Why Pogroms And Holocausts Happen

There is evidence to support the allegation that the Nazis toyed with their Jewish captives in a manner so savage that you wonder how someone could be this disconnected from their humanity. For example, some Nazi guards are said to have forced the Jews to spit on the floor and lick the spit. The question is whether this attitude came about instantaneously or whether it was the result of an escalation between two antagonists where each side played a role in shaping the behavior of the other. I have no way of knowing what led to such behavior decades ago in a place where I was not born and a culture in which I never lived. Also, the record does not show with enough clarity the social set-up that existed then as it related to the interaction between the two ethnic groups.

Given that the Nazis were defeated long ago and that the people who used to live under their culture no longer live by the rules of that time and neither do their descendants, there is little that I can do directly to shed light on the situation as it existed then. But there is something I can do indirectly. I can begin with the assumption that both the Nazi culture and the Jewish culture were normal and that they were interacting as any two cultures would. With this in mind I can observe the Jewish culture today and try to answer this question: Do the Jews exhibit signs of being disconnected from their humanity when interacting with other people that they can provoke ordinary folks to respond in a way that mirrors their behavior? If I can answer this question one way or the other I should be able to determine if the Jews triggered a process of escalation long ago that may have contributed to the escalation that led the Nazis to treat them the way they did. I may even go beyond that and determine whether or not another holocaust can happen.

Well, I have observed the Jews as a child because I grew up surrounded by some of them when I did not see the need to study them. But I shed my innocent view of life as I matured and found it necessary at some point to start observing the Jews with the view of studying their behavior as it relates to the question I raised in the previous paragraph. I can report from personal experience that the answer I came across is unusual because the situation is highly convoluted. To begin with, I found that Jews come in all sorts of races and all sorts of ethnic backgrounds, therefore, they have a DNA that can belong to anyone on the planet; from a black Ethiopian Jew to a blue eyed and blonde Russian Jew. Certainly, you would agree that these two cannot be of the same racial stock and neither of them has a probability much higher than zero at being Semitic. I also found that the Jewish religion is no more monolithic than any other in that it is subdivided into groups of various sects and various factions. These groups are themselves separated from each other by interests that diverge; and they are drawn to each other by interests that converge. And there are Jews who accuse other Jews of not being Jewish enough, even go as far as deny them their Jewishness altogether. I must, therefore, conclude that individual Jews are separated from each other as any two individuals can be when picked randomly from anywhere on the planet. So then, aside from the Jewish appellation, what is there that ties these people into a single group?

The common interest that seems to unite all Jews is that they claim to have a shared history; and this is where the convolution begins because, being varied racially and religiously, they could not have one and the same history. Nevertheless, what they call their history seems to have a few pillars on which the various factions anchor themselves but everything else remains amorphous and regenerating – a source of confusion that happens to be what they need to muddy the historical record. If this sounds like a process of nature where things change all the time it is because there is a resemblance between the two. But there is also a huge difference because unlike the trunk of a tree that sheds foliage and fruits in winter to regenerate itself in the spring, Jewish history has a trunk that changes shape unexpectedly, and branches that bear apples during one season and oranges during another. Indeed, the history that is told by Jews is told in a way that suits the moment and would change in the blink of an eye to suit the changing circumstances. As a result, nothing remains constant in Jewish history except the notion that Jews were mistreated by the other groups therefore entitled to compensation wherever they come from, whenever they lived. And when it comes to giving details about specific incidents that may back up their claim, the storyline changes depending on who is a friend of the Jews today and who is not. Thus, when you listen closely to those who call themselves Jewish historians, you get a feel of what they want, and conclude that in their eyes, history is a commodity they are obliged to use like a currency to play on people's emotions. And watch out if they succeed to get control of your emotions because this is when they show how adept they are at turning the success into hard cold cash.

This description of the Jews has been a part of the stereotype that was painted of them by all sorts of people everywhere they went, every time they popped somewhere on the planet. Leaving aside the truthfulness of the description, we may ask the question: Is this provocative enough to motivate someone to want to harm the Jews as a group? On the face of it the answer should be no but the consequence of the behavior is that the thing can escalate and lead to unexpected outcomes. To see how this can come about we pick one example and discuss it. There was a leader called Saddam Hussein in the Arab country of Iraq. He fought the Iranians to the delight of the Americans who supported him military because they were humiliated by the Iranians when the latter held their embassy staff hostage. On their part, the Iranians staged the hostage taking incident in retaliation to a coup that was engineered by the American CIA against a government that was duly elected by the people of Iran. To make a long story short, Saddam Hussein decided at the conclusion of his war with Iran to invade the Arab country of Kuwait and take it over. This did not sit well with the other Arab countries because they all belong to a grouping called the Arab League where they have a Charter that says no Arab country shall harm another Arab country, and that disputes among the Arabs must be settled through negotiations under the auspices of the Arab League.

At the beginning, the Americans did not know how to react to the invasion given that Saddam Hussein was their darling while the other Arab countries who were unhappy with Saddam's behavior were their friends and allies. George Bush 41, the father - as they call him - was then President of the United States of America and he started to consult with his advisers as well as the leaders in the Middle East before deciding on a response. All of this is the normal sort of manoeuvrings that go on all the time in international diplomacy, and it is something that everyone understands. What was abnormal, convoluted and hard to understand were the reactions of Israel, the Jewish organizations and their supporters in America. Take for example the reaction of the two non-Jewish operatives, Fred Barnes and Morton Kondrake, who were nonetheless closely attuned to the Jewish narrative and the mentality that generates it.

These two appeared on the John McLaughlin show before President Bush had made the decision to oppose Saddam Hussein. And while the President was busy going through the process of consulting, thinking, debating and deciding on the proper course to take - something everyone knew will have huge ramifications on the region, on America and the world for generations to come - Barnes and Kondrake took advantage of the situation and planted the Jewish dagger in the back of their President for the sheer joy of it as they were having a ball expressing their weird opinions. Indeed, without engaging in any intelligent debate or even a dumb one about the merits and demerits of opposing Saddam's army, they said in unison that Bush was kissing Saddam's ring, making it clear they meant to say he was kissing Saddam's ass. And why was that? Because knowing where Israel stood on the issue, Bush did not save himself the trouble of having to think when he could have made a snap decision to send American boys and girls to war. After all, what was at stake were only American and Iraqi lives.

And so the question we must ask is this: What should historians take from this episode and from the many episodes like it that have flooded the print pages and the TV screens at the time? Well, that moment was but one of the many moments when the interests of America and those of Israel collided. America's interest was to contain Iran while Israel's interest was to destroy each and every Arab country - Iraq being high on the list. Barnes and Kondrake not only sided with Israel against their own country, they went about expressing their preference by publicly humiliating their own President in the most demeaning of ways: they said he was kissing Saddam's ass because he was not doing what they were doing, kissing Jewish ass. Therefore, what the historians should take from this episode is the recognition that the moment was a pivotal one in the transformation of the American system of governance from one of a functioning democracy to one of a has-been democracy currently dedicated to serve the interests of a Zionist entity that is no more than a small fart stinking a neighborhood thousands of miles away.

Here is another pertinent question: What may result when Barnes, Kondrake and others like them are trained and conditioned to think, behave and talk the way they did? Well, we can see the result now, twenty years later. If you are an American official of any stripe or rank, if you are in government or in private practice, you do not stop and think where America's interests stand; you swallow in whole the Israeli position and you internalize it without asking a single question. You then make a snap decision to act in accordance with Israel's wishes like good soldiers do. And to make sure that the whole world knows what you're up to, you shout as loudly as you can the assertion that there is no daylight between Israel and America when it comes to looking after the interests of Israel. You repeat the assertion once or twice more then bloody well shut your mouth because there will be nothing more for you to say until further notice is sent to you from Israel or from AIPAC. In the meantime, no condition will be attached to America's support for Israel. No accounting will be required as to what Israel does with the support it gets. And no equivocation on America's part will be expressed no matter how Israel behaves or what the consequences of its behavior will do to America's interests worldwide. Like Barnes and Kondrake, every American official will do what is good for Israel; they will then forget about it and let the Israelis savor their moment of triumph in peace and tranquility.

When a scenario like that is repeated time and time again, when it is repeated incessantly and without fail, does it make some people want to force the Jews to spit on the floor and lick the spit? Can this sort of performance lead to a pogrom or a holocaust? The answer to both questions is yes because people will forgive their leaders all sorts of mistakes but will not forgive them the betrayal of country especially when the betrayal is meant to serve the interests of another entity. When people catch their leaders conduct themselves in that manner, they inflict on them and the alien entity the most atrocious of punishments such as a pogrom or a holocaust. Thus, when the Jews set themselves apart from the society in which they find themselves - something they always do - and when they work their way up the ranks by hook and by crook only to influence the seat of power and steer everything of worth in their direction, they bring on themselves pogroms and holocausts like those recorded throughout history. And now that Israel is there, standing as a symbol of Jewish apartness if not apartheid, people do not need to work their imagination too hard before they realize that their Jewish neighbors harbor a loyalty that extends far away to another land, another epoch. The stereotype feeds on itself and the innocent Jews are swept together with the evil characters that stand a better chance at getting away with the gains they made.

We cannot escape the conclusion that the stereotype painted of the Jews is not a mistyping of reality but an authentic accounting of what goes on in real life. And like a powder keg, the reality is once again waiting for a spark to set it off and send it sky high like it happened many times before. They say never again but they do it again and again. We are tired of this game and we should not hide it anymore; we must say so and they must listen.

They Want An End Run And A Mutiny

Once in a while the Wall Street Journal teams up with someone that speaks its language. When it does, it often turns to John Bolton who is naturally disposed to say and do extreme things. On July 13, 2010 the Journal published an article over his signature under the title “Beyond the Obama Nuke Policy” for which the editors of the publication chose the subtitle: “How Congress and opinion leaders can counter administrative weakness on North Korea and Iran.” And like the subtitle says, the Journal and Bolton ask the Congress of the United States and what they call opinion leaders to do an end run on the American constitution. They openly incite the mutinous act of usurping from the Presidency the powers vested in that office by the constitution to conduct the foreign policy of the country. The aim of Bolton and the Journal is to see that things are done in a manner that suits Israel and the international Zionist movement regardless of what the cost will be to America and the American people.

Bolton and the Journal admit in the first paragraph of the article that there was: “...considerable behind-the-scenes squabbling [at] the UN Security Council...” before a condemnation of North Korea was issued which was the best that could be done considering that other members of the Council, mainly China and Russia, were full participants in the decision making process as mandated by the Charter of the United Nations to which America is a signatory. And they do admit in the second paragraph that the US Congress passed more sanctions against Iran to be added to those issued by the Security Council. And they do admit that these sanctions came on top of the measures taken in this regard by the European Union. And they do admit that Leon Panetta, who is the Director of the CIA, is well aware of the limitations that these actions may have in preventing Iran's progress toward becoming a nuclear state. In effect then, they admit that things are going in compliance with international law, with the American constitution, in accordance to the plan of the executive branch which consulted with the legislature to work out a solution that best suits the current circumstances; and all this without losing sight of the fact that this may not be enough to deter Iran but that further measures may have to be taken when the time comes and if the situation warrants it.

So then, what is the problem? Well, the way the Journal and Bolton see things, the litany of measures cited above do not amount to a hill of beans, and they express their view this way: “Tehran and Pyongyang can plainly see [that] President Obama's nonproliferation strategy is intellectually and politically exhausted.” And they ask: “...are we consigned to two more years of growing danger?” And they respond: “Not if Congress and opinion leaders take steps without White House leadership...” Having dismissed the Executive Branch as having been rendered useless by exhaustion, they now dismiss the members of the Congress who voted for sanctions that were not forceful enough to suit Israel's taste and the taste of the Zionist movement. Bolton and the Journal then come up with three initiatives - as they call them - which they promise are merely openers because: “[The] White House proliferation policy [being] comatose, we must search elsewhere for second-best alternatives. Until 2012, second best is all we have.” In other words, until the next election happens, Bolton and the Journal call for the suspension of the constitution and they promise to take matters in their own hands in the interim. They promise activities they call openers which they will escalate till they defeat the plan worked out by two branches of the US government, the European Union and the United Nations.

But this can hardly be called a problem and there must be something else that is the real problem in the eyes of those two; so what is it? Well, the problem, as they see it, is that even if everything goes according to plan, the outcome will not satisfy the Israelis and their Zionist friends who are in the habit of quenching their thirst with blood, more blood and blood alone. Consequently, Bolton and the Journal have decided to forge ahead toward a new goal. They put together a Judeo-Zionist plan that can be implemented in three steps. First, they want to demonize Iran and North Korea which they say are allied in the nuclear field and are working closely with Syria. Second, they want their mutinous friends in the Congress and elsewhere to encourage Israel to attack Iran. To this end, they want to arm Israel with the right sort of weapons and they want to support it in every way possible when the attack comes. And of course, they want to replenish Israel after the attack with the weapons it will lose when carrying out the attack. Third, having created a fait accompli, they want to reassure the world, especially China and South Korea that all went well and that all will get even better.

How do they hope to accomplish all that? Well, this is a mystery that is not a real mystery. In fact, many have a good idea as to how the Jewish organizations get their way in America but these people were called anti-Semitic and were banished from participating in the debates. To them, the phenomenon is not a mystery as much as it has been to a public that was kept in the dark. Luckily, Bolton and the Journal are now doing the public a favor by openly admitting to a procedure that describes the mystery. They say they will rely on a media that is controlled by the Jewish organizations and rely on the male and female bimbos who are in charge of the US Congress to do the work while they orchestrate the openers and escalate their activities till blood runs in some street or Armageddon breaks out whichever comes first. Thus, the dance of the bimbos that transformed the American superpower into a laughable joke turned out to be the phenomenon that also allowed the Jewish organizations to take control of America and mobilize its resources thus serve Israel and the Zionist causes. The cat is out of the bag and the mystery has been revealed; it is the work of the congressional bimbos, stupid.

The first step, they say, is for the opinion leaders and the bimbos to demand intelligence collection on the North Korea-Iran connection so as to disseminate the information to the public. They say they want this to happen because Pyongyang is close to some Middle Eastern countries, especially Syria, which Israel loves to bomb when it knows it can get away with it. Well, anybody that believes intelligence gathering is not happening now must be comatose and they are the ones who should be banished from the debates. Every sane person knows that intelligence gathering is happening all the time at a feverish pace but some things are kept secret because they lose their value if made public. In fact, the information that Bolton and the Journal are using against the Administration is based on intelligence they pretend does not exist. So then, what is it that they want? This is what they want: “...enhanced congressional and public discussion might even awaken the Obama administration.” What they want is that the information be made public even though such action will compromise its value. And they want this to happen to give Bolton and the Journal the opportunity to politicize the information thus create the noise that will in the end serve the goals of Israel and the worldwide Zionist movement.

The second step, they say, is for “...outsiders [to] create broad support for Israel's inherent right to self-defense against a nuclear Holocaust and defend the specific tactic of pre-emptive attacks … Congress can make it clear, for example, that it would support immediate resupply and rearming to make up for Israeli losses in the event of such an attack. Having visible congressional support in place at the outset will reassure the Israeli government, which is legitimately concerned about Mr. Obama's likely negative reaction to such an attack.” What we have here is a statement that is worth its weight in gold to those who know something about the tactics employed by the Jewish organizations but have little in the form of hard proof to make the point. But there is here what I call the parasite's chain-like approach to siphoning off the blood of the host, and the evidence is accumulating as to the soundness of the theory behind it all. It happened during the lightening invasion of Iraq that even before the W had declared the mission accomplished, the mouthpieces of the Jewish organizations were debating where to go next: left to Syria or right to Iran? They were asking.

This is the theory. Even though the Jewish organizations want the whole world, they know they cannot swallow it all in one gulp so they break up their wishes into bite size morsels they string like a chain of links. As they make America feed Israel one link, they soften and prepare the next while lining up a few more links behind that. In the case of the Iraq war, the countries of Syria and Iran were being prepared as the next morsels. As for the current example, the first link is the request to support Israel's right to self-defense. Behind that comes the support for the specific tactic of pre-emptive attacks. Behind that stands the idea of supporting the resupply of weapons to Israel. And before this is finished and done with, you can be certain that there will be other links in the never ending chain that keeps depleting America of its blood. And visible support of the American congress for Israel is needed here, they say, because Israel has legitimate concerns about the illegitimate doubts that the American President has for a plan that will embroil America in wars for generations to come. They may call this hubris in Yiddish and they may call it gall in English but the proper word for it is that it is the talk of a jerk and an asshole to be polite about it.

The third step, they say, is for the opinion leaders to prepare China for what will happen to North Korea after the demise of the regime there. They do not come out honestly and explain how they want to see the demise come about but say this: “...Congress and others must bring the discussion about post-Kim North Korea to the fore and highlight the opportunity it provides to topple the entire regime.” They admit this could lead to chaos but they promise that with the right planning, the death of Kim Jong II could set the stage for reunifying the Korean Peninsula. And they urge their bimbos in the media and the Congress to take control of the matter because: “...the White House [is] essentially mute on this subject.”

It would be too generous to call Bolton and the editors of the Wall Street Journal a bunch of idiots for expressing the belief that they can fool China this easily; it is more appropriate to call them mentally retarded. But it is even worse than that because look what they go on to say: “Congress can ... minimize the impact of possible refugee[s] … by pledging ... assistance...” And there is this: “...nonofficial conversations about ... military intervention ... could reassure China that our intention is ... to peacefully end the North.” And there is this: ”Many Japanese and South Korean leaders ... can help China understand that its ... interests are best served by addressing the inevitable.”

I can imagine the Chinese official look incredulously in the eyes of the American, Japanese and South Korean envoys who will go to China to reassure the folks down there and make them understand where their interests lie. And I can imagine the Chinese official say this: “Go tell the US Congress that it takes money to give assistance to refugees. If America comes to borrow money from us to alleviate a refugee problem it intends to create on our border, I tell America to go shove it in the rear end of every congressional bimbo that has participated in thinking up this whorish plan. Get the hell out of here, all three of you, and don't you ever come back again for whatever reason.”

Good People Joining A Bad Cause

A group calling itself “Friends of Israel Initiative” was launched recently. As of now, it includes the following ten members: Jose Maria Aznar who was prime minister of Spain, David Trimble who was prime minister of Northern Ireland, John Bolton who was U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Alejandro Toledo who was president of Peru, Marcello Pera who was president of the Italian Senate, Andrew Roberts who is a British historian, Fiamma Nirenstein who is vice-president of the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the Italian Chamber of Deputies, George Weigel who is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, Robert Agostinelli who is managing director of the Rhône Group and Carlos Bustelo who was minister of industry in Spain.

They wrote an article that sounds like a manifesto, and the Wall Street Journal was the one to publish it as if by habit alone. The Journal did so on July 8, 2010 under the title “Israel: A Normal Country”. In fact, the authors begin the article by affirming that: “Israel is a Western democracy and a normal country.” Wonderful, you say to yourself, but guess which word you're hit with right after that. Yup, it's the word: Nonetheless. Oh! Oh! You say, if this is the case it cannot be all that wonderful; there seems to be a problem. And you can say that again because when you read on, you realize what impossible task these hapless ten gave themselves. Without actually defining “Western democracy” or “normal country,” they set out to prove that Israel is both. You wonder what they are thinking and soon discover that in their own mind, things are the way they describe them because they say so. And you question how serious these people are.

You get the sense that something bizarre is going on, so you keep on reading to see where the article will take you. The operative word being nonetheless, you read this passage: “Nonetheless, Israel has faced abnormal circumstances since its inception.” So that's it! you exclaim; these people have it backward. Instead of seeing Israel as an abnormal entity facing normal reaction to the repugnant behavior it exhibits, they see Israel as a normal country facing an abnormal humanity that doesn't get it. In other words, they think of Israel as a Bambi that finds itself in a tough neighborhood instead of thinking of Israel as the skunk in the garden that it is. And you find yourself in the curious situation of having to invent a new word as you get the feeling that things are becoming so bizarre they surpass the curiouser and curiouser of Alice in Wonderland. Your mind tells you and your heart confirms that the situation is getting bizarrer and bizarrer with every paragraph you read.

But what is it that the perverted humanity is supposed to be doing to Israel? you ask. And there comes the answer: “[Israel] … whose legitimacy is still being questioned independently of its actions,” say the hapless ten. What actions? you ask. And there comes the answer: “The recent flotilla crisis in the Mediterranean...” They go on to justify the butchery that Israel committed on the high seas in the middle of the night. And because humanity did not dance in the street or blow kisses at every Jew that walked by upon learning of the horror, the ten authors felt obliged to promise this: “Because we believe Israel is subjected to unfair treatment, and are convinced that defending Israel means defending the values that made and sustain our Western civilization, we have decided to launch the Friends of Israel Initiative.” With gallons of bile churning in your stomach you cry out: Butchering people in the middle of the night are the values that made and sustain OUR Western civilization? And despite your pain you keep on reading: “Our goal is to bring reason and decency back to the discussion about Israel.” Well then, dear reader, are you now prepared to be reasonable and decent enough to blow kisses at these ten, at Israel and at everyone that says he or she is a Jew? Will you, with this, want to join in the defense of the values that made and sustain THEIR version of Western Civilization? How very sick! How very sick!

But then, all of a sudden, you get the feeling that they are becoming serious about something. At last you feel they are making a sincere effort to try and convince you of something that is important to them. You wonder what it is and sense they are trying to tell you they are an okay group. You feel let down but you keep on reading as they insist to convey they are an eclectic lot which, in this context, probably means they view themselves as a special bunch. And to make sure you'll buy this view, they throw you a bone by confirming they do not speak for Israel nor do they always defend its actions - not withstanding the butchering of people in the middle of the night on the high seas, of course. After all, pirates did this for centuries and we romanticize them in our novels and our movies. In addition, the group of ten wants you to know that even though they come from different countries and have varied opinions on a range of issues, they are united by beliefs, principles and aims that concern Israel. And they list six categories in which these beliefs, principles and aims fall.

In the first category, they reiterate the claim that Israel is a Western democracy then make a feeble attempt at arguing that it is so because Israel has a political, legal, educational and cultural tradition resembling those you find in the West. Then comes the obligatory Judeo-Talmudic addition: “...in some of these areas, Israel is a world leader,” which tells you immediately that this thing was written by John Bolton alone and signed by the others probably without reading it out of loyalty and nothing else. You cease to think of the thing as a manifesto of the hapless ten, and regard it instead as the declaration of one desperate man making a desperate attempt to move his personal agenda forward riding on the backs of his unsuspecting friends.

And so you ask: what does John Bolton want? And the answer comes in the second category of the list he made. He says this: “...attempts to question Israel's basic legitimacy as a Jewish state in the Middle East are unacceptable to people who support liberal democratic values.” Whoa, you dig this, my friend? He earlier made the point that defending Israel means defending the values that made and sustain “our” Western civilization; and he now says that the civilization in question is not acceptable to him because it is no longer in synch with the liberal democratic values to which he and Israel belong. And that's not all; he goes on to say this: “Israel does not derive its legitimacy, as some claim, from sympathy over the Holocaust.” Kaboom! Mind blowing! Literally mind blowing! The first time I red this passage I was tempted to go to the rooftop and shout: “It is beginning to happen.” This is because I met a guy who once said: Today they jail people for denying the Holocaust; tomorrow they will jail people for confirming the Holocaust. When pressed to explain, he would say that a holocaust is meant to demean the people on which it is inflicted. After monetizing it to the last dime and seeing that they will not get anything more out of it, they will deny it ever happened to them. If you say otherwise, they will jail you and accuse you of demeaning them by spreading lies about the Jews having been holocausted in the past. And now that a scenario of this kind is beginning to unfold with Bolton's denial of what happened in the aftermath of the Holocaust, I ask you my friend, do you feel blown away? If yes, do you know your way to the rooftop?

But then, you ask, from where does Israel derive its legitimacy? To which John Bolton replies: “The State of Israel was founded in the wake of United Nations Resolution 181” Well, well, you say, this means Israel has a special obligation toward that body, does it not? No, says John Bolton in the third category of his list: “United Nations condemnations of Israel arising from last year's Goldstone report ... all democracies should oppose such campaigns which ultimately undermine the legitimacy not merely of Israel but of the UN itself.” Can you believe this? Can you believe this, my friend? Having legitimized the very existence of Israel, the UN's own legitimacy should now be undermined says Bolton because it has criticized an Israeli action that violated its Charter. The stereotype has been that these people never feel shame biting the hand that feeds them, and Bolton has never missed an opportunity to say this is not merely a stereotype; it is the truth, stupid. And then they wonder why humanity is revolted by the way that some of their people behave and what they stand for.

But if in the eyes of John Bolton the UN is a piece of crap - a point he made it his career to hammer at with every opportunity he gets - where should Israel go for support and a little understanding? He answers the question in the fourth category of his list: “...we must never forget that Israel is on our side in the battle … as a bulwark of Judeo-Christian values. The belief that the democratic world can sacrifice Israel in order to placate Islamism is profoundly wrong and dangerous.” So here is the truth, folks; here it is in black and white: from one side of his mouth comes the hymn “Onward with the war against Islam,” and from the other side of his mouth comes the hymn “We do not push America to fight Islam”. Still, the reality remains that today, Israel seeks support and a little understanding from the “democratic world” in the same way that yesterday, Israel sought support and a little understanding from the followers of Karl Marx the Jew and his disciple Joseph Stalin - that other butcher of innocent people. And what this confirms is that the Zionist movement, of which Israel is only the latest incarnation, could not last a single generation if the self proclaimed Jewish organizations of the moment did not start or instigate a war here and a war there everywhere on the planet. This idea used to be regarded as an unfair stereotyping of the Jews but people like Bolton are increasingly confirming it is the truth, stupid.

But how do you fight Islam without appearing to fight Islam, John Bolton? Simple, he says, and he gives an example. He demands that America arm Israel to the teeth at the same time as it works to maintain the Palestinians completely disarmed, absolutely unprotected and thoroughly helpless. This is what everyone of his ilk has wanted and has so far obtained without fail from America. And having made the playing field as nicely leveled as this, he gives what he considers to be a most useful advice in the fifth category of his list. He okays the start of the negotiations between the two parties but asks everyone to keep in mind that: “Israelis and Palestinians should know how to build a viable peace on their own. We can help them, but we cannot force them,” he says. No, Israel will not need more help than it has already received to be in a position to dictate the terms of a peace it deems useful to its policy of expansion. Thus, Bolton counsels America to keep out of it until such time it is asked once again to come to Israel's aid and replenish it with arms, money and political support.

In category six of his list, Bolton writes this: “Hostility to the Jews has been a stain on the Western world's honor for centuries. It is a matter of basic self-respect that we actively confront and oppose new manifestations of an old and ugly problem.” To know that he wrote these words should not come as a surprise because having stripped the UN of its legitimacy for criticizing Israel even though it was the UN that created Israel, it is not beyond him to want to strip the Western world of its honor and self-respect at the same time as he calls on it to stand by Israel. With this, he joins the many others who relentlessly reinforce the stereotype that was created about the Jews. He does his bit as if to confirm with considerable force the following ideas: This is the way we are; we shall never change; humanity must come to accept the skunk in the garden that we represent and must learn to live with us if not love us for the stink we spray around the world, or humanity will be labeled anti-Semitic, will be dishonored in its own eyes and be shown to lack self respect.

He ends his manifesto with the standard Judeo-Talmudic threat that is an imitation of the old cry: the end is near, the end is near. He does it this way: “The Friends of Israel Initiative ... encourage[s] men and women ... to reconsider their attitudes toward the Jewish state ... We urge them to recognize it is in our interest that an increasingly jaded relationship between Israel and ... liberal democracies is rescued and reinvigorated before it is too late for us all.” He does not say too late for what but this is no more consequential now than the man and his ideas deserve more of our time or attention.

It stands to reason, therefore, that those who joined that initiative not knowing what they were getting into, now leave it as fast as they can. To help John Bolton spread his repugnant ideas and the vile attitude for which he has gained considerable notoriety, will only maintain a stereotype about the Jews that I know is a false one having known and befriended ordinary Jews since I was a child. This man does not represent the Jews and we, members of the human race, should not allow him to get away with the pretense that he speaks for them, which we do every time we listen to him, pretend to listen to him or join his evil initiatives.

I plead with you Jose Maria Aznar, David Trimble, Alejandro Toledo, Marcello Pera, Andrew Roberts, Fiamma Nirenstein, George Weigel, Robert Agostinelli and Carlos Bustelo to do the Jews and humanity a service by getting out of that initiative thus help to dissolve it as soon as possible.

Let the Jews go free of their eternal curse, people of good faith; three thousand years of this unbroken horror story is too long already. The time has come to say enough is enough and to grab this opportunity to put an end to an “old and ugly problem” that has plagued mankind like no other problem ever has.

Scientific Insight To Make Mundane Decisions

The universe exists because it is in a state of equilibrium, and experience says that whatever we do will function better if it is in balance. We must therefore strive at the start of everything we do to construct the thing in a perfect state of equilibrium and so maintain it for as long as we plan to use it. Needless to say this is true of the engineering works we erect because they are the expression of the laws that nature has revealed to us. But what is of interest to us here is the implication that these laws have on the sciences which relate to human behavior of which economics is most pertinent to this discussion.

There are numerous divisions and subdivisions in economics so that when we speak of an economic system being at equilibrium we mean to say that its macro divisions must be in balance with each other, and its micro subdivisions must be in balance with each other. For example, two of the main divisions of an economy being the production side and the consumption side, they must be maintained in balance. Likewise, a subdivision of the economy being the import/export part of it, there should be a balance between what is imported into a country and what is exported out of it. Doing this throughout the enterprise - be it a nation, a corporation or a household - will help operate it at maximum efficiency and maintain its balance sheet at equilibrium.

With this in mind, we recognize that America has a problem these days which Mohamed El-Erian discusses in an article published in the Wall Street Journal on July 9, 2010 under the title “The Real Tragedy of Persistent Unemployment”. He ends the article like this: “By presenting a multiyear policy proposal, lawmakers will help companies and individuals navigate what is currently a highly fluid and uncertain outlook.” And just ahead of this paragraph, El-Erian gives a hint as to what he wants to see done: “...policy makers should ... come up with a ... strategy that focuses on improving human capital ... education and training; expanding infrastructure and technology investments … by ... encouraging a bigger translation of scientific advances into economy-wide productivity gains...” In my view the country that would benefit the most from such advice would be Japan given that it has an aging population and a shrinking workforce in need of a boost from whatever will make it more productive. As for America, it can certainly benefit from that advice but the country has other needs as well which I shall discuss after expanding on what I mean by balance.

To demonstrate how balance works in engineering I use an example from electronics. When you design an amplifier with several stages you do what is called a coupling between the stages. That is, you build a simple interface circuit via which the signal is transferred from the output of one stage into the input of the next stage. To do this in the most efficient way possible you match the output impedance of one stage with the input impedance of the next. The power will still transfer if the impedances do not match but the higher the mismatch the more power you lose therefore the less efficient you will be. And given that balance means one thing must equal another, there is a mathematical approach that helps in the design of amplifiers. In fact, the use of a mathematical tool called differential calculus comes handy in this regard. But because it takes several years of pre-calculus and at least one year of calculus to understand the subject well, I shall not give a full lesson here. Instead, I shall discuss a simple example which I hope will give a sense of what is involved when using this wonderful branch of mathematics.

Suppose you have a fence that is 20 yards long and you want to make an enclosure that will have the maximum surface area with the condition that the enclosure not be a circle. This means you must make a rectangle of some sort but which rectangle will it be? To find the answer you employ the trial and error method and make a rectangle that is 9 yards long and 1 yard wide. This will use up the 20 yards of the fence since the perimeter, as it is called, is equal to twice the 9 yards of length plus twice the 1 yard of width. You now calculate the surface area of the enclosure and find it to be 9 times 1 equal 9 square yards. You change the configuration of the rectangle and try 8 yards in length and 2 yards in width which results in a surface area of 16 square yards - a little better than before. You now try 7 by 3 and get 21 square yards which is better still. You try 6 by 4 and get the higher value of 24 square yards. And finally, you try 5 by 5 and get 25 square yards which is the maximum surface area you can get with a fence that is 20 yards in length. You conclude that the square is the rectangle that gives the maximum surface area for a given perimeter. And the larger implication of this discovery is that when the two sides of something are in balance with each other (in this case exactly equal to each other) you maximize the value of whatever the thing is.

Instead of employing the method of trial and error you can do the work with calculus and reach the same result. To this end, you set up an equation by letting x be the value of one side of the rectangle. This will make the other side equal to:
(10 - x)
The surface area A of the enclosure will therefore be:
A = x(10 - x) = 10x - x2
(NOTE: the x2 you see here means: x squared)

You recognize the equation:
A = 10x - x2
as being an upside down parabola when traced on a Cartesian graph.
The equation itself is a simple polynomial whose derivative A' is easy to take. It is this:
A' = 10 - 2x
To find the highest point on the parabola which you know will represent the maximum surface area of the rectangle you seek, you make the derivative equal to zero:
A' = 10 - 2x = 0
You solve and find that x = 5
This is the length of one side of the rectangle; the other side will therefore be:
10 - 5 = 5
The two sides being of the same length, the rectangle is actually a square of 5 yards by 5 yards. And this is the result that the trial and error method also gave.

You then make the generalization that to maximize something you must have equilibrium between the two variables that affect the thing. In fact, a similar and more elaborate equation is set up to represent the coupling of electronic circuits. When you solve it, the equation proves that power transfers at maximum efficiency when the output impedance of one stage of the circuit matches (equals) the input impedance of the next stage.

The same should apply to economics where a balance between all its divisions and all its subdivisions should offer a good way to attain maximum growth for a nation's GDP. The problem with economics, however, is that it is not a pure science therefore it has never been possible to use the formulas of the calculus to make predictions that were as exact as those routinely made in science and engineering. But we can put on the hat of the philosopher for a moment and look at the thing this way: We can calculate exactly when a space probe will reach a planet billions of miles away several years from now because we know of all the gravitational forces that will intervene between here and there however vast the empty space between the two points may be. We can also stand at the edge of a precipice, drop a stone and predict exactly when it will hit the ground because no factor will intervene in the interim save for the air whose negligible drag on the stone may be ignored or may be included in the calculation. But if we take that same stone, go on top of a mountain and let it roll down the side of the mountain - attracted by the gravitational pull of the Earth - we cannot predict the exact trajectory that the stone will take or when and where it will stop. And this is because the intervening factors will be hard to determine given the irregular shape of the mountain's side and the infinite number of factors that may intervene throughout the trajectory.

Armed with this insight, we can use it in our approach to economics which has to deal with millions of unpredictable human beings each making hundreds of decisions every day that have the potential to affect the final outcome. That is, in the same way that we can only predict the stone will roll down the side of the mountain till it reaches the ground or be stopped by an obstacle that will retain it at a higher level, we can only predict that the growth of the GDP in a given economy will reach an approximate level and help to solve the problem of unemployment or fail to do so. And of course, all of this is predicated on the assumption that nothing unexpected will intervene in a big way - in which case all bets will be off.

And so we may say that science has given us an insight but not an exact formula to use when designing economic models we wish to make as efficient as possible under circumstances we cannot always foresee. The insight is a simple principle that says all parts of the economic model must be maintained at equilibrium at all time. And this prompts us to seek the answer to questions like these: What happens on the macro level when the two divisions of an economy, mainly the production side and the consumption side are maintained in balance? What happens on the micro level when the import part and the export part of an economy are maintained in balance? And why is it that when a nation, a company or a household maintain their balance sheet at equilibrium, the enterprise operates at maximum efficiency? And so on and so forth.

These questions and all those in the same vein can be answered by making one analogy that will apply to all. Imagine you have a backyard where you may conduct an experiment. You build a four legged stand that is about five feet high, and you place a basin on top of it. You bring a water hose to a faucet that you fasten to the rim of the basin, and you drill a small drain hole at the bottom of the basin. You open the faucet just a little and see the water go to the drain from where it flows out. You increase the incoming water and see a corresponding increase in the outgoing flow. You keep increasing the incoming water till the drain hole can no longer keep up with it at which point the basin gradually fills up with the excess water. You remark that there was a time when the inflow (the production) was less than the potential for outflow (the consumption), and you conclude that the system was not efficient during this time because you did not operate it at maximum potential. On the other hand, there was a time when the production was greater than the consumption, and this also meant that the system was not efficient because some of the resource (the water) that could have been used to do work was stored in the basin instead. Thus, the most efficient moment must have come when the outflow exactly equaled the inflow, meaning the consumption side of the system exactly matched the production side.

This principle applies at the macro level when speaking of a national economy and applies at the micro level when speaking of a single company or even a household. Indeed, some Japanese companies use the principle in a procedure they call “just in time” where the raw materials and the components that enter into the manufacture of what they produce arrive just in time before being processed and/or assembled into the final product. The procedure saves the companies having to go through the routine of cataloging the incoming materials and components, warehousing them and requisitioning them when they are needed. And this is one of the ways that the Japanese have developed to alleviate their demographic shortcomings thus be as efficient as they can be given their circumstances.

But is this method good enough for everyone to adopt? Well, we can immediately see that it would not be good for a country that has a high rate of unemployment such as it is in the United States at this time. But there is also the fact that it is questionable even for a country like Japan because it has a side effect that can neutralize its benefit. The catch here is what is known in science as spurious noise. This is a distortion that can intrude unexpectedly on the operation of a system and change its outcome a little or change it a lot depending on the force of the intrusion. Consequently, it is prudent to have a warehouse of some sort where reserves are maintained and used when the operation does not go as well as expected. Indeed, a trade-off is made whereby a little efficiency is sacrificed in exchange for a corresponding amount of security. In this spirit, families keep money on the side for a rainy day; banks are required by law to maintain some reserves; importers and exporters maintain a certain level of inventory in a warehouse to keep the operation going if and when the supply lines are interrupted. And the list goes on.

Contrary to the Japanese, the Europeans had opted at one time for what they called the philosophy of sustainable growth which meant the adoption of a leisurely approach to life and work. But after two decades of this, something went wrong in that the Asians started to eat the European lunch and grow more voracious with the passage of time. All the while, the Europeans could do nothing in response because the answer would have been to compete against cheap labor with cheaper labor. But there stood the United States of America seemingly doing well in the face of the Asian onslaught, a sight that prompted some European countries to emulate America by borrowing and spending their way into an apparent prosperity. Then came the near meltdown of 2008 which began in America and ended up threatening the European ideal itself, a development that forced the Europeans to rethink their stance. They are still thinking, and the bet is that they will revert back to something like their old approach because no alternative is in sight as yet. This is especially true in a place like Spain where the unemployment rate has hit the 20% level, and everyone was forced to take a leisurely approach to life and work whether or not they liked the idea in the first place.

What should America do now?

To put it simply, any country that has a population larger than a family must plan for the essentials of life and produce at least some of the food it eats, some of the clothes it wears and some of the building material it needs to shelter itself. What every country must avoid is court danger by repeating what the Japanese did in the decade of the Nineteen Eighties when they abandoned the production of the essentials of life in favor of producing high value added products, something they did by pursuing the idea of coming up with “one new invention everyday,” the description given to the mind boggling pursuit they adopted as a national pastime. The Japanese engaged in this pursuit despite the reality that 80% of the expenses made by an average household to buy goods actually go toward the three essential sectors of the economy and not the ephemeral gadgets that may look appealing when they first come out but are useless after the novelty has passed. And when tough times hit, the people reduce what they spend on trivial matters to save the money they have and spend it on food, clothes and housing during the uncertain days that loom ahead.

And the people who today predict that China will eventually abandon the production of low value added products to move up the high value added ladder are making a mistake. From China to Egypt, from India to Jordan and from Brazil to Peru, the countries have learned the lesson of Japan and they will never abandon the activities they know they can count on to keep their economies humming when tough times hit. These countries and all the emerging ones will keep producing the most mundane of goods as they proceed with plans to embrace the leading edge technologies of the time, most of which will come and go; very few of which will withstand the test of time, become a classic and live long enough to prove worthy of the paper on which they were conceived.

Thus, with a population that exceeds 100 million families, America should look again at the industries it has abandoned, especially that they were mostly of the labor intensive type. These industries would have been extremely beneficial to the economy at this time in that they would have brought the balance of trade into a better balance by allowing the country to import less and perhaps export more. Such industries would also have benefited the unemployed by matching the existing labor force with the needs of the labor market thus alleviating the pain of the people who are struggling to find a job - any kind of job - in this period of high unemployment and highly uncertain times. Employment is America's most urgent need today, and to encourage “a bigger translation of scientific advances into economy-wide productivity gains...” like says El-Erian will be good for America when times get back to normal but not now.

To conclude, the political leaders of America must match the actions they take with the economic potential of the country. They should do this even if it means negotiating with a number of other countries to obtain an exemption from some international treaties America has previously signed and has pledged to respect. Concerned about social stability, the Chinese have for all intents and purposes declared force majeure and have traded their currency at a low level to suit their needs, and they have thus become efficient in their own way. So can America show concern about its employment situation, declare force majeure and revive its labor intensive industries by subsidizing them and by erecting various economic barriers to match its own needs and become efficient in its own way.

This is not an emotional tit for tat; it is being rational.

Hold Back The Horses Of Export (2 of 2)

In their quest to register a high rate of growth, to develop their economies quickly and to catch up with the developed world, the emerging nations are studying the wrong examples. They looked to history for guidance as to the best way to achieve their goals and saw that the Asian Tigers of yesterday, mainly Taiwan, Hong Kong and South Korea were exporting heavily while at the same time registering a high rate of growth, and so they concluded that export must have caused the growth. But this was the false conclusion to draw because the emerging nations shied away from entertaining the possibility that both the growth and the export may have been caused by one and the same factor, that of the capitalist West nurturing the Asian Tigers for ulterior motives. Indeed, the Western nations of America and Britain had embarked on this policy as a public relation ploy because they were locked in a cold war with the communist East. The aim of the nurture was to demonstrate to the people living behind the iron curtain that the capitalists were delivering a better life to their public and their friends than the communists could ever hope to do. Needless to say that the ultimate goal was to capture the imagination of the people there, win their hearts and minds and get them to switch side which is what happened in the end.

But the dream to develop quickly did not start yesterday. In fact, a number of emerging nations in Latin America and Asia tried a decade or two ago to duplicate the success of the Tigers by taking what they thought was the path followed by them a decade or two before that. Not only did those nations fail to achieve the success of the Tigers, they experienced serious economic crises as a result of their attempts. And when they became convinced they made the wrong choice, they were ready to abandon the idea of scoring a high rate of growth by the method of export but then something happened that threw the whole subject into confusion. What happened was that Mainland China began to register the sought after high rate of growth by adopting what seemed to be a policy of heavy export. And everybody started asking: What is going on?

What is going on is that Mainland China could not have achieved that level of growth were it not for the businesses from Taiwan and Hong Kong that transported to the Mainland the achievements they made and the lessons they learned while under the nurture and the tutelage of America and Britain. In effect, what the two Western countries have managed to do inadvertently was to turn China into a capitalist country not by winning the public relation campaign as they had planned - although they did achieve this - but by propping up Taiwan and Hong Kong then letting the Mainland swallow them both economically. Still, the US and Britain can take solace in the fact that they did turn China into a capitalist country although this is something that gives them the occasional heartburn given that China has become a formidable competitor. Oh well, the theory of the unexpected says that you get shafted when you expect to be pampered and get pampered when you expect to be shafted. But do not be distressed, dear friend, because it all evens out in the end.

In any case, the main point here is that export alone did not cause China's high rate of growth; what did it were the same ingredients that caused the growth in Taiwan and Hong Kong at an earlier time. They were the efforts that emphasized the building of the hard and soft infrastructures in the country as well as the upgrading of the system of education. And it was this effort coupled with the genuine desire to build the country without the wholesale exploitation of its people that kept fueling China's ongoing success. Simply put, the businessmen and women from Taiwan and Hong Kong who considered themselves to be the children of China after all, took their knowledge and their goodwill to the Mainland where they launched the cosmic process of shifting wealth and power to China and more generally to Asia. And this was a development that the US and Britain could not have predicted by solving a mathematical equation of any kind. What this story tells us is that the random nature of human behavior will continue to surprise and to astonish all of us.

So then how can the rest of the developing countries progress if they do not have a sibling like a Taiwan or a Hong Kong to walk with them through the labyrinth of development and a high rate of growth? The answer to this question is a bit complicated because it falls more in the realm of what not to do than the realm of what to do. Indeed, what these countries must not do is follow the advice that was given to the developing countries in the Nineteen Seventies and Nineteen Eighties which was to the effect that they can get rich quick by selling their natural resources without a prior plan, and by producing goods for export using their people as cheap labor. And most of all, these nations should avoid borrowing money to set up the industries that will produce the goods they intend to sell cheaply to those from whom they borrow heavily. If there should be one example to describe economic self-mutilation this is it. Yes, the Chinese are now selling cheaply but this is due to the exchange rate of their currency, a situation they know they will have to rectify soon and have pledged to do so.

As to what the developing countries should do; they should move no faster than it is possible for them to move. And they should do so while relying only on themselves and those who genuinely want to help. They should develop the infrastructures and the educational system that the country needs for the long run at the same time as they produce the goods and services that their people require now. If a country needs machinery, raw materials or expertise from abroad but has no money to pay for them, it may borrow just enough to buy only what it must to fill the most urgent of its needs. Only when these conditions are adhered to can the country begin to think in terms of taking the next step which is to export the surpluses it now has and those it plans to produce in excess of what the local market will absorb. And always remember that it is better to wait till you can pay for what you need than work for peanut delivering champagne and caviar to those who only think of ways to exploit you. In short, when you move at your pace and do so with a sure footed step, your policies will translate into an organic growth that will be as sturdy and as durable as nature itself.

But there is a catch you must be made aware of. The policies described above will result in some developing countries being deprived of a sufficient inflow of foreign currencies. This will not be fatal in itself but may result in making them look poor because the currency translation will not be there to inflate their GDP numbers. But this will only be the appearance because it is, in reality, part of an elaborate economic optical illusion. The fact is that people who live in a country with a strong agricultural legacy consume the required amount of wholesome foods by spending a dollar a day when other countries such as Israel which is the quintessential economic optical illusion, are said to have more than five dollars a day to spend on food, yet can only buy a fraction of what is required to be adequately nourished. This illusion and others like it often pop up because a system of measurement was set up by well meaning people but was highjacked by charlatans and ignorant publications to deceive themselves and con each other. And there is nothing we can do to end the moronic practice of quoting figures out of context for the purpose of shedding darkness on a complicated subject and smothering it with the noise of confusion. The people who do this seem to relish playing a primitive game on an empty stomach while those who are supposed to be poor fill their bellies with hearty meals produced by the labor of their forearms and the sweat of their foreheads. Let it be, said the Beatles, and so we say let it be.

To create a favorable climate for the organic development of nations to flourish, and to encourage the other nations to adopt their sound methods, the world must devise a system of trade and commerce that will give every country a cushion on which to fall back should the circumstances require it. That is, while not negating the benefits that result from competition brought about by free trade, both the developing and the developed countries must be given the right to protect chosen sectors of their economy up to a negotiated percentage (perhaps in the order of 30%) of their consumption in that sector. For example, because rice is important to the Japanese culture, Japan will be allowed to protect its rice farmers using any means it deems necessary till the local production of rice reaches 30% of what the country consumes. Any subsidized production beyond this level will be considered a contravention of the system and subject to fines or countervailing measures by the other countries. By the same token, the United States may wish to protect its auto industry, Egypt its production of wheat, Mali its production of cotton and so on.

When you have a system like this in place, the nations of the world will be less inclined to embark on a destructive sort of competition with each other to protect themselves from being wiped out in one sector of the economy or another. And when you think that the only way to survive offered to the poor countries at this time is to pay their people smaller and smaller wages, you will see the merit in putting an end to the unfettered free trade that hurts more than it helps. Indeed, what is happening now between China and the rest of the developing countries is that they are engaged in a race to the bottom just to survive or to maintain social stability while their workers are made to absorb the brunt of this unnecessary price war. What made everyone ignore this reality for a long time was that until recently the citizens of the advanced nations benefited from a system that supplied them with goods and services at a low price. But then the global economic meltdown of 2008 happened and was determined to have been caused in part by that system thus demonstrating that nobody can benefit from it on a sustained basis.

We must also be honest with ourselves and admit that when nations feel threatened they are inclined to take sneaky measures to protect their industries from competition. They do so by subsidizing those industries and by raising barriers to imports. Some of the measures they take will be obvious and labeled “beggar thy neighbor” and some measures will be hidden. But if a system like the one described above is put in place, no nation will feel the need to cheat because the system will allow everyone the flexibility to take measures above board that will also be available to everyone else. The advantage here is that the measures will be well defined and limited to a maximum level. Thus, you can eliminate both the race to the bottom and the idea of beggar thy neighbor with a system that may curtail competition a little but do so honestly and openly rather than see competition curtailed by a lot with a system that employs dishonest and sneaky means.

In conclusion, by holding back the horses of export just a little, the developed countries and the emerging ones will maintain a better balance between the production side and the consumption side of their economies. This will make it possible for the developed countries to create more manufacturing and more labor intensive jobs while the emerging nations will have the wherewithal to pay their people a little more than they do now. And both will have created a well integrated local economy rather than see the rise of a two tiered economy inside the same country where the people who are associated with export get fabulously rich and the rest become lamentably poorer. Holding back the horses of export will allow the nations of the world to invest in their own people thus nurture pools of new talent and see them flourish the way things happened in the Tiger nations as they were rising to prominence. And this system will be a lot more preferable than what we have now which is that everyone tries to lure to their side the limited supply of talented people who rise every year on the world stage. A system that holds the horses of export just a little will also reduce the chances of the horses unexpectedly turning into dogs of war that may go on the loose and cause horrors no one wants to see. A well designed new system can be a win win win proposition nearly seven billion times over. Let's give us this gift.

It is time for me to take a vacation. I shall see you here again in a few weeks time.