The Hate Machine Spreading The Hate

November 25, 2011 was a remarkable day because it looked like Jurassic Park was coming to life again. On that day, an apparition occurred on the pages of the Wall Street Journal, a happening that revealed to the skeptics that the dinosaurs are still with us both in the form of preserved DNA from which they can be reproduced, and in the form of ideas vibrating a brand of democracy that belongs more to the Stone Age than to our Tablet Age of digital communication. It was on that day that Mortimer Zuckerman published an article in the Journal under the title: “How America Can Escape the Energy Trap” and the subtitle: “Soaring natural gas production has already cut the share of oil consumption met by imports to 47% last year from 60% in 2005.”

At the beginning of the article, the author asks two questions, the first being this: “Can America escape the energy trap?” to which he gives this answer: “... yes and no … we can achieve a degree of energy security … but only if we can sort out our priorities.” Before giving the answer, however, he asks a second question: “Must our lives and security be forever held hostage to the vagaries of the political power in the Middle East oil states?” And you recognize this as being an attempt at motivating the reader to accept a set of priorities he is about to discuss in detail. And, in fact, such attempt is what the rest of the article is made of.

The feeling that you get when you read the article is the same feeling you would have gotten had you red the previous articles he published in the Journal. It is that being the owner of several publications, he has a research department that will quickly gather for him the information he needs on any subject. His problem, however, is that he will do a bad job putting it all together, and a worse job drawing what could be the obvious conclusions. Why is that, you ask? The simple answer is that the man is of such character he has a personal set of priorities that make up the prism through which he sees the world. And this prism is so colored and so deformed, it makes him see the world in a way that is both selfish and divorced from reality.

There is no doubt that Zuckerman is wealthy but when you hear him talk about his wealth, you cannot help but get the sense that he exaggerates the value of his net worth. The man is also influential but when you read what he writes, you cannot help but get the sense that he has an exaggerated view of the power of his ideas. To put it differently, the man is full of it but he takes himself too seriously to know it. In addition, he is one of those Jews who believe they have what it takes to reach out and realize any dream they hold in the mind. The reality, however, is that when it comes to execution, these people often chicken out at the last minute fearing to lose what they have accomplished so far. Thus, when their greedy side kicks in, you hear them talk about what they plan to do, but then the fearful side kicks in and they end up doing much less than they signal beforehand.

While these are the character traits that motivate Mortimer Zuckerman, he can be motivated by other realities as well. Even though he does not appear to be a religious man, people think of him as a strong supporter of Israel, and there is a good reason for this. It is that most wealthy Jews maintain charitable organizations in America where they shelter some of their money from taxes. A good part of this money is then sent to Israel, a country they use as an offshore tax haven. They may invest the money in Israel itself or they may use the country as a base out of which they invest in the countries of the region or in countries beyond that. Thus, to the group of wealthy Jews who may or may not be religious, Israel is a business opportunity they will do what they can to keep open and keep it viable because it serves their bank accounts more than anything else.

There was a time, in fact, when Zuckerman was chairman of the Conference of Presidents grouping the big and wealthy Jewish organizations in America. It was then that he was accused of being too pro-Israel and too much a supporter of the other Jewish causes, an accusation to which he responded with a metaphor. The remarkable thing is that he did not respond directly to the accusation but responded obliquely to the notion that the Jews who stick together and operate like a machine, have gained a disproportionate influence on the life of the country. Zuckerman said that he feels like the 92 year old man who was accused of impregnating a woman. The old man was so proud of being so accused at his age, he pleaded guilty as charged. Well, a response like this – being imbued with sexual connotation -- shows that Zuckerman means to say he is happy that the Jews are able to screw America so effectively, they can at any age impregnate it with their culture.

And given that these people never shy away from saying that their culture vibrates like a stiffened democracy, Zuckerman may have hinted that the old man of the metaphor was equipped with a mechanical vibrator when he impregnated the woman who may well represent the image of a fertile and laid back America. And this is typical of the smart Aleck remarks that he fires off every once in a while to say something that looks innocent on the surface but means something more than meets the eye. And while being 92 years of age does not exactly make someone a dinosaur, the methods that Zuckerman uses to motivate his readers make of him a creature of the Stone Age more than a creature of the Tablet Age.

So then, what is it that he is up to, you ask? Simply put, he wants to maintain and to fuel the artificial hatred that exists between the Arabs and the Americans which is something that was started by the Jewish organizations a long time ago and has been nurtured by them ever since. When they keep this hatred going, they maintain the status quo which suits the wealthy Jews just fine as they do business in Israel and around the world, financing their operations by sucking the blood of America's taxpayers. And they manage to do all this by working together with the traitors inside the American Congress who get a kick back come election time and they need financing for their own campaigns. This is what they call democracy at work; and to see how things are done under its umbrella, we need to analyze the premise upon which the Zuckerman article is based.

The fact is that America buys about 2 million barrels of oil a day from the Arabs which comes to something like 700 million barrels a year. It pays about 60 billion dollars for that because America pays the stable contract prices of about 80 dollars a barrel and not the volatile spot prices that can go up to 100 dollars or more. At the same time, however, America sells to the Arabs about a 100 billion dollars worth of services and of products that come mostly from the agricultural and the manufacturing sectors. To see how important this is, it can be stated that if America could duplicate this performance with the rest of the world, it would rise again to the glory days it enjoyed during the decades of the Fifties, Sixties and Seventies. The obvious conclusion is that contrary to what Zuckerman is spreading, the Arabs are not hurting the business of America; they are fueling it and they are recycling back to it the money they receive from it and from the rest of the world. It just cannot get any better than that for America.

And this is what is alarming the Jewish organizations. In their panic, they spread the lies and the hate, and they interfere with the relationship between America and the Arabs to get in the way of America doubling or even tripling its exports to the Arab countries, something it can do without having to buy anything more from them. Thus, instead of advocating the expansion of trade and cooperation with the Arabs for the sake of America, the Jewish organizations and such individuals as Mortimer Zuckerman are expending enormous amounts of energy to sabotage the efforts that could help America put its own people back to work in good paying jobs thus regain the position of economic superpower it used to occupy.

This is what is meant when someone says that Israel, the Jewish organizations and such individuals as Zuckerman are screwing America with the vibrating dildo of the mechanical democracy they concocted themselves from ancient recipes. To see what satanic powers this setup has acquired over the decades, we first need to recall that the early pundits and the commentators in the media and the think tanks used to be able to point out that the Jewish organizations were advocating policies and courses of action that served Israel and the Jewish causes to the detriment of America. The Jewish organizations responded by launching a savage campaign in which they accused those people of being motivated by antisemitism and nothing else.

Then, they followed up by fashioning a remedy which they enshrined in a decree they issued to the effect that everyone has the right to criticize a policy or a course of action advocated by them but people must refrain from saying they serve Israel or the Jewish causes even if this is true and obviously so. And everyone that wanted to keep their job were so coerced into obeying the decree. And now, my friend, you see that in order to incite the readers to hate the Arabs, Zuckerman writes that American life and security are held hostage by the politics of the Middle East oil states when in reality, this is so false, it is readily demonstrated that America is conducting the healthiest form of commercial exchanges with the Arabs. And this kind of inversion of the facts is nothing but the satanic expression of Judaism when it is at its worst.

All in all, Zuckerman cited no new facts in his article, and he brought no new ideas or new insights to the debate. Nothing in what he said will help America move an inch closer toward energy independence or help its economy improve one iota. His researchers have simply assembled the already known facts, and he rehashed the old ideas pertaining to the Jewish need to keep the Arabs and the Americans apart so as to serve Israel and the other Jewish causes. And he did all this knowing full well that it will hurt America more than the Arab countries or anyone else on the planet.

This article is a treacherous stab at the heart of America, and its author is Mortimer Zuckerman.

The Eunuch's Advice On Being A stud

A metaphor that can help explain the behavior of the eunuch is that of the motivated parasite. You become aware of this when you follow the drama now playing in America with regard to the developments unfolding in the Middle East. You see the Jewish organizations representing parasitic Israel frantically stir the pot as they sense that the Arabs are fighting their way toward a promising future while Israel is slumping toward a barren existence, having depleted America's reservoir of testosterone while protecting Israel's right to rape those who cannot defend themselves.

Because Israel does not have the element of surprise on its side anymore, it cannot play the role of the rapist stud it used to play. This makes it feel diminished in its own eyes and makes it look like the eunuch who used to be a stud in the eyes of others. As to the Jewish organizations, they are stirring things up in a desperate attempt to alter the calamitous outcome they sense will befall Israel. To do this, they are teaching America how to be a stud and they are pushing it to rescue Israel by temporarily taking on the role of rapist extraordinaire. To see how they do this, you need to know how the parasite behaves in real life.

Biologists will tell you that a parasite does not kill its host because it needs it alive to feed on it. But the way things are in matters concerning life and death is that an exception to the rule must exist in all cases; and so it does in the case of the parasites. What we need to know about this newly discovered area is that the Jewish parasite can feed on a host only when the latter begins the process of dying and of decaying. In fact, when this happens, the pace of feeding accelerates to keep up with the speeding rate of decay. And if the process of dying does not start on its own, the Jewish parasite will inject into the body an agent that starts the process and keeps it going till the host becomes effectively lifeless. And while the Jew is feeding on the current host to its heart's content, it looks for a new host to which it will transfer and start a new cycle when the current body will have reached the end of its own cycle.

America is the current host on which the Jewish parasite is feeding. Sensing that the process of decay is beginning to accelerate, it is feeding voraciously to sustain itself and prepare for the next cycle. To this end, it is using the good standing of America in the world to secure a new destination for itself as it can see the day when America will have been completely depleted. The unexpected difficulty, however, has been that the parasite found itself using an enormous amount of energy to find a new destination and prepare it for itself because doing so has become a much tougher undertaking than ever before. It used to be easy for the Jews to transfer from one host to another where they were received with open arms because the world considered them a positive addition to any society. But given the behavior exhibited by Israel in the last few decades, and given what has come to light about the activities of Jewish individuals in every corner of the globe, the nations of the world now feel trepidation when asked to take-in those Jews who look for a new place to call home.

Moreover, the people of the world see that the Jews already have Israel; the result of a dream they have realized after centuries of yearning about a place they can call a home of their own. And so the people ask this simple question: If they already possess what they have sought, what more do they want? In fact, when you ask them the question directly, they give you a direct answer. But when you look at their actions on the ground, you cannot help but read into them a set of answers that differ from the one they vocalized. They will tell you they want security but what you see them do is threaten the security of their neighbors. You see them do this not in subtle ways but do it overtly to communicate to the neighbors and to the world that they have the power to harm anyone they wish to harm. In fact, they want the world to know that they can get away with anything they do because they have the weight of the American superpower behind them -- the host on whose body they feed like a parasite; the host whose brain they control like only a virus can take control of a brain.

To feed on the body of a nation, whether it is tiny or it is a superpower, you first need to control its brain. To accomplish this, you need to have a compelling narrative that no one can challenge. But a narrative such as this would sound like a fantasy, the reason why it is nearly impossible to put one together about the ordinary mortals that we all are. So then, what do you do if you are a Jewish organization seeking to control the brain of America? Well, what you do is begin by eliminating every possible challenger to your own narrative. When you do this, your narrative stands as the absolute truth even if it is no more than a fantasy. But could something like this be done in America, the oldest democracy on Earth where speech is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be suppressed? Yes, it could. It could precisely because America was a functioning democracy which may or may not be the case anymore.

In fact, taking democracy for granted not knowing how fragile it can be when eternal vigilance is not there to defend it, the American people and their representatives failed to detect the lethal effect that the Jewish influence was having on their most cherished of concepts: the free flow of ideas in the marketplace of ideas. First, they resisted the notion that a blockage to the flow of information was forming, let alone a blockage that can grow and become a serious threat to their system of governance. Second, they rejected the idea that the blockage, if any, could be caused by the Jewish virus of authoritarian control, something they did not even know existed. Third, they expected to see a counterpoint pushing against every point made but when no counterpoint came to push against the Jewish points, they concluded that none existed and thus accepted the Jewish narrative at face value. It was through this long, belabored and subtle process that the Jewish virus managed to take control of America's brain and get it to work for the benefit of Israel.

Measured by any standard, this accomplishment was a miracle that the Jewish leaders succeeded to pull off in America. They did it by quietly infiltrating the existing think tanks as well as the large media outlets, and by taking them over from the inside -- one tank at a time and one outlet at a time. They also created new think tanks and new outlets, and they got them all to work like viruses on America's brain. The Jewish leaders were able to do all this because they made use of the pogroms and the holocausts inflicted on Jews in the past to suppress every opposition to their fake narratives.

In fact, the Jewish organizations made it a priority to keep an eye on the individuals that showed signs they had the wherewithal to expose those fake narratives. They accused such people of being antisemitic; they shut them up and had them removed from the marketplace of ideas. But when they failed to scare off those among them who refused to disappear and go quietly into the night, the Jewish leaders blackmailed everyone else who could have worked with them. In the end, the Jews were able in the land of the First Amendment to make the amendment work for them, and make its use by someone else an application to go on the blacklist. How demonic! How satanic! How hellish! How so very Jewish!

So now, we know that the Jewish parasite is feeding on the body of America while the virus is reshaping the brain – both activities conducted to maintain the body and the brain in a posture subservient to the wish of the Jewish organizations. Given this, how in practical terms do these organizations manage to implement their plans? The best way to answer this question is to take two examples and analyze them. As it happens, there is an ongoing example, a good one to discuss because it represents the thoughts of a dozen or so think tanks, most of which are Jewish or Jewish dominated or Jewish influenced. They published a paper titled: “Conditioning Aid to Egyptian Military: A Statement by the Working Group on Egypt”. It was designed to work on the brains of the decision makers in America and was circulated among the media people in mid-November, 2011.

The authors begin the discussion like this: “Nearly ten months since the start of the Egyptian revolution, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) has yet to take basic steps towards establishing a human rights-respecting democratic, civilian government.” When someone innocent who knows little or nothing about the subject in discussion reads this passage, they automatically assume that “nearly ten months” must be a long time in a matter like this because the venerable think tankers have so hinted in their paper. But those of us who know that these are neither think tankers nor venerable but are worms that swim inside a network of septic tanks and raw sewage; we take what they say with a grain of salt and a good doze of cultural antibiotics.

We compare their latest statement with statements made in the past by them or by similar groups. This was a time when they tried to convince the public that ten years (not ten months) were a short period of time for a country like Iraq to become a true democracy. They justified their argument by citing the fact that following its own revolution and the civil war, it took America a much longer time to whip up anything that was worth calling a democracy. But the ever present low life lunatics of the Jewish think tanks have now decreed that Egypt must whip up a true democracy in a shorter period of time or face the consequences.

What consequences are they talking about? Well, knowing what came at the start of the first paragraph, we go see what comes at the end of it to find out what these people have in mind. Here is that passage: “The U.S. should ... support ... a ... democratic transition … and use all the leverage it has … including the placing of conditions on future aid to the Egyptian military.” This is what it's all about, my friend. By hook or by crook, the Jewish organizations want to establish control over the Egyptian military for the benefit of Israel as indeed, they would seek to do with any other military if given the same opportunity. But how in practice would they do that? This is a more complicated thing to achieve, and you get an answer to the question at the very end of their article. They give you the answer by first saying that conditions must be placed on what they call the American military aid to Egypt; and then say this: “The United States Congress should adopt these conditions, and the Obama administration should welcome then.”

In fact, these conditions were written into bills now circulating in the US Congress, say the tankers. And so I invite you, my friend, to think about this: The Congress we're talking about is the same institution that is so paralyzed, it is unable to rescue America as the world watches with jaws dropped while the nation is dissolving before its eyes. And the super-committee that was formed to pull a rabbit out of the hat turned out to be a super farce with the Star of David stamped all over it by an Eric Cantor who is Netanyahu's man in the US Congress. Thus, what the Jewish vermin is saying to America is that it should stop working for itself and turn its attention to Egypt where things are happening that may not work in favor of Israel.

But Egypt is not Israel's only problem; the whole world is. And this leads to the notion that along with Egypt, the entire world must be fixed to suit the needs of Israel. To do this, new advice has come from the Jewish controlled media outlets such as the Wall Street Journal where its most fanatic writer, Bret Stephens, has written a column in which he tells the Republican presidential hopefuls who will be debating tonight (November 22, 2011) how to transform America into a surrogate stud that will rape the world for Israel while waiting for the latter to grow back the tools that make the stud-rapist all that he can be.

The title of the Stephens column is: “The GOP's Foreign Policy Debate: A Cheat Sheet,” and the subtitle is this: “The notion that the 21st century must be an American one isn't a cliché, especially when the alternative is China.” After a few paragraphs of small talk -- perhaps to give the impression that he holds moderate views -- he writes the following: “Let's … remember what our national security owes to immigrant scientists like Albert Einstein and Edward Teller.” The first is the scientist who, while still in Europe, put into a mathematical equation the relationship that exists between mass an energy; that which is at the basis of the nuclear weapon. The second is the nuclear physicist who, contrary to the views of the pacifist Einstein, advocated the vast expansion of America's nuclear arsenal as a way to “bludgeon” the Soviet Union if it should come to that.

Having said that, Stephens follows up a little later on with this: “Reagan knew better. He didn't mind being hated by the nuclear-freeze crowd in Western Europe … He won concessions from the Soviet Union by building up the military … He didn't seek a global consensus to liberate Grenada or bomb Libya.” The choice of words and the way that the ideas are formulated in this passage give the impression that Reagan was a Bush 43 style cowboy who went around the world and kicked people left and right, bombing this one here and blowing up that one there. But the fact is that Reagan was no cowboy; and he was anything but an impulsive man. He came into the presidency with ideas he had been formulating in his head for a long time; and he implemented them in a manner that suited the time that he did.

The difference between now and then is that America was the industrial power that catered to the needs of the public thus made its society so prosperous it could afford both the guns and the butter. By contrast, the Soviet union was the heavy industry behemoth that catered to the needs of its military industrial complex thus kept its society in poverty unable to afford the guns or the butter. The result has been that the Soviet Union collapsed and America lived to become the sole superpower.

What the Stephens of this world are asking America to do now is wear the shoes of the defunct Soviet behemoth while China is busy putting on the shoes of industrial America. Consequently, I ask the Presidential hopefuls to think seriously about who will own the Twenty First century if America continues to impoverish itself thus lose the military advantage it now has for the purpose of giving the Jewish rapist the erection he can no longer have.

It comes down to this: You can save Israel or you can save America but you cannot save them both. Israel will just have to stop raping those who cannot defend themselves, learn to get along with its neighbors and learn to live like a normal nation.

Governed By The Emotionally Rattled

Nothing is more alleviating of the pain and more salutary to the soul than to remove a cancer that was deliberately planted inside the body and left there to keep the body in a weak state and render the soul more pliant to commands as would be a puppy on a leash. This is what will happen in a few days -- if it has not happened already -- when Dennis Ross will be removed from the governing body of the American Republic. At last, a gust of oxygen will blow onto the scene and will engulf the body. It will go to revive a brain that has been artificially induced into a political coma of the Judeo-Yiddish type, and kept in this state for some time. But, as we shall see in a moment, there is concern that this reprieve may be short lived because new ill winds are blowing in the same direction at the same time.

Dennis Ross being one of the most fanatic creatures ever cultivated by the Jewish lobby known as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), he was sent to serve inside the government of the United States, something he did with the eagerness of a diehard Judeo-Yiddish zealot while enjoying the privileges and influences which are normally bestowed on American patriots only. He was an Israeli cancer planted inside the American body with instructions to paralyze America's interests in the Middle East at any cost for the purpose of advancing those of Israel and world Jewry.

Elliot Abrams, his counterpart in the previous Republican administration, lamented his departure and wrote the following in a November 11, 2011 blog on the website of the Council on Foreign Relations: “Ross's departure … is … a problem for the Obama re-election campaign. For Ross was the only official in whom most American Jewish leaders had confidence. As most of them are Democrats … they viewed his role as the assurance that a ... pro-Israel hand was on … the tiller.” And this is exactly what someone would write when his moral gyroscope is made to rotate in a reverse direction inside his skull. Instead of seeing the departure of Ross as a gain for America and the world, he says that America is losing something valuable because a fanatic Jew will no longer be there to crap his blessed Jewish feces all over it.

But the potential ill wind we must be concerned about is that Abrams went on to write the following: “No one else … can now fill that role, as the President enters an election year with a powerful need to maintain the 78% percent support he had last time in the Jewish community.” The translation here is that the Jewish organizations will now work to defeat the President. This is not a legitimate political discourse but a blackmail that should be made illegal by a law that would be specific to it to get around the limitations of the existing laws. The reason is that it is one thing to work inside your precinct to support a candidate you agree with or oppose a candidate you disagree with; it is another thing to blackmail and then sabotage the chances of someone who refuses to betray his country or refuses to work for the benefit of a foreign entity. This is not democracy at work; it is treason that is punishable even under existing laws though it would be difficult to establish the nexuses.

This said, where is Dennis Ross going after leaving the White House? Well, he is going back to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) which is one of the Judeo-Yiddish think tanks -- more like septic tanks -- with the added dimension that this tank was established by AIPAC working with Ross himself and with like-minded diehard Jewish zealots and fanatics. What is noteworthy about this whole matter, however, is that while Dennis Ross was calling the shots inside the White House of the Obama Administration, that same tank never stopped criticizing the President, accusing him of not being pro-Israel enough to suit the stinky expectations of its members.

If anything, this shows that no matter who the American people pick to govern them at the helm, and no matter which political party they choose to represent them in Congress, the influences that will make things happen in America will be those of an Elliot Abrams or a Dennis Ross who will take instructions not from the folks in the heartland of America but from Tel Aviv out there in Israel. Moreover, because most Jewish leaders have so far been on the democratic side of the political spectrum (like says Abrams) the Republican wannabes running for the 2012 primary race are trying to outdo them in devotion to the Jewish causes and to the rug-pissing Netanyahu of Israel. Except for one brave soul who maintains a healthy dose of self-respect, the other Republican candidates stand in a straight line to debate each other; but they look more like stray dogs walking in a circle sniffing each other's anal exhaust pipe to see which one smells more like Netanyahu's hot gas thus determine how better to mouth-fart their undying love for Israel and the other Jewish causes.

And when all will have been said and done, when the election will have come and gone, guess who will lead the rapprochement between the two American political parties to make them serve Israel and the Jewish causes more efficiently? You guessed it; it will be Dennis Ross working hand in hand with Elliot Abrams, the two manifestations of the same cancerous growth that will live again and thrive inside the American political body. And if you want to know what this will do to America, think of the time when Abrams was laboring inside the Bush 43 White House. Think also of what he said about Ross leaving the White House – specifically this part: “Ross was the only official in whom most American Jewish leaders had confidence.” This, my friend, is all that mattered during the Bush years; it was not the confidence that the American people had in their government – they could not care less about that and said so repeatedly – it was the confidence that the Jewish leaders had in the Bush Administration.

Under circumstances like these, what is left for the people of goodwill the world over to do is to think of a solution to a problem that has global ramifications. To do this, we all need to ask a pertinent question: Who is more dangerous to America and to the world, a Dennis Ross or a Jonathan Pollard? The first is an avowed advocate for Israel and for all the Jewish causes, a mole that held various civilian positions inside the American government. He did his work openly and did it to the detriment of America's interests. The latter is a Jew who was trusted enough to be given the job of intelligence analyst in the military, a position he used to spy for Israel and thus cause untold damage to American security. He was appointed to that post and kept in it despite the numerous signs that he was a traitor and despite numerous warnings about him that came from highly placed Jews and non-Jews alike.

Jonathan Pollard was a Jew to the core who never wore the mask of a gentile but wore his natural Jewish face all along, and wore it with pride. You get a sense of what motivates him when you read his account of his boyhood years. He says the kids in the school he frequented and the kids in the neighborhood where he lived used to bully him, even beat him up because he was a Jew. But he says he took solace in the thought that the Israelis were beating up the Arabs, something that made him feel good about himself. So then what happened after that, you ask? Well, he went to school in Israel where things did not go well for him even there.

Living like a Jew among Jews in Israel, you might think he was happy being there but the truth is that he was not. In fact, he got into fights with the other kids and got beaten up very badly by them. Unlike in America where the beating was relatively benign, the beating in Israel was so savage, it sent him to hospital. Well, maybe the Israeli kids mistook him for an Arab or something, and this thought alone must have made him feel so good about himself that he returned to America where he decided, of all things, to spy for Israel. He did so eventually and was caught red handed. He was tried in a court of law, and guess who was there to represent him. It was none other than the one and only Alan Dershowitz; who else!

As to Dennis Ross, not much is published about his biological father, but his mother was Jewish who later married a catholic and thus gave young Dennis the opportunity to grow up in a mixed environment fashioned by a Jewish mother and a Catholic stepfather -- although both parents avoided being overtly religious one way or the other. Able to wear the mask of a Catholic, young Ross was not beaten up in school or in the neighborhood where he lived thus remained religiously neutral himself. But he started to change, and did so steadily and quietly after the eruption of the 1967 war in the Middle East. Now a teenager, he began to feel overpowered by his Jewishness, and the feeling kept growing inside of him ever after. With time, he became so absorbed by religious thoughts that he decided a few years later to found a synagogue which to this day does not yet bear his name. Maybe this will happen after he dies, and given the trajectory of his religiosity, he may even become a rabbi before then.

But going back to his days after graduation, Dennis Ross got involved with the AIPAC crowd where he met Martin Indyk and teamed up with him to found WINEP, the Jewish septic tank that pretends to be a think tank. Indyk who is a notorious Jewish fanatic in his own right hit the trail of the talk shows after that where he gained the reputation of being excessively foul mouthed when it comes to talking about the Palestinians. As to Ross, he wrote a personal manifesto to serve as a policy paper for the stinky think tank he co-founded. It was a paper in which he called for the appointment of someone like himself to be America's Middle East envoy. He wanted someone, he said, who will not feel bad about being a Jew or being a friend of Israel. Dennis Ross had finally dropped the Catholic mask which served him well in the past, and started to face the world with his natural Jewish face.

You now pause, my friend, and think of the people in the Bush 43 administration who admitted that they planned the war on Iraq a decade before it took place because they were the children of Holocaust survivors who had the duty to avenge their dead relatives. You think of the massive fraud that was whipped up by Israel working together with the Jewish organizations worldwide to make it look like Iraq was producing weapons of mass destruction. You think of them feeding this garbage to the intelligence agencies of the Western world and thus drag America into a war that broke its back. You think of the emotionally rattled Jonathan Pollard who felt good about being a Jew every time he heard of Arabs being beaten in Israel. You think of Elliott Abrams whose moral gyroscope is rotating in the reverse direction inside his skull. You think of a Dennis Ross that hid a Jewish face behind a Catholic mask for decades only to drop the mask after taking control of the American levers of power. And you think of him using that control not to work for American interests but to work for the glory of Israel, something he did at the expense of the American hand that fed him, and the expense of a Palestine on which Israel never stops feeding.

You think of all this, my friend, and you realize that America is governed not by its elected representatives but by the emotionally rattled who are chosen by the Jewish lobby and sent to occupy high places in the government. And so you ask yourself: How can America be saved from a situation where horrible characters can easily take control of sensitive posts, and use them to wage war on the human race? You think till you hit on the one answer that satisfies the question. It is this: Wherever you are in the world, speak the truth as loudly and clearly as you can till it sinks into the consciousness of those who are able to do something about the matter. In this case, salvation will come to America and to the world when the majority of Americans will have risen and said enough of this; and when they will have decided to reject the bad hand that was dealt to them demanding that they be dealt a better one.

And this brings us to the prayer of the moment. May the American people see the light, feel the heat and realize that they are being used as fodder to feed the worldwide Jewish engine of monopolistic control, an engine that forever fires on all cylinders. When this realization will have taken place, the American people will need to speak against the political candidates who shamelessly put the interests of Israel and those of the Jewish causes ahead of America's, and they will need to work hard to soundly defeat those shameless candidates. The people will also need to state loudly and clearly what they think and what they are doing. They will need to continue doing the work even after being called anti-Semites, a charge that will be leveled against them at the start for telling the truth, I am certain.

I know this will happen to them because it happened to me early on, but no one dares do it to me now because they know better than tell lies about me. And the same thing will happen to the American people who will be telling the truth and everyone will know it. In the meantime, America deserves better than to be governed by a bunch of emotionally rattled sickos; and the time has come for the American people to take back their country from the Jewish hordes that invaded Palestine physically; and invaded America emotionally, spiritually and intellectually.

The road ahead will be long and hard but will be worth it because the rebirth of the nation will be as exciting as the birth of a nation.

Take A Giant To Hell And Drop Him

If you are a Lilliputian and you befriend a Gulliver, you may be tempted to train your giant friend to do things for you that you could not do for yourself. You may, for example, turn him into a beast of burden that nevertheless possesses some human attributes such as a limited capacity to reason and the power of speech. Think of what could happen if you got caught in a situation akin to that of “Paranormal Activity 3” and had no one but him to come to your rescue. Well, it looks like PA3 was not enough to keep the editors of the Wall Street Journal awake at night, but they seem to say that having read the assessment of the International Atomic Energy Agency about Iran's nuclear activities, they lost their sleep. Consequently, they look to their designated Gulliver to rescue their designated alter ego that is Israel.

This is the message that comes out of the editorial they published on November 11, 2011 under the title: “If Iran Gets the Bomb” and the subtitle: “The world immediately becomes a far more dangerous place.” They say that much in the first paragraph of the article, and they add that the annex alone “...lays to rest the fantasies that an Iranian bomb is many years off, or that the intelligence is riddled with holes and doubts, or that the regime's intentions can't be guessed by their activities.” Well my friend, I read the report and concentrated on the annex where I encountered what I consider to be the most damaging evidence. It came in the section titled: “Integration into a missile delivery vehicle” where the end of paragraph 63 reads as follows: “While the activities described as those of Project 111 may be relevant to the development of a non-nuclear payload, they are highly relevant to a nuclear weapon programme.” This, however, did not keep me awake at night. But being no expert on the subject, I researched all that I could research, and verified all that I could verify but found no one of consequence who would support the Journal's assertion that we should lose sleep.

And to be honest, I would not have been swayed one way or the other because my position has always been that the Middle East -- if not the whole world -- should be free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. As to the situation specific to the Middle East, keeping the region free of nuclear weapons is something that will be achieved when every nation in there will have signed the non-proliferation treaty and opened itself to inspection. This is a proposal that has been on the table for a long time and was accepted by all the nations in the region except one. It is that Israel is rejecting the idea because it wants to continue playing the juvenile game of ambiguity, and America is willing to kill and get killed to support this behavior. Consequently, if someone should be told to mind their own business and leave the world of adults for adults to manage, it is juvenile Israel and that weirdo nation which America is fast becoming.

This said, what prompts me to discuss the Journal editorial is that it represents something new about that rag. I see that while the piece was written with the same old Judeo-Yiddish mentality behind it, the authors have tried to hide their collective face behind the mask of a style of writing that is more gentile than Jewish. Free of the convolutions that used to characterize their old style; this piece tries to reflect a more honest face -- at least on the surface. However, it still fails to completely hide the true face behind the mask, and I feel that the readers should be made aware of this change in style so that they can remain on guard and not take anything the rag says at face value. To this end, they will need to develop sharper analytical skills because the Journal will be more subtle from now on. Indeed, having been criticized for being too Judeo-Yiddish in the past, they seem determined to become more persuasive by reflecting a new face however fake it may be.

Look at the Journal editorial. It is one that combines the style of a gentile with the mentality of a Judeo-Yiddish. You detect this odd blend because you sense that the message is the gentle rehashing of the harsh views of olden days. Here is how these people do it: “So much, then, for the December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, which asserted … that Iran had abandoned its nuclear-weapons work in 2003...” Had they stopped here, they would have reflected the mask of a gentile and only that. But they went on to say this: “...and ended any chance that the Bush Administration would take action against Iran.” This is speculation and not any speculation but that of the worst kind because it is about a past you cannot revisit. Normal speculation being about a future you can wait for, see coming and check things out; to speculate about a past that is gone for ever is to tamper with history. This is what these people are doing, and nothing can be more Jewish than that.

Having lamented the end of something no one can verify, they now hitch a ride on the coattail of the lamentation to advocate the end of any attempt by the Obama Administration “...to move Iran away from its nuclear course … with diplomatic offers … sanctions and covert operations.” This is the strongest manifestation yet of the Judeo-Yiddish mentality at work behind the mask. And you know this to be so because it is a preparation put down by the authors to lead to a call for bloodshed. And here is that call, the punchline for which the authors have prepared you: “The serious choice now … is between military strikes and more of the same … [which] means a nuclear Iran, possibly within a year.” Whoa! Say that again! Did they say a nuclear Iran within a year? Have they not been saying within a year ... within a year ... within a year for the last ten years or more? These people have again chosen the path of terror as they never gave up accusing someone (this time Iran) of being dangerous while inciting another one (this time America) to go after him. They have been pulling this trick since time immemorial, and nothing can be more Jewish than that.

Confident that they are able to hide their bloodthirsty mentality behind the mask of a gentile, they now mimic the talk of a responsible adult. This is how they do it: “It's time … to consider … what that choice means,” and they do eventually consider what the choice means but before they do so, they want you to know it's not the first time they spoke like adults. To this end, they quote themselves from their past writings: “In the run-up to the war in Iraq, we wrote that 'the law of unintended consequences hasn't been repealed … no war ever goes precisely as planned.'” They now fulfill their promise by warning that this time: “[in] an aerial campaign to demolish or substantially degrade Iran's nuclear facilities … Planes could be shot down and airmen taken prisoner. Iran could close the Straits of Hormuz, sending energy prices upward … or fire missiles against U.S. military installations in the region, or spark … another insurgency in Iraq.” But you ask: What on Earth are they talking about?

First they tell you they behaved like adults when they warned of the possible consequences in the run-up to the war against Iraq, and now they admit that one such consequence has been that Iran gained the upper hand which allowed it to spark an insurgency and gave it the ability to spark it again and again at will. But instead of being apprehensive about this development and conclude that America should stop here to consider another course of action, they say that such development is acceptable because: “These are among the contingencies that military planners would have to anticipate, though Iranian leaders would also have to think twice before responding to a strike with attacks that could mean further escalation.” My God, you shout to yourself, we're not dealing with retarded juveniles; we're dealing with murderous lunatics who depend on the good sense of the Iranians to save America and the world from their incitement. And they do this at the same time as they tell America to double down on a misadventure they created themselves, one that has ruined the country already and promises to turn it into a second rate power which will probably happen even if it stopped immolating itself right now.

They ignore all this and justify an attack on Iran by listing the wrong things they say the Iranians did without mentioning what America was doing in the meantime. And they go on to say this: “These acts were perpetrated by Teheran without a nuclear umbrella. What would Iran's behavior look like if it had one?” They answer their question by saying that some people advocate a strategy of containment in which case Iran's behavior would not change much because the U.S. and its allies could warn that if it did, it would face nuclear annihilation. But they counter this argument by saying it is a red line that “would be hard to credit once the U.S. squandered its credibility by allowing Iran to go nuclear after spending a decade warning that such outcome was 'unacceptable.'” And they paint an even more horrifying picture of the future by speculating that other Middle Eastern nations will go nuclear or fall into Iran's orbit.

But seeing that there is no logical scenario by which a few non-events can be used as raw material to construct an apocalyptic fantasy of this magnitude, you ask yourself: What is it that these people aim to accomplish? You know they pushed America to attack Iraq in the past for no reason except that it made the fanatic Jews among them feel good. You know and they know this act triggered a series of unintended consequences which escalated to a point where they are now saying the region has moved closer than ever to a nuclear arms race. And they say that this will trigger a new series of unintended consequences whose reach they cannot fathom and yet, instead of being perturbed, they feel comfortable with all this. They feel comfortable because they count on the Iranians doing the right thing to save themselves and the world. Failing this, the editors count on the American planners to respond in the appropriate manner which is to annihilate Iran.

In fact, these people are so committed to push America on the path of war; they are creating loud and shrieking noises to divert attention from the sane solution that is on the table. It is a quick and permanent solution that will fix the troubled Middle East and bring calm to it for ever. The solution is for Israel to come clean and start working with its neighbors to make the region free of nuclear weapons, and free of other weapons of mass destruction. And this is where you find the answer to the question you posed earlier. Sadly and simply, what these people aim to accomplish is destroy the Middle East and the whole world if need be to please the bloodthirsty and ghoulish Jews among them. In fact, emptying the Middle East of trouble is to these people what emptying a fish tank of water is to the fish in it. They both die.

But this is not what they say it's all about. Instead, they say this: “The question … is whether those dire consequences are worse than the risks of a pre-emptive strike.” Okay, you say, have it your way but at least you expect to see an attempt at formulating a reasonable response from one who says he has matured and can talk like an adult. You read on, and you are shocked to find that what you expected is not what you get. Instead, you get this: “We think we know what the Israelis will decide.” And to bolster their argument, the editors of the Journal mention this: “Israel's strike on Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981, without which the U.S. could never have stood up to Saddam after his invasion of Kuwait.” Oh yes. What you see here, my friend, is the mentality of a rapist who believes he is God's gift to women and to all mankind.

The historical fact is that whatever Saddam's plans were for the Middle East, the Osirak reactor was never meant to make nuclear weapons. But the bombing of the reactor (achieved with information stolen from the American spy agencies by a Jewish American traitor) is what prompted Saddam to want to be a friend of America as he realized it was the only way he can commit murder and get away with it. He thus attacked Iran which was America's enemy in the region, and having done this, he expected America to let him get away with the swallowing of Kuwait. This is exactly what happened initially but the Arab countries said no, this cannot be and they hired the American mercenary army to get Saddam out of Kuwait, paying something like 30 or 40 billion dollars for the service. And this is when the Iranians discovered it was not Israel that was facing an existential threat but Iran itself. To protect their country, they cultivated their influences in Iraq, something they achieved with brilliant success, and did so to the detriment of America. On their part, Israel and the Jewish organizations that were seen to have raped America, now claim credit for doing what they consider to be a wonderful thing.

Instead of looking at the series of consequences that began more than thirty years ago when a Jewish traitor in America betrayed his country, the new American traitors -- like those working for the Wall Street Journal and other media outlets -- now look to Israel for guidance as to what they should incite America to do next to maintain the murderous adventure and thus keep raping America in the process. Here is a sample of how they achieve this: “A nuclear Iran on Mr. Obama's watch would be fatal to … his legacy.” As you can see, if they cannot threaten to ruin someone's chances at getting elected or reelected, they threaten to make his legacy meet a fatal ending.

These people never start an adventure they do not take to a calamitous end. They started this adventure more than thirty years ago, they never suspended it for a moment, they are fueling it like mad at this time and they will continue to fuel it till something happens that is more horrifying than anything we saw before. What that thing will be remains a mystery but what is noteworthy is that these people took the American giant to hell and dropped him there enough already. Things can still get worse; which is the reason why it stands to reason that this time, America should tell Israel: It's your turn to go to hell and stay there. We, as a proud and free people, shall have nothing to do with you anymore; not now, not ever.

Mythology As A Self Destruct Machine

To respond to a myth circulated by the usual crackpots in the Judeo-Yiddish fraternity of think tanks, Hillary Clinton who is the American Secretary of State, found it necessary to go before an audience at the National Democratic Institute in the District of Columbia and make it clear that her government will not oppose the political parties with an Islamic bent that may be elected in predominantly Muslim countries.

It must be understood that mythology powers the mentality of people who claim to adhere to the Jewish religion. And the latest myth they created is to the effect that Islam is not compatible with democracy. But because America was mandated by the self-described Jewish organizations to destroy what they choose to designate as undemocratic, America was expected to oppose the election of “Islamic parties” or destroy the countries that elect them. This possibility sent the chill down the spine of an America that is still agonizing from the Jewish ordered misadventures, many of which are still in progress. And this is what prompted Hillary Clinton to reassure the American people that their country will not obey the Jewish command this time.

But what is a myth and what do the Jewish organizations hope to achieve by creating them?

What a complicated question requiring a complicated answer! Well, let me try to answer it. If you define mythology as that which is impossible to make in reality but can exist in the imagination, you will find that mythologies do exist in the subject matters relating to the humanities because that is where the human imagination is fertile. But mythologies also exist in the subject matters that relate to the sciences, and there are people who believe in them. One myth that refuses to die is the perpetual motion machine which, if it can be made, would turn its maker into a God. Such machine rests on the idea that kinetic energy can be produced from nothing. But if this were true, it would mean that you can also create matter from nothing because matter and energy are mutually transmutable according to the relation E=mc2. And the ability to make matter from nothing would lead to the creation of a universe full of galaxies, stars and planets. In short, if you can make the perpetual motion machine you become God, the creator of all things.

This said, an interesting question poses itself: If the perpetual motion machine is impossible to make, can the reverse be true? That is, can we make a perpetual annihilation machine that will destroy things and turn them into nothing? The answer is no, we cannot do this either because the law that says you cannot create something out of nothing also says that you cannot turn something into nothing. It is one and the same law, and the principle upon which it is based is that we cannot add to what already exists or subtract from it; we can only transform it from one thing into another. Burn wood, for example, and you transform it into ash and an assortment of gases but every atom is still here and will remain to the end of time.

Being human, however, and possessing abilities that the other species do not possess, we can borrow rules pertaining to the humanities and apply them to the other spheres. For example, we can create the physical condition by which something is so transformed, it can be considered annihilated for all practical purposes. Sadly, this is what happens when people push matters to such extreme that war becomes inevitable. And when this happens, peoples, tribes and whole races are destroyed, even made to vanish altogether. What is notable is that when war happens, we always find at the center of the activities that led to it a group of people who adhere to a philosophy of life that is different from all the others. They are the people who claim to be Jews.

They claim that theirs is not just a philosophy of life but a full fledged religion and a monotheistic one at that. It is called Judaism, they say, and it has attracted adherents to its ranks for thousands of years. But like a bottomless pit, it has also vanished them as fast as it got them. Thus, while the other two well established monotheistic religions -- Christianity and Islam -- have existed for less than two thousand years and count more than a billion members each, Judaism counts less than twenty million members even though it has existed twice as long. It is that Judaism – whether a philosophy of life or a religion -- is a perpetual self destruct machine that obliterates its people and takes down other peoples in the process.

If you wonder how such thing can happen, two articles that appeared on November 2, 2011 in the Wall Street Journal illustrate how it can happen and why it does. One article was written by Douglas J. Feith under the title: “Israel Should be a U.S. Campaign Issue.” and the subtitle: “Major Jewish groups are trying to shield Obama from legitimate criticism.” The other article was written by Bret Stephens under the title: “Why Islamists Are Winning” and the subtitle: “When secular politics fail, Islamism is the last big idea standing.”

Feith who once served as under secretary of defense in America, sets the scene. He says this: “Pro-Israel organizations have long been active in American politics … Jewish groups ... have helped ensure that candidates' attitudes toward Israel would be an important element in congressional and presidential elections. Yet now, two venerable Jewish organizations ... are saying that it is improper to do this … But since when have American supporters of Israel believed that a candidate's attitudes toward Israel should be kept out of electoral politics? Since never.” The point made here (which thankfully can no longer be denied at someone's whim the way they used to deny it) is that the Jewish organizations have always injected themselves into the thick of things to promote their causes. It is right here, out of the horse's mouth in black and white.

In addition, there is also a revelation that is so sensational, it is explosive. It is that two “venerable” Jewish organizations now admit they have been doing the wrong thing since for ever. And this compels us to ask two questions. The first is this: Why were these people allowed to do the wrong thing for this long without someone stopping them? And the second question is this: Why some Jewish organizations are having a change of heart at this time? To find the answers, we need to understand what is behind it all. And to do this, we need to understand (a) how Feith has seen history develop around the subject matter, (b) where some Jewish organizations fear to tread now and (c) why Feith is quarreling with these organizations.

Here, in his words, is a sample of how he sees the development of history, what he thinks of it and what he believes: “In 1984, pro-Israel groups … block[ed] the re-election of … Sen. Charles Percy … critic of Israel and champion of U.S. engagement with the PLO … [he] attributed his defeat to the Israel lobby. Other politicians who met a similar fate include Reps. Paul Findley and Cynthia McKinney” A little later on, Feith writes this: “When running against … George H.W. Bush in 1992, Bill Clinton took full advantage of Mr. Bush's testy relationship with Israel … Jewish groups predicted … that … Bush would pay in the ... election for his demand that Israel freeze settlements.” Later still, he writes this: “One [Jewish] leader spoke of the 'anger and dismay … over Bush Administration policy … I imagine it will be translated into an unwillingness to vote … or contribute funds.'” This is how it used to be and this is how Douglas Feith wants it to be again.

But things have changed, he says, which is undoubtedly the reason why some Jewish organizations are having a change of heart and why he is quarreling with them. He goes on to explain that things have changed because Obama was elected to the office of President, a development he laments, and one for which he expresses sorrow this way: “President Obama came into office determined to distance the U.S. from Israel and to portray Israel as the impediment to Middle East peace. He insisted on an unprecedented Israeli settlement freeze … And he went along with the PA's refusal to renew direct negotiations with Israel, agreeing that the Palestinians could use U.S. officials to conduct indirect talks.” What a pity! What a great pity! An American President that works for America and not for Israel; who would have believed it?

Here we see what Feith would have wanted the American President to do to mirror what was done before. He would have wanted the President to let Israel do what it wants, including the breaking of international and American laws by building Jewish settlements on stolen land. And if the Palestinians did not give their consent to the rape of their motherland by Jewish hordes, America was going to say to the Palestinians: tough luck to you guys because if you do not accept the Jew raping you, we stop talking to you. America is obligated to protect the right of the Jew to rape whomever he wants to rape and we take our obligation seriously. Let it be known that Jewish rape of local societies is happening all the time and everywhere, including here in America. Thus, we see no reason why it cannot happen in Palestine. America shall see to it that it does.

To end his rant, Feith gives this last warning: “Mr. Obama can expect to pay a substantial political price in 2012...” And you wonder if these people can still pull off a coup like this. You think of the feud which seems to have erupted between two factions inside the Jewish family but you do not rejoice because you realize that the faction having a change of heart is not being remorseful. This faction is merely asking for a temporary tactical retreat in the face of what it sees as a looming danger whereas the faction that is headed by Douglas Feith maintains that the Jews can still pull it off and survive. At first glance the factions seem apart and opposed to each other but in reality, they are the two indispensable parts that make up a perpetual self destruct machine.

While the relentless machination is going on inside America, and doing so at a fevered pitch in an effort to mobilize that country and bring its political, cultural, economic, industrial and military potentials under the control of the Jewish organizations, the Bret Stephens article gives a glimpse as to how the Jews view the world outside of America. It is a view that so frightens them, they seek to use America's power to annihilate what they perceive as their enemies and thus bring the world under their control. This is important to them because they are taught from birth that the only way they can live as Jews and remain safe in this world is to control it. They are told that the choice they will always face in life will be to control the environment in which they find themselves and survive or leave the control to someone else and risk vanishing. And in this age of globalization, they have no choice but to promote Israel and control the whole world or vanish altogether. First, they must take control of America then use American power to firmly plant Pax Americana throughout the world.

Stephens begins the article with a direct quote that is the saying of someone he mocks. Here it is: “This is not an Islamic Revolution.” He then explains that this is the opinion of Olivier Roy whom he describes as: “arguably Europe's foremost authority on political Islam.” He uses a French word “sangfroid” to describe how other writers are keeping their cool in the face of what he later makes clear is a serious matter. He singles out Tom Friedman and Nicholas Kristof, both of the New York Times, whose words he quotes to show that they remain undisturbed by what is happening in the Middle East.

But he says that all this sangfroid has proved to be misplaced because nine months after the start of the Arab Spring, everything has gone badly in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Turkey, Lebanon and Palestine where the people did not do what he would have wished them to do which was to renounce their religion and promise never to return to it. So much for the views of Roy, Friedman and Kristof in the eyes of Stephens. But “Closer to the mark,” he says, is Bernard Lewis whom he describes not as an “arguable authority” but a Mideast scholar. And why is he closer to the mark? Because he sees that as a concept, freedom is less important to the Arabs than justice given that they lacked the latter under the regimes they just toppled.

But, he says, we ought to be careful because justice, which is a concept imported from Europe by the old Arab regimes, had been the mainstay of those regimes until they were toppled. Justice did not work for the ordinary people, says Stephens, and he predicts that justice will now be used by the Islamists only to win elections but not to give the ordinary people a better form of politics or a better government. Thus, what will remain standing when all is said and done will be Islam and nothing else. And so he asks: “What does its future hold?” And he gives a pessimistic view of that future.

He describes his own views by first laying out the view of the optimists which he quickly rejects. According to him, the optimists say that the Arabs will probably follow the Turkish model rather than the Iranian model. But he goes on to say that even of this were true, Turkey's domestic and foreign policies do not inspire him. In the end, he concludes: “Get ready for a long winter.”

There is one thing missing in all of this. It is that neither the Arabs nor the Muslims are here to please the Jews or the Americans, and they will not start doing it now. Characters like Stephens, Feith and others may have succeeded at subjugating a superpower and got it to do the dirty work for them, but four thousand years of Jewish history say that these people always lose in the end despite the gains they make at the start of every adventure they undertake. And while Stephens will be living the long Arab winter he is predicting -- waiting for Godot or whatever -- he better make sure that an oven-hot summer does not explode closer to home for, this has been the enduring legacy of the Jewish self destruct machine.

And if you want to know how this may come about, read his column of November 8, 2011 in the Journal. It is titled: “Now For a Real Iran Debate” and subtitled: “There's no more doubt about Tehran's nuclear-weapons program. How the West will respond remains open to question.” It is the usual rant about why America should try to destroy Iran, at the end of which he gives a final thought: “What would a strike on Iran do for President Obama's re-election chances? Improve them, I should think.” He said this in anticipation of a UN report that came out the next day and said nothing new about the Iran question.

Now, my friend, if you ever wanted a proof that democracy in the hands of charlatans can be as lethal as the worst of dictatorships, here is your proof. You kill and get killed to win elections, say the Jews. What can be more democratic than this? Sometimes they call it populist democracy to differentiate it from what is presumably a regular kind of democracy. But the fact remains that the Jews who invented communism are now running an apartheid regime in Israel and maintaining an intellectual censorship on the English speaking world that rivals the book burning celebrations of the Nazis. And they want America to destroy a world that is not democratic enough to suit their taste. It's all neat, clean and logical, isn't it?

Which leaves us with one question to ask: Which way to the gas chamber?

A Step For Palestine, A Leap For Mankind

The editors of the Wall Street Journal want to convince you and me that Unesco is on its way back to the future without first attempting to convince themselves that America is on its way back to the past, taken there by a never ending stream of proposals dropped in its lap by characters like the editors of the Wall Street Journal no less. In fact, these people have hurled their latest proposal at America on November 1, 2011 in a piece of writing they titled: “Back to Unesco's Future” and subtitled: “What the U.S. gets for its money at the U.N.”

The story behind it all is that the people of Palestine are the victims of an ongoing home invasion that has lasted several generations already; and they had it up to here with the beastly savagery of the intruder. He is one of two siblings in a family that has feuded in Europe for centuries where the two competed for supremacy and for dominion over the Continent. At some point in the Twentieth Century, the Nazi sibling turned extremely violent against the one calling himself the Chosen, and forced him to go look for a new home elsewhere in the world. Now calling himself Judeo-Yiddish and swearing he only wants to secure a small enclave where he can live in peace and quiet as a Jew, the former Chosen schemed with the mischief maker of the day that was Britain, and they both looked at places in East Africa and Palestine for the outcast sibling to occupy, choosing ultimately to invade and to settle in the latter.

He started to describe his group as being the Chosen Judeo-Europeans and thought of himself as being a unique breed now living in a neighborhood of Christian and Muslim non-Europeans. He changed the name of the homestead he invaded from Palestine to Israel and proceeded to terrorize the local inhabitants, pushing them out of the places that had been their homes since the beginning of time. To justify a behavior deemed as savage as that of the Nazi sibling he left behind, the Jewish sibling claimed that the neighborhood was a tough one, necessitating his kind of response. But this being contrary to the promises he made at the start to the effect that he only wanted a small enclave where he will live in hiding, his abrupt reversal made it clear he had an elaborate secret agenda in mind all along.

The appearance of this agenda may have come as a surprise to some people but not to those who knew him well and knew how he operates. And by the time several decades had passed following the original invasion, it became clear to everyone that the demonic plan of this sibling had always been to ethnic cleanse the land he stole and to acquire more of it so as to realize a supremacy of some kind and have absolute control over a dominion of some sort. Here we go again repeating in the Middle East the tragedy he authored and played out in Europe. And you know that tragedy will be the ultimate outcome because when the plan is completed, it will represent but the first step on the way to scoring greater conquests, the kind that will rival the mythological conquests of the Old Testament. To the people who had an inkling as to what was transpiring in the Middle East, the plan began to look like the dream that has lived among the disciples of the movement for a thousand years, a dream that the diehard among them now believe is within their grasp.

But the combination of beastly behavior and satanic trickery employed by the squatting invaders of what was once a peaceful Palestine convinced the rest of the world that the Chosen was not chosen to be a saint but chosen to be the incarnation of evil itself. It is now becoming clearer by the day that he exists for one reason and one reason only; to keep humanity from progressing steadily on the path to a civilized coexistence where everyone was going to adhere to the philosophy of live and let live. It was meant to be that Planet Earth was going to transform into a place where people learned from each other, picked up the best of practices from one another and worked together to advance the human species in the fields of education, science and culture. But because this proved to be a receding dream at least for now, the UN Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) was called upon to play a role in the debacle and do what it can to mitigate the damage caused by the sibling that outlived the Nazis; the one that picked up the mantle of prince of darkness and became sole owner of it.

Yes, it was the Palestinians who went to the Unesco and asked for the recognition that was due to them. Having tried for decades to reason with the beastly savage in a never ending series of so-called negotiations, there came a point when they had it up to here with his trickery and his bad faith. They decided to cut loose from him and cut loose from a setup that was never meant to go anywhere but meant to buy the beast enough time to implement his demonic agenda for the region and satanic agenda for the world. And the UNESCO spoke in the name of the civilized part of that world saying yes to the request to admit Palestine as a full member of the organization. To paraphrase the first human who walked on the moon, Neil Armstrong, this was a small step for Palestine but a giant leap for mankind.

Rather than see this development as a metaphor for the progress of mankind in the same way that the landing on the moon was a triumph for humanity, the editors of the Journal used another metaphor to express the meanness of their spirit and the pettiness of their character. Lucky for us, however, it turned out they did not know what they were talking about, and their rumination backfired. Here is their problem. “Back to the Future” which is paraphrased in the title of their piece, is actually the title of a 1985 science fiction movie in which a scientist modified a car and turned it into a time machine.

He traveled to the future, came back to the present and decided at the end of the movie to go back to the future again, hence the title of the movie and the hint that a sequel was in the offing. And this is what happened, in fact, not once but twice because a sequel came out in 1989 and another sequel in 1990. But ever since that time, some people have used the expression “back to the future” in a negative sense to mean moving forward in time while looking backward in spirit. And this is how the editors of the Journal are using it; a confusion that weakens their presentation.

What these people are trying to present is a distorted image of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas who, they say, took his “statehood road show” to Unesco where he won a “symbolic fillip for Palestinian aspirations,” having previously made the fateful decision of “grandstanding at the UN halls”. Well, my friend, this style of writing tells you right away that the piece was written by the Jewish faction at the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal. And you know this to be true because the language seeks to trivialize the holocaust being inflicted on the people of Palestine at this very moment by the Jewish hordes that invaded their homes. Having monetized and trivialized the holocaust which the Nazis inflicted on the Jews of Europe nearly a century ago, these people are now laboring to trivialize the Palestinian Holocaust because it is in the nature of their religion to pick the most evil thing to do and do it as if it were God's command to them. And when it comes to doing evil, they can be a very pious bunch.

It would be natural at this point for you to be perplexed by what you see and thus seek the answer to several questions that may have popped up in your head. Consequently, you make the effort to understand what powers the mentality of the Journal editors. To this end, you read their piece several times over and you notice two passages that say something about that mentality.

First, you encounter this passage: “Unesco has never changed. Six years ago … it adopted a 'convention' … that gives countries … cover to close their borders to Hollywood imports or California wines. The U.S. made clear … that either the PA would get a seat or the U.S will … defund Unesco. The Obama Administration should … cancel the U.S. check.” The immediate impression you get from the passage is the fact that two ideas – one about import of American products and one about recognizing Palestine -- were juxtaposed for a reason. But unclear about what the reason may be, you hold back on your judgment for now.

Then, you encounter this second passage: “Under American law … the U.S. can't fund any U.N.-affiliated body that accepts a Palestinian member … The U.S. provides $80 million a year to Unesco … [whose] … decision means that the PA can now automatically join three other agencies, so American support for those outfits is also in jeopardy.” The idea here is clear; it means to say that there is an American law against funding Unesco and all the UN agencies that may follow suit and recognize Palestine. And this law must be followed to the letter, say the editors of the Journal.

You now put two and two together; you come up with a complete picture of what these people are saying and you get a glimpse as to what powers their mentality. They are saying the only laws the world must obey are those made by Jews. The Unesco “convention” being a non-Jewish law, it should be treated like a toilet paper. But since the world treats it with respect, America should go it alone and treat it with contempt. Although they do not say it outright, you know they mean to convey a notion they have advocated on previous occasions which is that where possible, the Americans who do business with the French should circumvent that convention by getting Hollywood products and California wines into France through loopholes they see and loopholes they may create for the occasion.

As to the law pertaining to the defunding of Unesco, this is a Jewish law that was shoved down the throat of the American people in the middle of the night by an American Congress of pimps and prostitutes, madams and gigolos you find in abundance inside both parties. The law must, therefore, be respected and obeyed, but since it is enforceable only in America, its effect will be inflicted on the American people alone. Too bad for these people but then again – like they say -- you get to be governed by the regime you deserve until you change the entire regime not just replace the governing party by another of a different color and the same ilk.

What is not lost on anyone in the world is the reality that the Israeli beast has become a pariah to be shunned on this Earth. And because of its close association with that beast, America too is becoming a pariah that people are beginning to shun. But you ask: Why is this allowed to happen to America? And the answer is that it is happening because there are people who never stop hurling proposals at that country; proposals that aim to achieve the wrong thing. These are writings such as those regularly published in the Wall Street Journal by the Jewish faction of its editorial board and by contributors of think tanks who contribute nothing really but the stuff that septic tanks are full of.

To see this phenomenon at work, look what closing arguments these people have put together to give the American regime a reason to remain in the camp of pariahs. They begin like this: “The [Unesco] vote … carries unfortunate consequences for the U.S., the U.N. and the Palestinians.” A little later on, they say this: “[The] vote is in fact a rebuke to America's efforts to engage with the U.N.” So here you have it my friend; they are saying that America is so good it wants to engage with the UN but the world is so bad it keeps rebuking America's efforts and thus hurt the US, the UN and even the Palestinians.

And using the editorial comment as vehicle, they pretend to remind the world of the historical reasons why: “Ronald Reagan pulled the U.S. out of Unesco in 1984 after it became a byword for corruption and anti-Americanism.” As you can see, they invoke the name of Ronald Reagan to make a point he never intended to make. While he responded honestly to a situation in the way that he saw it, the point they are making is that if the world refuses to do what the Jews want it to do, it must be that the world is corrupt and also anti-American. The old man must be turning in his grave.

As to the Palestinians, wait till you see what they say about them. Here it is: “The Palestinians know the U.S. will block any Security Council bid, yet they continue … to force Washington to wield a veto … Mr. Abbas ... has expressly tried to embarrass the U.S.” You know what this means, dear reader? Let me tell you what it means. It means the editors of the Wall Street Journal believe that America is such a weakling, Washington can be forced by Abbas of Palestine to do something it would not normally do. Also, America is such a crybaby, it must feel embarrassed by the UNESCO vote and must cry like a baby.

Is this it? No, not yet; there is more. Now think of this, my friend: If Abbas -- who is the head of a powerless political authority under occupation -- can do this to America, think of what these people believe the God-like Netanyahu can do to a Congress that has been certified several times over to be made of pimps and prostitutes, madams and gigolos. Think about it and weep.

But they still have the temerity to remind the world that they hold the trump card. Well, it is not exactly they, but their alter egos. Here is how they put it: “Yet Mr. Abbas needs both Israel and the U.S. to gain independence.” Alas, they go on to lament that while Israel would have done the right thing to keep America entrenched in the column of pariahs, the Administration in Washington will be reluctant to do so. They put it this way: “None of this will shake the … conviction that the U.N. is the forum to solve … problems...”

And so they make a final appeal, one that sounds more like a distress call. They appeal to the American people to go against their own government, and keep their country in the column of pariahs. They put it this way: “[this] should show Americans what they are getting for their money at Turtle Bay.”

It is said that misery seeks company. You can add to it that pariah seeks the company of pariah.

Moribund Nation Of Competitive Workers

The word “competitive” is popping up in conversations these days more often than its use is warranted. It is, therefore, important that we formulate a good understanding of its meaning especially that people often use it not to express the complex ideas it carries but use it as an ID card to gain entry into an ongoing debate where they contribute a huge amount of noise and very little substance.

To begin with, we must understand that the word competitive can carry a different meaning depending on where it is used. For example, when we say: “This product is competitive,” the word means something different from when we say: “This worker is competitive.” In the first instance, we assume that several products have the same quality but that the price of one is cheaper than the others; therefore we deem it to be the most competitive. As to the second instance, when we say that a worker is competitive, we make the mistake of imagining a superhuman being that has the ability to consistently produce goods and/or services of the highest quality, and do so in record time each and every time. We then compound the mistake by attributing the ability of this one being to the entire workforce he supposedly represents.

To enter into a debate having only a superficial understanding of the word competitive is an approach that diminishes the value of the debate and sends it in the wrong direction, a situation that results in the formulation of false conclusions. To avoid this outcome, we must acknowledge at the start that only a potential buyer can judge whether or not a product is competitive; not a disinterested party such as a journalist, an analyst or an economist. And this is because to be competitive is not a quality that is intrinsic to the product but a judgment that is colored by the relative status of the buyer. For example, a wealthy buyer to whom money is no object will deem a product or a service to be competitive when it is of high quality regardless of the price. On the other hand, a buyer with modest means will deem a product or a service to be competitive if he can afford it regardless of its quality.

As to the competitiveness of a worker, much will depend on the work that is being done and the circumstances in which it is done. For example, the work can be as simple as cutting trees with an ax. In this case, a healthy and physically strong man or woman will be more competitive than a weak one because – all else being equal -- they will cut more trees. But if the work is done with a machine, the worker that has experience using this machine will be more competitive whether or not they are physically strong. But how do we judge the entire workforce to which that man or woman belongs? Here again, the answer will depend on the assumptions we make at the start. Several examples follow to illustrate this point.

First example. You own a firm that employs ten lumberjacks. Everyday you sell as much lumber as they cut. An outfit that fabricates a tree-cutting machine wishes to sell you its product and sends someone over to show you what the machine can do. The demonstration goes well and you are satisfied that two individuals with the machine will do the work of ten strong and healthy lumberjacks; a five fold improvement. At first, there will be no doubt in your mind that the switch from manual to mechanized will render your firm more competitive than before because each of your employees will become five times more productive. But on second thought, it dawns on you that you will have to pay for the machine, pay for its maintenance and pay for the fuel it will use. You work out the math, taking these realities into account, and find that a good part of what you save on wages will go to pay for the new expenses. In the final analysis you see that you will not be five times more competitive but maybe just twice – and possibly acquire negative side effects as well.

Second example. You are that employer and the ten lumberjacks in your employ are members of your immediate family. If you mechanize your operation, you will not let them go but will keep them in the house and support them just the same. You will, however, be paying for the machine, the maintenance and the fuel. Thus, you begin to understand that unless you find a market that is large enough to absorb more of your lumber (preferably five times as much as before to keep everyone employed) you will not be employing all of your people and you will not fully benefit from having mechanized your operation. Yes, each of the two employees remaining on the job will be five times as competitive as before but as a family unit, you will not be. In fact, you may now think of the family business as indicating “moribund” on the scale of competitiveness. And this is never a pleasant state in which to find yourself.

Something else will crop up to add to your sense of unease. It is that having mechanized the business, your lifestyle will have to change to suit the times. Now earning a little more than before, you will also spend a little more to accommodate the new lifestyle; a sign that says you have a higher standard of living. Paradoxically, however, you will have lost the ability to make ends meet each month or save some money -- which you could do before. And this is a sign that says you now have a lower standard of living. To be richer yet poorer at the same time will weigh on you and drag your spirits down in a way you never imagined. The unpleasant feeling is compounded and you dream of the good old days when life was simpler.

Third example. Despite all this, you decide that you must catch up with the times and you proceed to mechanize the operation anyway. This done, you go look for new markets to sell your lumber but find none because other firms did the same as you. The result is that you all managed to create a glut of lumber on the market, and you have triggered a price war that turned the blessings of mechanization into a curse. Many of the firms are now threatened to go out of business – yours among them -- and you frantically search for a way to save your firm and your family. You hit upon the idea of creating new markets -- not for lumber -- but for new products that will be made of wood. To avoid having to face another competition early on, you judge that the products you make will have to be something that no one made before. This means in the final analysis that to stay in business in this new world, you must innovate and keep pushing the bounds of innovation further and further all the time. And this is not a very practical thing to do.

Fourth example. You are in charge of a high wage, industrially advanced nation that is holding its own in the capital intensive, high value-added industries but you are challenged in the labor intensive, low value-added industries because of a price cutting competition that is coming from the emerging nations. Companies in your jurisdiction are going out of business as a result, and people are being laid off in droves. You respond by gathering your best thinkers in the field and commission them to study the situation and offer solutions. They do just that and come back with the following options to choose from.

First option. You are made aware of the fact that contrary to popular belief, the work in the developing countries is not all done manually but done with off-the-shelf automated machines that are cheap to buy and friendly to operate because to make them has become a well understood and mature industry. These machines produce large quantities of goods whether they are located in the advanced nations or the developing ones. The difference is that the price of the goods they produce is kept low in the developing nations because of the low wages paid to the workers there. Thus, to compete against these people, you must automate even more the already automated low value-added industries in your country.

But if it is possible to do this -- which is not always the case – and you go ahead and do it, you will create a glut of goods on the market while absorbing very little of your laid off workforce, a move that will tend to make matters worse not better. And the optic will be that while the workers who hold a job have become more competitive as individuals, the nation as a whole has not for the same reason that mechanization did not make the family of lumberjacks more competitive but made it look moribund. And do not forget that sooner or later, the emerging nations will get their hands on the new super-automated machines; and they too will develop a super competitive workforce to stand against yours. This solution just won't work in the medium or long runs.

Second option. You realize that being an advanced economy at the leading edge of science and technology, you already have an infrastructure of venture capital houses where ideas in the head of an individual are picked up, financed and developed into useful products or services that the public will want to buy. But you wish to speed up the process and so, you offer government financial incentives to encourage your people to innovate faster by rewarding those who do. The intent here is to develop new products and new services for markets where you (as a country) will meet little or no competition – at least for a while. Of course, you understand that someone will catch up with you eventually and will force you to innovate again till someone catches up yet again and so on without end. But you go ahead and offer the incentives to innovate anyway.

The trouble with this option is that government encouragement may be a useful thing in the emerging nations where they lack the infrastructure to pick up an idea in someone's head and develop it into a useful product. Thus, the helping hand of the government can fill a void and do good in such cases. But when it comes to the developed nations, the hand of the government almost always proves to be more toxic than benevolent because it bypasses an existing structure that grew organically over the decades, and threatens its integrity. When left alone the infrastructure functions well but it tends to come to a halt when the government encroaches on its turf. Indeed, the involvement of the government attracts the unworthy charlatans who usually have no good ideas to sell and no public that hungers to buy them. But these people know how to walk into the lobby of power and how to cruise the corridors of the incompetent and corrupt bureaucrats who hand out the money. And where the charlatans go with this money, the venture capitalists leave it and take flight because they know what will come next and they dread it. Many end up going offshore to get away from the artificial climate of a home that can no longer be called sweet home.

Third option. If and when sectors of your economy can no longer compete against the developing nations of the Third World, you must admit to yourself that you have become two nations in one: You are an advanced nation when it comes to the leading edge industries, and you are a Third World nation when it comes to the other industries. To avoid responding to the situations in a schizophrenic way, you do not impose on the Third World portion of your economy the policies that apply to the advanced portion, and vice versa. Instead, you treat the various sectors with an approach and a psychology that suit each of them.

To this end you will let the private sector handle the low value-added industries but you will help protect these industries by negotiating new trade deals with the rest of the world. The aim will be to recognize that while competition is a good thing for humanity, cutthroat competition is not a panacea that will save the human race. Thus, the negotiators will agree that every nation has the right to protect its struggling industries so as to gain a share of its own market and maintain a percentage of it – perhaps 25% to 30% of the local market. It is only logical to want to do this; and doing it will be an antidote to cheating which is hard to detect but something that happens all the time. In return for this gain, the nations will be forbidden to export the products that come under protection. For example, if America wants to protect its textile industry, it can do so but it cannot export textiles. To succeed at obtaining an agreement of this kind, you will argue in world forums that you too have a problem of unemployment and potentially one of social unrest that must be addressed the way they are in Third World nations because a Third World nation is what you have become in these industries.

This done, you will use every tool you have in your tool kit to protect those industries -- from raising the import duties on similar products imported from abroad to subsidizing your own industries directly and indirectly. One additional measure you can take will be to allow the businesses to pay their employees less than the minimum wage by calling them apprentices no matter their age. The social service agencies will then step in and make up for the difference so as to raise the income of these people to a level that will give them a decent life, encourage them to stay on the job, offer them opportunities to learn new skills and help them move on to a regular job at a regular pay.

As to the advanced sectors of the economy, you will let the venture capitalists and the marketplace decide which innovations will be developed and when they will be. But if the need will arise to develop an idea that is national in scale, that will take a very long time to complete or that is beyond the ability of the private sector to handle alone – like, for example, the construction of the highway system, the landing on the moon or the construction of a high speed rail -- then the government can step in and partner with the private sector to work with it or simply lend financial support to the firms that will subcontract the associated projects.

All in all, you do not need workers with superhuman abilities that can crush the competition and help you survive economically. And you do not need to see your workers labor like bees to maintain an economy that gives everyone in the country a decent life. What you will need is a smart finger on the pulse of the economy; one that will give you accurate information at every moment. And you will need the courage to describe truthfully what you see, thus communicate the right message to your assistants.

When this happens, you will be aware of the problems as soon as they appear and before they grow too big or too difficult to solve. In fact, the solution to each problem will suggest itself early on and you will deal with it right away before the bad things can accumulate. And you will never have to take a drastic action to save the economy because you will never neglect it so much as to let it reach this stage.