Our President "How Not To" Just Did! Demwits Divorce Israel as They Embrace Obama and Iran! Increased Sensibilities!

If Maggie and Reagan were in office today things would be different!

.

===
Stella is busy with her "cubby" mates who are  learning about the letter J and its application.

===

Tobin on our "How Not To" President. (See 1  and 1a below.)

While working for the Baltimore Evening Sun, Mencken wrote the editorial below which appeared in the July 26,1920 

"As democracy is perfected, the office of the President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people.  On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be occupied by a downright fool and complete narcissistic moron."

- H.L.  Mencken, the Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920

===
This from the son of an old friend and fellow memo reader who observes his native country from a distant land. (See 2 below.)
===
Admittedly I post a lot of bad humor, nonsense and whatever strikes my mood.  This was sent to me by a friend of very long standing and a fellow memo reader, If it saves a life it will have more than served its intended purpose. (See 3 below.)
===
In days of old you could think and say whatever was on your mind.

Then , in order not to hurt people's sensibilities, we became Politically Correct.

Now, when one sees an Arab and/or Muslim they no longer know what to think and certainly are not allowed to express themselves and, increasingly, many people are being killed.

Welcome to the new world of increased sensibilities.
===
Krauthammer discusses how Obama plays his cards - create a disaster (see 4 below.), deflect attention and then attack the critics - then Xenophobia follows. (See 4a below.)

Demwits rally to Obama over Iran Deal and, in the process, dump Israel.  Will there be repercussions?  Do Demwits even care?

Most politicians lack scruples. They are interested in getting re-elected and this causes them to shorten their focus, in other words, focus on the next election.  In time, they might pay a price for their hypocrisy  but their disingenuousness reminds me of  Hillarious 'previous compassionate comment - " What difference does it matter?" (See 4b below.)

Has Dennis Ross finally come clean now that he no longer is part of the Obama Administration or did he express his thoughts and this is why he is no longer there? (See 4c below.)
===
Contrast this video's message with students engaged in anarchist behaviour on our college campuses:

https://www.facebook.com/hokiesports/videos/947844531928945/?fref=nf

Of course, there are those who defend these students by saying if not for them who would be protesting issues of the day, ie. income disparity etc.
===
Liberals, Progressives and PC'ers just do not get it. One day they might but then it could be too late for more  millions who will become refugees, be beheaded etc.. (See 5 below.)
===
Norman Podhoretz beat Matthew Bracken by many years in predicting current events in his fascinating book:  "WW 4".
===
Dick
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)

How Not to Lead on ISIS and Climate

JONATHAN S. TOBIN / DEC. 1, 2015

President Obama departed the Paris conference on climate change with the same defiant and oddly confident air he’s been projecting in recent weeks. Though the always-shaky confidence in his leadership has plummeted since he responded to the Paris terror attacks by refusing to contemplate a change in strategy in the war with ISIS, the president continues to double down on his approach. At a press conference today in Paris the president reiterated his belief that climate change was the main security threat facing the world and downplayed the significance of the Islamist terrorists who took the lives of 130 people in that same city. He not only defended his leadership but also mocked those who questioned his priorities. Yet while Obama may be right that most of the European leaders he’s been hobnobbing with agree with him, his stand starkly illustrated the growing disconnect between the lame duck commander-in-chief and most of his own people on both climate and terrorism.

One doesn’t need to be a climate change skeptic to understand that the president’s obsession with creating a legacy on the issue is out of touch with the concerns of the majority of Americans. As even a new ABC News/Washington Post pollpublished on the day the conference started illustrates, while a majority think climate change is a serious problem, the number of those who believe that the federal government should do more to address it is at 47 percent, a new low and far below the total in previous surveys. Moreover, as virtually every poll in recent years has shown, very few consider it a priority. Earlier this year only 3 percent saw it as the country’s most important problem. It’s also interesting to note that the ABC/Post poll indicated that a majority of Americans viewed the issue as one on which there was still some doubt — a remarkable figure given the way the media and Obama have dismissed all doubts about the simplistic and often misleading figures about rising temperatures and the arbitrary goals set by the Paris conference.

But while Obama has the bully pulpit of the presidency and the echo chamber of the liberal mainstream media at his disposal, it’s not likely those figures will move in his direction once Americans understand the nature of the commitments he’s making in his name in Paris. As I noted yesterday, the impact on the American economy — still stuck in the most anemic recovery of the last half-century — of the emissions restrictions he is promoting will be severe. They may also be shocked to hear of his ardent support for a scheme for what the Third World widely views as “reparations.” That plan, advocated in 2010 by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, would have leading Western nations will pay poorer nations $100 billion a year to compensate them for any caps on their carbon emissions because of the sins of the developed world. There’s little doubt that the U.S. will have to pay the lion’s share of that total, a new federal entitlement that will further undermine support for foreign aid.

But the most outrageous aspect of the president’s stand is his insistence that ISIS is no big deal compared to the theoretical models about the climate. To him, the Islamist terrorists are still just a small group of people with access to arms and good social media skills. The fact that this small group has control of a large area in two countries, has proved able to hold its own in ground combat despite the opposition of the world’s greatest military and sporadic U.S. bombing attacks and also been able to inflict mass terror on a great European capital in the 15 months since he pledged to destroy them doesn’t bother the president that much. Nor is he willing to speak about the religious fervor that enables the Islamic State to rally so much support and recruits from throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds.

The president said today that we should not judge American leadership by his willingness to put troops on the ground in Iraq and Syria but instead view U.S. efforts in the context of his efforts to build an international coalition against the terrorists. He also still believes that world leaders preening in Paris and adopting goals that have little to do with actual warming is an effective response to ISIS.

But even if we were willing to accept the claims made by conference attendees at their face value, the notion that climate change will set off economic and military convulsions that America won’t be able to ignore tells us all we need to know about the president’s idea of leadership.

On ISIS, the president is “leading from behind” as he always prefers to do while he is out front leading the charge on the climate. But the difference is that the Islamic State is a clear and present danger to Americans and the whole world while the projections about the climate are theories that even if credible pose long-term risks that are widely exaggerated by their advocates in order to scare people into supporting draconian schemes that may cause far more economic damage than higher temperatures.

Whatever their concerns about the climate, which have been stoked by the blatant fear-mongering of warming extremists, Americans know the administration’s attitude to the threat of terrorist carnage and ISIS tyranny is to kick the can down the road to the next administration. That makes sense to a president who is still obsessed by the notion that he can begin the process of slowing the “rise of the oceans.” But it’s not the sort of leadership that Americans who think their president should be keeping them safe while protecting their economy and avoiding unnecessary and wasteful foreign handouts expect. That’s a lesson that those running to replace him, especially his former secretary of state, should not forget.


1a)Obama's new ISIS czar disses Israel, snuggled with Hamas, defended Assad, and thought Obama was too hawkish on Iran.

By: Lori Lowenthal Marcus

Robert Malley, Pres. Obama's pick for ISIS Czar
Photo Credit: YouTube

While President Obama was in Paris for the past few days cavorting with other world leaders on the dire global threat of climate change (never a junior varsity issue in his book), his spokesperson made the announcement that Obama’s new ISIS czar will be none other than Robert Malley.

For a president who thinks that world leaders meeting in Paris to discuss climate change is the equivalent of a body blow to ISIS after the Nov. 13 Paris Terror Attacks, the appointment of Malley makes perfect sense.

Malley is the kind of new-age negotiator who thinks there is no tyrant too awful to shun – unless, of course, you are talking about Israel – and is always eager to play up the “positive” aspects of genocidal terrorist regimes as the justification for allowing them right there in the tent, seated next to you.

An early wet noodle in Malley’s public career was a 2001 New York Times op-ed in which he blamed Israel for the Camp David Peace Talks. Malley’s recollection squarely conflicted with every other major player present at the talks, including President Bill Clinton and Clinton’s Middle East Envoy, Dennis Ross.

In a 2007 op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, Malley expressed strong support for trusting Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, ridiculing the idea that the Syrian tyrant should be treated as a pariah.

In 2008, Malley was booted from the Obama election committee when it was discovered that he had met with Hamas members. Although removed from the public stage, Malley was still one of Obama’s most trusted advisers on Middle East issues.

In an article in Foreign Policy in 2012, Malley castigated Obama for failing to consider the option of containing a nuclear-armed Iran. He thought Obama was too hawkish on Iran!

In 2013, Malley predicted that Hamas and Fatah would unite so that they could bargain effectively against Israel.

In the last few years Malley did finally gain entrance to the citadel of strength, serving on the National Security Council. Earlier this year Malley was elevated to the NSC position of Middle East Coordinator, where he was actively engaged in the Iran Deal negotiations.

With a history of dissing Israel, snuggling up to Hamas, shielding Assad, and promoting the containment of a nuclear-armed Iran, is it any surprise that Malley is Obama’s choice to spearhead the U.S. response to ISIS?

About the Author: Lori Lowenthal Marcus is the U.S. correspondent for The Jewish Press. A graduate of Harvard Law School, she previously practiced First Amendment law and taught in Philadelphia-area graduate and law schools.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)  Time to step it up
By Michael Rubenstein

I would like to be debating policy issues that are close to my heart, like reforming the tax system, increasing competition in education, and yes, addressing claims of human-induced climate change.  Unfortunately, the recent events in Paris have reshuffled my sense of priorities.  When someone is trying to kill you, it gets your attention.

That is, of course, unless you are President Obama.  Like the hysterical protesters on college campuses from coast to coast, our professor-in-chief senses danger in the principles and practices of our free society, but he remains nonchalant about the clear and present threats of Islamic terror.  Because the president is afraid of offending Muslims who disavow violence, he continues to drone on about Islam-inspired violence being unrelated to Islam.  Democratic officials and candidates likewise go to great politically correct pains to avoid using the words “Islam” and “terror” in the same sentence.

It is awkward enough to hear an American political leader offering opinions about the meaning of a religion to which he claims no personal connection.  But even if President Obama were an authority on Islamic teachings, the alleged distortion of Islam by terrorists is besides the point.  Of course there are millions of Muslims who reject terrorism and despise ISIS and who can justify their opposition with bona fide Islamic principles.  Many are oriented to Western liberties and are counted among our most loyal citizens.

But millions more are absolutely, positively not aligned with the American way of thinking.  They reject our liberal society as a wellspring of corruption.  And they base their attitudes, like it or not, on the religion and culture of Islamic societies.  For this reason, Obama warned us of exercising our constitutional (dare I say, God-given?) rights to freely criticize Islam and its sacred prohibitions.  Why else but for fear that practitioners of Islam would not tolerate our free speech and would be provoked into acts of violence?

Witness Secretary of State Kerry’s recent gaffe acknowledging justification — er, rationale — for the Charlie Hebdo massacre.  The left will bend over backwards to accommodate the illiberal mentality of our Islamist enemies, but it will take Americans to task for defending our fundamental liberties.  All one has to do is look at the rising tide of commentators linking last week’s attack at the Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs to opponents of abortion.  No, it was not an unrelated “violent extremist” at fault for the senseless murders.  It was the “inflammatory rhetoric” of the pro-life Republicans that set events in motion.

Why does it matter that we define our enemies by the Islamist ideology which motivates them?  It is not to appeal to base prejudices among our citizenry.  It is not to create a clash between Muslims and the West.   To the contrary, as Gov.Chris Christie explained last week to the Council on Foreign Relations, “if you say that you’re going to war with radical Islamic terrorism, then by definition you’re not going to war with the rest of Islam… Confusion is only created by the use of euphemisms.”

We must define the enemy correctly to enable a debate about the strategy most likely to succeed in bringing this global menace to its knees.

Like Churchill who foresaw the perils of appeasing Hitler, we must be willing to take our enemies at their word.  When they say they want to kill us, they mean it.  And like Hollywood’s nefarious Terminator, ISIS can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with.  It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.

Faced with such an enemy in Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, the Allies of World War II waged an unrelenting battle on multiple fronts.  We must do the same, using strategies and technologies which are suited for our generation.

While that does not mean we can defeat the enemy with military might alone, air strikes and infantry are essential for success.  We must unhinge rules of engagement that limit the force and breadth of our firepower.  Likewise, we must crush the spirit of ISIS with propaganda that humiliates them.  For every tweet glorifying terror, we need to respond 100-fold with words and images that expose the emptiness of jihadist rhetoric, shining a light on the daily misery and deprivation experienced by the foot soldiers of ISIS.

There are complexities to the multi-pronged conflict in Syria.  The enemy of our enemy is not necessarily our friend.  But we must not let the complications of future governance prevent us from acting decisively today.  Anything else is better than ISIS.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3)

1 Let's say it's 7:25 pm and you're going home (alone of course) after an unusually hard day on the job. 2 You're really tired, upset and frustrated. 3 Suddenly you start experiencing severe pain in your chest that starts to drag out into your arm and up in to your jaw. You are only about five miles from the hospital nearest your home. 4 Unfortunately you don't know if you'll be able to make it that far. 5 You have been trained in CPR, but the guy that taught the course did not tell you how to perform it on yourself. 6 HOW TO SURVIVE A HEART ATTACK WHEN ALONE?    Since many people are alone when they suffer a heart attack without help, the person whose heart is beating improperly and who begins to feel faint, has only about 10 seconds left before losing consciousness. 7 However, these victims can help themselves by coughing repeatedly and very vigorously. A deep breath should be taken before each cough, and the cough must be deep and prolonged, as when producing sputum from deep inside the chest. A breath and a cough must be repeated about every two seconds without let-up until help arrives, or until the heart is felt to be beating normally again. 8 Deep breaths get oxygen into the lungs and coughing movements squeeze the heart and keep the blood circulating. The squeezing pressure on the heart also helps it regain normal rhythm. In this way, heart attack victims can get to a hospital. 9 Tell as many other people as possible about this. It could save their lives! 10 A cardiologist says If everyone who gets this mail, kindly sends it to 10 people, you can bet that we'll save at least one life.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)

Nuclear Deal with Iran Has Spread Chaos Across Middle East

By Bill Self

In addition to ensuring that Tehran will be able to develop a nuclear weapon within 15 years, the nuclear deal with Iran has “worsened the sectarian conflicts of the Middle East and exported them to Europe,” Lee Smith, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, argued in an article published Monday in The Weekly Standard.

Smith wrote that President Barack Obama, whose goal upon assuming office was to “extricate America from Middle East conflicts,” saw no value in “engaging in the endless wars of the Middle East.” However, another factor pushed the president to stand on the sidelines at a time when American intervention could have helped protect thousands of civilians from the ravages of the Syrian conflict.

Failing to take action against Iran’s client, Assad, led to a worsening refugee crisis that mostly involved “Sunnis in flight from the campaigns of sectarian cleansing waged by the pro-Iran camp.”

The resulting flood of refugees has overwhelmed neighboring countries such as Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey. Europe, however, was always regarded as “a more attractive destination,” and when German Chancellor Angela Merkel opened her country’s borders to the refugees, they had all the incentive they needed to make the perilous journey to the continent. According to Smith, the makeup of the refugee population may pose challenges for Europe’s security.

Smith added that, if ISIS already managed to send terrorists into Europe, Iran did as well. France in particular was the target of Iranian regime during the 1980’s, and the influx of refugees who can’t be perfectly screened could lead to “a replay of previous waves of terror in Europe, which is to say further terrorist attacks, street violence, and assassinations.”

Earlier this year, Smith warned that using the nuclear deal to strengthen Iran would likely alienate Sunnis in the region and guarantee that more of them gravitate towards ISIS for protection from Iran and its proxies.

Smith also observed that Iran’s hardliners would be the ones to benefit the most from the nuclear deal. In April, he wrote that “the administration is not striking a deal with Iranian moderates or the good people of Iran who we are frequently told love America and have no issue with Israel… Rather, the White House is coming to an accommodation with a sick regime.” In July, he emphasized that the deal would most likely strengthen Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which has been designated for sanctions by the State Department for its nuclear proliferation activities and its support of terror.

4a) A Failed Middle East Policy sees the GOP candidates sliding into Xenophobia

By Charles Krauthammer

The Syrian refugee debate has become a national embarrassment. It begins with a president, desperate to deflect attention from the collapse of his foreign policy, retreating to his one safe zone — ad hominem attacks on critics, this time for lack of compassion toward Syrian widows and orphans.

This without a glimmer of acknowledgment of his own responsibility for these unfortunate souls becoming widowed and orphaned, displaced and homeless, in the first place.

A quarter-million deaths ago, when Syrian President Bashar al-Assad began making war on his own people, he unleashed his air force and helicopters. They dropped high explosives, nail-filled barrel bombs and even chemical weapons on helpless civilians.

President Barack Obama lifted not a finger.

In the earliest days we could have stopped the slaughter: cratered Assad’s airfields, taken out his planes, grounded his helicopters and created a nationwide no-fly zone. We maintained one over Kurdistan for 12 years between 1991 and 2003. At the time, Assad was teetering. His national security headquarters had been penetrated and bombed. High-level aides were defecting. Military officers were forming a Free Syrian Army.

Against the advice of his top civilian and military aides, Obama refused to intervene. The widows and orphans he now so ostentatiously champions are the product of his cold hearted refusal to do anything that might sully his peacemaking image.

Obama has also charged the Republicans with cowardice, afraid to grant admittance to “3-year-old orphans.” He gave zero credit to the very real concern of governors and other officials that terrorists could be embedded amid the refugees. This is no theoretical proposition. At least one of the Paris attackers reportedly came to France by way of Greece.

Obama’s own officials have admitted that the absence of thorough data makes it nearly impossible to properly vet Syrian refugees. In response, many Republicans (and some Democrats) called for a pause in admitting Syrians until alternate vetting procedures are developed.

In my view, it would have been better to differentiate among the refugees: Admit women, children and the elderly under the current procedures, while subjecting young men of fighting age to a new regime of far stricter scrutiny.

The concerns of GOP officials were quite reasonable. But there was no need for the Republican presidential candidates to allow the Syria debate to be derailed into a cul-de-sac on immigration — as if the essence of the Middle East issue is a relatively small number of potential refugees rather than the abject failure of Obama’s policies.

Terror is rising around the world — Sinai, Beirut, Mali, Paris. Brussels was shut down by fear itself. The president, in denial about the collapse of his Syria policy, denounced those demanding a change in course. His secretary of state actually acknowledged a rationale (if not legitimacy) for the machine-gunning of a room full of Charlie Hebdo cartoonists for offending Muslim sensibilities with a drawing.

Beyond that is the strategic surrender of the Middle East, for 40 years dominated by the United States, to Russia and Iran, who now dictate the terms. Which is why, for example, we dare not impose a protective no-fly zone. It’s too dangerous. Russia has filled the Obama vacuum.

Facing a massive failure of seven years of Democratic foreign policy stewardship, the GOP candidates have instead tried to outbid each other in being tough on Syrian refugees.

This descent into xenophobia was led, as usual, by Donald Trump. Amid bushels of word salad, he concurred with registering American Muslims, raised alarms about Arab-American treachery (“thousands and thousands” on TV cheering the World Trade Center collapse) and promised not only to deny entry to Syrian refugees but to send back the ones already here.

Can you see it? Packing them into his 757, the one with gold-plated seat belts, then dumping them — orphans, widows, the lot — into a war zone to await the next barrel bomb.

Other GOP candidates have issued Trumpian echoes. The Muslim registry had no takers. But some have advocated shutting out all the refugees or taking Christians only. They are chasing the polls showing strong anti-refugee sentiment.

How deeply shortsighted. It may work in the GOP primaries. But Trump — like anti-immigrant, anti-foreigner, now anti-Muslim, anti-Arab rhetoric (and don’t forget those cunning Chinese stealing our jobs and ruthless Mexicans raping our women) — will not play well in a general election.

Politically, it will be fatal. John Kasich has forcefully denounced this slide into the swamp. Where are the others?


4b) The Democratic Divorce from Israel
By Jonathan Tobin

The Democratic Party was once the anchor of the pro-Israel community. Not any more.

President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran survived a congressional challenge in September 2015, despite its extreme unpopularity with the American people. With very few exceptions, Democrats in the House and Senate rallied to the president’s side and (in the case of the Senate) refused to allow even a token vote to be cast in opposition.

This was a turning point, for the deal formally recognizes the eventual right of Iran to become a nuclear power—a right that places Israel in profound existential jeopardy. Supporters of Israel will continue to claim that the Jewish state is a bipartisan cause in the United States, but as the Iran vote has made painfully clear, this assertion has become more hope than reality. When it came to the most important vote for Israel in a generation, Republicans in both the House and the Senate unanimously opposed the agreement, while an overwhelming majority of Democrats backed it.

Though many Democratic activists and voters remain ardent backers of Israel, those making up the liberal base of the party are not. On issues such as Iran and the conflict with the Palestinians, Democrats are, at best, split, with their left wing increasingly speaking in open opposition to the Zionist cause. More to the point, much of the Democratic Party has followed President Obama’s lead in seeking to redefine what it means to be pro-Israel. They claim they are acting out of “tough love” rather than disdain, and that they are acting in Israel’s best interests in contravention of the views of Israel’s own lively and disputatious electorate. Those claims ring increasingly hollow, but until now they have proved sufficient for a strong majority of Jewish voters and a great many financial backers of Jewish origin in the Democratic Party. It seems that while Republicans actually compete with one another to demonstrate their pro-Israel bona fides, Democrats no longer have to bother.

This is remarkable because only a few decades ago, the situation was reversed. In the early years of Israel’s existence as a state, it was the Democrats who were assumed to be reliable supporters of the Jewish state and Republicans who were more likely to be indifferent or hostile. The story of this reversal is in part about the gradual ideological transformation of the GOP. But the changes within the Democratic Party were also decades in the making. They are a reflection of the way the party’s attitude toward foreign policy has come to be dominated by its left wing—which never had much patience for protecting U.S. interests in the Middle East or sympathy for Israel. The ascent of the left during the Obama administration has inevitably dragged the Democrats away from Israel.

As Michael Oren, Israel’s former ambassador to the United States, wrote in his seminal book Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present, American support for Zionism goes back to the early years of the republic. Sympathy for the idea of a renewed commonwealth in the ancient homeland of the Jewish people has deep roots in American religious thought. When modern Zionism put that quest back on the international agenda in the early 20th century, there was negligible opposition to it among America’s political class. But Zionism did not become a serious political issue until the aftermath of the Second World War and the campaign for partition of the British protectorate, then called the Mandate for Palestine, into Jewish and Arab states. The heart of that battle was the effort to convince President Harry Truman to endorse partition when it came to a vote in the United Nations. Despite the active opposition of Secretary of State George Marshall and the State Department, Truman first ordered the U.S. delegates to vote for partition and then quickly granted recognition to Israel after it declared its independence on May 15, 1948.

In the view of Zionism’s American opponents, especially Marshall, this seemed to be a function of Democratic Party politics rather than sympathy for Holocaust victims or respect for Jewish rights. Though Truman’s aide Clark Clifford had told the president the key to gaining the Jewish vote for his reelection in 1948 was support for liberal policies, there seems little doubt that Truman believed his party would benefit if it were identified with the newborn State of Israel. Truman’s efforts for Israel during its initial moment of peril—as five Arab states invaded in its War for Independence—were limited to the moral support his recognition provided. Still, the move was seen as aiding Truman’s upset victory that year.

Truman’s act would solidify the notion that the Democratic Party was more Zionist than was the Republican Party. The Eisenhower administration’s conduct also strengthened the notion that only Democrats could be relied upon to back Israel. Eisenhower offered little support in the 1950s as Israel struggled to deal with terror campaigns emanating from Egyptian-occupied Gaza. When Israel invaded the Sinai in 1956 in cooperation with an Anglo-French effort to seize control of the Suez Canal, an enraged Ike blasted the Israelis and eventually forced them to evacuate the Sinai.
By contrast, most Democrats during that era seemed happy to embrace Truman’s legacy by expressing sympathy for Israel. Jewish voters were overwhelmingly Democratic. And with a few conspicuous exceptions, such as New York’s Jacob Javits, most of the Jews elected to the House and Senate in the postwar era were Democrats as well.

John F. Kennedy was the first American president to meet with an Israeli prime minister and became the first to sell arms to the Jewish state. But a U.S.-Israel relationship did not really take off until Lyndon Johnson succeeded him. Johnson’s “green light” to Israel to defend itself against Arab aggression just prior to the outbreak of the 1967 war was a critical moment in the development of the alliance between the two countries. It was only after Israel had triumphed in that war and gained the strategic depth it needed to be less vulnerable to annihilation that American leaders began to think of Israel as an asset to the West in the Cold War, not a mere irritant to relations with the Arab and Muslim worlds.

But the affinity of Democrats for Israel was more than a function of presidential whim. As the United States began to extend both economic and military aid to Israel in this era, the debate over support for the Jewish state increasingly revolved around the annual battle in Congress about foreign-aid allocations. Most Democrats were reliable supporters of the foreign-aid package while many Republicans were unsympathetic to the notion of sending taxpayer dollars abroad.

But the Democratic Party was beginning to change. It split over support for the Vietnam War, a conflict that gave impetus to the growth of a New Left that was doctrinally sympathetic to Israel’s Arab enemies. While that division didn’t initially affect opinion about Israel, the battle over Cold War strategies did unravel the assumption that Democrats would always be the internationalist party. That became clear after antiwar sentiment propelled George McGovern, a liberal stalwart with an ambivalent attitude toward Israel, to the 1972 Democratic presidential nomination. McGovern’s disastrous defeat might have demonstrated the danger to Democrats of veering that far to the left, and indeed, McGovernism was opposed by a more centrist faction in the party during the 1970s. Led by Washington Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson, these Democrats were the nation’s most ardent advocates of the Jewish state as well as allies of the Jewish community in its effort to free the imprisoned Jews of the Soviet Union.

Carter’s thinly disguised disenchantment with Israel led to a record-low Jewish vote for a Democratic presidential candidate when he ran for re-election in 1980—and Carter’s unyielding bitterness about that was a key motivation for his emergence as an unmistakably anti-Israel voice in the decades following his humiliating defeat.

The first serious indication of trouble between Israel and the Democrats arose during the Jimmy Carter administration from 1977 to 1981. Carter’s first intervention came in the early months of his term, when he made a misguided attempt to sponsor a Middle East summit with the Soviet Union. That ludicrous plan may have unintentionally spurred Egypt’s Anwar Sadat to go to Jerusalem that year and start the peace process with Israel that would end in a treaty Carter helped broker—the Camp David accords, signed in 1978.

Yet Carter’s four years in office featured near-constant strife with Israel and the Likud government led by Menachem Begin, who took office in 1977. It was the first rightist government Israelis had elected in the state’s 29-year history. Though Begin’s supposed intransigence was blamed for the trouble—an intransigence belied by the accords that were Carter’s only foreign-policy success—the real issue was Carter’s sub-rosa hostility toward Israel, a factor that would not be fully understood until he left office.

In 1979, UN ambassador Andrew Young took it upon himself to meet secretly with representatives of the Palestine Liberation Organization, then correctly designated as a terrorist group. The strength of pro-Israel sentiment among Democrats was such that Carter faced enormous pressure to fire Young, who later resigned at Carter’s request. But the incident became a flashpoint, as black leaders hotly protested Young’s departure in an intra-party split that foreshadowed future problems for Israel with left-wing Democrats.

Carter’s thinly disguised disenchantment with Israel led to a record-low Jewish vote for a Democratic presidential candidate when he ran for re-election in 1980—and Carter’s unyielding bitterness about that was a key motivation for his emergence as an unmistakably anti-Israel voice in the decades following his humiliating defeat.

Yet while Ronald Reagan, the recipient of the Jewish votes Carter lost, was perceived as a friend of Israel, there was a controversy in the early years of his administration that illustrated how the two parties had not yet completely traded positions. Reagan’s decision in 1981 to sell AWACS radar planes to Saudi Arabia was opposed by Israel because it feared the oil kingdom would use the planes to aid Arab armies in a future war. The sale went through despite efforts by pro-Israel Democrats to stop it.

A year later came what appears in retrospect to have been a watershed moment for Israel and American liberals. The 1982 invasion of Lebanon was designed to remove the PLO state-within-a-state on Israel’s northern border—but the effort led to a sea change in the American media’s coverage of Israel. It was no longer portrayed as a lone democratic nation victimized by a plethora of hostile states but as an invading aggressor. This change had an enormous impact on the way American liberals, including many liberal Jews, viewed Israel.

Many Americans had fallen in love with a pioneer Israel governed by the socialist Labour Party and represented by the romance of the agricultural and social collective known as the kibbutz. For liberal Democrats, the full-throated nationalism of Begin’s Likud Party proved disquieting, as Likud’s voting base was made up not of Jews of European origin like them but of Sephardic Jews to whom they felt little connection. Though his policies were little different from those of his Labour predecessors when it came to security issues, Begin was demonized in the press and disdained by Jewish liberals following the lead of disgusted Ashkenazi Israelis astonished to find themselves out of power for the first time.

Begin had retired by the time the first Palestinian intifada broke out in 1987. By this point, media depictions of Israel as an imperial force dominating a captive populace could no longer be blamed exclusively on Likud. The country was then led by a coalition government, and the task of putting it down fell to none other than the former Labour prime minister and future peace-process martyr Yitzhak Rabin, who oversaw a response he himself called “might, power, and beatings.” The Palestinian attempt to pose as the underdog in the conflict with Israel was assisted by a liberal mainstream media that viewed the Palestinians as the new David to Israel’s Goliath.

Arafat responded to Camp David by launching the terror war known as the Second Intifada.

Nonetheless, many Democrats clung to the idea that the Jewish state had not taken enough risks for peace. The peace process itself had ironically bolstered the fallacious notion that Israel was the possessor of stolen goods rather than the administrator of disputed territories to which it also had rights.

But as the intifada continued, any concerns that liberals might be abandoning their support for Israel were entirely overshadowed by concerns about the first President George Bush. Bush’s Secretary of State James Baker was as openly hostile to Israel as Carter had been. At one point, Bush refused to give Israel loan guarantees to build housing for Russian Jews because of a dispute over West Bank settlements. Democrats railed against Bush’s treatment of Israel and reaped the benefits in 1992 when Jewish support for Bush in his failed reelection bid reached a modern low of 11 percent.

Bush’s replacement by Bill Clinton seemed to further solidify the Democratic Party’s standing as the preeminent pro-Israel party. Clinton’s affection for the Jewish state was genuine, and his hosting of the 1993 signing of the Oslo Accords by Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO leader Yasir Arafat on the White House Lawn earned him applause from most of the pro-Israel community.

By the time of the Clinton administration, moreover, the patron-client relationship between the two countries had been transformed into a strategic alliance. Security cooperation had begun in earnest during the Reagan administration and was continued by his successors. The annual battles over the foreign-aid package that Israel depended on to maintain its military edge over its enemies had largely subsided, since most Republicans had become fervent supporters of the alliance.

Soon enough, the “peace process” created new problems for Israel among Democrats. With the Oslo process already failing in 1996, Israelis again turned to the right and elected Benjamin Netanyahu as prime minister. Netanyahu proved willing to continue negotiating with the Palestinians in spite of their violations of the accords. But the liberal disaffection with him was unmistakable, and it fed off the idea that the dark face of Israel had been unmasked at the moment that Yigal Amir assassinated Yitzhak Rabin during a pro-Oslo rally in 1995.

But when Netanyahu was defeated in 1999 and replaced by Labor’s Ehud Barak, critics of Israel were not satisfied. Barak’s unilateral withdrawal from the security zone Israel had set up in Lebanon after the 1982 war garnered him little credit. Nor were liberals ready to draw hard conclusions about the Palestinians once the Camp David summit, hosted by Clinton in 2000, fell apart due to Yasir Arafat’s refusal of Barak’s offer of a Palestinian state encompassing almost all of the West Bank, Gaza, and even a share of Jerusalem. “I’m a failure, and you made me one,” Bill Clinton told Arafat angrily; but to the left, the failure would always be Israel’s.

Arafat responded to Camp David by launching the terror war known as the Second Intifada, which should at least have demonstrated to all honest observers that the Palestinians were more interested in pursuing their quixotic goal of eliminating Israel than in a two-state solution. Nonetheless, many Democrats clung to the idea that the Jewish state had not taken enough risks for peace. The peace process itself had ironically bolstered the fallacious notion that Israel was the possessor of stolen goods rather than the administrator of disputed territories to which it also had rights. In the view of a growing number of liberals, the rationale for Israel’s existence depended on giving up this land no matter the consequences for its security.

Israelis across the political spectrum lost faith in the peace process owing to both the Second Intifada and the conversion of Gaza into a terror state after Ariel Sharon withdrew every settler, soldier, and settlement in 2005. But their concerns had no impact on many Democrats who still claimed to be friends of Israel.

Just as important, Democratic revulsion against the Iraq War derailed the career of the man who was considered the last of the dwindling Scoop Jackson Democrats. Connecticut Senator Joseph I. Lieberman was celebrated by his party when he was Al Gore’s running mate in 2000 and came within a few hanging chads of being the first Jewish vice president. But his hawkish foreign policy forced him out of the Democratic Party and eventually the Senate. The truth that few pro-Israel Democrats wished to acknowledge was that a party that had no room for Lieberman because of his belief that the U.S. could not abandon the Middle East was not vitally concerned with Israel’s security.
By the time of Barack Obama’s election as president in 2008, the leader of the Democrats was a man who made no bones about representing himself as someone who was hostile to Israel’s Likud Party even as he claimed unconvincingly to be sympathetic to the country itself. And unlike his recent predecessors, Obama believed that creating more “daylight” between Israel and the United States was the key to the peace process. His administration sought both to reach out to the Muslim world and to dissociate itself from the policies of George W. Bush, which were, Obama believed, too friendly to Israel. He made good on the promise of putting more daylight between the nations by picking regular fights with Netanyahu (who had been elected prime minister again in 2009). Obama broke new ground by seeking to label 40-year-old Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem as illegal settlements that were as illegitimate as the most remote West Bank hilltop outpost.

Though he continued funding the security alliance between the two nations, Obama proved himself to be, as veteran State Department peace processor Aaron David Miller noted, a man who “isn’t in love with the idea of Israel.”

But unlike presidents who had picked fights with Israel before, Obama seemed able to do so without getting significant pushback from his own party. He could consistently rely on the backing of most Jewish Democrats in his constant quarrels with the Netanyahu government.

Obama dialed back his criticism of Israel during his 2012 re-election campaign. By this point, the growing nuclear threat from Iran had become the pro-Israel community’s main concern. As a result, Obama ratcheted up his rhetoric about Iran’s needing to end its nuclear program. But soon after his victory over Mitt Romney, he reversed course and pressured Israel during a new round of talks with the Palestinians. The Palestinians soon blew up the negotiations; Obama blamed Israel again. Meanwhile, secret talks with Iran also brought major U.S. concessions that heightened the security risks to Israel.

As the debate about a final deal with Iran began, some elements of the Democratic Party remained skeptical of negotiations that seemed aimed more at securing a new détente with Tehran than eliminating the nuclear threat. But as the talks headed to a conclusion that brought the Iranians recognition for their nuclear program and the end of sanctions, Obama began getting tough with both Israeli critics of his policy and Democrats who were stepping out of line.

This struggle proved to be the culmination of the Democratic Party’s long march away from Israel. In early 2015, opponents of a nuclear Iran thought they could still count on overwhelming support from both Republicans and Democrats for an effort to head off a bad deal. Bipartisan majorities had backed toughened sanctions on Iran over the president’s objection before, and there was hope that a new sanctions bill could pass as well. But at this point, Obama started to treat improved relations with Iran, and a consequent cooling of ties with Israel, as his foreign-policy priority.

The deal that gives Iran two paths to a bomb (one by cheating on its easily evaded inspection regime and the other by patiently waiting for it to expire within a decade) was initially announced in April. Most Democrats had previously expressed opposition to such an agreement, but it was soon evident they were not prepared to oppose Obama. Instead of Obama’s finding himself isolated when opposed by AIPAC and the pro-Israel community, it was Democrats such as New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez—conveniently indicted by the Justice Department on a corruption charge just before the deal was finalized—who were marginalized. New York Senator Charles Schumer, the sole leading Democrat who did publicly oppose the deal, was so intimidated by the White House and the loud chorus of left-wing critics that he promised not to lobby his colleagues on the issue.

The Iran-deal vote must be understood in the context of a Democratic Party whose base is now comfortable explicitly articulating its opposition to the Jewish state. At the 2012 Democratic National Convention, pro-Israel motions were omitted from the party platform. Democratic leaders sought to correct the mistake during the proceedings and were visibly shocked when a large majority of those responding to a voice vote on pro-Israel measures expressed their opposition. The convention chair ignored the voice vote and announced that the measures had passed, but there was no mistaking what had happened.

Changes in American Jewish life are having an additional impact on the decline of pro-Israel Democrats. The demographic trends among non-Orthodox American Jewry highlighted by the 2013 Pew Survey also point to marked decline in a sense of Jewish peoplehood and pro-Israel sentiment among a group that comprises disproportionately loyal Democratic voters and donors. Support for Israel has always transcended the influence of Jewish voters; it is an enduring facet of American life. But as that segment of voters became less connected to Jewish identity, so, too, the influence of the pro-Israel community declined among Democrats. Jewish liberals were never single-issue voters obsessed with Israel. But as Israel’s image was battered by wars and the disdain of Obama, it slipped even lower on their list of priorities.

A Democratic Party that has been largely captured by the left is a party that will be increasingly disdainful of Israel. Though Democrats had been moving in this direction for decades, in 2015, a critical mass of them in Congress and around the country was not willing to challenge the head of their party on an issue that put Israel’s interests and security at stake. Nor is it likely that they would do so if in the coming year the administration decided to abandon Israel at the United Nations, even as a wave of Palestinian terror spreads. In Barack Obama’s Democratic Party, pro-Israel voices have been marginalized.

That marginalization might not be permanent. The next generation of Democrats might come to understand that Obama’s foreign policy—a set of actions that have led to the rise of ISIS, the growing strength of Iran, and “daylight” between the United States and Israel—has made this country and the world more unstable and more dangerous. In American politics, the centrifugal pull of the center ultimately shifts both parties back to moderation on key issues. That dynamic is the last best hope we have for a pathway back to support for Israel on the part of a Democratic Party that has lost its way.

4c)

• 
  

It seems that in the Middle East everywhere one looks there is conflict and turmoil. The Arab state system itself is under assault. Islamic State group challenges every Arab regime and rejects all Shia. For its part, Iran and its Shia proxies threaten the authority of Sunni-dominated Arab countries. Understanding the nature of the threats and what is, in truth, a struggle over who will define and shape the identity of the region is the first requirement for fashioning a successful strategy.

Interestingly, given the circumstances in the area, Israel will stand in stark contrast to the rest of the Middle East, and continue to be a natural partner for the United States. It is not just that Israel is the only democracy in the region. It is that Israel is the only country whose institutions and rule of law – with elections where the loser accepts the outcome – permits it to cope with its problems. Those problems, ranging from the conflict with the Palestinians to its Arab minority and secular-religious divide, are real. But because it is a genuine democracy, Israel has the wherewithal to adjust – even if the adjustment often proves difficult to make.

It is harder to say that about other countries in the region. The American track-record in understanding the region – and the countries in it – is not great. In looking at the U.S.-Israeli relationship under presidents Harry Truman through Barack Obama in my new book, "Doomed to Succeed," it became apparent that in every administration three interrelated assumptions were embedded in the national security apparatus. First, if we distanced from Israel we would gain with the Arabs. Second, if we cooperated with Israel, we would lose with the Arabs. And third, if we wanted to transform our position in the region – and transform the region itself, we needed to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. All three of these assumptions were fundamentally flawed.

As for the first, the Eisenhower, Nixon, Carter, Bush 41 and Obama administrations all distanced from Israel, expecting Arab responsiveness. None responded favorably to our distancing. Nixon went so far as to suspend the sale of F-4 Phantom planes to Israel in March of 1970 hoping that Egypt's then-president, Gamal Abdel Nasser, would respond. What made the Nixon gesture all the more remarkable is that he suspended the aircraft at the very moment the Soviet Union, for the first time in their history, was deploying its military personnel outside the Soviet bloc to Egypt. Nasser's response to Nixon was to increase his demands that we do more to cut Israel off.

The assumption that cooperation with Israel would cost us with the Arabs was just as off-base. President John Kennedy's administration was the first to provide modern weapons to Israel. He faced real opposition within his administration to doing so, with his secretary of state, Dean Rusk, arguing that to provide arms to Israel would set a terrible precedent and cause us grave damage with the Arabs. Yet when he met with Saudi Crown Prince Faisal the same day that the news of the sale leaked out, Faisal was focused on the coup in Yemen backed by Nasser, not our weapons to Israel. This, he said, posed a threat to Saudi Arabia and it needed U.S. arms and assurances. A week later, when Faisal met Kennedy, Faisal's focus remained on Egypt, not Israel, and he argued that our outreach and economic assistance to Egypt constituted a threat to the region: It was freeing up Egyptian resources to threaten U.S. friends and shift the regional balance of power against Saudi Arabia and the other western-oriented states in the Middle East. Once again, Faisal asked for U.S. arms and commitment to Saudi security.

History does have a way of repeating itself, and the arguments that Faisal made to Kennedy are the same ones that first King Abdullah and now King Salman of Saudi Arabia have made to President Obama about Iran. The Saudis and the other Gulf Arab states have repeatedly emphasized their concerns about the Obama administration's outreach to Iran and the consequences of the sanctions relief that will result from the Iran nuclear deal. Once again, the Saudis fear that a country they define as a regional trouble-maker – in the 1960s Egypt, today Iran – is going to benefit from our outreach.

What emerges from these examples, and others I outline in going through each administration, is that we have consistently misread the priorities of Arab leaders. It is not Israel; it is instead their security and survival. Regional rivals constitute the threats that they are preoccupied with, and they count on us to be the guarantor of security. Given that, they will never make their relationship with us dependent on our relationship with Israel.

In fact, it is our reliability that matters to them. If they perceive us as less reliable – which, fairly or not, they do today – that is what will affect their ties and responsiveness to us. And here we see the flaw in the last of the assumptions, the centrality of the Palestinians conflict to the region and our position in it. Most Arab leaders don't see it fundamentally affecting their security.

That does not mean they are indifferent to the Palestinian conflict. They know that it historically has resonated with their publics as an issue of injustice that needs to be righted. But today it tends to take a backseat with Arab publics to other conflicts – the Syrian civil war and the threats from Islamic State group and Iran.

[SEE: Political Cartoons on the Middle East ]

So what does all this mean for U.S. policymakers? For starters, we need a clear concept guiding our strategy. It is natural that defeating the Islamic State group would seem to be our priority, but for that we need the Sunni states – only the Sunni states and tribes can discredit the Islamic State. That rules out partnering with Bashar Assad or the Iranians in Syria even as we seek to build our collective leverage on the ground to shape a political process that at some point can bring that civil war to an end.

Ironically, today most of the Arab Sunni states see Israel as a bulwark against both the Iranians and Islamic State and groups claiming loyalty to it. While they may keep their cooperation largely private – given public sensitivities about the Palestinian issue – the scope of what Israel is now doing with a number of Arab states on security is unprecedented. That is one area we should emphasize, particularly given the value it would have in convincing our traditional friends in the region that we understand the threats that worry them most. Demonstrating that, and restoring the image of American reliability, will make it easier to ask more of our regional partners in countering the Islamic State group and Iran's destabilizing actions in the region. Ultimately, debunking assumptions that have misled us in the region is a must for any strategy to be successful. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)

By Dr. Arieh Eldad an M.D. at Hadassah Hospital in Israel I was instrumental in establishing the "Israeli National Skin Bank", which is the largest in the world. The National Skin Bank stores skin for every day needs as well as for war time or mass casualty situations. This skin bank is hosted at the Hadassah Ein Kerem University hospital in Jerusalem where I was the Chairman of plastic surgery. This is how I was asked to supply skin for an Arab woman from Gaza , who was hospitalized in Soroka Hospital in Beersheva, after her family burned her. Usually, such atrocities happen among Arab families when the women are suspected of having an affair. We supplied all the needed Homografts for her treatment. She was successfully treated by my friend and colleague, Prof. Lior Rosenberg and discharged to return to Gaza ... She was invited for regular follow-up visits to the outpatient clinic in Beersheva. One day she was caught at a border crossing wearing a suicide belt. She meant to explode herself in the outpatient clinic of the hospital where they saved her life. It seems that her family promised her that if she did that, they would forgive her. This is only one example of the war between Jews and Muslims in the Land of Israel. It is not a territorial conflict. This is a civilizational conflict, or rather a war between civilization & barbarism. Bibi (Netanyahu) gets it, Obama does not.

I have never written before asking everyone to please forward onwards so that as many as possible can understand radical Islam and what awaits the world if it is not stopped. Dr Arieh Eldad

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6)

Tet, Take Two: Islam’s 2016 European Offensive

By Matthew Bracken

More than a decade ago I wrote my first novel, Enemies Foreign and Domestic . Part of my motivation was to establish my bona fides at forecasting social, political and military trends. I didn’t like the direction America was heading, and I wanted to warn as many readers as possible about some of the dangers I saw coming. At the end of 2015, I hope that my past success at prognostication will encourage people to pay heed to this essay.

As we roll into the New Year, we are witnessing the prelude to the culmination of a titanic struggle between three great actors. Three great social forces are now set in motion for a 2016 showdown and collision that will, in historical terms, be on par with the First and Second World Wars.

Two of these great social forces are currently allied in a de facto coalition against the third. They have forged an unwritten agreement to jointly murder the weakest of the three forces while it is in their combined power to do so. One of these two social forces would be content to share totalitarian control over large swaths of the globe with the other remaining social force. One of these social forces will never be satisfied until it achieves complete domination of the entire planet. So what are these three great social forces? They are Islam, international socialism, and nationalism.

Allow me to explain the salient aspects of each, and how they relate to the coming 2016 cataclysm.

1. Islam

Islam is similar to a self-replicating supercomputer virus. It is a hydra-headed monster, designed by its creators to be an unstoppable formula for global conquest. It’s almost impossible to eradicate, because it has no central brain or control center. Islam is like a starfish: when you cut off a limb, another grows to replace it. The names of the Muslim leaders, and the names of their Islamic groups, are transitory and ultimately unimportant. Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are succeeded by Al-Baghdadi and the Islamic State, but they will all pass from the scene and be replaced by others. While Muslim leaders and regimes have come and gone, Islam itself has remained steadfastly at war with the non-Muslim world for 1,400 years.

Islam does not recognize secular national boundaries. To devout Muslims, there are only two significant realms of the world. First is the Dar al-Islam — the House of Islam, which is the land of the believers. The other is the  Dar al-Harb — the House of War, which must be made Islamic by any means, including violent jihad. The expansion of Islam is sometimes held in check for long periods, but more often Islam is on the march, acquiring new territory. Once conquered by Islam, territory is rarely taken back, Spain being a notable exception.

The Muslim world produces almost no books or new inventions. Short of finding oil under their feet, most Islamic nations are backward and impoverished. So wherein lies the power source for Islam’s nearly constant expansion over the past fourteen centuries? The motor and the battery of Islam are the Koran and the Hadith, or sayings of Mohammed. A messianic Mahdi, Caliph or Ayatollah with sufficient charisma can accelerate Islam’s pace of conquest, but individual men are not the driving force.

Secular “Muslim in name only” strongmen from Saddam Hussein to Muamar Qadafi can hold Islamism in check for a period with brutal methods, but strongmen are often assassinated or otherwise removed from power, and in any event, they cannot live forever. Once the secular strongmen are gone, fanatical mullahs are able to stir their zealous Muslim followers into sufficient ardor to reinstall a radical Islamist regime under Sharia Law , according to the Koran.

This pattern of secular strongmen being followed by fanatical Islamist leaders has recurred many times over the past millennium and longer. Do not be fooled by modernists like King Abdullah of Jordon. To the true believer of Islam, any king or strongman is never more than a rifle shot or grenade toss away from being kinetically deposed, and replaced by another Islamist fanatic.

The persistent virulence of Mohammed’s 7th Century plan for global domination means that it is always ready to erupt in a fresh outbreak. Islam is like a brushfire or ringworm infection: it is dead and barren within the ring, but flares up where it parasitically feeds off the healthy non-Islamic societies around it. What produces this uniquely fanatical motivation, from within nations and peoples that otherwise seem devoid of energy and new ideas?

The motivation lies within the words of the Koran and Hadith. Most simply distilled, in the earthly realm, these Islamic texts offer immoral men sanction for thrill-killing, looting, raping, and capturing infidel slaves, and when these jihadists are killed, they are promised a perpetual orgy with seventy-two nubile virgin slave girls in Mohammed’s sick, evil and perverted Muslim paradise. Unlike the Jewish and Christian Bibles, the Koran and Hadith appeal not to man’s better angels, but to the darkest aspects of human nature. (Tellingly, Moses and Jesus are said to have climbed to mountaintops to communicate with their God, while Mohammed received his messages from Allah deep inside a bat cave.)

A meaningful or permanent reformation of Islam is impossible, because a new generation of fanatics, wielding the unexpurgated Koran and Hadith as their weapons, will always declare the reformists to be apostates and murder them. In Islam, the fanatics who are holding the unalterable Koran in one hand and a sword in the other always stand ready to seize complete power and exterminate their enemies.

This latent danger breeds fear and causes nearly all non-Muslims to be carefully circumspect in their dealings with Muslims, lest they lose their heads at a later date. This intentionally fostered fear of Islam is used as a cudgel against those who would otherwise resist its domination. The immutable Koran is the constant fountainhead of bloody Islamic conquest. Radical Islam is the pure Islam, the Koranic Islam, the real Islam.
Anyone who does not understand this bitter reality is dangerously ignorant of the past 1,400 years of human history.

2. International Socialism

The second great actor or social force is international socialism. It can also be aptly described under the rubrics of leftism, statism, cultural Marxism and communism. These all inhabit the international socialist spectrum. I trace these cultural Marxists at least back to the Jacobins of the 18th Century, a clique of secular humanists who were early globalists aligned with Freemasonry.

The Jacobins moved from Germany to France with a coherent and fully developed plan to engineer a social explosion as a means to take power. The Jacobin destabilization plan became the template for many more bloody “people’s revolutions” to come. Following the French Revolution, we are familiar with Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao. We are less familiar with the early 20th Century British Fabian socialists, or the Italian Marxist theoretician Antonio Gramsci, or the German “Frankfurt School” of international socialists, who transplanted their vision to the United States via Columbia University.

Unlike Vladimir Lenin and the Communists, they understood that international socialism’s goals could not be fully accomplished until the strong edifice of Western Civilization was hollowed out and sabotaged from within. In the end, the clandestine international socialist forces which burrowed deep within the Western womb achieved results which were far more permanent than the militarily-imposed revolutionary “war Communism” of Lenin and Mao.

Over the course of the past century, while Communism collapsed in the Soviet Union, the Fabian socialists have been increasingly successful at poisoning the roots of national, cultural and ethnic identity, leaving the inheritors of Western Civilization disorganized and demoralized, with no central belief system to rally behind. Why has this deliberate demoralization and dumbing-down process occurred? The international socialists have believed at least since the French Revolution that it was their duty to impose a top-down feudal order upon the ordinary “dumb masses,” a new world order managed by self-proclaimed experts chosen from among the correctly-educated elites, both for the benefit of the ignoramuses, and as a way to line their own pockets and continue to live an elite lifestyle of wealth and power.

It may seem paradoxical that major corporate and banking interests are deeply invested in the international socialist new world order, but when you untangle the threads it actually makes perfect sense. Today’s international banks and mega-corporations are powerful global actors in their own right, and they are now written into each new international trade agreement. In fact, corporate lawyers author most of the pages of the multi-thousand-page trade pacts, which are now coming down like rain. Trade pacts which were never voted on by American or European citizens, pacts which are taking on the force of international treaty law, superseding even the United States Constitution.

From the Rothschilds of Europe to the Warburgs of both continents, to the Morgans and Rockefellers of America and back to the Hungarian immigrant George Soros, for several centuries, millionaire (and more lately billionaire) bankers have written their own laws and cut their own political deals. Today, they literally create billions of new dollars and Euros per day out of thin air, and pass it over to their cronies. In the United States, the creation a century ago of the Federal Reserve — a privately run central bank of, by and for the interests of a cabal of private banking interests — is a glaring case in point.

In the USA, the heads of global mega-corporations and investment firms donate massively to both the Democrats and the Republicans alike, ensuring favorable treatment in an era of corporately directed crony capitalism. The picture is much the same in other countries. These post-nationalist crony-capitalists recognize no sovereign borders and believe that patriotism is a laughable anachronism.

For example, in America, open-border traitors bribe politicians to pass laws to allow them to import unlimited numbers of H-1 visa foreign workers to directly replace Americans at their very desks and work places, and these traitors do not lose one wink of sleep over it. The traitor class of the international business set calls this “agility,” moving fungible proles, peasants and paupers worldwide to where they can be set to work most cheaply and profitably. Ordinary American middle-class workers and their families are just collateral damage in this process. The reality is not much different in Europe.

These super wealthy open-border corporate and banking elites, who paradoxically steer the forces driving international socialism, are able to bribe their way to success after success in myriad ways. Their wealth and political connections ensure that cooperative young players with future star quality are steered to the right universities, foundations, councils, government agencies and media positions. For example, when you see a talking head on television, and his listed expert credential is that he is a member of the entirely private Council on Foreign Relations who has written articles for their house publication Foreign Affairs, you will know that he is destined for high positions, and doors will magically open in front of him.

Over on the Fourth Estate, the global mass media have been almost entirely subverted, scripted and stage-managed for decades by these über-wealthy elites through a thousand channels greased with kickbacks, no-show jobs, and secret payoffs that are disguised as special stock offerings and private land deals. Media figures morph seamlessly into senior political advisors and corporate board members, adding millions to their portfolios with each well-timed transition. Even many retired generals and admirals eagerly wallow in this swamp of sell-out and sleaze. It should not be a surprise to anyone that so many politicians leave Washington or Brussels as millionaires. Just as it should not be a surprise that long-time CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite, “the most trusted man in America,” was for his entire adult life secretly a leading member of the World Federalist Association, a fact he proudly revealed only after his retirement from in front of the camera.

3. Nationalism

Nationalists probably comprise most of the population of the non-Islamic world, but there is no way to know their number with any certainty. Opinion polls are so easily rigged that most of them are useless at best, and they primarily constitute false propaganda anddezinformatsiya on behalf of their sponsors.

Nationalists consider themselves to be first and foremost loyal citizens of a sovereign nation. However, it must be borne in mind that the very concept of nationhood is fairly recent in origin. The division of the globe into distinct nation-states only began in the 17th Century, usually marked by the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 at the end of the Thirty Years’ War. Since then, the world has been divided by national borders, which often (but not always) coincided with a national ethnic group, language and culture.

This national division was particularly successful on the European continent. Shared Judeo-Christian morality, ethics and values promoted notions of fairness and equal rights, leading over time to the abolition of slavery, women’s rights, and racial civil rights. During this period of unleashed human potential, Europeans and Americans enjoyed the greatest increase in overall standards of living ever seen in the history of mankind. Great cities, universities and museums were constructed in Europe and in America. Rising European empires — wealthy, cohesive, confident and highly organized — then conquered or otherwise came to control colonies around the world. America picked up much of the business when the colonial era ended after World War Two.

Happy national outcomes were far from universal. During the 20th Century, Communism rose to take complete power in some countries, notably Russia (as the Soviet Union) and China, but their successes did not lead to an unstoppable avalanche of global revolution, as had been foreseen by Lenin, Stalin and Mao. On the other hand, the slow, grinding “Long March through the institutions” of the traitor-class Fabian socialists (including Gramsci, the Frankfurt School and others) proved far more effective and durable.

By the 21st Century, these cultural Marxist traitor-moles had subverted nearly all of academia, inculcating generation after generation of students with a contempt bordering on hatred for their own national and ethnic identities. Most of the media were also subverted, ensuring that mass communications would always reinforce the politically correct international socialist world view that had already been injected and incubated in the schools and universities.

In this era of mass-brainwashing by the cultural Marxists, Christianity was recast as a retrograde social force, obsolete at best in the modern secular world, and at worst an outright danger to humanity. In the new politically-correct secular religion of humanism, European ethnic and cultural identity became the original sin and the mark of Cain. White European skin meant white privilege, and was transformed into a cause for shame.

Meanwhile, emancipated European and American women aimed toward new goals, which increasingly did not include producing a new generation, and demographic collapse began. Both men and women alike were anesthetized into apathy with 24-hour entertainment transmitted by high-def screens and stereo ear buds planted nearly into their brains. This unceasing fountain of entertainment proved an ideal conduit for mass-brainwashing with politically-correct values and ideas. Thus distracted and demoralized, most Americans and Europeans today seem unable and unwilling to stand up and fight in defense of their diminishing cultural and national identities. Brainwashed “social justice warriors,” the latest iteration of Lenin’s “useful idiots,” hasten the demise of Western Civilization, blissfully unaware of what will follow.

Thus rendered supine, the remaining American and European nationalists constitute the weakest and the most threatened of the three major global social forces. In a few European nations, patriots such as Geert Wilders of the Netherlands, Björn Höcke of Germany, Viktor Orbán of Hungary, Nigel Farage of the UK, and Marine Le Pen of France lead a rear-guard defense of their national, ethnic and cultural identities, while constantly being disparaged in the socialist-controlled “liar press” as racists, Nazis and xenophobes.

4. World War Three

Going into 2016, I believe that Europe is primed to become the central theater of a third world war. Like an overstrained zipper suddenly failing and bursting open from end to end, the European conflagration could well reignite simmering conflicts from the Ukraine to the Persian Gulf, due to interlocking alliances (NATO, including Turkey, vs. Russia), and the Sunni-Shia divide (Iran vs. Saudi Arabia, which has been imported into Europe).

Yes, World War Three. But why now?

A recurring strategic doctrine of the open-border international socialists, going back at least to the Jacobins, has been, “Out of chaos, order.” Lenin put it this way, when told that there were bread riots in Russian cities: “The worse, the better.” No “people’s revolution” (instigated and directed by traitor-class elites) has ever occurred on full bellies in happy countries that were at peace.

The international bankers and corporate elites are just as happy to underwrite revolutions as they are to underwrite other types of war. They have regularly provided loans and armaments simultaneously to all sides of European conflicts, always profiting handsomely no matter which side won or lost, or how many people died. They have also funded revolutions, in order to stir the pot for their future profits by getting in on the ground floor with new regimes.

For example, American bankers funded the efforts of Lenin and Trotsky both before and during their returns to Russia. Once you understand the grand machinations at work behind the forces directing international socialism, this seeming paradox actually makes sense. It’s about control, and brainwashing the idiot proles into the unthinking herd behavior required to manage them under socialism directed from above. But at the very pinnacle of the proletarian worker-bee hive, the controlling nomenklatura elites live like Communist dictators, or Rockefellers, or both at the same time, as they meet at Davos, Aspen, Jackson Hole and elsewhere over champagne and caviar to arrange their next self-dealing international trade agreements.

Now, the elite shot-callers have lit the fuse for the vast social explosion that is imminent in Europe, just as they did in Russia in 1917. How? By throwing Europe’s borders wide open. The Islamist corner of my triad represents a constant threat or push, and Muslims are always eager to fill any demographic vacuum. Their avarice for fresh Islamic conquest is a given or a constant. We see a 1.5-per birth rate among European women, and they see millions of European women with no or worthless husbands, who will soon meet real Muslim men. The current open-border policies of the European international socialists were intentionally designed to allow hundreds of thousands of culturally and religiously aggressive Islamist fighters and colonists to flood into Europe. The European traitor elites understand exactly what they are doing. They know what will happen. But why do it now?

The twentieth-century Austrian School economist Ludwig Von Mises wrote, “There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.” In contrast, when the socialist economist John Maynard Keynes was asked if his self-styled Keynesian credit expansion could continue in the long run, he replied, “In the long run, we are all dead.”  Tra-la-la, who cares? It won’t be my problem.

In 2015, the childless homosexual John Maynard Keynes is indeed long dead, but we are still alive, and his “long run” is finally upon us. Now, just before the bank failures begin, seems to be an opportune time for the traitor elites to throw over the table, scattering the cards, chips and cash, while the lights go dark and shots ring out. The evil actors lurking in the background who sometimes engineer major catastrophes always have a plan to escape their worst consequences, including taking any blame, and they even have a plan to profit from the very disasters they created. The first Baron Rothschild, around the time of the Battle of Waterloo, is credited with saying “The time to buy is when there is blood running in the streets.”

Is there any evidence of a concerted effort to deliberately throw Europe into bloody chaos and civil war? I think that there is. Thousand-passenger ferry ships cost tens of thousands of Euros a day to operate. Muslim  hijra (jihad by immigration) invaders are receiving free or subsidized passage from Greek isles that are located only a few miles from Turkey, all the way across the Aegean Sea to mainland Greece. From there, chartered buses and special trains speed the migrants from border to border and onward into Germany, France and Sweden, at little or no cost to the muhajirun, or  hijra migrants.

Who is paying for the operation of the ferry ships, trains and bus convoys? Who is paying for the smart phones and prepaid debit cards? Who is passing out the hundred-Euro notes seen in nearly every migrant hand, if they are truly arriving destitute after escaping war-torn Syria? Somebody is underwriting the Muslim hijra  invasion of Europe. George Soros is spending billions to fund a hundred groups advocating open borders through his Open Society Foundation, so that might be a good place for intrepid researchers to explore.

5. The Tet Offensive of 1968

As we roll into 2016, I am reminded of the Vietnam War’s Tet Offensive. In January of 1968, before the Tet Lunar New Year celebrations, thousands of Viet Cong fighters were infiltrated into Saigon and other South Vietnamese cities. Their coordinated mass attacks on January 30 came nearly by complete surprise, constituting America’s worst intelligence-gathering failure between 1950 in Korea and 2001 in New York. The experts had all agreed that the VC were too weakened and divided to accomplish mass attacks on a national scale, yet more than 80,000 irregular Communist infiltrators simultaneously struck in more than one hundred towns and cities. The Communists used a declared truce period to launch their attacks, while the American and South Vietnamese forces were on holiday leave. Bitter urban fighting in Hue, Vietnam’s third largest city, lasted for a month. Before they were defeated in Hue, the Communists executed thousands of civilian prisoners, dumping them into mass graves with their hands wired behind their backs.

The Communist bosses in North Vietnam miscalculated that the Viet Cong attacks in the cities would trigger a spontaneous national uprising against the American imperialists and their Republic of Vietnam puppets. This general uprising did not take place, and the VC was largely wiped out by hard-fighting American and South Vietnamese troops. City life went back to what constituted normal in South Vietnam. After Tet, the Viet Cong were largely a spent force, and never regained their former power. (The final takeover of South Vietnam in 1975 was accomplished by conventional NVA troops arriving from the North in tanks and on trucks, after Democrats in the American Congress cut off the resupply of ordnance and fuel to our South Vietnamese allies, leaving them unable to defend their republic.)

Yet back in America, in order to deceive and demoralize America in time of war, “Uncle Walter” Cronkite twisted the story of the Tet Offensive into a tale of rising Communist power and reach, of American military failure, and of the hopelessness of the cause to keep the Republic of Vietnam free from Communist conquest. Why did Cronkite do this? “The most trusted man in America” was secretly a leading propagandist for international socialism, which sees a strong and independent United States as the greatest barrier to their goal of eventual global governance. The case of Walter Cronkite and the Tet Offensive false narrative is just one glaring example of the pervasiveness of the international socialist grip on our mainstream media.

To an American nationalist, Walter Cronkite is a classic traitor, but to a dedicated international socialist, national borders and national sovereignty are no more important than they are to a devout Muslim. To both supranational groups, borders and nations are anachronistic constructs to be ignored, trampled, and discarded over time. Cronkite was a traitor to America, but he is a hero to the cultural Marxists. Typical of his dishonorable breed, Cronkite kept his true allegiance a secret until after he had retired from broadcasting lies and propaganda. I am convinced that the global mainstream media is infested with hundreds of Walter Cronkites today, both in front of and behind the cameras.

6. Tet, Take Two

Which brings me to the main thrust of this essay. I believe that Europe is being prepared for a Muslim-jihad version of the 1968 Tet Offensive in Vietnam. A vast and concerted act of treason has been taking place across Europe since the creation of the European Union. Under the Schengen Agreement, Brussels promised to guard the outer frontiers of the EU, while abolishing internal border controls. The Eurocrat elites broke the first promise but kept the second, thus opening a wide path for the onrushing Muslim hijra immigration invasion.

Right now, approximately a million new Muslim migrants are engaged in a struggle to find a warm place to sleep in a continent with nothing approaching the capacity to adequately house them. At least 75% of the migrant invaders are Muslim men of fighting age. Native-born ethnic Germans, Swedes and others are being thrown onto the street to provide emergency housing for Muslim “refugees.” Tens of thousands of migrants are currently living in tents, and in temporary shelters like school gymnasiums and underused warehouses.

There will be no means of finding or creating permanent quarters for them before the Central European blizzards come. When the snow is deep in Germany and across Europe, these men are going to enter local houses, demanding to be taken in as boarders — or else. Where it is useful, small migrant children will be held up in front as human shields for their emotional blackmail value, elsewise they will be discarded. One way or the other, Muslim migrants will be attempting to move inside of German homes and apartments seeking heat and food, and the young Muslim men will be seeking undefended infidel or kafir women to slake their lust, (which is their right, under Islamic Sharia law).

In disarmed Europe, any group of a dozen or more cold, hungry and angry Muslim men armed with clubs and knives will be able to enter any German house or business that they like. Worse, there are now reports of vast quantities of firearms being smuggled into Europe by themuhajirun, with cowed European authorities afraid to search the migrants or their baggage, lest they provoke riots. And weapons are not only smuggled in “refugee” baggage: eight hundred assault-style shotguns were just seized in a single truck in northern Italy, bound from Turkey to Belgium. How many truckloads of weapons and explosives have not been stopped?

In Germany, even before the winter snows, the migrants are flash-mobbing and looting shops and stores. Seeking to forestall a social eruption, police do not respond until the mobs have safely departed. For now, the German government is paying these store owners for their lost merchandise, but this cannot continue forever. Businesses are closing and Germans are retreating in fear, as the muhajirun learn that they can invade private property and rob Germans without repercussions, convincing them even further of the docile passivity of their hosts, and the inevitability of their ultimate hijra invasion success.

As attacks mount, the German police will nearly always fall out on the side of the traitor-elite politicians who pay their salaries, and they will not come to the rescue of besieged ethnic Germans. At least, not under official orders, or in uniform. This calculated disregard by the international socialist elites for the safety and welfare of ordinary German citizens will in time lead to vigilantism and death squad actions by “off-duty” German military and police personnel. They will be acting against their “hands off the Muslims” orders, which are ultimately emanating from Brussels. And in time, enough firearms will find their way from the military, police and black markets into the hands of ordinary European nationalists for them to mount an armed resistance.

The accelerated pace of the 2015 Muslim hijra  invasion was conceived, planned and executed by Quisling traitors comprising the elite leadership of the European branch of the international socialist movement, headquartered in Brussels. To paraphrase British nationalist patriot Paul Weston, if a farmer deliberately inserts a fox into the henhouse, who is guilty of killing the hens? Now, today, across Europe the stage is being set for the genocide of the weak, confused and defenseless European hens. The former East German Communist functionary Angela Merkel achieves high marks at both Muslim fox insertion and German hen repression. (Meanwhile, the former Soviet Communist KGB Colonel Vladimir Putin evolves to become a Russian nationalist who always advances Russian interests, at least as they are perceived by himself and his cronies.)

A few days after the Paris attacks, French police commandos fired some 5,000 rounds down an urban street into an apartment set into a crowded block. A year from now, I predict that when police arrive on that street, they could be met with sniper fire, improvised barricades, IEDs and possibly RPGs. In short, Paris, Brussels and many other European cities will in time resemble Beirut during the 1980s.

To understand Europe’s future, simply ask the Lebanese what follows when a nation takes in tens of thousands of angry Muslim “refugees.” Civil war is what happens, even if it begins among the various competing refugee factions. It is a threadbare hope that a wished-for peaceful silent majority of Muslims will be able to influence the radical Islamists away from violence, and thus forestall the coming European Civil War, any more than imagined peaceful silent majorities could have prevented the civil wars in Lebanon, Bosnia, Syria or a dozen other places. Actual peace-loving Muslims will be as insignificant to the outcome of the coming conflict as were any Quaker pacifists hiding in 1944 Berlin. The only significance of the alleged silent majority of peaceful Muslims is that they will serve as living camouflage for the jihadists to hide among.

It is critical to note that none of the examples I just mentioned (Lebanon, Bosnia, Syria) constituted neat bipolar wars between two national state actors. All were three-sided wars — at least. These formulations are inherently unstable and constantly veer toward violence, as temporary alliances of convenience shift and today’s friend becomes tomorrow’s enemy. In this environment of deception, subterfuge and betrayal, the false-flag terror operation becomes a standard operating procedure. It is a simple matter for Group A to conduct a massacre of Group B while wearing the outward uniforms or other insignia of Group C. And it is no trouble at all for Group C to fire a few mortar rounds into the market square of Group A from the territory of Group B. Ethnic cleansing, reprisal operations and mass executions proliferate like mushrooms in this free-booting environment, which is devoid of the behavioral controls normally inherent in a war fought at the national level between two uniformed militaries.

When any non-Islamic country, such as France (through dangerously naive immigration policies) attains approximately a ten-percent Muslim population, violence and civil war become a constant threat. Ten percent of a total national population translates into more than fifty percent of fighting-age men in key urban districts, due to the concentration of Muslims inSharia-zone ghettos, combined with aging European demographics. Later, these Muslim ghettos will serve as sanctuaries and bastions for the jihadists, until and unless they are finally pulverized with artillery shell fire or aerial bombs. France and Germany will not be exempt from the lessons of history that were hard-taught in Beirut, Sarajevo, and Damascus.

Thousands of the recent Muslim muhajirun currently arriving in Europe were schooled in prolonged and savage religious and ethnic civil wars. Today’s Europeans, deliberately brainwashed with politically correct fairytales about the benefits of multi-culturalism, have utterly no idea what horrors await them. Increasing European discomfort will not change the outcome one iota. Just because the Europeans may tire of the irritating presence of Muslims, (both new immigrants and native born), the Muslims will never willingly leave Europe. Nor will the Muslim immigrant invaders knuckle under and turn quiet and docile again.

7. A Score of Beslans

The hard core of the battle-hardened jihadists now fanning out across Europe understands the tried-and-true process of igniting a civil war through terror. They will calculate that the European military and police cannot and will not sustain the battle against an unceasing campaign of terrorism. Brussels cannot remain on virtual lockdown forever without its economy being wrecked. What will happen when a Paris-type attack, or worse, is a daily event in a dozen European cities?

As I mentioned above, just the other day in northern Italy eight hundred combat-style pistol-grip shotguns were discovered in a truck on their way from Turkey to Belgium. Do the math. The Paris attacks were carried out by approximately eight jihadists armed with Kalashnikovs, shotguns and TATP suicide vests (which can be manufactured anywhere there is a kitchen). Now imagine a “Super Tet Offensive,” with every type of target on the hit list from airports to zoological parks, each being assaulted by an eight-man squad of such killers. Some attacks smaller, some larger, from pairs to platoons in strength.

Today, perhaps only a few short months prior to Tet 2016, there is no Islamic high command located in Europe or elsewhere in charge of planning specific terror operations. There is no OKW (Oberkommando der Wehrmacht , the supreme command of the German Nazi armed forces) planning an Islamic Operation Barbarossa , hence, there is no command and control structure for Western intelligence to penetrate and disrupt.

Instead of a central brain directing many hands, think of a vast swarm of stinging jellyfish, all moving in loose formation, with the same generalized attack plan in their collective hive-mind. At the end of 2015, individual muhajirun may have only a basic awareness that they are heading to Europe to conduct a great jihad. As D-Day draws nearer, coded messages will proliferate with cryptic references to portentous events from Islamic history. “Get ready, and prepare to conduct major operations” will be the thrust of the online chatter and encrypted wireless messages. In each European city, targets will be individually scouted by localmuhajirun  in anticipation of a general outbreak of jihad terror attacks.

How many mosques have already received a truckload of shotguns or Kalashnikovs? Run the numbers again: eight jihadists per terror attack, eight hundred weapons per truck, 80,000 Viet Cong fighters in the original Tet Offensive, and an estimated 800,000 muhajirun flooding into Europe. Using radical mosques as clandestine armories is S.O.P in the Middle East, so why would the jihadists not use the same tactics in safe and docile Europe? Out of a sense of fairness and respect for European laws? Please. In the words of Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan, “The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers…” And bear in mind that anyplace an AK-47 can be smuggled, so too can a few kilos of Semtex.

Imagine a dozen or even a score of Beslan-type school sieges, all happening at the same time, across that number of European cities. Initially, the first string of major surprise attacks will be coordinated by the most well-organized terror networks using currently unbreakable wireless encryption. Many of the attacks will involve numerous captured hostages, often children, with impossible demands being made to guarantee their safety. Or no demands will be made; just rape and slaughter will ensue, as in the Russian Beslan example. This outbreak of major attacks will be the signal for the general jihad offensive to begin.

The Beslan Massacre happened in 2004 at the hands of yet another killer gang of aggrieved Islamists. Two squads of Chechen Muslim terrorists arrived on the first day of school in a Russian town, using false police vans as camouflage. They took a thousand young hostages and held them for three days. The Muslim terrorists murdered over four hundred innocents, often after rape and torture. Now, imagine twenty ongoing European Beslans, with simultaneous infrastructure and “soft-target” (people) attacks happening everywhere in between.

What Hitler’s Nazis accomplished with Stukas and Tigers and motorized divisions, the Islamonazis will attempt to accomplish by a massive “Tet Offensive on steroids,” overwhelming and stunning the European meta-system into immediate paralysis and first psychological, then material defeat. At least, that is the outcome that the Islamonazis will be striving to achieve. The 1968 Tet infiltration and mass-attack strategy didn’t succeed in Vietnam, and maybe it won’t work in Europe, either. It’s more likely that the hoped-for general uprising by all European Muslims against the kuffar will not be triggered, and it may simply stall and sputter out.

In strategic terms, if nothing else, the 2016 jihad offensive and subsequent civil war in Europe will open up a second major front in the war against the Islamic State, causing NATO and the West to turn their attention inward toward their own survival, and thereby take pressure off the other theaters of war in Iraq and Syria.

And for the Europeans to win the coming civil war, they will have to be at least half as brutally ugly as their Muslim invaders, and that means pretty damn brutally ugly. But while the jihadists will be operating at maximum brutality from day one, the placid and polite European authorities will be starting from far behind in that department. For example: a standard jihadist tactic is to flee from a terror attack straight back into the embrace of their co-religionists in the Sharia-zone ghettos, and hide behind their women and children. Then what will the authorities do? Go in and try to arrest them? (Just joking.) Wait for their next excursion with more terror bombs? Or gut the entire suspected block with shell fire? This is what I mean by damn ugly. The French reaction to the Paris attacks gives a hint of how this phase will run.

Best case scenario, and I don’t see this as likely: the 2016 Islamic Tet attackers will be wiped out the way the Viet Cong were in 1968. But if there are enough simultaneous attacks, in total numbers involving anywhere near the 80,000 or so fighters of the Vietnamese Tet, I can’t see how the present European forces can defeat the jihadists in less than a month, if at all. By very simple math, that number of jihadists means ten thousand Paris-level attacks. Think about that. Ten thousand Paris level attacks! All taking place in the same month, the same week, even on the same day, right across Europe. The politically-correct and overly polite European policemen (and even their militaries, at first) won’t be up to mounting successful counterattacks and rescue operations against a score of Beslans happening in schools, hospitals and concert halls. Not while at the same time, airports, train stations, power plants and other targets are being hit by Paris-sized terror squads right across Europe.

And count on this, for it is a standard tactic used by all Islamonazis in this extremely dirty style of warfare: just like in Beslan in 2004, where the killers arrived in false police vans, in 2016, ambulances, emergency vehicles and other official conveyances will either be hijacked or painted to simulate the real thing. Suicide bombers will arrive in official uniforms to sneak past security. This is a standard tactic, I repeat for emphasis. A jihadist dressed in a policeman’s uniform will drive a hundred-kilo bomb straight into the police headquarters in an official, marked police car. Goodbye, police HQ. (And incidentally, good luck at planning the rescue operation for your town’s local Beslan-in-progress, after your local police HQ is cratered, and much of their crisis leadership is wiped out.)

A few examples; I could go on for pages. The milk truck or bakery van will deliver terrorists to the middle school at mealtime. An ambulance will pull into the hospital’s underground parking garage and detonate. The cement truck won’t be delivering cement. Muslim jihadists are very proud of coming up with ever more clever ways to fool stupid infidels by abusing their naïve faith in official uniforms and corporate logos. The jihadists hurry to sign up for suicide driver school, just for the prospect of exploding a massive bomb inside of a crowd of filthykuffar , and launching themselves straight into the arms of their seventy-two waiting virgins. This is how they will fight in Tet 2016. Forget this lesson at your extreme peril.

Another painful European history lesson has been largely forgotten since the days of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. In the 1990s, the IRA forced the British to the peace table when it became clear to all parties involved that the Brits could not prevent car bombs from exploding in the heart of the London financial district, costing billions in repair and lost-opportunity costs after each new blast. Essentially, a competent terrorist organization can hold a modern city hostage in this manner.

A few dozen to a hundred (at most) active IRA terrorist fighters managed to pull off this feat. And they were not even trying to kill people; rather, their goal was to wreck important office towers, with the British economy as their primary target. Usually, the IRA detonated their London car bombs during off-hours in these final terror actions of the Irish Troubles. The Muslim car bombers will not be as considerate in the coming European Civil War. They will strike for maximum civilian casualties, in an attempt to terrorize European leaders into surrender and submission to their Islamist demands.

8. Hama Rules

I predict that the unfolding European Civil War (after the initial Tet 2016 phase) will comprise a steady escalation from Paris-style rifle attacks and suicide bombers, to snipers, to IEDs, to car and truck bombs. This is why I mentioned the possibility of eventually reducing theSharia-zone ghettos to ruins by air and artillery bombardment. This will indeed happen, after the car bombs begin to explode in European cities. At that point, an urban civil war loses any vestige of civilized norms. Fortified ghetto bastions that provide sanctuary to Muslim jihad terrorists will be destroyed if the Islamic conquest is to be quelled.

This type of no-quarter urban warfare already has a name, “Hama Rules,” from the 1982 obliteration of that Syrian town. Hama was a Muslim Brotherhood stronghold used to launch attacks against the regime of Hafez al-Assad, the father of the current Syrian strongman. These guerrilla (or terrorist if you prefer) attacks occurred beginning in 1976, and didn’t stop until Hama was reduced to rubble, and at least ten thousand Sunni Muslim Syrians were killed among the ruins.

If the Europeans don’t have the stomach for that level and scale of total civil war, then over time they will be defeated, and either forced to convert to Islam, or forced into subjugateddhimmi  status, or they will be executed, (if they can’t be put to useful work as slave laborers first). Those are Islam’s unchanging options for defeated male foes, at the pleasure of their Muslim vanquishers. The captured girls and women of the defeated  kuffar will be taken as slaves, that is a given. So it will be war to the knife, and knife to the hilt, with no holds barred, and no quarter asked or given.

Going into 2016, a peaceful de-escalation is improbable, not with up to a million fresh muhajirun of fighting age currently cast all about Europe without housing or prospects as winter comes on. This rapid mass influx of hundreds of thousands of unattached Muslim men into Europe is the equivalent of pouring a jug of nitroglycerin down the barrel of a cannon, then loading a double gunpowder charge, ramrodding three or four cannon balls on top, and lighting the fuse. It is the perfect recipe for a disastrous explosion.

The 1968 Tet Offensive involved approximately 80,000 armed Viet Cong infiltrators sneaking into Vietnamese cities and towns, (unnoticed by the “experts” in intelligence, I will add.) How many of the almost a million  muhajirun now loose in Europe will take up arms for the cause, after the first initiating wave of Tet 2016 terror attacks? Does anybody really have any idea? There is a point when stealthy hijra transitions into overt  jihad, and I believe this will occur in the coming year. Historians will look back and marvel at what I think of as the coming European Jihad Tet Offensive of 2016. Or perhaps they will call it the European Trojan Horse Civil War. (I only hope that they don’t call it The Final Islamic Conquest of Europe.)

Historians will study how this mass hijra invasion, and the consequent Tet 2016 and European Civil War came to happen. The truth is it was an inside job by the traitor class, the cultural Marxist open-border international socialists. First, they numbed and dulled their own compatriots into apathy, before opening the gates to the Islamist barbarians. They injected the paralyzing curare of multi-cultural political correctness into their own societies, in order to render them unable to defend themselves from the planned attack.

In reality, the international socialists and the Islamist forces have agreed upon a murder pact, wherein their common enemy, the nationalists, will be removed as a threat to either of them forever. In 2016, European nations will deliberately be torched, in order to finish off their people’s last remaining notions of national pride and cultural identity. In effect, the coming conflict will constitute an agreement about the dinner menu made between a jackal, a hyena, and a supremely stupid bliss-ninny lamb, who was raised on Utopian multi-cultural fantasies. The lamb believes that by its own sweet example, the jackal and the hyena can be turned into vegetarians — but the choice for the dinner entree is already a foregone conclusion. European nationalists will be shot and stabbed in their fronts and their backs until they go down and are consumed by both of their rapacious destroyers.

And depend on this: standing before the crater, in front of the smoking building, after the tenth car bomb to explode that month, telegenic media traitors will mangle the truth into a false narrative that supports the inexorable spread of international socialism as the only possible solution to the “tragic cycle of violence.” The liar press will call patriots Nazis, and Nazis patriots; they will damn saints and praise mass-murderers. These media presstitutes are loyal only to their traitor-class paymasters, and to their common international socialist vision of global tyranny imposed from above by the all-knowing elites. “Out of chaos, order,” will be in their minds if not on their lips.

9. The End Game

If the traitor elites can imagine sufficiently far into the future, then they must surely see international socialism lining up next for its climactic struggle against Islam, which shall be fought atop the still-warm corpse of European nationalism. Will these traitor-elite international socialists be able to hold the line against the ultimate victory of Islamic supremacism in Europe, or anywhere? Let us compare their assets and armaments.

The traitor elites control vast wealth and many levers of power. But will the ready offer of unlimited wealth and fast-track career promotion outweigh the fear of the Muslim assassin, kidnapper, and beheader? Which motivating force will prove stronger in the long run, the proffered bribe, or the kidnapped child and her threatened decapitation? International socialism and world Islamism are both evil totalitarian ideologies rooted in a quest for absolute power, but I believe that more socialists will convert to Islam than the other way around, tending to tip the final outcome in that direction. Why? Because you can live without accepting a suitcase full of Euros or a juicy job offer as a bribe. But you cannot live with your head removed from your shoulders.

Another enduring but rarely examined weapon in the Islamic conquest armory is the offer of amnesty to well-placed infidel leaders who agree to convert to Mohammedism. Can I see Angela Merkel wearing a hijab ? Yes, certainly. Whether the badge she wears on her suit is red or black won’t matter to the former Communist, not if it is a matter of saving her neck while retaining her status. Study the history of Islamic conquest, and you will find numerous cases where Western leaders announced — after clandestinely opening the city gates to hijrainvasion — that they had already converted to Islam.

As reward for this valuable service, well-placed defectors to Islam are often allowed to preserve their wealth and positions by taking fresh Muslim names and swearing fealty to the new Islamic regime. It’s intentionally made very easy to convert to Islam. The shahadaconversion prayer is only a sentence, a handful of words. Sincere inner belief is not required, only publicly outward submission, which is the true (and nearly always obscured) meaning of the Arabic word Islam. Submission.

So when it comes to last-stand defenses, and head chopping time draws near, will the secular humanist international socialists fight to their last breath against Islamism? Not likely, not when simply repeating a silly and trite incantation about Allah and Mohammed can save their inherently dishonorable and traitorous lives. Simply stated, they will submit to Islam.

I think that in the end, Mohammed’s evil and satanic Koranic blueprint for world conquest will prove to be even more virulent and persistent than the evil and satanic blueprint of the international socialists, going back through the Jacobins, Marxists and Communists. The unchanging Koranic blueprint for global domination is still replicating and advancing after fourteen centuries, while the international socialist blueprint is only two and a half centuries old. Based on proven longevity alone, a betting man would have to favor the Islamic formulation for conquest and tyranny over the international socialist version.

And in the event that Islam either destroys or co-opts international socialism, I would expect the strife to continue until only Sunni or Shia Muslims are left alive. Then there would arise schisms and conflicts among new competing sects, because of the innately violent instructions central to the Koranic blueprint. But without an external host for the parasitic Islamic ringworm to feed upon, (having killed and consumed the golden goose of productive Western society), Islam itself will most likely fester and decay. What would succeed a failed global Caliphate, I can’t imagine. By that time, the last believing and practicing Christians in Europe will be lying cold and forgotten in their unmarked mass graves.

10. Alternative Endings

But perhaps the conflict between the three major forces will turn out differently. Perhaps, after the Islamic Tet Offensive of 2016 is turned back, European nationalism will experience a miraculous resurgence, following a rejection of the international socialism which dragged the EU nations toward disaster. Sometimes invading forces badly miscalculate their chances and underestimate the resolve of their enemies, and after sweeping to early success, they are rolled far back from their high-water marks. Napoleon and Hitler in Russia, and the Greek experience in Anatolian Turkey from 1919 to 1922 come readily to mind.

Or perhaps the Islamists will take their jihad a step too far, and a nuclear device or other WMD set off in a Western city might finally provoke a commensurate counter-strike against the nexus of Islam in Mecca and other Muslim holy sites, such as Karbala in Iran. Certainly Vladimir Putin can be expected to evince more steely-eyed resolve than the current crop of effete and dithering Western European leaders.

Two of the Five Pillars of Islam literally revolve around the black moon rock set into the corner of the Kaaba in the center of Mecca. After 1,400 unchanging years, Islam cannot simply erase two of its five pillars and continue with business as usual. Allahu Akbar means our god is greater. If Mecca were turned into a vast, glowing crater, this would be visibly untrue. When the Aztec and Inca man-gods were visibly thrown down by the Spanish conquistadors, those religions and social systems collapsed. If Mecca were to be destroyed, eliminating two of the five pillars, it’s an open question as to what would happen in and to the worldwide Muslim community. “We used to think our god was greater” won’t be an effective rallying cry. But I don’t suppose I’ll be around to see how this all plays out. For 1,400 years, uncounted millions of Christians and other infidels have died not knowing if Islam would ultimately prevail or be vanquished.

I’m not sure if there is a future ahead for sovereign nation-states as they have been constituted for the past four centuries, especially nations with their own unique histories, cultures and languages. I don’t know if the wealth and influence of the traitor-elite international socialists can overcome the constant threat of terrorism contained within the deadly Koranic conquest plan. And when it comes to how the approaching European storm will affect China and Asia, my crystal ball is cloudy on the other side. It’s hard to imagine a world war extending from Scandinavia to the Persian Gulf not going nuclear at some point. Perhaps the patient and cautious Chinese will simply inherit the ruins of the West. Perhaps they will be drawn into the world war.

No matter what else happens over the coming decade, 2016 is shaping up to be an epic year in European and world history. I hope that whatever develops across the Atlantic might at least provide clear lessons that will be valuable for the defense of a free and sovereign United States of America. Including lessons about the extreme danger of importing millions of Islamicmuhajirun.

And lastly, thank God — through our Founding Fathers — for the First and Second Amendments to the United States Constitution. Unlike the Europeans, we are at least still free to warn one another of impending dangers, without our being silenced by the traitor elites who operate the levers of state power. And because of the Second Amendment, we will never be pulled down to the ground like helpless lambs by the Islamist hyenas and socialist jackals. When one-too-many ravenous foxes are placed into the henhouse by socialist traitors, in due time both the foxes and the traitors might just get a face full of buckshot.

Just remember: never, ever give up your guns.

You’re going to need them.

Matthew Bracken was born in Baltimore, Maryland in 1957, and attended the University of Virginia, where he received a BA in Russian Studies and was commissioned as a naval officer in 1979. Later in that year he graduated from Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training, and in 1983 he led a Naval Special Warfare detachment to Beirut, Lebanon. Since then he’s been a welder, boat builder, charter captain, ocean sailor, essayist and novelist. He lives in Florida. Links to his short stories and essays may be found at EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------