Democracy By Subway Token

NOTE: Something has gone wrong with the system whereby the paragraphs are not being separated. I apologize and hope the system will soon be fixed by BLOGSPOT. ________________________________________________________ ________ There was a time when the fear in America was not that the Arab political influence was successfully challenging the Jewish influence but that the Asian organizations, especially the Chinese and the Indian, were crowding out the Jewish lobby in the halls of American power. When the fabricated fear had reached the level of hysteria as it did at one time, the media centers were flooded with instructions on how to unleash the ritual of shrieking out the phony cries of horror thus warn that something was happening in American political life that was not kosher from head to toe, passing by the belly button and a few sensitive parts of the body. The ritual was carried out as per instruction and the end result was that a number of investigations were held. They were not held to shed light on what was happening – everyone knew what that was – but were held to intimidate the people who naively believed that the American system could still be relied upon to change from within even though the Jewish organizations had taken control of the whole enchilada and were feasting on it alone. _____ What the gullible individuals who tried to lobby for a foreign country other than Israel did not know was that in the same way the autocrats of the Third World do not allow another election to be held once they get elected to the highest office in the land, the Jewish organizations do not allow another voice to be heard in America once they take control of something. This was not new to those of us who suffered from the Jewish practice of blacklisting the people who can challenge them and win. But there was one thing that did surprise us when the investigations got rolling. What happened was that an Asian witness honestly described the American political system as being like the gate at the subway station. He went on to explain in a matter-of-factual tone of voice that to gain access to the people at the top of the system, all you need to do is insert a token in the right place and the gate opens for you. Well, my friend, if you find this to be disgusting you will ask yourself: How did America get to be like that? ______To answer the question we first try to understand what democracy is and where it starts. Moments after a human child is born, it cries to communicate that something is bothering it. This says that as a species -- unlike all the other species – we, humans are born with democracy imprinted in our genes. Free communication is a part of us, pure and simple. For a few years after birth we are taught by our parents, our teachers and the other caregivers to speak according to the rules of the language in which we are immersed. After that begins a long period during which we learn -- often the hard way -- that there is a time to speak and a time to remain silent because we are made to understand that loose lips can sink ships. But democracy being the gift we are born with and the foundation upon which will rest all the freedoms we shall seek and enjoy through life, the rules to guarantee our right to free speech have been entrenched in most constitutions. This entrenchment being the line of defense that protects us from those who would abridge our right to speak up when we have something to say, the question is whether or not that line is doing an adequate job defending us or whether it needs to be fixed. ______ Unfortunately the saying that answers the above question more accurately than any other is the posing of another question. It is this: “But who will police the police?” The reality is that the people who are supposed to make sure freedom of speech is maintained for everyone are the people who abridge that freedom more readily than anyone. They are the people in the media who constantly seek and do obtain absolute freedom for themselves at the same time as they allow absolutely no freedom for those who have the talent to challenge their position. And you will find that these people are able to behave in the manner that they do and get away with it because they are better placed than anyone to deny equal treatment to a potential rival. Like pedophile priests, pyromaniac firemen and murderous police officers, they know all the ropes and have all the means to commit the crime and remain above suspicion. More than that, those who deny to others the freedom to communicate are protected by the system they are supposed to keep an eye on and prevent it from being corrupted. And while the bad priests, firemen and police officers do slip once in a while and are caught when they go too far, the people in the media who violate the principles of democracy are never caught because there is no limit as to how far they can go and still enjoy immunity. They are truly the police that cannot be policed. _______They are collectively referred to as the proverbial “editor” but they are also the publishers of the print and the audio-visual media as well as the directors in charge of the television studios. Their job is to look for and discover the worthy ideas that other people hold in their heads and bring these to the attention of the public. But while the position has given the editors the tools to bring ideas into the open, the profession has evolved in such a way as to give them the power to determine what will go out and what will remain hidden. The reality is that while the first amendment of the American Constitution is a good amendment, it has been misinterpreted to mean that the editor alone has the absolute power to make all the decisions. And this development is what gave a handful of editors the power to do what no dictator can in a Third World country. They trample on the rights of everyone without raising as much as an eyebrow when the sort of mischief they commit would have raised a storm if committed by a traditional dictator.________ It is easy to see how the traditional dictators can wreck the countries they rule; it is harder to see how the proverbial editors contribute to the wrecking of a country that calls itself a democracy. But wreck they do except that they are never held responsible for their actions. We begin to understand how this can be when we realize that there is a difference between a business executive or the leader of a political jurisdiction on the one hand and the proverbial editor on the other hand because there is much that differentiates the profession of editor from all the other professions. In general every hierarchy, be it in business or in politics, has its rules where discipline is maintained and the aim is to produce a result that is seen by everyone and can be measured by anyone. Those who run a business or run a political jurisdiction use powers vested in them by the system to which they are accountable and so they give clear instructions to their underlings who try to execute them with precision. For this reason, the business executives and the political leaders put together and maintain a policy that is disciplined and coherent as best they can. _______By contrast, the proverbial editors labor in a profession that is neither disciplined nor coherent. It is an improvisation where they paste together a collage of parts relying not on the solid grounds of some tried and tested rules but on the quick sand of their intuition which is battered and shaken by what they do to each other. Such is the state of mind and such are the thoughts that the editors communicate to their underlings directly and through body language. And this is what the underlings will communicate to their own subordinates now and later on in life. As a result of this kind of subculture pervading every workplace of the media world, the people in the profession end up doing the opposite of what they say they are doing. In the long run, they end up chewing up the good talent of the nation in every field of endeavor while promoting the mediocre. They achieve this odious goal by censoring the talented individuals who have the ability to challenge the order they protect and by giving exposure to the individuals who, devoid of the means to get anywhere without their help, remain dependent on them and, of course, loyal to them. And this is how a superpower is made poor in every field of endeavor especially in the political and cultural fields. ________To see what the media is like from the inside and to understand why it is the way it is, let me begin by telling you about the encounter I had with a publisher years ago. A publisher of books called me one day saying he liked a piece I had sent to him and thought we can work together. I went to see him and after a minute of small talk we cut to the chase whereby he started to explain what he wanted. It quickly became clear to me that this publisher had no idea how creativity works and I wondered why he was not doing something else -- but I did not communicate this last thought to him. The man saw writers not as creators but as machine-like hacks who can be instructed to perform a function which he expects them to execute like a robot. What he wanted me to do was to write a book for children that will tell the little ones all there is to know about death and dying. This being a subject that is so far removed from my temperament and creative ability, I knew that I could not write a paragraph about it and sound credible. And I said so to the publisher. ________As if he expected this reaction from me, he instantly countered with an offer to supply me with tons of material that will help me understand the subject and appreciate it. But I still could not accept the offer because I felt I could not bring myself to internalize a subject of this nature. And I knew that unless I internalized a subject and came to like it, I would not do well putting it on paper. And so I suggested that I write educational material aimed at making the children curious about math and science, a book along the line of the piece I had sent to him; the one that he liked so much he called me upon reading it. But instead of probing this idea further, the man became visibly angry with me and expressed the thought that while he was giving me a chance to be published and get paid for my troubles, I was rejecting a good offer because of what he called a weird notion I was holding in my head about the creative process. ________We argued for a while longer during which time I became convinced that this man did not know what his job entailed him to do and what not to do. It also became clear to me that he was a control freak who acted capriciously and wanted things done his way because he said so and not because he had a passion for the subject he wanted to see developed into a book. On this day his whim pertained to a book about death and dying but it could just as well have been about selling shoes or hunting pheasants as it might be tomorrow or the day after. In short, the man was an autocrat that was no less motivated by the love of power than a Third World dictator. But he was not the only one like that; I met other editors who were more or less like him. In all, I met people I could not work with and did not; I met people I could work with and did; and I met people I could work with but never had the chance to because they feared the Jewish organizations that wanted me to remain on the blacklist and warned that they will punish anyone who would help me get off it. ________So now you ask these questions: Is there a remedy that can work on this kind of problem? And what might be this remedy? Of course, there is no way by which you can force an editor to publish what he or she does not want to publish for any reason, be it that they are a lackey of the Jewish organizations or that they fear them. But some people and some organizations have so much power, a law must be enacted to make it a crime for them to get in the way of an individual or a group that wants to express themselves. It is necessary to have a law like this because these people and organizations, most of which are Jewish, not only refuse to publish what is contrary to their views but interfere with the publication of the material by someone else. Moreover, they put the people who have the ability to challenge them on a blacklist and work like the dickens to ruin their lives while keeping them isolated and out of sight. Worse, the courts in most English speaking countries see this behavior not as an infringement on the right of the people to express themselves but as the legitimate prerogative of the editor, a prerogative that is protected by the freedom of the press. Mind boggling, asinine but true. _______Here is a hypothetical case that will shed more light on that point. You work for an engineering firm and quit to work for another firm. The people of the first firm contact the people of the second and badmouth you. You learn about this and sue the first firm. The chances are good that you will win big. Now contrast this situation with a real one that happened to me in Canada. I sued a newspaper that acted like a henchman for the Jewish organizations in that it contacted everyone who was rumored to work with me or was about to and warned them to back off. I got the evidence that was never refuted by anyone and I sued the paper expecting to win as did many people familiar with the case. But guess what; the judge ruled against me because he said that freedom of the press gave the editors of that paper the right to do what they did. Mind boggling, asinine but true.________ In consequence of all this, I urge that a law such as the one I describe above be enacted as soon as possible. It should make clear in its preamble that because freedom of speech is considered to be so serious as to be protected by law, the interference with freedom of speech for the purpose of negating it to an individual or a group should be considered to be a crime just as serious and must therefore be punished by the same law. And any judge that fails to understand this principle and rules against it must be forced to retire before he or she has had the time to preside over another case. We must understand that these judges are too dangerous to the democratic system by the magnitude of their incompetence, and the sooner we are rid of them the better. _______If we do not address this deficiency in the English speaking world and fix it, we shall continue to brag about us who respect freedom of speech and continue to chide them who live elsewhere for not respecting freedom of speech. We shall continue to brag even after we discover that they practice freedom as much as we do except that they practice it a little differently. We shall discover that the freedom they practice is one that cannot be separated from their being because it is imprinted in their genetic code, the reason why no dictator can crush it and no invader can erase it. Years and decades can pass, generations may come and go but these people always rise and fight for their freedom if and when they must. And this is how their culture has survived for thousands of years and this is why it shall live for thousands more. _______On the other hand, the freedom we have here is one that we use on a daily basis to do practical things. We wear it like an ornament on our sleeve to brag about, we carry it in our pocket like a subway token to open the gates of the political system and we sell it to the highest bidder come election time. It is the kind of freedom that is ephemeral as much as it is flimsy. It is a freedom that is so much removed from our genetic code, we no longer cry “give me liberty or give me death.” Instead, many among us cry for being left out when a strongman or a strong organization rolls into town to recruit the season's quota of ass-kissing lackeys and political prostitutes of both genders. _______ To test the validity of this point what you need to do is send to the legislature a two-bit lout disguised as a lobbyist for a dictatorial organization called AIPAC and you will see the representatives of the people line up to offer their services like prostitutes jostling each other for position -- all trying to be first at serving the one and same client. When you have a situation like this, you can be certain that no dictator will try to crush it and no foreign invader try to erase it because it is everything that dictators and foreign invaders dream to see. In fact, these people will congratulate you on your glorious democracy and urge you to maintain it for ever and ever. Want proof of this? Listen to the AIPAC and Israeli mouthpieces talk about your democracy right after they get what they want. ________Mind boggling, asinine but true.

From Business Thinking To Ballistic

Finally the editors of the Wall Street Journal have come out and admitted they sympathize with the philosophy of the new conservatives if they haven't already become full fledged, card-carrying neocons. The folks at the Journal make this admission in an editorial titled: “War by Global Committee” which they published on March 21, 2011. What is troubling about this is that the neocon philosophy of life is of the ballistic type rather than the feedback type which a respectable, non-savage philosophy of life ought to be.

In science, the word ballistic refers to an object that has neither a system of remote control nor one of feedback to guide it to its destination or to do a course correction or to abort the mission if and when it is determined that the object has deviated from its trajectory. Once launched, the object follows a trajectory that is determined by the parameters chosen for it at the start and by the forces of nature that surround it such as gravity and friction. Something similar exists in the humanities and the Neocon philosophy is one such thing. It has the ballistic characteristics because it is based on the Jewish principle which says that the followers of the religion must obey its commandments without deviation or abandonment. Moreover, the followers must not preoccupy themselves with the consequences of their actions because preoccupation is the domain of God who will guide his people to their destination and make things right for them in the end no matter what.

And this is why the neocons who are heavily influenced by the Jewish religion keep making the same mistake over and over, then come back for more of the same again and again. And this is what is reflected in the editorial of the Wall Street Journal, a publication that used to be a must-read for the sober business people who loved to mull over things before tackling them. These are the people who stay the course because they have a strong and steady hand but are not afraid to modify their position when the circumstances change. And it is to the chagrin of these people that the Wall Street Journal has become a neocon rag of diminishing worth as they see things and hear from the many people who used to respect the Journal.

The editorial of March 21 is a complaint lodged by the editors to highlight what they see as deficiencies with regard to the way that the war on Libya will be handled from this point on. When you read the complaint, you first believe that the editors have missed something but then discover that no, they did not miss anything because they correctly quote the pertinent pronouncements made by the officials in America and abroad as to how matters will unfold. Here is what Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs said as they quote him: "[The US will] contribute our unique capabilities at the front end of the mission." But then the no-fly zone "will be led by our international partners."

The editors of the Journal also complain that they do not know what the military and strategic goals of the operation are. Yet, they quote Secretary of State Clinton as saying that the goal is "Number one: Stop the violence, and number two: We do believe that a final result of any negotiations would have to be the decision by Colonel Gadhafi to leave." They also quote President Obama as saying: "We are not going to use force to go beyond a well-defined goal – specifically, the protection of civilians in Libya." And they mention that the French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe explicitly rejected the goal of ousting Gadhafi. Indeed, the military and strategic goals of this operation have been spelled out in such easy terms so many times by so many people that a grade eight student will have no trouble understanding them. If the editors of the Wall Street journal do not get it, maybe they ought to find a fourteen year old who will explain it to them.

Because so much in this piece makes so little sense, you wonder what it is that these people really want that they are not spelling out honestly. You look for an answer in the article and find this: “Gadhafi is weak enough, and Libya is a puny enough military power, that even a limited use of force might lead to his ouster. Perhaps the officers around him will mutiny...” Obviously then, the editors want to see the end of the Gadhafi regime. But they say that if this does not materialize, there will be danger, and the danger according to them will be this: “Gadhafi can exploit divisions on the global war committee and achieve a military stalemate. He could then remain in control of a rump part of Libya … Even Admiral Mullen conceded that the war could end in a stalemate with Gadhafi staying in power.” And this, they say, could lead him to use WMD which they assert he has in his possession without offering any proof. And so they conclude that the fight against Gadhafi should be a fight to the death or a fight to his ouster and his prosecution if this will be feasible.

Oh yes, that love affair with WMD and that so very true adage: they keep making the same mistake over and over, then come back for more of the same again and again. This old movie looks like a rerun of the war instigated by the neocons and launched on Iraq by Bush the son who is better known as the W. They started that war under the false pretext that Saddam Hussein had WMD and they are doing it again with a new actor on the scene called Gadhafi. The war against Saddam has been a calamity for the people of Iraq, for those of the Middle East and for many Americans whose troops are pulling out of that country now. But true to form, the neocons are rushing to drag America into a repeat of the same idiotic adventure before the last of those troops have left Iraq.

What is baffling is that these neocons admit Libya is such a small military power, it can be dealt with using a small force. This means it does not require the might of a superpower like America to deal with it; all of which says that the other powers in the coalition can do the job alone, something they have indicated they are willing to do. So why does the Wall Street Journal want to see America dragged into another war where it risks having its back broken yet again? There can only be one answer to this: It is because this is the way that the war will come under their control who work for Israel and the Jewish organizations. In other words, the Wall Street Journal is helping to organize the betrayal of America.

What is unfair to the people of America in all of this is that their fate and the fate of their country is being placed in the hands of the only eternal losers to inhabit this planet. Not only have these people been kicked out of every place they violated by their presence over the centuries but once the Brits found a place where to dump them, they did. This was Palestine where, contrary to expectation, the losers could not make a go of it even there. Instead of taking advantage of the chance they were given to start afresh, they stank the neighborhood so badly, nobody could stand them anymore than you could stand a skunk in your garden. They got into war after war after war; and they kept losing war after war after war. In fact, they briefly occupied the Sinai and got kicked out of it not because they won the war like they are telling the Americans but because they were defeated and the Egyptians won. They occupied Gaza for a while and got kicked out of there not because they won the war like they are telling the Americans but because they were defeated and Hamas won. They occupied South Lebanon for a time and got kicked out of there not because they won the war like they are telling the Americans but because they were defeated and Hizbullah won.

Now, my friend, when you contrast the advice given to America by the eternal losers with the advice that the Arabs have given America, you see the difference. It happens sometimes that when the Arabs see one of their own misbehaves, they team up with America and work to contain the culprit whereby America comes out of the experience looking good -- looking like a winner. For example, something like this happened during the Presidency of George Bush the father who teamed up with a number of Arab countries in a coalition that kicked Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. But this did not sit well with the neocons who sent the W back into Iraq to “complete” the job that they say the father had failed to complete. And this is where the W did more than pull a defeat from the jaws of victory; he pulled a stinking load from the bowl of the can.

But what excuse is the Journal giving to advocate sending America into a prolonged misadventure in Libya? Believe it or not they are using the intent of the founding fathers to make their point, and they are using the role of the Congress to instigate a revolt. Here is what they say about the founding fathers: “America's founders ... knew that war had to be prosecuted with ... the national interest foremost in mind.” It is evident that the editors of the Journal have been so brainwashed, they have come to believe that the death of American boys and girls to promote the shifting causes of the eternal losers is in the national interest of America. My friend, these people have proved they suffer from a mental deterioration so advanced, they require that a lobotomy be performed on them as soon as possible before they cause any more damage to the country.

As to the role of the Congress, here is what they say: “We believe that ... as a simple prudential matter, a U.S. President needs to respect and bring along Congressional leaders in support of such action. All the more because members of his own party will be the first to revolt ... Republicans tend to defer on principle to Presidential war decisions, but Mr. Obama also cannot afford to take them for granted.” And so you see that after they incite a revolt under the guise of predicting one, the editors of the Journal counsel the President to heed their veiled warning. But you ask: “which congressional leader they count on to commit the most treasonous of acts?” And the obvious answer is: “Eric Cantor, of course, who publicly swore allegiance not to America or to his commander in chief but to Israel and to Netanyahu of Israel.”

What did the American people do to merit having this calamity in their midst?

The Virgin Birth Of Verbal Pantomime

Either the expression “verbal pantomime” is an oxymoron or it tells of a reality that is so paradoxical, it is itself an oxymoron of sort. I have believed for some time now that such realities do exist because I saw situations that were so beset with internal contradictions, they made no more sense on the surface than say, the expression “verbal pantomime”. With time, I even came to accept the notion that these situations have an internal logic of their own which can be discussed in accordance with the principles of reason. And then it happened that on March 16, 2011 the Wall Street Journal published an editorial under a title that reeks of the Neocon scent. It is this: “Arabs Love the Pax Americana” and I was given the opportunity to publicly discuss one such situation.

Reading the article you are hit early on with this unlikely sentence: “The Arab League is begging them to consider this abdication,” a passage that comes right after the editorial writers had introduced the premise upon which they develop their thesis. But who is them? And what abdication is that? The answer is given in the introductory sentence which goes like this: “The Arab League's call this weekend for a no-fly zone over Libya...” As you can see, the introduction reflects the reality that the Arab League made a general call that was neither a begging nor directed at anyone specifically. And you can also see that this reality is in total contradiction with the sense conveyed by that unlikely sentence. So much for the Journal's power of perception and for its credibility. But who does the Journal say have abdicated their duty and were called upon to consider? Here is the answer to this question: “Both President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have insisted that the U.N., NATO, the Europeans, Arabs, anyone but Washington take the initiative on Libya.”

At this point you cannot help but sense that something is bothering the editors of the Journal and that they are trying to deal with it in their own peculiar way. But what can it be? It may well be this: “Throughout the Libyan crisis, we've heard from pundits and politicians that the Iraq war tarnished brand America beyond repair, and made U.S. leadership non grata in the Mideast.” Here, we get a glimpse as to what is bothering them; and we see that to soothe their pain, they have gone through a verbal gesticulation of some complexity which may or may not have soothed them in the final analysis but has conveyed a distorted view of reality.

Knowing recent history and piecing together what they say with what we know they are hiding, we can tell that they are aware America has shot itself in the foot many times on matters pertaining to the Middle East. Rather than admit this and go on from there, they have used a roundabout way to ask -- if not to beg -- that American leadership be given a second chance in that important region of the world. They are also dying to prove wrong the local pundits and politicians whom they believe are denigrating America. I call this sort of performance verbal pantomime because the authors have conveyed their message not by using a set of words that match the message but by using a set of words that spin the message and dress it more attractively than it deserves to be. In fact, rather than beg someone to let them back in, they say that someone is begging them to come back. But fearing that their brashness may have turned you off, they try to let you know in a subtle way that they are more humble than they sound. Convoluted and sickly yet so real.

Above and beyond all this, what is it that these people really want? For starter, they want the Obama Administration to forget there is a world that counts out there. They make this clear at the beginning of the article when they mock the Administration for using the phrase “international community.” But then they inadvertently show that they want this same non-existent world to believe that the decision of the Arab League said a lot about US power, a decision they are proud of. In essence then, they are saying they will only acknowledge the existence of those who accept America's leadership. This said, they go on to fantasize about the following: “...the group ... publicly [called] for American intervention ... Though the League ... asked the U.N. ... there's little doubt that the U.S. would carry the ... burden ... The Arabs know this well, and their message couldn't be clearer.” Of course, nothing of the sort came with the call issued by the Arab League. If the message is clear to the editors of the Journal, it is not clear to anyone else. And if they are proud of the Arab decision, they are proud of a phantom created in their own imagination. But they have supposed they possess the ability to use verbal pantomime seamlessly and they felt confident enough to try and promote American leadership by putting words in the mouth of the Arabs, calling this a clear message. What a high-school-like performance by a prestigious publication!

So you ask: How do these editors get to know all the things that we don't know? Well, the editors of the Journal tell us without actually saying it that the Arab leaders tell them things privately they do not tell the rest of us. Okay. But what did the Arabs tell them that they did not tell the rest of us? Apparently, they told them this: “The only people who suffer from an 'Iraq syndrome' are American liberals and the Western European chattering classes.” Wow! Did the Arabs actually say all this? No no. Pantomime never quotes someone directly; it only makes points by expressing them through body language which, in literature, means the things you read between the lines.

But wait a minute, wait a minute. When you come right down to it, there is nothing wrong with any of this because writing things in such a way as to give the reader the opportunity to read extra things between the lines is a technique that is used by writers all the time. More than that, in literature you can also talk about someone by talking about someone else; or you can talk about the present by talking about the past; or you can speak in metaphors and in parables and so on. In fact, all these are legitimate tools used by all sorts of artists and they are greatly appreciated by the consumers of art, not considered deceptive by them.

The response to this is double pronged. It is “yes” in one sense and “no” in another sense. Yes, these are techniques appreciated by the consumers of art when used in fiction that is clearly labeled as such. But no, the techniques are not appreciated by the consumers when they are meant to relay factual information especially when the information has the potential to lead to something as serious as war. And, in fact, this has been the case with the Journal's article whose editors have been advocating a message of war they tried for ages to drum into the heads of the public. The trouble was that the editors had available to them only a vehicle that was divorced from their message. So how could they have proceeded? Well, the way they did it was to load the message onto the vehicle in the same way that the meaning of a message can be loaded onto the gesture of pantomime. The message is then verbalized not through words but through body language. But in reality, the editors of the Journal did not do pantomime on a stage; they wrote an article in a newspaper. So how could they have done body language? They did body language by using words which, on their face, meant one thing but when spun meant another thing. And the editors did this for the purpose of deceiving their readers which is an abuse of artistic techniques thus classifying the performance as verbal pantomime.

Moreover, the essence of pantomime being that it is a choreography, the editors of the Journal do a dance of sort. To accomplish this, they know they will need to move from one thing to another and so they gather up the things on which they will tiptoe while gesticulating what they express. They warm themselves up for the task with an introduction like professional dancers normally do. When ready, they get into action beginning the performance at a slow pace and managing eventually to give an elaborate display of mental gymnastics. The dance being the saying of things without actually saying them, the following are the 9 points that make up the rest of the Journal's article, points that the editors make without always saying them outright.

The main thrust of the editorial is that they wish to say the Arabs have America and only America on their mind and this is why America should lead the war against Libya. Here is how they do it: (1) If Gadhafi wins he will have taught the other dictators to turn their guns on their people because America is diffident. (2) Turkey wants to revive the old Ottoman Empire and Iran is determined to get nuclear weapons but the Arabs know that America is honest. (3) The Prime Minister of Turkey is doubled-faced because he now considers America a potential competitor when he thought otherwise before. (4) The Sunni Arab states fear the nuclear ambitions of Shiite Iran because two Arab regimes friendly to America were toppled. (5) A draft Libya resolution at the Security Council is likely headed nowhere because Jay Carney of the White House used the word “international” three times. (6) Saudi Arabia invaded Bahrain because the Saudis lost confidence in America. (7) The Arab nations recalibrate their interests when America fails to lead. (8) A Gadhafi victory would diminish America's global standing. (9) Americans should be nervous because of what America is not doing.

It is said that editorial writers and columnists have little or no influence on the public or the politicians, therefore what they say isn't worth the paper it is written on. Perhaps. But the culture of a nation is shaped by the opinion makers, and those writers lead the opinion makers. Thus, what they say and what they write is shaping the American culture for good and for ill. Of course, it is up to the American people to decide whether or not this is acceptable to them but they should know how their culture is being shaped if they are to make an informed decision about its future. Let us look at this example to see what is going on. When America was defeated in Vietnam, there were those who went into denial. They found all sorts of excuses to explain why America was no longer fighting in that country. In time, the wounds healed and most people came to view the defeat for what it was because the logic was simple: America went into South Vietnam to prevent the North from taking over. America is no longer in South Vietnam, and the North has taken over. It is to be concluded that the North has won the war and that America was defeated. Period.

The Israelis in Israel have gone through a same sort of cycle. First, they found all sorts of excuses to explain why they are no longer in the Sinai. Eventually they came to the conclusion that if they went into the Sinai to occupy it but they are no longer there while the Egyptians who fought them are, it must be that Egypt won the war and Israel was defeated. Period.

Most Israelis have accepted this reality and have learned to live with it but guess what; the Americans don't know it. They still live with the fantasy that the Israelis were not booted out of the Sinai in the 1973 war but that they won it even though they are no longer there. To them, it is irrelevant that the Egyptians are in the Sinai and not the Israelis because you can have an undefeated booting out in the same way that you can have a virgin birth. And it is because you can have a virgin birth that you can have verbal pantomime. Get it now?

My friends, the war against Libya has started under the leadership of France without a banner that says behold a Pax Francana in the making. Still, I counsel that you brace yourselves for a tumultuous tantrum on the part of the American Neocons who will see in this development that America's dominance of the Middle East is slipping away. In the long run, this will result in that Israel may never extend from the Nile to the Euphrates which will come to mean bye bye Sinai for good.

And this may be the best thing that happened to America since the establishment of Israel.

Keynesian Remedy Slow In America

Simply stated, the part of the John Maynard Keynes theory that is pertinent to this discussion is where he says that when the economy slows down for any reason, the government should inject liquidity into the economy by, for example, launching a program of public works to upgrade the infrastructure of the nation in order to offset the reduction in demand that the slowdown has caused. In fact, the Keynes idea was tried in several places around the world over many decades and was proven to work well. It also seems to be working in America at this point, having hesitated for a period of time. It is, however, moving at a slow rate which is puzzling given that huge amounts of money were injected into the economy by the central bank and by the treasury. And so the question is this: Why the slow response in America?

The best way to answer this question is to pay a visit to the “Island of Prosperity” of our imagination and see what is going on in there. This is an island where a million people live, having all the institutions of the modern world and enjoying the amenities of modern life. The island is governed by flexible rules implemented by volunteer politicians who freely donate an hour of their time every day to do the job. No tax is collected on the island unless public works are called for in which case enough taxes are levied to pay for the work and no more. Also, there is the rule that no one is allowed to keep money overnight. Thus, the economic system works like this: Every morning the heads of enterprise estimate how much money they will need on that day and they go to the central bank where they borrow as much. They hire people and pay them to produce goods and services which they sell to customers who are their own employees and the employees of the other enterprises. The expectation is that the employers will make sure at the end of the day that they paid out all the money they borrowed in wages and salaries. Also, all employees are expected to make sure that they or their loved ones have spent all the money they earned to buy goods and services.

Consequently, it can be seen that the producers of goods and services who are the employers are also the merchants that get the money back when the employees and their loved ones go shopping because these people are also the consumers of the island. Thus, the money leaves the bank in the morning; it is circulated through the economy all day long only to be returned to the bank at the end of the day. But going through its normal cycle, the money will have done its job which is to be the medium of exchange that makes possible the creation of wealth by transforming the creativity and physical labor of the island's workforce into useful products such as the durable and non durable goods and all the services. For example, thanks to the money cycle, families will have food on the table; kids will go to school; people will buy clothes or have a haircut and so on. Also, manufacturers will buy a new building or repair old machines; transport companies will get new buses; farmers will get new tractors and so on. As for the retailers and the wholesalers, they will add to their inventory, will open a new store or a storage facility and so on.

But each day on the island is not the same as any other day. This is because short term and long term changes occur all the time. In the short term category, people get ideas for new gadgets or new services; some of which will succeed when tried on the public and some of which will fail. In the long term category, older people will retire and younger ones will replace them, coming onto the scene with different approaches for doing business. All of this has a direct effect on the economy because in response to it, the amount of money that the heads of enterprise borrow will differ from one day to the other. That is, the heads of enterprise may borrow a hundred million dollars today in which case the island will produce a hundred million dollars worth of goods and services during the day. And they may borrow a hundred and twenty million dollars tomorrow in which case the island will produce a hundred and twenty million dollars worth of goods and services then.

The main point to retain here is that all the money which is given out in wages and salaries will eventually go to buy all the goods and services that will be produced on that day. In effect then, the quest to balance the economic cycle of the day begins with each head of enterprise estimating how much demand there will be for the products that he or she makes. To be efficient, they will have to produce the exact quantity of goods and services that will be in demand on this day which means they will have to borrow the exact amount of money that will be needed lest they be short of it at the end of the day or discover that they have a surplus of cash that sat idle and did not contribute to the production. In fact, it happens all the time that a number of heads of enterprise discover at some point during the day that their estimates were off the mark. Unable to return to the bank to do the necessary adjustment because the rule prohibits it, those who have a shortfall borrow from those who have a surplus and pay a penalty called interest. And this interest comes out of their profit which is hurtful enough that they try to avoid falling into a situation like this.

What this says is that the estimates made by the heads of enterprise are based on intuition influenced by past performance and not on some supernatural clairvoyance. These people may want to believe they are affected by the dictates of the marketplace because they see the future and make the correct estimates but the reality is that they are the ones who affect the marketplace by the estimates they make and the decisions they take. In fact, what they borrow cumulatively is called the money supply which is what determines the size of the economy known as the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Indeed, if you ignore the velocity of money -- which is the case on this island given that the business cycle runs its course on a daily basis – it has been established that the supply of goods and services will vary to more or less match the size of the money supply. And this means that a correlation does exist between the size of the money supply and the GDP. The truth is that the central bank and the treasury of a country manipulate the money supply in their quest to influence the performance of the economy and cause the GDP to grow at the rate they predetermine for it. This approach works reasonably well when things fall into place but there are always things that can go wrong, some of which are serious and some of which are of a lesser consequence.

Still, it remains true that to boost the economy or to slow its growth, the central bank and the treasury have at their disposal the tools to increase or decrease the money supply at will. In fact, what happened in the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2008 is that the American central bank and the treasury increased the money supply in a big way but the economy did not respond as well as expected. To see why this happened, we go back to the Island of Prosperity and see what may have happened there under apparently similar circumstances. It is that the government of the island decided one day it wanted a bigger economy and so it made use of the Keynesian method and increased the money supply by borrowing from the central bank and by spending the money on public works such as highways, waterworks and bridges. This put more money in the hands of more workers who increased the demand for goods and services which is what encouraged the businesses to produce more of what they make. The Keynesian method worked in this case but because the economy was already humming at a normal rate of growth, the effort created a side effect called overheating.

What happened was that the people bought goods and services at rates that were unprecedented and they quickly reached a level of saturation where they lost the appetite to buy more of anything. The economy slowed down considerably and the result was that the service industries began to suffer; and some of them were forced to close. As for the goods producing industries, they kept storing the products they did not sell until the cost of storage became prohibitive and so they stopped producing anymore but stayed in business by selling their inventories. By now, everyone on the island knew that something drastic had to be done to rescue the economy and so they all started thinking. After a short period of time, someone got the idea of opening a trade route to the next island (called Island of Bargain) to sell there the surpluses that the Island of Prosperity was equipped to produce. The idea looked promising and the two governments negotiated a deal in a hurry after which they built a causeway that physically and metaphorically joined the islands.

Commerce flourished between the two but alas, another reality came to spoil the party when it was discovered that the people on the Island of Bargain (also called B) did not have the purchasing power to buy all the surpluses that the Island of Prosperity (also called P) was able to produce. And so the heads of enterprise on P tried to find out why this was the case and they discovered that the people on B did not have the facilities to produce enough goods and services that would give them a high standard of living and the purchasing power that goes with it. And so the heads of enterprise dreamed up the idea of moving the factories they had on Island P to Island B where they hired cheaper labor and made goods and services they could sell at a cheaper price both on P and on B.

The result was that after a time, the purchasing power of the people on B started to increase, and the purchasing power of the people on P started to decrease. Unable to get used to the idea of a lower standard of living, the people on P borrowed to make up for the shortfall in their incomes. In the meantime, the people on B were unable to get used to the idea of living at a higher standard of living so they saved their money and created a big pool of savings. They lent the money to the people on P to help them pay for the goods and services they were selling to them. But a setup like this can only be considered the early stages of insanity and so to take advantage of it, unscrupulous characters always get into the act and create the get-rich-quick schemes whereby they engineer artificial bubbles, pump them to a colossal size and dump them just before they burst. This is what happened on the Island of Prosperity and the economy went into a deep slump.

To save the situation, the central bank and the treasury resorted to the Keynesian remedy once again by bankrolling new projects that allowed them to inject massive amounts of money into the economy. But the result was a painfully slow recovery; and no one could figure out why since the remedy was tried before and, in fact, proved to work too well. Then one day, something happened by chance that shed light on the matter. What happened was that a section of the causeway joining the two islands fell into the sea and trade came to a halt for a period of time between the islands. And it was during this time that business on the Island of Prosperity picked up as the local enterprises hired workers to produce the goods and services that were not coming from the Island of Bargain, and life looked like the good old days again. People were being paid for work they did and had no need to borrow just to live. Thus, to the delight of everyone, the mystery was solved. It is that Keynesian Economics does not work well in an artificial setup made of two parts where one part feeds the other with cheap products and feeds in turn on the illustrious legacy of that other.

Like the people on the Island of Prosperity, the American consumers do not spend the money they earn on American goods and services. Instead, they earn the money in America and spend it on cheap goods and services that are imported from abroad. What this situation does is starve the American producers who find themselves without a market where they could sell their products. What the situation also does is enrich the local distributors who import the products they sell in America. A strange sort of economy is created around these principles, one that does not respond too well to the stimuli envisaged for the kind of economy that Keynes had in mind. In fact, the Keynes model differs so markedly from the current American model, it was inevitable that the money pumped into the latter will not yield the result predicted by Keynes. The recovery has been and still is slow in coming but I say don't blame John Keynes for this; he is not responsible for what you see happen in America today.

Yet, the man is treated – perhaps for political purposes -- as if he were responsible for America's woes, but I say he is innocent of all charges and should not be so vilified.

Face-off Between Media And Military

Those of us who have followed the American media during the past few decades know that it has been running America politically, economically and militarily most of the time. The truth is that when an important question came to the fore, the media latched on to it and took a strong position. It then pounded the position to such an extent that it became impossible for the politicians to sidestep it or dispose of it in a manner contrary to the wishes of the media. For example, there would have been no Iraq war if not for the clamor that was engineered and sustained by the media. As for the Afghan war, it would have wound down long ago were it not for a similar sort of clamor; and the troops would have gone home before America had had the time to drag the reluctant allies into the war.

Fortunately, some things are beginning to change in America. At long last, they seem to go in the right direction at this time and this, because the military has had it up to here with the self appointed amateurs who commanded it to do idiotic things and expected to be saluted and obeyed without question. But who are the amateurs who commanded the American military? Well, they were an amorphous conglomeration of self designated think-tank characters, of media ignoramuses and of congressional bimbos of both genders; all of whom worked in concert to make it impossible for the commander-in-chief to do anything but give the orders they precooked for him. After decades of going like this, the military saw itself turn into the laughing stock of the world and saw its reputation ruined almost beyond repair. In response, it began to push back by asking the pertinent questions and that was enough to put on notice the people that count. Still, you can sense that a number of high ranking individuals are prepared to resign and challenge the prevailing order if it should come to that because they see something worse than dishonorable happen to their country. They see America being relentlessly forced to immolate itself on the altar of the little fart that is Israel whose control of the American media through proxies has grown so large, it is able to run the country by having the proxies manipulate the flow of the news and by spinning this same news to promote the interests of Israel at the expense of everyone else.

When the proxies first made their move to control America half a century ago, they began by injecting into the existing American system an insane form of governance. To do this, they took advantage of the fact that the country was going through a period of transformation. In fact, America was then struggling to become a participatory democracy so meritorious as to give everyone of its children the chance to be what they wanted to be regardless of the color of their skin. Israel's proxies relied of this spirit but instead of giving the chance to everyone, they singled out the children of Israel, called them the chosen children of God and gave them all the privileges and none of the obligations. Suckered into living under this clownish form of democracy for decades, the American people got used to it and could no longer sense how perverted their system had become. They treated the situation as normal while it was intruding into all aspects of their political, economic and military life. And there was nothing in view that could change the situation until the Americans took the beating that they did in several places around the world. And this is when the military decided the time had come to shake off the prevailing order. It pushed back and this decision -- if taken to its ultimate conclusion -- will prove to be salutary in more ways than one because what was started will free America from the amateurish ways of dealing with the problems of the day and from the ruinous dictates of Israel and its treasonous proxies.

What gave the media influence in the first place was a history that escapes the public today. It is that in the old days the people rightly came to see the media as the alarm clock that gave them a wake up call when danger approached. This is why the media was then and still is protected by the American Constitution. In the old days, the people trusted the media and gave it an advisory role in their everyday life. This was the reality before the advent of Israel's proxies which, sadly enough is no longer true today. What happened in the meantime was that the media became more like the kid who cried wolf when there was no wolf to be seen. Worse, the kid was found to be snoozing when things changed and the wolves actually came to roam all around him.

What caused the media to be so degraded and to lose the trust of the public were the American septic tanks that masquerade as American think tanks. They tell the media what to say and print, and the media does exactly that. You see an example of this when you compare the stance taken by the media as it clamors for the creation of a no-fly zone over Libya -- where a civil war is now raging between two armed factions -- with the stance that was taken by that same media when Israel was savagely bombarding the unarmed civilians of Gaza. Instead of standing in opposition to the primitive savagery of Israel, the American media pulled all the tricks at its disposal to justify the barbaric slaughter. Intellectually, the American people did not know how to articulate what they felt and so they kept mum about it in most part but they did feel something at the emotional and visceral levels when they saw the weapons made by their country so brazenly used to commit crimes this horrendous by a bunch that is as evil as that which governs Israel today.

Another example is that of the relationship which the American military has forged with that of Egypt. For decades now, Israel's proxies have worked in the open and behind the scenes to destroy a setup that has worked well for America, for Egypt, for the Middle East and for the world. To see what the proxies have been doing, you need to understand what the setup is all about. Instead of projecting American power in the areas of the Mediterranean, the Red Sea and the Indian-Ocean in the way that they do in Europe and in Asia, the Americans chose to do something different this time. In lieu of spending hundreds of billions of dollars stationing their fleets and their troops in those areas, they concluded a partnership with the Egyptian military whereby the Americans provide some of the hardware that is needed for the job at the cost of 1.3 billion dollars a year (all of which goes to American manufacturers) while the Egyptians provide the rest of the hardware and do the job of policing the area themselves. It was one of the best decisions ever made by the American military because the relationship has worked so well for several decades, all potential aggressors were deterred and tranquility was maintained in the region thus contributing mightily to the security of America. And the cost to the American people is so negligible it amounts to 1.1 penny per day per person to buy all this security. What a bargain!

But this setup did not go well with the Israelis and their non-thinking septic tanks masquerading as think tanks who saw that their monopoly on American life will remain incomplete as long as the military was maintaining a relationship they did not control with another country. And so they agitated the media who agitated the congressional bimbos to break that relationship and bring the American military under the total control of Israel and its American proxies. The first thing they did was to call the 1.3 billion dollar share of the expenditure an aid to Egypt. Then they suggested that this aid be turned from the military side to the civilian side of Egyptian life. What is funny in a sickly sort of way about this approach is that Egypt was receiving a civilian payment from the Americans to compensate it for the loss of business it suffered as a result of the peace treaty it concluded with Israel. This was a compensatory payment to Egypt that was agreed to and included in a legal document which also included a massive aid to Israel, that artificial entity which cannot exist without aid from abroad.

The result of that agitation was that the same septic tanks, together with the same clownish media and the same congressional bimbos have managed to reduce the civilian payment to Egypt to almost nil on its way to be completely eliminated, which it will in a few years time. You may say this was to be expected. Yes, but you won't believe what excuse they gave to do that. They said that part of the money was supposed to go toward the encouragement of family planning in Egypt. To this end, America had sold condoms to Egypt which someone there did not use according to instruction. Instead, it was alleged that this someone was seen using the condoms as floating balloons having filled them with helium. And bang, the mighty US Congress held a hurried session and voted unanimously to cut the civilian portion of the payment to Egypt at the same time as it doubled the aid to Israel where on a per capita basis, Israel was already receiving twenty times as much as Egypt did. That's twenty times, folks; not two times or three times but twenty times.

So now they say they want to convert the military aid -- which is not aid but America's contribution to the military partnership -- into a civilian aid. But to do what? Send them condoms? No no, no more condoms, they say. What then? Well, listen carefully and you will hear how mutilated Jewish logic can be. They say that the problem with the Egyptian military is that it has a civilian component. For example, they produce Jeeps suited for the military and produce different Jeeps for the civilian market. Some of the 1.3 billion dollars is supposed to go to the military side of this production but not the civilian side. However, one can only guess that the Egyptians are cheating by diverting some of the money to produce civilian Jeeps. We have no proof of this, they say, but because we have no proof we must punish them by diverting some or all of the military aid to civilian aid. It's a punishment that fits the crime Jewish style. Get it? It is Jewish logic at its most glorious manifestation, see it? When we cannot prove you are doing something wrong, we pay you to do more of it. Do you now understand why Jewish intellect triumphs over all else? No wonder God chose the Jews to be his favorite children. Do you appreciate this simple fact now? But with all due disrespect, Sir, most people say that it is no wonder more and more of humanity is up to here with Jewish antics and wants it stopped. Do you dig this yourself, mister?

But there is more to the story of the Jeeps. The septic tanks that masquerade as think tanks have said that because money is fungible, no one needs to prove that the Egyptians are diverting what they receive for the military side to the civilian side because when you subsidize one side you automatically free their own money to be used at the other side. Thus, one way or the other, America is paying for the civilian development of the Egyptian economy. Okay, but the question to ask now is this: Even if this were true, why would it be so bad? Is this not what you have been advocating for years, even decades?

And there is this baffling piece of history that has changed the course of history. When the Egyptians decided to build the Aswan dam and the hydroelectric station that goes with it, America under Jewish influence blocked the financing of the project, a move that forced the Egyptians to nationalize the Suez Canal – and the rest is history like they say. And what was the excuse then? It was that money was fungible (same excuse as today) and by financing the civilian side of the Egyptian economy, the World Bank would be financing the military side -- a no no then (the reverse of today). Indeed, what was a no no then is a yes yes today. And what was a yes yes then is a no no today. Who the hell allows this kind of logic to flourish?

Unless you are the American media, there is only one thing you will conclude from all this; it is that to call the American think tanks septic tanks is to call dog poop a rose in the garden.

Human Nature According To Old Sayings

What is good about old sayings is that they always have something to tell about human nature. So here is an old saying that has something useful to tell: “Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result.” It sounds like a German saying but you never know. In any case, Roger Cohen of the New York Times has dabbled in something that may or may not clarify a few things but it gives us the opportunity to start a good discussion. In an article he published on March 3, 2011 under the title “Go to Jerusalem” Cohen urges the US President Barack Obama to go to Israel and “...spell out all the ways America will guarantee Israel's security.” Cohen does not say it outright but he apparently means to convey the notion that this act will solve the Middle East crisis even though it is one that has festered for decades despite all attempts to solve it by appeasing Israel. Of course, going to Israel will be regarded by some as the ultimate in appeasement. And given that this will constitute doing the same thing while expecting a different result, the question to ask is this: Is Cohen serious or insane or what?

The author lays out his ideas and those of Daniel Ben-Simon who is a member of the Israeli Knesset. What is missing from Cohen's discussion, however, is the background against which the ideas should have been put in relief, and the context that would have given meaning to the narrative. And because the background and the context are the keys that can clarify the intent behind the ideas, I shall paint the background myself and give shape to the historical context in which the narrative is played out before I analyze the ideas of Cohen and Ben-Simon. To help me do this work, I shall quote sayings whose origin I ignore but which are so descriptive of human nature, it does not matter where they originated because we are all human beings after all.

One useful saying goes this way: “Give a man a fish and he'll eat one day; teach him to fish and he'll eat everyday.” This is an astute saying, and like all sayings it reflects the wisdom of the culture in which it arose. However, like all sayings, the origin of this one is difficult to pinpoint because you meet it in every culture anywhere you look on this planet. Still, a saying tells only part of the story, not all of it. This one assumes that the man is passive and waiting for you to decide whether he will eat today or eat everyday. But the fact is that most people are more resilient than that and they share in the decision as to whether or not they should take your fish, learn to fish or do both. Notice the use of the term “take your fish” because it means to convey one of several choices that the man has which you don't know exist: Either he will choose to accept the fish you give to him or he will con you into giving him the fish or he will steal it from you or he will cheat you out of it.

Also, when we think of teaching a man to fish, we assume that he does not know how to fish. In reality, however, most people know how to fish or they can learn it fairly quickly if they so decide. It is just that some people are too lazy to bother fishing or learn to fish because they prefer to spend the energy they have to grab what is not theirs instead of doing something for themselves. In addition, there are the greedy people who wish to acquire everything they see whether they do it legitimately or do it through shady means. And so, they will accept the fish you give to them at the same time as they will con the next guy into giving them his fish, swindle their grandmother out of her retirement savings and steal what they can from a neighbor that trusts them. In short, these people will let nothing stand in their way as they accumulate wealth -- something they will do by hook, by crook and by every trick in the book.

It should be obvious by now that the above description applies to people who are not down on their luck. But it can happen that someone will be down at some point in their life because they made a decision that did not work as well as expected or they were hit with a perfect storm that was devastating to their finances. If and when this happens to someone, he or she deserves to have a helping hand alleviate their pain because we are obliged by our common humanity to look after each other in such a circumstance. What we are not obliged to do, however, is help the well to do who enjoy a relatively high standard of living whether they have amassed what they own by honest means or they did it by engaging in activities that exploit other people. In fact, individuals of the latter type acquire the image of a parasite because they take advantage of every opportunity that comes their way to enrich themselves at the expense of the people they know and the people they don't know.

Why such people live the way they do and acquire a bad image can be traced to a human nature gone awry. It all begins with the fact that it is essential for our survival to gather and to keep material things called commodities. People have done so throughout the ages by developing a number of methods, some of which were ingenious and some devious. As long as the supply of commodities remained ample compared to the demand, no one bothered to check how much the neighbor was gathering, and humanity got along well for thousands of years. But when the populations began to increase and the demand on commodities exceeded the supply, people began to develop awareness as to how much the neighbor was taking.

In fact, no consideration was given to the number of animals that a neighbor hunted or the amount of fish they caught until the shortages began to develop. When this happened, the people got together and agreed to share the available commodities among all the groups and all the families. This is how things are done today in the remote areas of the Canadian North when a native catches a big seal or a whale, and shares it with the entire village. But it must have happened at some point in the past that differences arose as to how the people could share something equitably when the villages were varied and each group and family had a different need. Situations like these must have led to disputes that were not resolved by discussion. And this may have prompted a few individuals to think of other ways to proceed. The worst among them could have invented devious means – in practice today -- to acquire and stash away huge amounts of wealth for personal use while pretending to work for the welfare of all.

After centuries of such interactions, the groups and the races that inhabit the planet began to develop traits and behaviors that were unique to each for, this is how the different cultures are formed and how social evolution progresses. The result was that with the passage of time, most of the groups came to be identified by the uniqueness of the traits they had acquired. This manner of identification persists to this day and what is unfortunate about it is that the objectionable traits of some individuals are thought to reflect the character of the entire group to which they belong. On the other hand, there are times when a group is identified in a more rounded way by mentioning the good traits of its members. We call this the stereotyping of people. Why we do things this way may be explained by the fact that our brain prefers to simplify matters in order to store them in the memory more efficiently. For example, it is easy to remember the Irish as being hot tempered, the Germans as being hard working and the Jews as being greedy.

The stereotyping of Jews as a greedy people, however, did not happen without a reason. These people have acquired the reputation because it is what most of them have become inadvertently or by choice. The reasons are there and they are well known. Historically, the Jews were nomadic tribes that lived by raiding their neighbors and robbing them. This was the hard life they lived in the deserts of the Middle East, and because they could not always count on having enough to keep them going until they raided the next neighbor, they hoarded what they possessed and were careful how they spent it. With time, the habits of hoarding and of spending miserly became a culture that developed rituals of its own and took on the force of religion. They called it the Jewish religion.

The religion was then etched in stone together with the claim that God chose for the Jews to live the way they do until he promised them a land of milk and honey where they could settle and have something to eat everyday without robbing someone. But this is not what they did ultimately. What they did instead was that they made it known to everyone the Jews had divine rights. They claimed that God gave them the right to own everything they see and covet even if it belongs to someone else. And they worked to let everyone know that they are authorized by divine decree to take what belongs to someone else, a reputation they cherish and are proud to live with. Not only that, they want the world to know they even have the religious obligation to take what they desire, something they will do by hook, by crook and by every trick in the book. And in case, this escapes you ordinary mortal, to dislike this trait about the Jews is to be anti-Semitic. So get on with it and love the Jew that schemes to rob you like says televangelist John Hagee or be prepared to go to jail like says the Jewish Anti Defamation League.

This brings us to the Roger Cohen article. The question was asked as to whether the man was serious or insane or what? Well, he says that the member of the Knesset, Daniel Ben-Simon, told him Israel's policy has been up to now not just a tragedy but almost criminal. And it is upon this discovery that the two of them have concluded Mr. Obama should go to Israel and try to do what America has failed to do for decades by appeasing Israel yet again and expect a different result. Does this define insanity?

The point that someone is trying to make here is that the more criminal the Jew gets to be, the more he should be rewarded for his troubles. And now you know why the Jews have acquired the image of parasite, something that did not escape a Jewish man I knew who worried deeply about the fate of his people. To respond to this kind of mangled logic, he used to throw his hands up in the air and scream: “Light up the oven!.” Aware of what happened to members of his family during WWII, this Jew put the blame squarely on the shoulder of the self appointed leaders of the Jews who keep sending the little guys to their holocaust then step out of danger by converting to another religion at the last moment.

The man recognized how mutilated and dangerous that mentality was but he could do nothing about it except cry out his sorrow. And so, it is to express my sympathy with him that I call on Roger Cohen and the New York Times to put an end to the conspiracy they have embarked on by which they pave the way for the annihilation of the Jewish people while pretending to help them. The author and the publication may or may not have known what they were doing but they do now. If they do not cease and desist, they will prove that they are doing it on purpose not out of ignorance.