because America's leaders have been listening to their highly paid, know-nothing Jewish advisers. Despite all of what Abraham Wagner knows about the history of the nuclear deal and about Iran's attitude toward it, look how he is trying to add insult to injury by recommending the impossible even though he is out of government at this point:

 

“Existing stockpiles of enriched uranium should be destroyed or moved under inspection. Plutonium production should be prohibited. The IAEA inspection regime must be capable of enforcement and must cover all suspected facilities. Iranian military bases being off limits is not acceptable. Development and production of advanced ballistic missiles must stop. Iran needs to cease the wholesale support of groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah and others that threaten US allies and personnel in Middle Eastern states. Facing crippling sanctions, a tanking economy and a growing mass of information about their program, however, the Iranians may come around in good time”.

 

It looks like Donald Trump is not the only one trying to reverse the result of the election. Several articles have already been written and published since then, recommending that Donald Trump's positions –– which Biden specifically campaigned against –– be maintained by Joe Biden, believe it or not. This is what Abraham Wagner is trying to accomplish with his article.

 

He is advancing the false premise that the “Iranians may come around” and cry uncle while begging for the sanctions to be eased or dropped entirely in return for them –– representing the government of Iran –– accepting the restrictions that Jewish America will decide to impose on them and their country.

 

Even though Iran has proved to be so resilient as to absorb the shocks of the sanctions for more than three years and get stronger, Wagner still hopes to convince the incoming administration of Joe Biden that maintaining the sanctions just a little longer will cause the crippling of Iran's economy, causing it to tank eventually. Fat chance.

 

With this much absurdity put into evidence, it is time for America's political leaders at the Federal and State levels to recognize that they and their predecessors made the mistake that has damaged America so severely, the country will never get back what it lost.

 

The least that these leaders can do now, is prevent further deterioration of America's standing in the world and in the eyes of its own people. The leaders can do it by making the point of never again hiring Jews as advisers. They can make it clear that human rights or no human rights, this is a final and non-negotiable decision. Full stop.