When Canalization Closes The Circle

Anti-Muslim sentiments seem to be rising at present in some Western countries and, looking at the phenomenon superficially, a number of reasons can be cited as to why this is happening. But could the phenomenon be a fleeting one? Could it be that it will soon disappear and leave behind a telltale relic as to why it happened in the first place? Or can it go out of control and transform into something more dangerous? In fact, there were signs before this development that the old anti-Semitism was making a comeback in some Western countries, especially the English speaking ones, more specifically North America. I wrote about this at the time but, having no website on which to publish my thoughts, I only circulated my findings among some interested parties. What I saw then was that people who hated the activities of the Jewish organizations but were afraid to confront them, expressed their frustration in the form of antagonism toward the Arabs whom they thought had it within their power to confront the Jews and disarm them but were not doing it. To these people, the Arabs represented the cat they went home to kick and thus shake off the frustration they built up all day long as they had to interact with Jews who dealt directly with the offending Jewish organizations or just followed them. Can it be that the Muslim faith is now taking the place of the Arabs as the cat to kick when frustration builds up?

This is how the phenomenon could have risen. After the events of 9/11 a genuine apprehension about the Arabs and Islam arose in the Western countries. With time the mention of the Arabs began to fade form the discussions as the anti-Muslim expressions were intensifying. And true to form, the Jewish organizations pounced on the opportunity to defame Islam aiming to realize their long held dream of triggering a war between this religion and Christianity, a tactic that the Jews always used to make the gains that have allowed them to live at the expense of others through the centuries. The drawback in the use of this tactic, however, is that it requires a huge amount of energy and firepower to sustain it for any length of time. And so the Jewish organizations fielded all that they had in their arsenals but achieved very little before running out of energy and the ability to deliver a powerful punch. When all was said and done, the effect of the propaganda blitzkrieg they launched with great promise fizzled out slowly but surely. They found themselves overextended and worse, they discovered they were outflanked from every direction. What may still be working in their favor are tired old ideas about a threat posed by a handful of kids calling themselves Muslims who are out to conquer the world and turn it into a Caliphate they dream to rule like Sultans as they live the good life surrounded by a harem of sumptuous women. Needless to say this is a picture that apprehends a few feeble minds in the West but causes the intelligent people to smile and shrug.

Is this the end of it? No, it is not. People who appreciate drama know that the making of history is the best drama of all. And why is that? Because at the end of every act, your intuition will tell you this must be the end of the story but your brain will say history never ends, therefore, there is going to be another act. And sure enough, another act begins each and every time. Its direction will surprise you at the start but its unfolding will prove to be totally rational having taken roots in all the previous acts. And yet, the narrative will never reveal where it will go next until it gets there even though it may tease you along the way by removing the veil just a little to give you a glimpse of what you will encounter ahead. But the sad part is that drama can sometimes turn into melodrama. Even if the unfolding of the action is elegant, flawless and superior in a technical sense, the melodrama may portray the horror that lurks behind the dark side of the human character. And what is happening nowadays that may turn into melodrama is the rise of a genuine form of anti-Semitism in the West, having been “canalized” by the activities of the Jewish organizations.

But what is this “canalized” thing? Well, canalization is a complicated process that begins with self deception. We sometimes lie to ourselves because we do not want to confront the truth. We tinker with the truth or change it entirely to make it look like something else and direct our attention to the fake concoction to avoid the consequences of having to deal with the real thing. For example, instead of kicking the Jewish boss at the office, we go home and kick the cat. Instead of cursing the Jews and risk being called anti-Semitic, we curse Islam and feel good about it especially if it is the thing to do in public. And this redirection of our attention is the process that is called canalization. While this human trait is more prevalent among children than it is among adults, it is not completely erased with age. It is also the tool that is used by manipulative individuals and organizations to canalize the sentiments of other people and turn them against each other. Thus, to understand what role canalization plays in the drama that is unfolding in the West at this time with regard to Islam, we need to know a little more about the lie.

People lie all the time. Some people tell small lies; some tell big lies but soon thereafter they all forget about the lie and go on to live their precious little lives as if nothing had happened. Some people lie because they find themselves in a bind which they neutralize with a lie, sometimes successfully, and they too forget about the lie soon thereafter and go on to live their precious little lives. But the treacherous thing about the telling of lies is that some people do it because they develop the habit and worse, they tell a fat lie and hang on to it throughout life. These habitual liars then pass their habit on to the next generation and to generations after that who will never know why they were made to lie in the first place or why they must continue to lie. And this leaves us with a two-pronged question: How do people develop such a habit and why do they hang on to it for generations even after they realize it is detrimental to the causes they try to promote?

To answer the question we take the most egregious example and discuss it. In fact, there is only one example in all of history where a culture has adopted the lie and made it the core of its system of beliefs. This culture has lived long enough to become a religion and has survived from antiquity to this day, moving from one continent to another and from one race to another. The people who started it were so enamored with what they did, they wrote a book about their movement and bragged about the fictitious exploits they fantasized about but then recorded as if they were historical truths. These people then passed the bragging rights to their disciples who have been bragging ever since. The book they wrote is called the Torah, and it is sometimes referred to as the Old Testament. The people whose story the Torah is supposed to be telling were called the Hebrew tribes and no one knows what happened to them because they naturally disappeared as did all the ancient tribes. The modern disciples who follow the old movement call themselves Jews because this was the religion that the early Hebrew tribes were said to have adopted.

Today's Jews who think for themselves consider the stories told in the Torah to be allegories that convey lessons carrying a significance that is meant to stay in the domain of religion. But leaders have emerged among the Jews with a penchant to develop new ideas that suit the moment. These were political and social ideas with implications that reached deep into the secular domain. Seeing an opportunity for synergy in the merger of the two domains, the Jewish leaders married the religious significance contained in the stories of the Torah with the political and social significance contained in the secular dimension of their own ideas. And the marriage has allowed these leaders to gather political power based on the secular side of their arguments while gathering wealth and prestige based on the religious side of the same arguments. Now armed with a double-barreled gun, the Jewish leaders were able to gather around them an army of foot soldiers, stuff them with religious zeal and send them on a secular war of conquest throughout the world.

When life was simple and communication among the people outside a neighborhood was thin, those leaders could tell a lie and let it spread by word of mouth through the neighborhood and through the societies immediately surrounding the neighborhood. However slowly the lie was spreading and however long it took it to permeate the body of the societies it was infecting, the leaders knew that at the end of the day they will have scored another conquest. But things began to change when life became more complicated and communication among the people of the neighborhood -- and between them and the societies that lay beyond the neighborhood – became heavy traffic. In this climate, ordinary people began to develop short attention spans and shorter memories. The result was that the lie of the leaders could no longer impress ordinary people or convince them of anything. This development was so significant that the Jewish leaders were forced to replace the old techniques for spreading the lie with new techniques that were more suited for the times.

After experimenting with a number of new ideas, the Jewish leaders have settled on the method of relentlessly driving into the heads of their audiences not the one big lie that can be laughed at but the series of fragmented insinuations that saturate the landscape and are expected to achieve the result that is aimed for. Since the main idea is to say that Israel and the Jews are good, that their enemy of the day is bad and that everyone else is mediocre, the leaders of the Jewish movement are continually putting together propaganda packages for the media to use and thus drive the main point into the heads of their audiences in a steady and barely perceptible way. The result has been that people in the English speaking world cannot now escape hearing or reading relentless drivel to the effect that Israel is a benevolent democracy, Jews are the saviors of the world, Muslims hate America and the West while the rest of the world is doing precious little to end anti-Semitism.

What the Jewish leaders did not take into account, however, was that repeated drivel bores the audience so badly it causes people to reverse the message in their sub-conscience as a way to get back at the purveyors of the drivel. By the time the leaders became aware of this reality and tried to put together an antidote to deal with their blunder, they discovered they had another problem on their hand. It was that because the message was made of fragmented insinuations in the first place, members of the audience not only reversed the message in their mind; they each reconstructed the message by piecing the fragments together in a different way. And the Jewish leaders realized to their chagrin that what they had concocted has now metastasized into a million new forms of cancer requiring millions of different antidotes to cure them. And all the anti-Muslim hatred they had generated over the decades was now turning into anti-Jewish hatred. And so the Jewish leaders resorted to the old accusation that humanity is genetically designed to be anti-Semitic.

But the world is laughing at them because people realize that once again the Jews have become the architects of their own misfortune. The circle they wrought is closing on them because the lava of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim hatred they generated is being canalized in their direction. And the question to ask is this: Will it be a pogrom this time? A Holocaust? Hitler's Final Solution?

Time will tell.

Rebellion On The Planet Of The Goyim

You know the story of Planet of the Apes; the one that was made into a Hollywood movie. It is the story of the monkeys on Planet Earth who evolved past their current state and have acquired both the power of speech and the power of reasoning. This happened at a time when the human beings on the planet had lost the ability to speak and much of their power of reasoning. It was the aftermath of a nuclear war that destroyed the human civilization and gave the apes the chance to take over the planet and rule over it. The consequence has been that the apes treated the humans like beasts of burden the way that the humans used to treat animals such as donkeys and horses. Well, my friend, this is not such a far fetched idea when you consider the fact that for centuries, the Jews have considered the goys to be beasts of burden put on Earth for one purpose only which is to serve the Jews and, of course, serve Israel if and when an Israel is in existence. And who are the goys, you ask? Well, that's you and me; it is everyone that is not Jewish. When talking to each other behind our backs, the Jews do not call us gentiles the way we like to be called or the way they call us in our faces; this would make us human and equal to them. No. They do not consider us full fledged human beings and so they call us by the derogatory name goy. And to be certain, this is not like calling the Italians, wops or calling the Asians, pakis; it is like calling us sub-human which is their intent.

Why is it important to be aware of this reality at this time, you may ask? The thing is that people became aware of it from time to time throughout history. They became aware of it not because the subject was brought up honestly or because the matter was discussed rationally and everyone given the chance to flesh out what there was to flesh out. No. The people became aware of the reality drip by drip through a process you may call cultural osmosis. After a while some people began to suffer, and because there was no airing of their grievances, a pressure started to build up in their spirit and the spirit of their friends and neighbors. When it was realized that the suffering was caused by the practices of some Jews they were dealing with, anti-Jewish sentiments arose and led to social explosions such as those that happened throughout history. These were the pogroms and, of course, the mother of all pogroms known as the Holocaust. The pressure is now building again and rather than let the thing play itself out which means let it go all the way to an explosive end, we, as a society would do well to discuss the matter openly. We should let the grievances be aired and evaluated on their merit because there is rebellion in the air on the planet of the goyim (plural for goy in Hebrew), and the day of reckoning is approaching one step at a time.

There are many places around the globe where the explosion is likely to be triggered this time around and it may even be triggered in a few places at the same time given the connectivity that ties the nations of the world and the ease of communication that exists in the modern era. But if there is one place where you do not want to see the explosion triggered, it is in America because if it happens there, the consequences will be so thorough and so violent that Hitler's Final Solution will be realized before anyone has had the chance to ask: What is going on? And this is because no one in history has been taken advantage of, and no one has paid a price as high as the American goys who were made to suffer as much as they did for one reason only; to fulfill the dreams and the aspirations of the Jews whether they were legitimate dreams and aspirations or they were illegitimate fantasies. And there is one more thing to be reminded of; there are hundreds of millions of guns in America with many happy fingers itching to pull on the trigger for a good reason, an acquired one or a completely fabricated one.

The social situation in America and the consequences thereof have developed the way they did because the Jewish reliance on that country came at a crucial time coinciding, in fact, with the establishment of the state of Israel in the Middle East. Being of the mentality that is attributed to them, the Jewish leaders who engineered that exploit did not behave in a manner that made them welcome invaders in the societies of the Middle East where they were regarded as aliens and out of place. The result of the artificial transplant and the reception that the Jews were given made it so that they needed an external power to stand by them and help them force their supremacist and weird ideology on the Middle Eastern public. Because the people there categorically refused to think of the Jews as superior beings, the Jewish leaders called on the Brits to help them force their way into the Middle East, and the Brits agreed to help out for a while. The Jewish leaders then called on the Soviets and the French to help them, and they too agreed to help for a while but then dropped the Israeli project like a dog owner who just realized he had to constantly clean up after the dog he adopted. The Jewish leaders then turned to America and decided to take a new approach so as not to lose that country the way they lost the Brits, the Soviets and the French on those previous occasions.

What the Jewish leaders did was to run the following story on the Americans and to repeat it without end: “It is true that we do not belong in the Middle East because we are not of the goys that ordinarily live there. However, we know we belong in that place because God wants us to live there and He gave us the piece of real estate situated between the Nile and the Euphrates. The Almighty did this because He made us His favorite children which also means He wants us to rule over the world. But fear not that we may rule over you, Americans, because you too are a special breed just like us. We are the chosen people but you are the exceptional ones and this is as good as being chosen. So you see, together, we can rule over the world not in a Pax Judaica sort of setup but in a Pax Americana sort of setup whereby we take on the burden of thinking and you take on the burden of lifting. You may, in fact, consider us the beasts of burden who do the heavy thinking, and consider yourselves the lofty lifters of something; maybe to lift our spirits or whatever.” And so, my dear reader, one by one, the American leaders bought the story until enough of them had bought enough of it that they formed a critical mass heavy enough to openly and shamelessly betray their own America to serve the little fart that is Israel.

But how do the Jewish leaders approach an individual they never dealt with before, persuade him or her to come to their side and commit themselves so strongly to the Jewish causes? Well, after they target someone they determine may be ready to succumb to their machinations, the Jewish operators pull their deed in small steps. The first step is to run by the target something like this: I am chosen and you are exceptional therefore you and me are superior to everyone else. Follow me and I'll show you how superior you are. The second step is to run by them something like this: I have been leading this exercise as you may have noticed; therefore you must recognize that I dominate you. The third step is to run something like this: I am above them as you know, and I dominate you as you have recognized therefore you must accept that I am more special than you and them. The fourth step is to run something like this: compared to where I sit, you and them are so distant that the difference between the two of you is negligible and I consider both of you one and the same. The fifth step is to run something like this: you are all goys and closer to the donkey than you are to me. The sixth step which is yet to come is to run something like this: Pax Americana, my ass. There is only one Pax and it is Pax Judaica. I take over the whole enchilada and you will serve me as will the others. You will serve like the beasts of burden that you are and I shall enjoy being served like a member of the master race. This is the fulfillment of God's wish whose favorite child I am. Go kill someone I hate today and die for me before I hate you for an eternity.

And any teacher that has closely studied how a submissive student ends up being smitten by a dominant student will recognize these machinations as being real and at work in every school as they are in all fields of life. And the teacher will tell you how difficult it is to get the submissive student to snap out of it. The danger is that if and when he or she does snap out, the admiration and affection they had for the dominant student can turn into a hatred equal in intensity. Most of the time, however, this type of student quietly hate themselves for what they have allowed themselves to become and they only avoid the company of the other student. But there are occasions when they try to get even by thinking of ways to humiliate the student that used to dominate them and take advantage of them. But what they try does not always work as planned and it can lead to nefarious outcomes. Now, when it comes to the social analogy that is the Jewish machinations inside the American system of governance, we should be alarmed in view of the historical record that the Europeans have left us because these records tell of consequences that no one sane wants to see repeated.

Yet, all the signs are here again that something seriously wicked is going on and is continuing to build up. In a matter of a few months only, Helen Thomas, Rick Sanchez and Juan Williams were pushed out or fired from their jobs because they publicly expressed a feeling or a personal opinion. If the story concerned only the firings, it would have been a major story given that the First Amendment of the American Constitution protects the freedom of speech. Great discussions, perhaps approaching in value the Federalist Papers, would have followed, and the principle of freedom of speech together with the idea of democracy would have been taken up and discussed in relation to an era where new technologies are at play that the founding fathers of the America Federation could not have imagined. But sadly, very sadly, the great debate never happened, America missed out on a valuable opportunity and we must ask: why is that? And there is only one answer: Because of the Jewish factor.

Only a few decades ago we could hear journalists say as a matter of course about a politician or someone ordinary: I may not like what he or she is saying but I shall defend their right to say it. Today, you do not hear a journalist say something that comes close to that even in defense of another journalist that was fired from their job, and not just reprimanded or suspended for a period of time. On the contrary, you see some journalists rejoice at the fact that another journalist has suffered such a horrible fate because of something they said. When Helen Thomas was let go, Howard Kurtz who has pretended to be a media critic for decades did not invite her to come and give her side of the story. On the contrary, he invited the rabbi who entrapped her to come and unload. But unload what? Apparently the poor, sweet, cute, little thing received a few emails from people who did not like what he did to their beloved Helen, and they wrote to tell him that. And so, this man who perhaps expected to be hailed as the Messiah in waiting for what he had done felt so bad and so dejected that he needed a shoulder on which to cry or a platform on which to unload his great, big, massive sorrow at the way that the ungrateful public treated him. You know what? It is getting to me also -- right here at the heart -- and so I shall stop discussing this story before I too will start weeping uncontrollably about the treatment that the Jews in America are receiving at the hands of the goys and before I start bellyaching on their behalf.

After Helen Thomas came Rick Sanchez who was treated like a nobody after his firing; treated by his former colleagues like someone who had no right to freedom of speech because in America today, freedom of speech means one thing and one thing only, the freedom to kiss Jewish asses on the air and off the air no matter how much air is blown in your face as you do the kissing. Since Rick Sanchez seemed to turn away from the smell of the Jewish asses he was supposed to kiss, he made himself unwelcome in the den of the assholes, and so he had to be pushed out and kept out.

Then came Juan Williams whose story is a complicated one. Discussing it properly would have shed much light on the role of the First Amendment in the modern era, an event that the fathers of the American Constitution would have been proud of. But what happened instead? Unlike the first two instances where silence was the order of the day, much noise was made in the Williams case but it was the wrong kind of noise. Having butchered the soul and the essence of the First Amendment by labeling anti-Semitic everyone that disagreed with them, the Jewish organizations had emasculated that amendment so thoroughly, no one knew how to use it to defend Williams or defend the profession itself. What the dimwits and their followers did instead was to talk about the subject in terms of Right vs Left, in terms of Liberal vs Conservative, in terms of Republican vs Democrat and nothing more. It was like looking inside a big hole dug in the ground waiting to see it fill up with something valuable but seeing it fill up with the flushing of toilets which best analogizes the mention of Israel and most Jewish causes in America these days.

It stinks around here and the goys will not take it anymore, especially the authentic American goys.

Soap Opera Of The String Quartet

There was a time when the military machine of the Communist alliance led by the Soviet Union and trailed by China looked invincible having defeated America, the economic superpower of the day, on the battlefields of a backward land called Vietnam. This prompted the second economic power of the day, Japan Inc, to challenge America's economic dominance of the world. It did so by using the massive foreign reserves it had accumulated over the decades to buy up assets around the world and especially around Asia where it is itself situated and where America is an alien power. The buying of foreign assets being something that America was doing at a much higher rate than anyone else, the American business characters of the Wall Street ilk engineered a bubble to avoid being overtaken by the Japanese newcomers. What they did came to be known as the Savings & Loan scandal whereby they siphoned off nearly half a trillion dollars from the economy of their own country. And they used the money to buy up foreign assets, especially those in Asia which they did in direct competition with Japan Inc. But in doing what they did at home, they also created a gigantic mess, something they left for the government there to clean up and to resolve at the expense of the taxpayers.

The Wall Street bubblites -- as they shall be known from this point forward -- used the half trillion dollars they siphoned from their people to duke it out with the business people of Japan Inc, and they succeeded in reclaiming their title as the biggest investors in the world including Asia, the backyard of Japan so to speak. This challenge, which was fully expected to be honest, prompted the Japanese officials to print as many yens as it took to equal the splurging of the American bubblites, and the rivalry between these two resulted in many countries around the world receiving much needed infusions of cash. Alas, not everyone used the money wisely to develop their own economies along sound principles. But one country that did well and proved to be a wise old country was China which managed to accomplish something truly remarkable. China took the political system it inherited from the communist Soviet Union, combined it with the economic system it was handed by the Anglo-American alliance and created an engine of economic growth the likes of which the world had never seen before. And year after year China ploughed ahead with energy and with vigor in the business of modernizing its economy and distributing the wealth among all its people.

In the meantime, unable to spend abroad all the yens they had printed due to the fact that other countries around the world were running their own presses overtime, the Japanese kept some of the money at home and thus created a local bubble of their own whereby the public was encouraged to invest the extra money they had in real estate assets and in securities. And all the flippers of land and all the churners of stock made it so that the price of a square meter in downtown Tokyo skyrocketed to the million dollar mark, and the index of the Tokyo stock exchange approached the 40,000 level. Then came the inevitable crash to both of them and to everything else; the real estate assets throughout Japan returned to their pre-bubble levels even lower, and the index of the stock market was cut to less than a quarter of its highest high. And of course, the experience was not without consequence because when it came to making any sort of expense after that, the Japanese people went on strike. They refused to open their purses very widely or open them ajar to living expenses that went beyond the absolutely necessary. And they made no investment of any kind no matter how solid the project appeared to be or what sort of return was promised on their capital.

Panicked by the recession and by the falling prices that followed the crash, the government of Japan printed still more money to replace the private money that went on strike and pushed the newly printed money on the economy to keep it moving and thus create the illusion of velocity. But the economy refused to budge because doing quantitative easing, as they called the initiative, was like pushing on a string, they explained. In fact, the money stayed in the vaults of the banks where it was stored because the banks were reluctant to lend it and because very few clients wanted to borrow it in the first place. And all of this reality stood in stark contrast with the Chinese experience because the secret that made the Chinese model work was the fact that no one had to push on a string to move the money through the economy in China. The reality was that the pent up demand for goods and services existed in China and was, in fact, building up for centuries. When the supply came as a result of foreign money pouring into the country, there was no need to push the string at the back end of the economy because the string was naturally pulled up at the front end by the demand that a huge and enthusiastic population was creating. Velocity came to the money supply, and the economic project of China worked like a charm as if it were serenaded by the soothing sound of a billion violins playing a symphony you might call ode to one named Adam Confucius Smith.

And while all of this was happening in Asia, the Soviet Union that straddled both the Asian and the European continents was creating bubbles of its own. But these were not bubbles of the type that are made with good soap or bad economics; they were of the type that are made when something bubbles up to the surface as an old regime dies a quiet death. In fact, the old Soviet Union was dying peacefully and in its place was born a new Russian Federation – no strings attached, not even an umbilical cord. But the strings did surface later on because in order to catch up with the Western economic powers, the Eurasian slouching giant was advised by its friends in America to adopt a system of shocks to the economy. This meant to let loose the characters that became the Russian oligarchs who made the Wall Street bubblites look like infants suckling on bottles of harmless formula. The oligarchs of Russia ended up controlling everything in the Federation including the printing presses of the central bank which they made work without control and made them work faster even than the fall in the value of the Russian ruble which in turn accelerated the running of the presses -- It is a self-feeding vicious cycle, you know. But this was okay with the oligarchs because they were creating quantitative easing of the crazy kind, and crazy economics was the system they were prepared to live with until the rest of the world told them to take that worthless ruble and shove it. The oligarchs read the writing on the wall, saw red with their own eyes and stopped the presses for now. They studied all about how to implement a set of sane fiscal and monetary policies then started the presses again which they ran with a new motor; this time a motor equipped with a mechanism for speed control and a switch that can turn the presses on and off.

As can be seen, the Russian Federation could not have been saved by its own oligarchs, some of whom were sent to spend time in the gulags of Siberia to expiate their sins of unbridled abuse and grotesque exaggeration. Russia was not even saved by the effort of its own government alone but was, in fact, saved with the help of the goulds that live and work in the pits of the Chicago Board of Trade. These characters sent the price of oil up to nearly one hundred and fifty dollars a barrel which made the Russian Federation swim in dollars, in euros and in yens -- being one of the largest producers of oil and natural gas in the world. With this much foreign money coming into the country and with a pent up demand among the public for goods and services that were created and produced mostly by foreigners in foreign lands, the government of Russia did not need to push on a string of any kind to make the burgeoning middle class in the country consume and consume and consume still more. This class and the upper class, all of whom dreamed of living like oligarchs, pulled on the demand side of the economic string and pulled so hard that the string almost broke and the two classes were forced to suppress their hunger for goods and for services, be they foreign made goods or locally produced services which were now available due to the liberalization of the economy. And with this suppression of the demand, Russia embarked on a long journey to acquire the look of a normal consumer society at long last.

And while all of this was happening, a condition was created that almost brought the world economy to a screeching halt but lucky for us, the catastrophe was averted and humanity was able to survive the near meltdown of the economy. A few loose ends still need to be taken care of to give the drama the look and feel of a well polished story, but on the whole, the universe is back again unfolding as it should to paraphrase Desiderata. Let the violins play again.

In the meantime, the quartet of main characters in our soap opera, America, Japan, China and the Russian Federation are back on the stage with a few more characters, all getting ready to play the remaining acts of the piece they call: How to push on a string and get velocity without losing control of the printing presses.

Let them break a leg.

A Friendly Advice To Think Tank Honchos

When people consistently interpret the world in a way that is demonstrably false and detrimental to the causes they profess to serve, you know the time has come to take a fresh look at some of their cherished notions with the view of clarifying the matter for them. The people I have in mind are Arthur Brooks who is president of the American Enterprise Institute, Edwin Feulner who is president of the Heritage Foundation and William Kristol who is director of the Foreign Policy Initiative. Again and again these people have shown to be wrong in the way they interpret the world, and the time has come to prove to them that their activities hurt the causes they say they want to serve. The hope is that they will take a breather during which time they will see the light and reconsider their positions.

The three individuals made it easy to discuss their positions by jointly writing an article that contains the essential wrong premises upon which they have constructed a false model of the world. The article is titled “Peace Doesn't Keep Itself” and was published in the Wall Street Journal on October 4, 2010. It deals with the economics of defense as you can see in the subtitle that was chosen for it: “Defense spending has increased at a much lower rate than domestic spending in recent years and is not the cause of soaring deficits.”

You get a sense of the prism through which they see the world from the introduction they articulate in the first paragraph where they criticize a speech by President Obama given on August 31 in which he declared his preference to invest in the American people rather than squander America's wealth in military efforts. And they add this: “As Bob Woodward's new book 'Obama's Wars' makes plain, a similar mentality pervaded the president's Afghanistan strategy.” After that, they take several paragraphs to give a critique of the president's preference, and reinforce their point of view at the end of the article by criticizing the people they say do think like the president: “There are some who think the era of U.S. global leadership is over, and that decline is what the future inevitably holds for us … But this is an error. A weaker, cheaper military will not solve our financial woes. It will, however, make the world a more dangerous place, and it will impoverish our future.” Put in a nutshell, this would be their grand conclusion.

Between the introduction and the conclusion, our three authors discuss the notion of balance between the social needs of the nation and its military needs without showing the slightest sign of having wrestled mentally with the subject. They do this while tilting in favor of what they believe are the requirements of the military. And they make their points (a) by stating that expenditure on the military does not hurt the finances of the nation, (b) by arguing that in percentage terms, the country spends less on the military now than during previous times, (c) by opining that too much money is now spent on social programs and (d) by hiding behind the men and women in uniform. All of which are thin arguments as will be seen in the discussion that follows.

The most important argument they make is the economic one, and so let us discuss that. They state: “Global prosperity requires commerce and trade, and this requires peace.” The implication here is that the world needs a policeman, that America should appoint itself to that post, that America can fulfill the role and that it will not be challenged when it begins to enforce its vision of law and order. The authors assure us that if America takes on the role of world policeman, the world will be made safe, commerce and trade will flourish and global prosperity will result which will be good for the world including America and the barbarians at the gate themselves who would hurt the world in the absence of America's watchful eyes and interventions. And the question to ask is this: Can any of this be true or is the whole thing a fantasy of adolescents flourishing in the body of grown-ups who are playacting a worldwide game of cops and robbers?

Let's see if we can answer this question. Without challenging their numbers, let us look at them to see if they contain holes that point to a flaw in their argument. First, the three authors say this: “Even with the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan, this year the Department of Defense will spend some $720 billion – about 4.9% of our gross domestic product, significantly below the average of 6.5% since World War II.” Then they say this: “Yet we face those challenges [Iraq, Afghanistan and possibly Iran and China] with a baseline defense budget ... that is 3.6% of GDP, significantly less than the Reagan-era peak of 6.2%.” Well, you do not need a PhD in mathematics to figure that if the average of the defense budgets during the indicated period was 6.5%, that if during the Reagan-Bush-41 era of that period the peak was 6.2% and that if during the Bush-43 era the percentage was 3.6%, it follows that the military budgets of America were significantly higher than the average during the remaining eras of that same period. As it happens, however, most of these remaining eras were Democratic eras. Well then, are the authors of the article -- the very conservative Arthur Brooks, Edwin Feulner and William Kristol of the illustrious right wing think tanks of America -- giving this much credit to Democratic presidents? If yes, will they please elaborate? Because if they don't, we shall have to consider them a trio of adolescents occupying the body of grown-ups and playacting a worldwide game of cops and robbers. And this is something that other more sober conservatives may find embarrassing to associate with.

Furthermore, if President Reagan was able to defeat the superpower that was the “Soviet Evil Empire” by bankrupting their civilian economy and without firing a shot, why is there a need to increase the military budget now? President Reagan was able to accomplish what he did by starting an arms race with the Soviet superpower that was super militarily but inferior economically. And this prompts the question: “Do the three authors of the article believe that the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, the other non-state actors as well as Iran and China can be bankrupted by getting them involved in an arms race with America? Indeed, are the three authors calling on the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, on the axis of evil and on China to arm themselves to exhaustion then declare bankruptcy as did the old Soviet Union? Please elaborate ye illustrious honchos of the American think tanks. We hunger for clarity.

Another bewildering approach taken by the three authors is that they talk about America's finances as if America were isolated from the rest of the world but then apply their conclusions – if and when they reach them -- to the whole world as if America were a full partner in it even presiding over it. This is typical of people who respond to dogmas they were fed while growing up but remain frozen in time, incapable of thinking for themselves or evolving a smidgen. More about this later but for now let us discuss America's financing of its military machine in relation to the world economy that the three authors say they want America to protect by appointing itself policeman over it.

Right after World War II, the American GDP amounted to nearly two thirds the GDP of the world, and its manufacturing industries represented about a quarter of its own GDP. This means that American industries stood at somewhere between 15% and 20% of the world GDP. Today, America's GDP amounts to a fifth the GDP of the world, and its industries represent about 10% of its own GDP. This means that American manufacturing industries currently stand at about 2% of the world GDP and getting smaller in relative terms due to the rapid industrialization of the developing countries. The consequence of this is that if America got into an arms race with Usama Bin Laden (UBL), America will be bankrupted long before UBL or his sidekicks. And this is not to mention what other actors will do such as the insurgents of Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran and the other non-state entities, and of course China which will be the source called upon to supply most of the parts procured by the American military-industrial complex. The reality is that America is no longer the industrial giant that it was. And this is not because: “There are some who think the era of U.S. global leadership is over, and that decline is what the future inevitably holds...” but because this is the way that history has unfolded which is the way that history always unfolds for empires whose time comes and goes.

Let us now look at the habit of responding to dogmas. The authors have this paragraph in their article: “Furthermore, military spending is not a net drain on our economy. It is unrealistic to imagine a return to long-term prosperity if we face instability around the globe because of a hollowed-out U.S. military lacking the size and strength to defend American interests around the world.” There are two sentences here whose sequencing has been transposed. Each sentence represents a dogma that can survive as a stand alone statement but when the two sentences are put together and allowed to give voice to their internal logic, they negate each other. We can see this effect when we write the two sentences in the proper sequence and add the logical connection between them as shown here in square brackets: “It is unrealistic to imagine a return to long-term prosperity if we face instability around the globe because of a hollowed-out U.S. military lacking the size and strength to defend American interests around the world, [besides] military spending is not a drain on our economy.”

The difference between having two separate sentences out of sequence, and having them in sequence as one sentence is that in the second formulation you see the connection between the ideas, you rub them together and you analyze the whole proposition. When you do this, you immediately reject the principle that military spending is not a drain on an economy because you know how president Reagan caused the Soviet Union to go bankrupt. But then after doing some hard thinking, you say to yourself it could be that the authors meant to say only the American economy is not drained by military spending, not every economy. And so you ask yourself if America has the muscle to produce the proverbial guns and butter to live in prosperity and protect the world at the same time. And this has the potential to open a discussion that can branch in many directions, something you try to avoid.

However, the one direction you find most poignant is that taken by the authors where they admit -- if only in a subtle way -- that a choice between guns and butter will have to be made thereby admit that even America cannot have it both ways. As to the choice they make, they choose the guns, and guess whose butter they say they want to cut completely or reduce somewhat. Here is their response as stated in their own words: “Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, lesser entitlements such as food stamps and cash assistance ... These expenditures continue automatically, year after year...” It is not clear what they mean by lesser entitlements but you can safely assume that they include the school lunch program for the American children who go to school hungry because their parents cannot afford to feed them a decent breakfast or any breakfast at all.

But how can three honchos of America's illustrious conservative think tanks justify a situation like this? Here is how: “We should be vigilant against waste in every corner of the budget. But anyone seeking to restore our fiscal health should look at entitlements first, not across-the-board cuts aimed at our men and women in uniform.” Oh yes, that's how. They say it's okay to starve millions of American children to feed the military. Well, guess who else starves their children to feed their military. You guessed it; they are the North Koreans. It is no wonder, therefore, that the conservative think tanks of North America look and smell like the septic tanks of North Korea. But is this what makes the presidents and the directors of those tanks believe they ought to be respected? I guess the fantasy and self-delusion that animate these people are now completely out of control.

I'm telling you guys, get off this train and reconsider your positions. You're not doing your country or yourselves any good by maintaining the course you're on. The best thing for you to do now is protect America from yourselves and those like you. America did much good in her heydays and she deserves better.

The Talmudization of American Culture

If you want to know why very little that is useful happens in American politics today, be it local or foreign, read someone like Elliot Abrams who is now senior fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and who was in charge of Middle Eastern affairs at the National Security Council during the W years. Abrams wrote an article on the subject closest to his heart which is where you should be introduced to his style of writing if you are not familiar with it already. And this will also be a good place for you to start probing into what ails the totality of the current American discourse as you will come to realize that the culture has been highjacked by those who make the Talmud their book of reference with regard to the governance of the ship of state and the practice of the moral life. In short, America is being Talmudized to serve interests that are anything but American, and nothing is being done to halt the trend or slow it down because no one that has the power to do something about it has any idea what is going on.

The Abrams article is titled: “Israeli-Palestinian Peace Talks Are Suspended. So What?” and was published in the Wall Street Journal on September 29, 2010. The Journal gave it a subtitle that summarizes its content like this: “What matters is growth and state-building in the West Bank. Yet the Obama administration is still fixated on settlements.”

You can see in the title something almost iconic about the style of the exchange that has developed between those who promote the Jewish causes in America and the rest of society. One of the most notorious moments where this style was used came years ago in the title of a book that sounded something like this: “Hollywood is dominated by Jews. So What?” Let me explain why this is important to note at this time and how it is pertinent to this discussion. If you see something pertaining to Jewish matters and you make an observation without the appropriate preface, the chances are high that you will be labeled anti-Semitic. To avoid this label, you must preface your observation with a comment that praises the Jews or condemns the enemy they chose for the day. For example, if you are not Jewish and you realize that Hollywood is dominated by Jews, you must not say so without first declaring that you hide no ill will toward the Jews. Thus, you may express your observation like this: “It is a good thing that Hollywood is dominated by Jews,” or something along this line.

This manner of expressing oneself, when discussing Jewish matters, came about because the early advocates of the Jewish causes were the rabbis who -- as they stated it themselves -- set out to educate the public and to sensitize the people as to the needs of the Jews, their fears, their aspirations and their taboos. To this end, the rabbis used the media to intervene and to preach their lesson each time they saw someone fail to follow the politically correct course. Eventually they succeeded in making this sort of intervention a steady event; they made it an acceptable interference even something to be expected at regular intervals. And this is the point at which the Jewish organizations took over and pushed the envelop down the slippery slope and into the black hole of infinite excesses. To paraphrase an old saying, they were given a finger and they took the whole arm then the shoulder and after that took the whole body and looked for more bodies to take. To do this, they employed an army of professional bellyachers who went around and whined about the Jewish sensitivities being violated with every word, every nuance and every insinuation that was not clarified in advance and expunged of the toxic meaning it carried. And the bellyachers did all this even where no hidden meaning was intended and no toxicity was there to be expunged while their comrades-in-arms were running around accusing everybody of infringing on the principles of freedom of speech for simply asking what artistic merit can there be in showing the crucifix immersed in a glass full of urine.

And while the public was being sensitized about Jewish matters and Jewish taboos, the Jews that were taught from the book they call the Talmud were being imbued with enough chutzpah to be motivated to throw around whatever weight they had and throw it in the style of the in-your-face sort of discourse. Chutzpah replaced timidity with a vengeance not because the North Americans were intimidating the Jews but because the Jews had come to North America in a naturally timid state and they hated themselves for it. And so the teachers of the Talmud set out to transform the self-loathing Jew into the refashioned jerk, and this is how some Jews were able to do things they did not dare do in previous generations. They were able to express their observations in a defiant style and throw them in-your-face as did Elliot Abrams in his article. They began, in effect, to express what used to be taboo in a way that was taboo no more; they began to express their observations in the form: “yes … but so what?”

But make no mistake, despite graduating to a different level, the Jewish organizations have not abandoned the weapon that is the bellyache and probably never will because it serves them so well. You can see how truthful this statement is when you see someone get fired from his or her job for making an observation about Jews that does not come attached to a praise for the latter or attached to a condemnation of the enemy they have chosen for the day. The latest example in this regard is the firing of Rick Sanchez who used to have a show on CNN. This man made an observation not on his show or even on CNN but on a radio show while flogging the book he wrote. The observation was so innocuous, it may have caused a few people to smile had it not been for the fact that the network fired Sanchez for what he said during a nondescript interview given to a nondescript radio show.

And you can be certain that if they fired Rick Sanchez today for saying that CNN is dominated by Jews, someone will write a book someday under a title that may go like this: “CNN is dominated by Jews. So what?” And that someone will probably describe a scene in the studios of CNN we are accustomed to seeing these days where the host is Jewish, the two or three panelists assisting him are Jewish and the two or three guests invited to speak on the show are Jewish, all discussing not a Jewish subject but Arab and Muslim matters without there being a single Arab or a single Muslim to take up the other side of the discussion. And the author of the book will take pride in stating in-your-face that no other ethnic or religious group can arrange for a spectacle like this and get away with it, the suggestion being that the spectacle looks divine in their eyes and you must learn to love it even if it has the look of a bordello style journalism in your eyes and the eyes of the civilized world.

But what is the end game? What does Elliot Abrams want from all this? Well, to someone like him who has been close to the seat of power where history was made, to write the Jewish part of that history is to write the Bible. And when we say Bible, we do not mean the Old Jewish Testament to which was added the New Christian Testament, we mean the Old Testament, the writing of which continues under the name Talmud. Christians must not be fooled by the fact that Jews are getting close to the Evangelical Christians whom they use to gain control of what is left of America's power, wealth and influence. The fact remains that the Jews have not forgotten and will not forget the Inquisition or the Holocaust both of which were perpetrated by Christians on them in the name of Christianity. Consequently, the Jews view the Christian New Testament as a dangerous document and they treat it no better than a Nazi document or a crucifix in a glass of urine. To them there is only the Torah and its continuation, the Talmud, where every Jew that wants to be a somebody strives to be published or at least be mentioned. And Elliot Abrams is one of those.

And so when he and those like him write something, they see themselves write Jewish history they hope will someday make it into the Talmud. And like the history they read in the old Testament where miracles abound, they spin the things to make them look like miracles being made today. This is important to them because they know that if they fail to do this, future generations will see a sharp break between the Old Testament that is full of miracles and the newer Talmud that is devoid of them, and those generations will begin to doubt their faith. But there is a side effect to all this: when every event is written in such a way as to look miraculous, it can impress the feeble minds that are close to the seat of American power. These minds are to be found in the legislative and the executive branches of government, and when they are awed by what they perceive as being the miraculous prowess of the Jews, serious consequences follow. Instead of working to fashion checks and balances that can moderate the activities of the Jewish organizations, they choose to be on the good side of those organizations by doing the opposite of what they should be doing. They facilitate matters for them, and this results in the latter just walking in and taking control of America as easily as the pimp who walks into his private toilet and relieves himself by crapping the woes of the day.

And so we see that after Elliot Abrams began his article by expressing what he felt like relief to him: “The sky is not falling”, he took a few paragraphs to describe what he considers to be the historical woes of the Middle East. This done, he gets into the meat of what he wants. And what he and the Jewish organizations want is that America give them what belongs to someone else. They want America to allow them to use American money and weapons to take more of Palestine and build Jewish settlements on it. This mode of operation is the process by which the nomadic Hebrew tribes have lived since time immemorial. It is their religion and their obsession; it is what the Old Testament is all about. The operations they mounted then, and those which are mounted by their phony heirs now consist of finding a “God” or someone powerful who will give them what belongs to someone else or allow them to loot the place. If someone tries to stop them -- having obtained God's permission to do what they do -- they fight savagely and consider their belligerence to be self-defense as they view the legitimate self-defense of the victim to be a bad thing. In modern times they found it convenient to call terrorism the self-defense that is employed by others even if no one has the will, encouragement, weapons, money, backing and veto protection of America to terrorize the innocent like they do.

So then, what does Elliot Abrams do after that? Well, judge for yourself. This is what he writes: “...negotiations between Israel and the PLO ... broke down when the Obama administration made settlement construction the central issue … and its continuing obsession with a settlement freeze ... has cornered Mr. Abbas.” As you can see, instead of addressing his own obsession or that of Israel, he accuses the Obama administration, hence America, of being obsessed. This is not the first time that the Jews have quarreled with the one they appointed as God, temporary or otherwise; the Old Testament is full of such encounters. You see, in Judaism God is a useful creation that the mortals invent when they need someone to authorize them to do unspeakable things. And when they are finished doing these things, they want that same God to keep his mouth shut while they try to mothball and shelf Him, something they sometimes fail to do hence the quarrel. In this case, having justified their robbery of the Palestinians by claiming that an invisible God gave them the land, they have appointed America as the visible God who will help them add more to the robbery and finalize it. Britain, the now defunct Soviet Union and France preceded America in this role but their appointment did not last long enough to complete the job. And while the current drama is still unfolding, Israel and the Jewish organizations such as AIPAC want America to bloody well shut up and not express an opinion on the subject. But they want America to continue bankrolling Israel and continue arming it so as to keep doing the thing about which America is supposed to remain silent. Well, my friend, this is the kind of chutzpah that would call on any self-respecting nation to kick some asses, and the question now is whether or not America has the necessary self-respect to kick the AIPAC ass and that of Israel. The world doubts it and so do I.

In the meantime, it is Elliot Abrams who is telling America what to do. This is how he puts it: “Mr. Abbas has once again decided to hide behind the Arab League. When Arab foreign ministers next meet … he will seek the league's cover … either for continuing to refuse talks or for returning to the table … This is where American influence should be focused now: on getting the Arabs to give Mr. Abbas the green light.” Not only does Abrams tell America what to do, he tells America to tell the Arabs what to do which is to tell Mr. Abbas what to do. Come to think of it, kicking asses is not enough in such circumstances, and this is probably why my Jewish friend used to throw his hands up in the air and cry out: Light up the oven!

The Palestinians are suffering because American foreign policy is dictated by the laws of the Talmud. But the American culture is also changing as a result. Those who implement the change believe that things are going their “way” so nicely, they will remain safe no matter what they do. What these people ignore is that they are following the path taken by previous Jewish organizations in places such as in Europe. These were the paths that pushed the Europeans too far along a “way” they steadily grew to hate. And the people of Europe responded by turning against the Jews, inflicting terrible pogroms and holocausts on them. No one can tell exactly how the attitude of the American people will evolve with regard to the control of their country by Jews. All we know is that the control of a country by the culture of a minority, especially one that is as savage as the Talmudic culture, is never a good thing. And you must expect that the end will be a savage one whichever way it comes about.

As for the Palestinians, there will come a time when they will be worshiped in America where the methods of their victimization were amplified by several orders of magnitude, were nurtured and were maintained for a long time while America was transforming from a beacon of freedom into a pile of laughable talk about a phony liberty that the people can only practice in a state of genuflection in front of a Jewish master they hope will turn out to be a benevolent thing. Morally reduced to live in chocking constrains in their own country, the Americans will look to be inspired by a Palestinian struggle they will come to idolize.

String Theory Of The Biological Sort

There comes a time in the life of a nation when the national debt has attained such a high level, the public begins to speak in a language that means to say the current generation is stealing from future generations. The people complain that to please the electorate, the political and economic captains of the country are laying a foundation that will burden their children and grandchildren with a debt so large that future generations will have a lower standard of living than the current one. This will happen, they say, because those generations will be paying for the consumption that the current generation is enjoying and paying for with the money it borrows from the future. When a debating climate of this sort takes hold, a proposed borrowing of any kind, whether legitimate or not, is then automatically rejected by the public because it is argued that borrowing will add to the debt and will make matters worse. Well, I intend to show that while this is generally true, there are occasions when it may not be so true.

Of course, there is already a counter-argument which says that if you borrow to spend on infrastructure, you borrow from the future to build for the future, and this can only be a good thing because in so doing, you relieve future generations from having to do what you do now thus free them to do other things. But I intend to go beyond this and show that in some cases, even when you borrow to increase your current consumption, you can still be doing something good for future generations. The reason I came to develop this view is that I spent my teen years between the ages of 14 and 17 reading and writing about the conventional wisdom which said then as it does now that it is a virtue for the current generation to sacrifice and save so that future generations may have a better life. This is what good parents do to secure a good future for their children, and this is what a society must do to secure a better life for future generations. But then I witnessed the unfolding of a few events in the world that made me wonder if this were not too simple a view of the subject. And so I started to review all the things that I learned and all the things that I experienced in this matter.

In my teen years I red books and articles, and I wrote school essays and papers, all revolving around the idea of making a virtue of avoiding the burden of debt unless you have no alternative but to borrow to stay alive. Parallel with this, we were taught in school and taught by the media everything we needed to know about conserving the non renewable resources that the country possesses so as to leave something for future generations. This happened in Egypt, an ancient country that was nevertheless at the forefront of the Industrial Revolution about two centuries ago alongside Britain where the Revolution began with the invention of the railway and the mechanization of the means to produce textile, both resulting from the adaptation of the steam engine. In fact, Egypt became the second country in history to have a railway and, relying on the reputation of its famous cotton, it also became an important center for the production of textile. But then the country was held back because of a regrettable series of events among which was a heavy debt load that burdened the treasury. From this point on, things went from bad to worse for that country and the rest is history like the saying goes.

As fate would have it, I came to Canada as a young adult in the Nineteen Sixties and was exposed to a history that may be considered antithetical to what I learned in my teen years in Egypt. In fact, not only was I exposed to Canada's history, I lived that history for a period of time that spanned nearly half a century which is a long time considering the young age of my adopted country. What I lived through was a history that made me and many of my compatriots uneasy about the extent to which Canadian industries, especially the resource industries, were owned by foreigners. We also worried about the wholesale exploitation of those resources, believing that Canada will be depleted of them and will be hollowed out by the end of the Twentieth Century. Many people predicted that Canada will be a ghost town from sea to sea to sea before the start of the Twenty First Century except for a narrow strip of settlements that will survive alongside the border with the United States. But here is Canada ten years into the new century doing very well indeed, having withstood the near collapse of the world economic system better than many countries including the United States, countries that now look upon us as a model of good management.

Much has happened in the world between my teen years and the first decade of the Twenty First century. And it was during this period that I went through several revisions in my thinking with regard to the questions that relate to both the use of natural resources and the borrowing of money by the state and by individuals. More recently, I saw what happened to the nations in Asia and South America that did not heed the lessons of the conventional wisdom as these countries suffered the consequences of their profligacy. I also saw what happened to the peripheral nations of Europe as they too burdened themselves with too much debt. Each of these episodes caused me to try and square what I was seeing in Canada where borrowing by the state and by individuals was a routine kind of business and never a subject for discussion -- except by the academics and some media types -- and what I was seeing overseas. Many questions in this regard still haunt me today because I have not found a definitive answer to them. But a few things have happened that helped me formulate a more elaborate view of the subject which I am still in the process of crystallizing. Feeding this view are the events I see unfold in several places around the world, among them Egypt, the place where my ideas on the subject began to take root in the first place.

Up to now the view of the conventionalists, myself included, had been that society is made of generations, each one following the other and where every generation inherits the world from the one that preceded it. This view came about because of the fact that society is made of families where the breadwinners are the children of their parents as well as the parents of their children. We see a clear demarcation line between the generations, and this makes it so that when we think of society as a whole, we imagine a train that is made of boxcars each representing a generation that is distinct and separate from the others. Thus, the generation that borrows money today leaves the paying of the debt to the generations down the railway track, and the generation that sells the resources of the nation today leaves nothing for the generations down the railway track. But this image is beginning to change in my newly developed view of the subject as I see the situation a little differently now. Below is a description of this new image, and it helps to have a little imagination to better visualize it. Brace yourself.

Here is what I see: Let us assume that the average productive life of an individual is the round figure of 20,000 days which is more or less correct. Some quarter of a million babies will be born in the world today as they did yesterday and will be tomorrow and the day after and so on. Also, roughly this many people will reach the age when they start to be productive for their societies. Something like 2,500 or 3,000 of those will enter the workforce in Egypt every day or will stay at home and be productive in their own way. Let us now visualize this number of people forming a string. Tomorrow, another batch of people of about the same number will enter their productive life, and they too will form a string. Things go on like that day after day to form something like 60,000 strings in 60,000 days, the span of 3 human productive lives. Now think of these strings lying beside each other as in a tapestry that is pulled ahead by time. As this happens, a new string is added each day at one side of the tapestry because new babies are born, while an older string falls off at the other side of the tapestry because people retire or die. Of course, some people die prematurely but this only results in the string to which they belong thinning out slightly but not perishing entirely. Thus, unlike the discrete boxcars that follow one another, the strings cohabit the same space at the same time therefore have the opportunity to interact with each other for a period of time that can span as much as 3 generations.

In fact, these strings are not inanimate matter; they are biological entities born in the shape of human beings. As such they have a culture that is always in the process of evolving. They are human beings that walk, talk, imagine, feel, sing, dance, create signals, send vibes and so on. In short they change their environment and communicate the changes to each other. And this is what alters, mutates, transforms and evolves the culture. And because the new strings of youngsters grow up in this environment, they pick up the vibes and become part of the culture which they help to evolve in turn. And this is what plays a major if a subtle role in the economic development of the nation. To see how this happens, we imagine two underdeveloped societies. For some reason one society industrializes at a quick pace and the other does not. Three generations later the two societies decide to merge into one. You can think, for example, of the two Germanys that did merge after the fall of the communist regimes, or the two Koreas that may decide to merge one day. Which society do you think will be better prepared, therefore have the advantage, when it comes to competing for the best jobs and the higher salaries? No doubt the group whose great grandparents started to develop decades ago will be better prepared for the new world, therefore have an advantage over the other.

We must conclude from the preceding that yes, in doing what it did, the generation of the great grandparents improved the lives of its contemporaries but it also forged the new industrial culture which it transmitted to the younger generations down the line. It was possible for this to happen because the lives of the generations overlapped for a while. And this is how the current generation was given the tools by which to develop an advantage over its counterpart, the less developed society that remained relatively less developed. We can see, therefore, that the borrowing of money and the use of the resources that was done by the great grandparents was not something that benefited only them; it was something that helped to create an invisible benefit we may call “industrial legacy” that was left for the descendants to inherit. Yes, the descendants may have to pay the debt that was run up by the great grandparents but they are getting something in return. And yes, they may not have as much resources to work with as the older generation but they have the legacy and the tools that will help them invent ways to discover new resources and recycle old ones.

When we apply this lesson to what is happening in Egypt at this time -- which is not different from what is happening in China, India or Brazil -- we can see that the rapid industrialization of Egypt and those other countries will have a positive effect on future generations even if the current one borrows and spends on itself what will be paid for in the future. But while it is easy to leap to this conclusion with regard to the countries that have a large agrarian society on its way to becoming industrialized, it is somewhat harder to draw the same conclusion with regard to the nations that are already industrialized and have a sizeable debt to contend with.

If these people continue to borrow to maintain the high standard of living to which they have been accustomed but do little else with the money, the riddle that must be solved is encapsulated in this question: How may an industrial society develop a useful new legacy that can be transmitted to future generations so as to benefit them while they pay off the debt that was run up by the current generation?

I am still thinking.

Believe It Or Not She's Baaack

In the mind of many people I know, Ruth Wisse has a handicap which is that she cannot write a simple article without contradicting herself at least once on something that is vital to the point she is trying to make. I do not speak, read or write Yiddish so I cannot tell you whether or not this is due to the fact that she is immersed in that culture but she is a professor of Yiddish and comparative literature at Harvard, and people close to that culture often show signs of suffering that same handicap. In any case, whatever the reason for her handicap, Ruth Wisse is back doing her shtick in her favorite publication, the Wall Street Journal. This is where on October 1, 2010 she wrote an article under the title: “At Harvard, Groupthink About Islam”. The article is exactly what you would expect from someone of her caliber.

In the article Ruth tells the story of Martin Peretz who stirred up a controversy because of a blog he wrote at the New Republic's website for which she says he “admits that he wasn't blameless” and she adds that he “apologized and sought atonement.” He did so, she says, at a Harvard sponsored event not too long ago. She does not, however, say much about what else happened at the event itself except to single out the reaction of a member of some committee who declared that everyone on his committee “was – without exception – appalled by Peretz's comments.”

This declaration irks her no end and she expresses her annoyance by mocking the member that made it in this way: “Why not, then, organize an open forum where Mr. Peretz might engage with his critics? That, presumably, was out of the question: better to ensure that students know which side 'everyone – without exception' is on.” What she is saying here is that contrary to what the member of the committee has declared, she believes there are exceptions. In fact, she is so certain there are people who will disagree with the member's declaration and agree with Martin Peretz that she challenges the university to seek these people out by organizing an open forum where they will come from hiding and engage with Peretz.

As far as I am concerned, it does not really matter whether there is one person who will agree just a little with Peretz or there are a hundred of them who will disagree vehemently with him. What is of concern to me here is that Ruth Wisse, the professor of Yiddish and comparative literature at Harvard, holds two exactly opposite opinions at the same time, and yet the University is still paying her real money to screw up the minds of her students and everyone who might be exposed to her views. Look what this holder of a PhD is saying; she is saying not everyone agrees with a statement made by a member of the committee and this is proof that groupthink exists at Harvard. To repeat, she says the disagreement is proof that groupthink exists. How much do you pay someone that cannot see how absurd this is? And come to think of it, who the hell is the editor at the Wall Street Journal that accepts such articles for publication?

And of course, there is a deeper reason why Peretz wrote what he wrote and why Wisse agrees with him. Actually, there are two interlocking reasons, each of which was expressed by one of them. Let me begin with what he wrote on his website and apologized for: “...I wonder whether I need honor these people [Muslims] and pretend that they are worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment which I have in my gut the sense that they will abuse." As to the other reason, she expresses it in writing this way: “Like him [Peretz], I too regret that Muslim political culture in the U.S. and internationally is not ... life-affirming. Where are the campus protests against Hamas ... against Muslim ... bombers in … Afghanistan and Pakistan? … Universities ought to be encouraging, not inhibiting, that development.”

My friend, my dear reader, if you liked the saying in Animal Farm as it was put down by the pigs: “All animals are equal except that some are more equal than others,” you will love what these two Jews have said because what they said is the mirror image of how the pigs put it. Basically what the Jews are saying is this: Because America is a nation of laws, let the law apply to everyone equally but make it so that some are less equal than others by exempting the Muslims from the protection of the provision of the Constitution which gives everyone the right to speak freely because these people will abuse that right. And in the interest of equal protection which is also in the American Constitution, let us make it a rule, at least on the university campuses of the nation, to the effect that the Muslims can only protest against Hamas and such. Don't you love it, my friend, when there is not a rabbi around to counsel the Jews how to put things without sounding like an asshole!

And I know exactly what these two characters want. In fact, it is not only these two who want it; it is the World Jewish Congress, AIPAC and all their Jewish affiliates worldwide. It is what they have been asking me to deliver for nearly half a century, the reason why I am still blacklisted by them and by their cohorts, and the reason why this website exists at all. I am of Egyptian origin, having lived in Egypt for a year and a half as an infant and then for seven more years as a teenager. I am not even a Muslim and they have managed to keep me from enjoying my right to speak freely all these years unless and until I “freely” praise Israel and the Jews from here to eternity and I “freely” condemn everything Arab and Muslim from here to eternity.

So then, the question becomes: Do they really believe that my “freely” expressed opinions will be noticed by an Arab or a Muslim anywhere in the world and will change things to their liking? Of course not. In fact, nothing of what is happening today was happening in the Nineteen Sixties when they first blacklisted me, a condition they promised will remain in force until I came to my senses and learned to freely praise Israel and the Jews from here to eternity, and learned to freely condemn everything Arab and Muslim from here to eternity. But to be fair to them I must admit they also promised that if I came to my senses and agreed to do as they say, they will see to it that I win every prize I can think of -- from the smallest prize they would invent specifically for me in the Quebec Province of Canada to the Pulitzer which they give away in America to the Oscar which is a Hollywood thing to the Nobel which is international -- and what have you. Not to forget the honorary PhDs they will have the universities of the world bestow on me.

But if not to impress the Arabs or the Muslims, what are those Jews after? They are after the legislators in Ottawa, in Washington as well as those who run the Provincial and State governments. The Jews want this display of affection for their causes from people like me and from other Arabs and Muslims, and they want a display of revulsion for everyone else, especially the other Arabs and Muslims. They want this very badly to impress upon the legislators that they too ought to reflect the mood of the people by displaying the same sort of sentiments. The intent here is that when this happens and the legislators pop up on every television screen to express how much they love the Jews and Israel, and hate the Arabs and the Muslims, the Jewish leaders will maintain their dictatorial rule over Ottawa, Washington and the Provincial and State legislatures. When the Jewish leaders have this safely under their belt, they will have the power, the money and the weapons that they and Israel will need, the flow of which they hope to maintain for as long as they can keep the nonsense going.

Well, knowing what you know now about Ruth Wisse, you can tell she does not have the brains to think this far or think up something this complicated. She is only the running dog that is trained by her handlers to bark in a given way at every occasion. But there is one thing she cannot get away from; she cannot write an article in which she does not contradict herself which is what nullifies the point she is trying to make and defeat her own purpose every time. Those poor handlers, they could not find someone with a higher IQ.

I knew someone who used to say: “They are ignorant and they have the PhDs to prove it.” I thought this was a joke until I began to read Ruth R. Wisse of Harvard University, and in my mind at least, this does not constitute a joke anymore. It is sad but it is the reality of a Brave New World that is not yet governed entirely by the World Jewish Congress. But the war is still raging and you can imagine what it will be like if these guys score a complete victory and actually come to dominate the whole world.