But Who Will Save The Savior?

There is the expression: Who will police the police? It may be the latest variation on a question that was asked in antiquity -- perhaps as far back as the days of Plato. The expression intones that no matter how good a system you may construct, there will be weak points in it that will cause its demise. This will happen because a system must have a mechanism at its head to oversee its function. But sooner or later the overseeing mechanism itself will go bad, and nothing will be there to oversee the system, to police it or to fix it. And like goes another old saying, the fish will have started to spoil at the head. And this is what gave rise to the question: who will police the police?

So much for the ideas that have reigned supreme during the span of time between antiquity and today, a situation that was different from our current circumstances because what we have now is a new kettle of fish. It is that the world is getting bigger in terms of the number of people it contains but getting smaller in terms of the reach that people have. They communicate together with a simplicity never fathomed before, and they do what they do at such speeds, it would look like magic to people from another era. This being the reality of our new circumstances, it is now clear that what happens anywhere in the world affects everywhere in it. And this has meant for sometime now that someone must be in charge of policing the world.

This idea became apparent less than a century ago when the French were having their ass kicked in Indochina, and the Americans stepped forward to volunteer policing the world. The motive was to show the Vietnamese and their likes how they ought to behave in a world whose image was being shaped inside the head of some “Western” dreamers. What happened, instead, was that the Americans had their own ass kicked because the Vietnamese could do it, and because the Jewish organizations in America helped the Vietnamese in this regard by kicking the ass of the American military at home.

When it was clear that the Vietnam War had become a quagmire, the Jewish leaders made their next move. They got America involved in a number of adventures, this time in the Middle East because it is where the Jewish leaders wanted America to be so as to protect Israel while it expands at the expense of its neighbors. Since the Jews considered Israel to be the world at the center of the universe, they did not refer to what America was doing as policing the world; they referred to it as saving the world. But after it became clear that America's performance in the Middle East was no different from the poor showing it had in Vietnam, people began to worry about America and so they asked: Who will now save the savior?

You would think that the Jews had learned something from that experience but no, they did not because Jews never learn from real situations; they only learn from the way that their leaders spin reality. And what the leaders were spinning at the time amounted to no less than “doubling down” on the failed policies of the past. They saw the necessity to do this because America had itself seen the necessity to retrench and to redeploy its forces. America started to take a fresh look at the Pacific region but the Jewish leaders wanted it to remain in the Middle East. And so, the Jewish leaders decided to use a new approach to persuade America to stay where it is. They reached into their bag of tricks and pulled from it a tool known as flattery.

This is where Dennis Prager comes into the picture. He wrote a book and wrote a column about the book. The column was published in the National Review Online on April 24, 2012 under the flattering title: “Why America Is Still the Best Hope” and the subtitle “We should acknowledge our country's unique values.” As to the book, it was published the same day, under the title: “Still the Best Hope: Why the World Needs American Values to Triumph.” The Prager column was followed two days later in the same publication by “Law Games”, a column written by Clifford May that has the subtitle: “Progressive activists are corrupting the laws of war and putting free nations at increased risk.” When you read the column, you realize that the author does not really fear that the laws will be corrupted, he fears that they will be applied equally to Israel which, in his eyes and the eyes of many Jews, is a sacrilegious thing to do because they consider themselves and Israel to be a world onto themselves; a world that is above the law of man.

I have not read the book, and what I analyze here is merely the writer's column about his book. He begins by telling what the central premise is all about: “There are three big ideas … competing for humanity's allegiance: Leftism, Islamism, and Americanism.” He goes on to say that the American value system is the best one to make a good society. It is itself made of three ideas which he calls the American Trinity. But before telling you what those ideas are, he does something that would be strange for a normal human being to do but is normal for a Jew to do. What he does is blow to smithereens his entire theory as he tries to score more with his argument than the argument can yield for him.

Look what he says: “The problem is that most Americans cannot identify these values, and therefore cannot fight on their behalf.” He also says this: “I do not fault Americans for not knowing their distinctive values. No one taught them what they are.” How long has it been? you ask, and he responds: “...the problem is not new. Even … the World War II generation had not been … taught these values.” If so, what are the consequences? They are these: “...the alternatives, Leftism and Islamism, have been spreading like the proverbial wildfire...” So much for a theory about unique values that no longer exist being the best hope for mankind.

But how is it that he knows about these values when no one else does? Do you really want to know, my friend? Okay, well then get ready for the answer because it is bound to shock you. Here it comes: “...by chance. One night … I stared at the coins … and there they were: “Liberty,” “In God We Trust,” and “E Pluribus Unum” (“From Many, One”). He calls them the American Trinity. Are you surprised that a Jew has seen hope and salvation in money? How shocking would you say that is?

Before you go on to read the rest of the column, you stop to ponder this explosive question: If no one in America – going as far back as before the generation of World War II – has known about the values that make a society good, how come he believes that America is good? Or does he? He does not answer this question but he assures you that no other country has made a proclamation similar to the American Trinity – at least not on their currency. The French may have their own Trinity (liberté, égalité, fraternité) but it is not on the Euro and was never of the Franc. Thus, Prager leaves you with no choice but to conclude that he does not see America as being good, but sees that it only has the potential to be good because it has the Trinity inscribed on its currency – something that no other country has been smart enough to emulate. And he devotes the rest of the column to discussing each part of the American Trinity separately.

As to liberty, he says there is an inverse relationship between the citizen and the government. The bigger the government, the less free the citizen and vice versa. To which you say: Tell it to the Swiss who have both a big government and a free society. As to the locution: “In God We Trust,” he says there is an inverse relationship between a citizen's fear of God and his fear of the State. He adds that the more the citizen fears one, the less he fears the other. And he explains that because America and Europe have become more secular, they became more powerful. To which you say: Tell it to the Taliban who – when in charge of Afghanistan -- injected the fear of the state in the hearts of an already God fearing population. As to the saying: “E Pluribus Unum,” he says everyone in America is made to feel like a fellow American. To which you say: Tell it to those who engage in profiling in New York because they don't seem to have gotten the message.

He ends the article this way: “Americans cannot export values they do not themselves know or believe in. And this is why I have devoted so many years writing Still The Best Hope.” But you ask again: How can America still be the best hope when no one believes in those values anymore? He does not answer but he goes on to say: “Abraham Lincoln was right when he said that America is the 'last best hope of earth.' It was true in 1862. And it is true today.” But 1862 and 2012 are separated by 150 years, and things have changed a great deal in the meantime. Besides, the Africans were enslaved then while the Catholics, the Asians and the Jews were considered to be less than equal. In fact, the Trinity that Abraham Lincoln was referring to was: “Life,” “Liberty,” and “The Pursuit of Happiness,” not the wacky Jewish concoction peddled by Dennis Prager.

This brings us to the Clifford May column. He wrote it in response to Reed Brody, counsel with Human Rights Watch, who wrote a piece in which he argued against the trial of suspects in military tribunals at Guantanamo rather than in civilian courts in America. What galls Clifford May is that Brody said the U.S. “needs a trial that is accepted around the world as a fair search for the truth.” And so, like Prager before him, Clifford May commits a fatal mistake at the start; one that blows his theory to smithereens. Look what he says: “...questions do not appear to interest Brody [who is] seeking to expand the rights of those waging an … illegal war against liberal democracies.”

May's problem is that he cannot accept what people say when they make sense. In fact, what Brody said was that he wants to see a fair search for the truth. What May says in response is that Brody should quit searching for the truth because the truth is that the suspects are waging an illegal war against liberal democracies – something he knows even before it is proven in a court of law. There goes his entire argument in smoke. And this is not all because he goes on to say that to view the suspects as being less than guilty before the trial is to aggressively seek to expand their rights. And he claims that this is what Brody and over 'progressive' activists are doing. Moreover, ignoring the dilemma at the heart of the debate between Brody and the progressives, he goes on to say that the work of the progressives restricts the rights of the democracies to defend themselves; it even criminalizes them for doing just that.

This last part being close to his heart, he wants to get to it as quickly as possible. But he needs to offer the semblance of a solution to the dilemma, or his argument will look like it is missing something. The problem is that he does not have a complete solution. Thus, he begins to discuss something but he quickly aborts it to go to the subject close to his heart. Here is how he does that: “Let's stipulate that unlawful combatants … deserve due process. That raises the question: What process is due an unlawful combatant?” He lists a number of possibilities and dismisses them all to end with this: “...American military tribunals provide much more fairness and truth-seeking than do civilian courts of any of the authoritarian states that dominate the U.N.'s Human Rights Council and General Assembly.” This diatribe does not resolve the dilemma but you ask: How is that anyway? And he does not respond because to do so would have forced him to discuss the Brody article in detail, something that would kill his theory – which he already did not knowing that he did. And so, he goes on to talk about his favorite subject which is Israel.

He does that by attacking Brody as well as the “lawyers, diplomats, and academics” whom, he says, are engaged in “lawfare” against Israel. He gives credit to Peter Berkowitz for inventing the term lawfare and makes use of the volume that the latter wrote under the title: Israel and the Struggle over the international Laws of War. This gives May confidence believing that he has on his side no less an authority than Berkowitz. And so he basically says: Let's hang the suspects then give them a fair trial, but he puts it like this: “...jihadis recognize no international rules governing their behavior.” What he does not say is how he would deem a suspect to be a jihadi or deem him to have failed to recognize the international rules before the trial. The result of his method is that he condemns people upon seizing them which suggests that he would deal with them summarily the way that the Serbian Generals did things in Bosnia, a method for which they were found guilty of war crimes.

What is next? you ask. And he gives an answer but he does so in his usual fashion. He attacks someone – this time the Human-rights activists -- whose goal, he says, is not to persuade “the barbarians” to reform. And he adds this: “On the contrary, they contort legal reasoning to advantage unlawful combatants over warriors who fight by the rules.” He wants you to believe that Berkowitz agrees with these views, and he mentions two examples that were cited by the man himself. They are the U.N.'s Goldstone report of 2009 which condemned Israel, and the Gaza flotilla incident of 2010 which challenged Israel's right to intercept a Turkish ship that was taking relief supplies to Gaza.

But wait a minute, you say, wait a minute. What have these cases got to do with making a choice between trying suspects in a military tribunal or trying them in a court of law? Nothing really. These are completely separate issues but like a leech, Clifford May climbed on the back of Berkowitz to hitch a free ride and make it look like his notion of “hang them first then give them a fair trial” is something that Berkowitz would agree with. Well, let me tell you something, if I were Berkowitz, I would send Clifford May a stiff note telling him to shove it for what he did, then shape up when it comes to quoting me or just shut up.

Undaunted, May ends his piece by raising the question: “What motivates Brody and other activists to want to take us down this road?”

I can answer this question. The motivation behind the road that Brody is pursuing is something that is needed at this time because it is the only way to save the savior. You see, in addition to coming up with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the Americans also came up with the system of checks and balances. Under this system, everyone acts to police everyone else. This way, the fish is given several heads, all of which cannot spoil at the same time. No, it is not a system that is absolutely perfect but it is one that has worked well for a long time now.

Life on Earth is evolving as it should but like always, someone has popped up to make of the Jews the odd man out yet again. In addition to this, the perennial losers now have Israel to bring into the game and expand their reach. And because misery seeks company, they are also trying to drag America into their circle of outcasts.

They have made it so that the savior needs to be saved before anything else.

To Shape-Shift The Fox Into A Dove

When the fox cannot get himself appointed guardian of the chicken coop, he tries to do what the wolf does; he tries to wear different clothing. The wolf whose preferred meal is sheep can wear sheep's clothing because the two have the same size and the same physical design. But can the fox whose preferred meal is chicken wear chicken clothing when the two are so different in size and in physical design? The answer is probably not but the fox is foxy as we all know, and he will try many tricks before giving up if he fails the first time or fails ten times in a row.

Likewise, some people are foxy and so are the organizations that they form. They forever try to acquire what does not belong to them by presenting themselves as something different from what they really are. We call these people mercurial because they have the ability to shift their shape in ways that are impossible for the rest of us to duplicate. However, like mercury which is a metal that ought to be in a solid form but remains a fluid at room temperature, these people have the facility to take any shape they want -- looking like something one moment and a different thing another moment. They are the fox that can be a chicken or a hawk or a dove depending on the requirements of the moment.

All sorts of people in all sorts of cultures engage in this sort of thing but no one engages in it as a matter of religious duty but the people who adhere to the Judeo-Yiddish culture. They say they are an ethno-religious group, and they operate under the banner of organizations they put together for one purpose or another. These people will look peaceful, benevolent and vulnerable as they approach you but turn rapacious when they get close enough to bite you. And when they have you securely in their grip, they will not stop devouring you till they have gulped the last morsel of your being. But if you fight back, do it well and remain alive despite their effort, they will see they cannot get much further making a feast out of you and will be peaceful, benevolent and vulnerable again. And they will muster the chutzpah to ask that you pity them, forgive them and make yourself vulnerable like they are.

When it comes to feasting on America – which is what the Jewish organizations do to reach out and take a bite out of the Middle East -- you see them do tricks at the height of their foxy performance. They turn themselves into the peaceful, benevolent and vulnerable dove they want you to think they are, having looked like the hawk they wanted you to think they were not long before that. And you can clearly see this level of performance in an article that was written by Rueuel Marc Gerecht. It was published in the Wall Street Journal on April 23, 2012 under the title: “The Islamist Road to Democracy” and the subtitle: “Muslims cannot be dragged to an embrace of secularism and the liberal values that spring from it. They have to arrive voluntarily at this understanding.”

A neocon to the core, Gerecht minces no words presenting his foxy ideas in the first paragraph of the article. But unlike his previous posture when he used to write with a hawkish beak and a pair of sharp claws, he now knocks very gently at the door of both the “American left and right” to tell them about the Arab Spring that has become an Arab Winter. How does he do it, you ask? Well, are you ready for the answer, my friend? Make sure you are sitting before you continue reading. Here comes the answer: “In Egypt, where Arab liberalism was once strong.” Pow, kaboom, explosion, fireworks. Can you believe it? Can you believe what you just read? It used to be that to a Jew, having the words Egypt, Arab and liberalism in the same sentence was like having TNT, a fuse and a match in the same box. And to admit on top of this that liberalism was “strong” in Egypt is to suggest that the size of the TNT was measured in the kilotons or even megatons. And this is enough to blow up a Hiroshima or a Tokyo. We're talking some serious stuff, my friend; some very serious stuff.

But why does he write in this style now? Because he can see that “religious parties” as he calls them, have “overwhelmed secularists in recent parliamentary elections” in Egypt. And he predicts that “An Islamist is now certain to be elected president … and a referendum that would likely down the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty is probably in the future.” And so he needs to adapt to the new realities by shape-shifting his appearance. What was anathema to the Jews and to Israel, they now make it look like they accept it, even love it. And they will remain in this state till they find themselves in a position to bite again at which time they will change back to their normal selves.

In the meantime, Gerecht performs an act of mental gymnastics of the most dizzying kind to communicate his new posture. He comes up with the following conclusion: “As counterintuitive as it seems, they [Muslim fundamentalists] are the key to more democratic, liberal politics in the region.” But how powerful can a conclusion be without contrasting it against something else? And so, he serves you with that something else: “The case for separation of mosque and state has been harder to make … because most Muslims have not been burned by internecine strife. The West has become … liberal … because its past savagery was so intense … Christian forefathers killed each other zealously over religious differences.” Wow! A Jew saying this? How do you say halleluiah in Arabic? Never mind because guess what, halleluiah is said to be a Hebrew word that some Arabs even claim was borrowed from them.

The development in Egypt being sufficient to shape-shift our author from having the look of a hawk to that of a dove, foxy Gerecht wastes no time preparing for the eventual return back to the look of a hawk, an appearance he will want to reacquire when the circumstances will have changed anew. He does this by praising Islam one more time to tranquilize the readers, but it is something he does while injecting a dose of the venom that will again distort the image of the Arabs and the Muslims and help him get things back to the old normal. To this end, he writes the following: “Islam hasn't seen the sustained barbarism … Reform-minded Muslims have usually critiqued their faith with an eye to the West … without appreciating both the highs and lows of Occidental history.” Islam is good, he says, but the Muslims are not good enough to fully appreciate the Occident. Call it the head of a hawk fixed to the body of a dove.

 However, you would think that the author will want to explain that idea but no, he only injects it as a small dose of his venom and moves on to the next injection. The following being that next injection: “A hundred years ago … Muslim intellectuals … tried to work out a synthesis between the West and Islam … post-World War II rulers, however, merely dictated that Muslim clergy and the faithful change their ways.” And so you ask: Was there a contradiction between the two positions? Again, he does not say but he adds the following: “Against the seductive power … which in the hands of military men ran roughshod … Islam stood as a barrier to 'progress.'” What? How does he get from here to there? He does not say because there is no link between the two. All he wanted to do was slam Islam as being a barrier to progress and he did so, period. Like they say, you don't ask where venom comes from; venom is venom and that's all there is to it.

Having begun the article by mentioning the parliamentary elections in Egypt which gave the party of the Muslim Brotherhood a big share of the seats, he now does something to try and “own” what he and those like him used to fight against like savages. That something is what he calls: “The all-purpose fundamentalist cry, 'Islam is the answer'” which he now describes as being a Muslim self-critique and a “tendentious reading of history.” But that was the “cry” they used to describe as being the modern call to a holy war against the West. Oh well, that was then and this is now – and now that he made the fundamentalist cry work for him, he reassures the readers: “What ought to be obvious now is that Muslims ...” well, the rest of this sentence is what makes the subtitle of the article.

What has prompted him to do this is the realization that any interference with the way that the Arab Revolution is progressing will have negative consequences. And so he basically says: hands off the Arabs and the Muslims for now. Is this a good thing? It should be except that he is anything but good because what he does next is inject more venom in the discussion, and he does so in large doses this time. He begins with the grandest lie that the Jewish propaganda machine ever perpetuated in America since an African American discovered that the Jews were the biggest slave traders in history and wrote a book about it. Gerecht insinuates that the Muslims did it too because the Quran authorized it – both accusations being false.

 However, he goes on to say that Islam no longer allows slavery: “because Muslims successfully grafted European ethics onto Islamic mores.” This is baloney but it is a small lie. However, he needs to tell a big lie, one that will concord with the fact that he is afflicted with the most virulent of Jewish diseases: the belief that nobody can be good unless they are forced to be good. But he knows the new lie will be easy to unmask, and he is afraid to tell it in the open lest he be called a two-bit asshole. What he does, therefore, is insinuate the lie by putting it between brackets like this (British warships also helped stop the trade.) He does not say that the British warships frightened the Arabs and forced them to stop the slave trade, but he wants the readers to conclude it on their own. Coward. Let us say he is not a two-bit asshole; he is a cowardly asshole.

Having established that you are reading the work of a cowardly asshole – it is nothing more scholarly than that, in fact -- you wonder if you should continue to waste your time reading the rest of the article. You think about it for a second and decide to continue reading in the hope of seeing something that will redeem the article, or something that will give you a new insight as to why these people did the things that have turned Western stomachs so much as to holocaust them, pogrom them, gas them and incinerate them. And all this happened when the Arabs and the Muslims never engaged in brutal practices as admitted by the author himself.

As you continue to read the piece, you bump against the usual lies, distortions and fantasies but see nothing that redeems it. However, you meet a new insight in the last paragraph that tells you it was worth the time you spent reading the thing. What you meet is this: “Fundamentalists … will be neither our friends nor allies. But their debates with each other ... will get evolution rolling. Down that path lies … less angry relations between Islam and the West.” This is a whole bunch of loaded assertions he throws into the mix without explanation. But what the heck, he's a Jew, he can do anything he wants and no one will say boo.

But you muster the courage to stop for a moment and ponder. Given that up to now, the Egyptians and a number of Arab countries were considered to be “our allies” if not “our friends”, this guy is saying that the Arab Revolution is making it impossible for these people to be our friends or allies again. But why? He does not say why, but you get a sense as to what the answer may be.

You begin to formulate the answer when you read the last sentence of the last paragraph: “Dictatorship nostalgia, on the other hand, will take us right back to the cul-de-sac where Osama bin Laden was born.” What Gerecht says here is that the choice is between democracy in which case “they” will turn against “us” through the ballot box, or it is dictatorship in which case they will turn against us in the manner of bin Laden. In other words, there is no hope of ever having a good relationship with these people.

When you contrast this with what he said earlier, mainly that Arab liberalism has proven itself capable of growing strong roots, you wonder why he does not now believe that democracy can make everything right, which is what Jewish leaders such as himself have been drumming into the heads of Americans for many years. The answer hits you when you remember that he said nobody can be good unless they are forced to be good. And this leads you to conclude that yes, the Jews are advocating democracy but it is a democracy that comes at the end of a whip.

And this, in fact, is how they rule America now. This is a place where everyone, including the journalists, the legislators and the executives of government are blackmailed into performing correctly according to Jewish norms or else. Having accomplished all this, the Jewish leaders now seek to use the power, wealth and prestige of America to rule the world like they rule America. If only Hitler had a whip!

It must be said that the people of the kibbutz, now sitting ill-at-ease in the Knesset, are the foxy wolf in sheep clothing; a wolf that is endowed with the wings and the beak -- not of a chicken – but the wings and beak of a hawk. And the world is telling them: stay away from us.

Back To Square One All Over Again

Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result. This saying has been repeated so many times in recent years, it is difficult to find someone that has not heard of it. And yet, you can meet people who want to keep doing the same thing over and over again. It is as if they never heard of the saying, or they heard of it but do not believe it, or they do not understand what it means. But then it occurs to you it could be that these people want to continue doing what they do because they cherish the status quo, wish to perpetuate it and want the same result all the time.

That status is exemplified by the American thrust into the Middle East, an intrusion that turned out to be a tragedy of the first order for the region, for America and for the world. Indeed, what happened in the Middle East during the past few decades has been the single most important factor in the transformation of America from the beloved military and economic superpower that it was to the detested trespasser it has become in the eyes of the locals. What makes matters worse is the fact that America is seen as being a declining power, one that is trying desperately to overstretch itself militarily at a time when its economy is so disintegrating it will no longer be able to maintain the military it has.

The wrenching thing to the people who once appreciated America and want to see it regain its old glory is the knowledge that the superpower did not find itself in the Middle East by accident. They know now that to get it there was something planned for a long time ago, and done in secret. In fact, the nation was maneuvered into that position by the Jewish organizations; the same ones now trying to keep America in the region at perpetuity. The leaders of these organizations are the people who cherish the status quo and want to maintain it. They succeeded in getting America into the Middle East by getting it out of Asia, something they accomplished by taking advantage of the difficult time that the military was having in the Vietnam war, and they stabbed it in the back by attacking it on the home front.

Thus, when you come right down to it, you see that the Jewish leaders managed to defeat the American military not so much on the battlefield but on the editorial pages of the print publications, and in the production studios of the television networks at home. They had been quietly infiltrating the print and audio-visual publications, and were beginning to take effective control of them. When they felt secure enough in their new positions, they championed the withdrawal of America from Asia while at the same time pushing the nation to deploy in the Middle East. Their motive was then as it is now the protection of Israel while the criminal entity pushes ahead with its murderous expansionist agenda.

After forty years of misadventures in the Middle East, the Americans began to realize that once haggard Asia is now developing at least two superpowers, China and India, who are on their way to become rivals to their country. They see this happen at a time when America itself is sliding toward the status of a haggard. Before the Asian powers become too entrenched in the Western Pacific and be too super to handle, the Americans wisely started to move some forces there in their quest to fashion a new strategic posture. But this meant that America will have to reduce its presence in the Middle East, a move that has alarmed the Jewish organizations so much, they responded by mobilizing their mouthpieces and by giving them a job to do.

The mouthpieces were instructed to call on America to remain in the Middle East. They are to keep hammering this point till the country abandons every plan its military may develop to deploy forces in Asia. The fear of the Jewish organizations is that to move a few forces now will only be the beginning of a trend that will see America increase its presence in the Pacific at the expense of the Middle East. Thus, we see that the Jews are back to square one all over again doing the same thing and expecting the same result. It is a return to the old days but for a few exceptions: the Jewish organizations now control more than the publications of America, they control the whole country – lock, stock and barrel as well as the septic tanks that masquerade as think tanks and a shameless Congress of clowns reputed to poke sticks in the eyes of their commander-in-chief while throwing enthusiastic ovations to the rug pissing dog from Israel.

And you can detect the early stages of that Jewish call when you read two pieces recently published in the Wall Street Journal. The first is a column authored by Bret Stephens which came on April 17, 2012 under the title: “The China Myth Unravels” and the subtitle: “The Bo Xilai affair reveals a country whose political and social institutions are anything but stable.” The second is an article authored by Michael Eastman which came the next day on April 18, 2012 under the title: “The Risk of Exaggerating the China Threat” and the subtitle: “Don't tailor military power for the Pacific at the expense of the dangerous Middle East.”

Like a one-two punch, the pieces seem to complement each other in the sense that you detect a continuation of the themes they tackle when you go from the Stephens column to the Eastman article. You also get the feeling that Bret Stephens has softened you and prepared you to the effect that China is not all it is cracked up to be. This done, he hands you over to Michael Eastman who delivers a hard message, one that says America must maintain a strong presence in the more dangerous Middle East even if it deems it necessary to preoccupy itself with China and the Pacific region.

Thus, despite the earlier columns published only a few weeks prior; columns in which Stephens raised the level of hysteria several notches as he warned about the growing power of China on land, in the air, in the blue seas, beneath them and in outer space -- he now writes the following: “This is not a country on its way to global supremacy.” In fact, this is how he ends the article. But to get there and still maintain a modicum of credibility, he was forced to dish out a whole bunch of mambo jumbo from the start. He tried in this way to avoid jolting the readers into the realization that he is manipulating them to accomplish a goal that contradicts everything he stood for in the past. And that mambo jumbo is what the new column is all about.

Instead of pointing the finger at himself, he begins the article by sticking it to someone he does not name. He does it like this: “Is [China's] rise inevitable? For 20 years at least, China boosters have told us it is … Now … we're learning it ain't necessarily so.” But why is that? you ask. And he responds in a way that blows your mind. Basically, what he says is this: The Chinese are as bad as we are but we're not as bad as they are. In fact, you read through 800 words about a scandal which he says: “...isn't too different from political scandals anywhere: Rod Blagojevich in Illinois, say, or Dominique Strauss-Kahn in France,” which is to say that the Chinese are as bad as we are. But you ask: Why would they not be on their way to global supremacy since we are supreme? And he responds that we're not as bad as they are, therefore we can do things they cannot do. What? What's that again? Well, you have to be Jewish to write like this, my friend – to understand it also.

Anyway, I have no desire to discuss the scandal itself, and so you will have to read the Bret Stephens column if you want to know more about it. As to the article by Michael Eastman who is a military man, it begins by reassuring the reader that it is a more disciplined and more moderate piece than the Stephens column even though it tackles the same themes.

This is how Eastman puts it: “As American military planners examine national security in light of … concerns such as the rise of China, they must not neglect other strategic realities.” He goes on to explain the thing in this manner: “...it's important to distinguish between threats that are most dangerous and threats that are most likely … particularly the Middle East, where economic, demographic and political trends make conflict far more likely...” Thus, he acknowledges that while a conflict in the Middle East is more likely, the rise of China is potentially most dangerous, which supports what Stephens used to say but contradicts what he now says.

These being military matters and Eastman being a military man, you take his word for it. But where you question some of the things he says is when he delves into the matter of predicting the social and economic development of the Middle Eastern nations. He says this: “...oil-producing Middle Eastern states will have little cause to diversify their economies … The gap between rich and poor will persist as a source of popular dissatisfaction … by 2030 more than half the Middle East's population will still be under 34. This … will challenge even efficient regimes … Alienated young people are potential recruits to radical Islam.” You know he is talking about the Arab Middle East because he mentions Iran separately right after this passage.

The problem with Eastman's understanding of the Arab Middle East in terms of the social and economic developments happening there is that his grasp of the region has come about as a result of the negative propaganda perpetrated by the Jewish controlled media in his country. In other words, it is garbage. In fact, his elaboration of the related points consists of nothing more than a list of false cliches, each of which was invented to distort reality in one country or another. Yet, here he is lumping all the countries together and throwing all the cliches at them without making a distinction between any. At first, you get a sense that he is separating the oil-producing states from the other states but he only makes one comment in this regard then talks about the Middle East as if all the states in it formed a single and monolithic Arab/Muslim entity.

What the people who are interested in the Middle East need to know before they do analysis or pass any judgment is that the governments there are spending not millions of dollars or billions of them, but spending sums of money in the trillions of dollars to develop their societies and diversify their economies. However, there is an important difference between the Arabs of the Arabian Peninsula where most of the oil is to be found, and the other Arabs - themselves distinguished as being either of North Africa or the Levant.

The culture of the water poor Peninsula was developed over the centuries around the nomadic traders who moved goods between the Far East and Europe thus made a profit and a good living for themselves. These people never developed agriculture thus never got their hands dirty. This is why the current governments in those places find it costly to build an industrial base, and difficult to instill the spirit of industry in their people. Luckily, they have oil, therefore have the money to import workers from somewhere else, which they do while encouraging their people to get with it and get their hands dirty as they train on the job to produce aluminum, petrochemicals and parts for airplanes. They also learn all about high technology and nanotechnology in ultra modern universities, colleges and research laboratories.

As to North Africa, there has always been the Nile in the East and the rain in the West. This is why you find that Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco and now Algeria have diversified economies that stand on solid industrial bases if modest when compared to those of the fully developed countries. The same applies to the nations of the Levant who always had water, being in the legendary Fertile Crescent. The difference between them and the people of North Africa, however, is that the two developed different temperaments. It is that the North Africans always felt secure being protected by the vastness of the deserts surrounding them. Thus, you find that their culture is based on optimism as shown by their love of life and the desire to go on living after death – even if this is done in a mummified state. By contrast, the people of the Levant were always raided and looted by someone and by each other. They developed a pessimistic culture that makes them suspicious of strangers and of each other, and keeps them in a permanent state of fear.

As far as I can tell, no serious attempt was made in America to draw up a profile of the human side of these people so as to formulate intelligent approaches and policies that would make sense to them. Instead, you see policies formulated at the highest level of the American government based on the writings of a Jewish journalist or two who would be reporting for prestigious publications. All you get from them is filing after filing of stories that tell of the refrigerator that went down and was replaced, the garbage strike that made a city block look like a dump, the heavy smoker whose finger was yellowed by the tobacco he smokes -- and all sorts of other loathsome reporting done at this level of superficiality, ignorance and crudeness.

The same applies to non-Arab Iran but for a small difference. It is that Israel has had a love-hate relationship with that country for a long time, and what the Jewish propaganda machine in America tries to do is motivate the political and military leaders to love Iran one day and hate it the other – exactly the way that kids do their thing in the yard of a high school. It is no wonder, therefore, that we see Michael Eastman write this: “Emboldened by a nuclear deterrent, Iran will ... exert influence abroad. Unable to satisfy its restive populace, the regime will … remain a persistent force for ... instability.” And this leads him to the following conclusion: “These factors underscore the importance of American land forces, which retain significant roles that we cannot perform if we tailor the military solely for the Pacific.”

Thus, a military doctrine for the American armed forces is being shaped by considerations that do not rise above the level of a high school yard. Its author discusses it in detail by advocating the build up of “significant land forces” to partner with other militaries in the region because: “As a demonstration of intent, few actions carry the weight of American boots on the ground.” It is Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq all over again except that this time, it will all be done to protect Israel and defend the insatiable appetite it has to expand its territory at the expense of its neighbors. America is being suckered again so that the Jews may have it their way.

What the patriotic leaders of America should remember is that 9/11 happened in part because American land forces partnered in the worst possible of ways with the Saudi military. What they should also get through their heads is that their people are being killed by their Afghan partners because somebody does not like this partnership. Moreover, the Egyptian people who have seen what it means to partner with a Jewish dominated America are now saying: Keep this plague away from our sacred soil.

Listen to me, America, if you want to partner with the people of the Middle East, don't go pimping for Israel. Whether you go to talk military matters or economics or culture, negotiate for yourselves only because they will be negotiating for themselves and no one else. The moment they smell that you are promoting the interests of Israel, they will flush you down the toilet and walk away to avoid you as they would a dreaded plague.

The Contrived Game Of Love And Hate

The people who study the human brain are working hard to determine what biological functions and activities contribute to the creation of sentiments such as love and hate. Good luck to them. But until they have all the answers, we know that these sentiments do exist and that they can be turned into powerful locomotives that will do as much as pull the train of history. Setting aside the naturally occurring affinity between two beings such as a mother and her child, or the hormonally induced attraction between two beings at the start of their reproductive cycle, we observe that tools are used on a daily basis to artificially create sentiments of love or hate for the purpose of serving one cause or another.

In fact, these sentiments can be tailor-made and manipulated at the micro level by an individual whose motivation might be the petty attempt to influence the course of mundane events, and thus satisfy the personal desires of the perpetrator. In this case, the fabricated sentiments will affect a small number of people, perhaps as limited as a handful or as much as a group. On the other hand, sentiments can be tailor-made and manipulated at the macro level by highly trained professionals whose mission will be to shape the course of much broader events, and thus help to nudge history and force it to take a predetermined direction. In this case, the fabricated sentiments will acquire the potential to affect people at the national level or even the planetary level.

The tool that comes into play to produce love is envy, something that happens naturally but for an exception or two. As to hate, the tool often used to produce it is fear, something that happens artificially most of the time. For example, if a number of men and one woman -- who is plain and ordinary in their eyes -- find themselves working in the same space, nothing happens till one man expresses interest in the woman. Almost immediately, the other men will envy him and begin to compete for her attention. Each man will then come to believe that he always had feelings for her, and may convince himself that she is someone he can love someday if such is not the case already.

There is also the possibility of making people love someone or something by making them hate the opposite -- an artificial feat that is complicated to pull off but that is done often enough. The trick works because people can be incited to hate to the point of harming someone or vandalizing something. This is accomplished by making people fear a person, ascribing to him or to her both evil intent and the power to inflict it on others. Salvation is then promised to come by embracing the opposite. We see, therefore, that artificial means exist to make people hate someone or something, or make them love by way of hating the opposite. I call this the game of love and hate. If you look around, you will see that playing it is a very common occurrence and you will see that it represents a large part of the human preoccupation both at the micro and the macro levels.

Not all the cultures play the game with the same interest or play it at the same level of intensity. In fact, the spectrum is full of examples that range from one extreme to the other. The interested observer will discover that some cultures are too innocent to know how to play the game well, and so they play it very little. Some cultures are too sophisticated to want to play the game at all but play it nonetheless in the absence of having something better to do. And throughout history, cultures have come and gone that were depraved enough to want to play the game incessantly -- and so they did. These cultures were sophisticated enough to get away with playing the game for a time at the macro level before they were unmasked and punished for the damage they were causing.

In this last category, the culture known as Judeo-Yiddish is the most depraved thing you could ever meet on this planet. It never stops playing the game, always playing it in the most savage way you can imagine. In fact, the people who adhere to it are removed from reality by such a distance, you cannot miss detecting this reality every time you look at the trail they leave behind. An example of this is a piece written by Josef Joffe and published in the Wall Street Journal on April 17, 2012 under the title: “Gunter Grass's Tin Ear” and the subtitle: 'The Germans will never forgive the Jews for Auschwitz' runs a mind-bending quip.

Joffe discusses the commotion that has erupted in Germany when Nobel Laureate Gunter Grass published his newest poem: “What Must Be Said,” a work in which he criticizes Israel despite his re-education by the American method, an exercise that led him initially to denounce the Nazi philosophy of life, an attitude he maintained during a good part of his long life. But contrary to the presumption that he will continue to love Israel, love it unconditionally and love it for ever, he seems to have had a change of heart. But aside from reporting on this snippet, a chagrined Joffe does not say much more about the Grass poem or its author.

What Joffe does in detail is report on the reaction of the German and European public to the Gunter Grass poem. And he concludes the article by making the point that antisemitism still exists on that Continent, though to a lesser degree than it used to be. What we get from this reporting and from the author's conclusion is not so much what he consciously wishes to communicate but what he unwittingly says about himself and his culture which happens to be the Judeo-Yiddish. And what comes out in a stark manner is how these people play the game of love and hate.

As you go through the first few paragraphs of the Joffe article, you get the sense that he believes only the Jews have a full fledged history, one that is replete with human endeavors. All the while, everyone else has nothing but a histrionics of cold facts as they can be expressed in dates and places. In his eyes the Jews are human at the core while the others are plastic characters in need of reeducation if not a remake from scratch. A good example to look at is the way he tells the story of Gunter Grass who wrote the novel “The Tin Drum” in 1959 for which he won the Nobel Prize in 1999 but then revealed in 2006 that he was a member of the Nazi SS during a previous life. A long life described in such cold terms.

But in the face of those cold facts, Joffe makes the following comment: Had he “sprung the shocker a decade earlier, his novel … would still shine … but without the Nobel Prize.” This says how much he regrets that the events played themselves out in the wrong sequence. The real shocker, however, is that he allows no consideration to the possibility that the poet may be a full fledged human being that must have agonized before deciding to alter his position. On the contrary, the Jewish writer of the article treats the non-Jewish poet as if he were a physical thing that can be blown from here to there by the winds of change.

And now, says Joffe, comes the “bigger bombshell, a poem titled 'What Must Be Said'” in which Grass explains he was cowed by the 'verdict of anti-Semitism' but now that he is getting older, he finally dares to speak out because Israel is getting ready to wage war against Iran, and thus threatens the peace of the world which is fragile to begin with. And Israel is behaving the way it does because it was armed in part with German-made weapons such as submarines, a reality that will make Germany share the guilt.

In response to these charges, Joffe says without giving proof or giving a hint as to where the proof may be found that “Iran is routinely threatening Israel with eradication.” And he follows with this bizarre gag: “President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is but a 'loudmouth,' a lamb in wolf's clothing” without telling us what we're supposed to make of it. But he asks: “Was this anti-Semitism?” Actually he quotes Israel's envoy to Germany as having asked this question and having explained that it was in the European tradition to stick the Jews with blood libel just before Passover. He has conspiracy theory on his mind, you see.

Joffe then makes the point that “After the Holocaust, traditional anti-Semitism is out.” Where it used to be that the Jews were fingered as being Christ killers who made matzo with the blood of Christian children, and were fingered as being usurers and plunderers of the other races, the Jewish state of Israel is now charged by analogy “with concocting the greatest possible evil: a nuclear Holocaust to be visited on Iran and the entire world.” And he goes on to explain that Grass believes Israel was able to achieve all this because it could enslave 80 million Germans. It did so by wielding the Holocaust thus gouged the submarines from the Germans and suppressed what must be said.

From this point to the end of the article, a picture is painted that clearly demonstrates why the Judeo-Yiddish culture was rejected by every race and every religion; every time and everywhere on this planet. Look what Joffe does instead of engaging in a serious discussion: “This is mendacity to the max, for critical coverage of Israel is a staple of the German media.” He dismisses the entire premise of the Grass poem with one sentence by asserting something that is totally false. And you can tell it is false because if it were true, he and people like him would be writing an article a day similar to the one we are discussing. And as if he had not done enough, Joffe finds a motive as to why the Grass poem was written in the first place: “The motive is unbearable guilt feelings … How to regain moral worth? By projecting culpability onto Israel.”

Here too, you see a loaded statement without proof or explanation as to how it is arrived at and why it is there. And this is where you realize that when the bell tolls and the writing goes on the wall, the Judeo-Yiddish culture does not see or hear a warning to the effect that it must reform, but sees and hears a call to attack the messengers and accuse them of telling falsehoods. But there is more because aside from expressing a mild contentment that Germany is now a liberal democracy, he does not see the need to probe deeper into the matter or try to understand why the Germans and the Europeans describe the current situation by what he calls the three classics: “They are the new Nazis,” “Gaza is like the Warsaw Ghetto,” and “We learned our lesson, the Israelis did not.”

That lesson, of course, has to do with understanding history but the problem is that the Yiddish culture is based on the Jewish religion which itself is based on fictitious events that have no trace in recorded history. In fact, the stated events amount to nothing more than religious fantasies used by these people to interpret current events, predict what will happen next and prepare for that. And you see how the Jewish inability to understand history has affected Joffe's writing. Instead of taking up the history behind the transformation of Gunter Grass from being a supporter of Israel to becoming its critic, he writes useless histrionics and lashes out at everything that contradicts the description of Jews and Israelis as being the infinite expression of absolute perfection.

Then comes the typical Jewish attempt to have it both ways, the consequence of which is to explode the whole presentation and send it to kingdom come. Bear in mind that these are the people who would violate every sense of measured response as they mobilize all the forces that they can, recruiting anyone who would join their effort to go after an ordinary individual who might have said something they consider to be unflattering to Israel or to the Jews. When asked why they do this, they parrot the refrain: Nazism started with a single man and look how it all ended. But you look for the real reason as to why they do what they do, and you find it to be that they do it because they can. And they can because they are allowed to do it. And so you ask: What happens when they cannot do it? Well, this is something else altogether.

Here is what happened with Josef Joffe. He set up a good-news-bad-news situation and began by telling the good news. It is “that the poem did not play well in the Middle,” he says. He then tells about the bad news which “oozes out from the underground.” He explains that while the mainstream media (which represents the middle) has criticized Grass's poem, the internet (which represents the extreme on both sides) has brought people by the thousands, 90% of whom cheered Mr. Grass with the “At last!” type comment or worse. He also reports these facts: “The norm for Europe is for 15% -20% of the population to possess opinions labeled … anti-Semitism.” And he expresses this opinion: “Germany is … mainstream … that is reassuring.”

See? See how these people would turn the world upside down to go after a single person whose life they try to destroy, but find it reassuring that 20% of the population has turned antisemitic?

And this, my friend, is the contrived approach to life that takes these people from one calamity to the other, punishing the world alongside them for not stopping them before they go too far.

Like says Gunter Grass the German poet, the time has come to defang Israel, bring peace to the Middle East, save the planet in the process and help ourselves to boot. I would add to this that we must also clip the wings of the Jewish organizations for, they are the disease that keeps plaguing mankind.

What Have You Done For Me Lately?

No it's not me asking that question; it is one I hear America ask, having been culturally contaminated and effectively impregnated by the Yiddish culture. An illustration of this reality came on April 12, 2012 when two articles were published; one exposing the Yiddish mentality, the other showing its effect on the American state of mind. The first article was written by Clifford May under the title: “It's Not the Arab Spring, It's the Nahda” and the subtitle: “Uprisings in the Middle East are about the 'Islamization of life,' not democracy, ” and was published in National Review Online. The second article was written by Stephen Hayes under the title: “What the U.S.-Iran Talks Will Ignore” and the subtitle: “Everyone's talking nukes, but Iran is a world hub of jihadist terrorism, including al Qaeda,” and was published in the Wall Street Journal.

As you might expect, I aim to show that the two articles express a point of view to the effect that the world owes them something, and lamenting that the thing has not been delivered. However, each article gets into the meat of the argument after an introduction that shows one presentation as being a purely Yiddish approach that is tailor made to impress an American audience, while the other presentation is essentially an American discussion but one that has a Yiddish slant. The latter would be the Stephen Hayes article which starts normally but then bends to adopt the Yiddish mode. By contrast, the Clifford May article sprints into its unabashed Yiddish mode right from the start and stays on it till the end.

The May article takes two paragraphs to start a discussion based on the typical Yiddish bespeak: I am an American, you and I are okay but the world is screwed up and has been from the beginning. He tells of the many journalists, diplomats and academics who failed to properly diagnose what they have erroneously termed Arab Spring. Instead, he calls what happened in the Arab World a series of regional upheavals, and says that it all started “when a downtrodden fruit monger in Tunisia self-immolated.” He goes on to say that the journalists, diplomats and academics were mistaken because they thought they heard an echo of the Czechoslovakia reforms – those that were extinguished in the Spring of 1968 by a Soviet invasion.

This done, he says that America had the only genuine revolution in history because all the other revolutions -- such as the French, the Russian, the Iranian and other instances -- have only managed to replace one form of despotism by another. Obviously, this guy knows very little about American history because if he knew better, he would have realized that without the French, America would today be looking like another Canada; an adjunct to the British Commonwealth. Maybe Clifford May should go to the New York Harbor and take a good look at the Statue of Liberty.

Having established his ignorance with respect to American history, he musters enough hubris to educate his readers on the subject of the Muslim world. He asserts that in this world, there are only a few freedom fighters who are Western educated intellectuals anyway. The downside of this, he says, is that they are less disciplined than the Islamic militants who, besides being disciplined, have unlimited amounts of money. And he warns that these people would use violence to achieve their objectives. He refers to them as the Islamists who view the stormy new season not as being an Arab Spring but as being a “Nahda” which -- he correctly notes -- is Arabic for renaissance, itself a French word which means rebirth.

Where he compounds his ignorance is in the use of the Arabic word as a launchpad to make the following statement: “in this case, they believe, a rebirth of global Islamic power.” And this is where you see how ignorance quickly mutates to become insanity. It is that he believes -- and he wants you to believe that a downtrodden Tunisian fruit vendor set himself on fire, and was followed by hundreds if not thousands of others (mostly Western-educated intellectuals) who braved the bullets and the tank shells and who shed their blood … but to do what? To spark a rebirth of global Islamic power? Let me tell you something, this self appointed educator has more than hubris coming out of his ears; he has bullshit coming out of his mouth and his nostrils.

What he says happened that triggered this train of thought is that he attended a meeting where “Islamists” were invited to Washington to speak about themselves. He met several of them in person, some of whom he spoke with and some of whom he only listened to the speeches they gave. He quotes them in the article and comments on that. The puzzling part, however, is that he says someone named Khairat Al-Shater was there, but he does not say he spoke with him, and he does not quote him as having said something during the meeting. Instead, he reports on something that the man uttered a year ago; the very quote he used earlier to make the insane charge that the Western educated Islamists seek to spark a rebirth of global Islamic power. And so you ask: Why did he not confront Al-Shater and ask him to explain his uttering of a year ago? There is no answer to this question in the article. But who knows? Maybe he did ask the man and got an answer, but he is not telling us because it contradicts his theory.

In this case, let me tell you what the uttering was and what it meant. Khairat Al-Shater is a member of the Party in Egypt known as the Muslim Brotherhood. When the old regime fell and the Party realized it will be called upon to govern the country, Al-Shater spelled out his vision. He spelled it in Arabic, and this is how it was translated: “restoring Islam in its all-encompassing conception … establishing the Nahda of the Ummah [Muslim nation] on the basis of Islam.” The emphasis [Muslim nation] was made by Clifford May because this is the point he is making. It is the point where his insanity and those of many like him begin.

The truth is that the word “umm” in Arabic means mother. In the same way that in most languages, people refer to their nation as the motherland or the fatherland, the Arabs refer to their nations as “al ummah.” When in Egypt someone speaks in an Egyptian context, he will not refer to Egypt as “Al ummah al Masriah” which would translate into the Egyptian motherland, he will simply say al ummah. And this is what Al-Shater was doing as he spoke about Egypt in the wake of the Egyptian Revolution. If he wanted to say Muslim nation while speaking in the Egyptian context, he would have specified: “al ummah al Islamiah” which he did not do.

So much for this part of Al-Shater's speech. As to what he said about Islam and Egypt, it would not be too different from what someone like Rick Santorum would say about Christianity and America. It may raise the eyebrow of some people but it is hardly something that should trigger a hysteria such as it happens to Clifford May and those like him.

But how did the expression Muslim nation get into the Yiddish-American vocabulary of anti-Arab, anti-Muslim hate? It happened when the Americans used to love the Jihadists of Afghanistan. These were the people who fought the Soviet occupation of their country and were calling themselves Mujahedeen. The Americans loved them so much that they encouraged them to ignite their religious Muslim fervor and fight not a Jihad but a “Jihad fi sabeel Allah” against the godless communists. You see, my friend, just as you can say ummah to mean the nation, or say ummah Islamiah to specify Muslim nation, you can also say Jihad to mean struggle or say Jihad fi sabeel Allah to specify struggle for the sake of God. Jihad alone does not mean holy war; jihad fi sabeel Allah means holy war. Get it now?

And so, when the Mujahedeen kicked the Soviets out of Afghanistan with the help of the Americans, only to be double-crossed by the Americans who spat them out after they used them, the spurned Afghans said to themselves that if the Christians could use them to beat the godless Soviets, they should seek to establish the Ummah Islamiah thus be in a position to spit on the Americans. These were the Talibans who could do no more to fulfill their dream than blow up a few Buddhist statues. They did this in their quest to show their Muslim credentials but succeeded only to show how stupid they were. And where they were spat out by the Americans, they were now spat on by the whole world. There is nothing to fear when it comes to these kids and less to get hysterical about.

But being who they are, Jewish Americans lack the intellectual integrity to describe something the way they see it even when they know what they are talking about. Instead, they grab every bit of information they can get their hands on; they place them in a cultural salad bowl, add to them vinegar if not a virulent sort of acid, toss the whole thing to mix well and serve it to an American consumer who suspects nothing but ends up poisoned by a food for thought that is more a dish of demagoguery than a buffet of knowledge.

Now comes the Jewish whining as it is exemplified by the expression: “What have you done for me lately?” To pave the way for that, Clifford May does something very Jewish; he serves the reader with a hefty dose of moral syphilism at the start of the discussion. Thus, he mentions a few regrettable incidents that happened in Muslim countries which pale when compared to the thousands who died in the name of the Revolution, something he pooh poohed as being insignificant. And certainly, those incidents look no worse than a ship of state caught in a stormy sea when compared to the shipwrecks that happened and still do in Europe, Asia and the Americas; when compared to the murderous calamity that is Jewish occupied Palestine.

But believing that he has prepared you well enough to hear what he wants from all this, he gets to say what that is. From Egypt he wants: “to have Westerners in Cairo supporting … civil-society groups, or businessmen and tourists sipping cocktails in hotel bars, or to restrain terrorists from firing missiles at Israel from Egyptian territory.” This, he says, is what he would have wished to hear a member of the Egyptian Parliament named Dardery say but did not. He then digresses for a moment to say something (too ignorant to mention here) about a Jordanian who spoke at the gathering. And he returns to Dardery who had taken the trouble to define the Arabic word Jihad.

Clifford May tells what Dardery said in this regard then adds his own two cents worth: “I waited for him to add something about Jihad as defined by Osama bin Laden … or Ayatollah Khomeini...” So you ask, how could Dardery have known that a Jewish asshole was sitting in the audience waiting to hear him say something about Bin Laden or Khomeini? And why did the asshole not ask if he burned with the desire to know the answer?

Based on this and this alone, he concludes: “The Arab Spring was a mirage. The Nahda is a reality … Journalists, diplomats, and academics might understand all this if they were relying less on optimism and more on analysis.” But the trouble is that he did no analysis of his own; he only frothed at the mouth all the garbage that was puked by other assholes like himself.

And so, to help him understand what he has been frothing about, let me analyze his garbage. On the matter of Westerners supporting civil-society groups, the people who have reviewed this matter understand that gangs have been set-up and are being financed by the two American Parties to operate in foreign countries. These gangs are more toxic to those countries than say, allowing al-Qaeda to operate openly in America. Just ask yourself who in the world would want to be governed by a congress where the members will chase Netanyahu in the corridors of the legislature and beg him: “Next time you come to our capital, please wear me like a condom and I shall protect you from our commander-in-chief.” This happens almost literally in America all the time, but would be a reason somewhere else to turn a legislator into pink slime.

As to the firing that is done by terrorists across the border between Egypt and Israel, the only terrorist state in the World today is Israel. It has killed a number of Egyptians (by accident, they say) and the Egyptians are taking steps to make sure it will never happen again. This is how it should be because everyone has the responsibility to secure their own borders, not rely on the neighbor to secure it for them. Moreover, if there are angry people in Africa who were incited to cause trouble in their own countries and promised to be taken to Israel where they will live the good life but were double crossed by their Israeli handlers – it is Israel's responsibility to address this anger and to contain it, not Egypt's responsibility. The Egyptian authorities have only the responsibility to protect their people from Israel and from the activities of the Israelis, not to protect the Israelis from their stupidity and their own doing.

We now come to the Stephen Hayes piece. Knowing how the Yiddish mentality operates in America, we easily detect its contagious effect on American thought as it is apparent in the Hayes article. Here too, we see that the piece is a lamentation. Speaking of the Americans and the Iranians getting together to talk, he says this: “their short-term goal is the same: to avoid military confrontation … So an agreement of some kind seems likely.” This is a bad thing, he says, because Iran is hostile. And this phraseology is the softer, gentler way to say that Iran is evil; that the regime governing it must be destroyed – through war, of course. But sadly, he goes on to lament, a war is not what Barack Obama wants at this time because it would complicate his re-election. You see, lamentation happens when cynicism is coupled with a sense of helplessness.

From this point on, Hayes dresses up a whole catalog of “underreported stories” about Iranian mischief committed against the United Stated of America without apparently a single response being initiated by America to defend itself or to push back, if only a little. It is as if America were Mother Theresa, and Iran were a “hooded” punk that is running around, distracting her, threatening her, pissing on her shoes, pulling her robe, messing up her head-cover and hair – and all she does is finger the rosary while praying to God that despite all this, his soul will be saved in the end. And you're tempted to say: Go to hell, kid. But you don't say it to Iran; you say it to Stephen Hayes.

He ends the article by lamenting once more; this time about an international community that lacks the interest to hold Iran accountable for what it does which, he says, are acts of war. Now, my dear reader, concentrate on the expression “international community” and keep reading the paragraph till you hit this: “But the real world doesn't work that way.” Now scream: But who is the real world if not the international community? Is it Israel alone? Is this your real world, Stephen boy? Do you mean to say that Israel and your Jewish bosses are all there is to the world? How does that work? Can you explain? Will you explain?

Some Employ But Others Deploy

Who are the rich and what do they do with their money? This is a sample of the questions that have preoccupied us, human beings, since our cave dwelling ancestors started to bring home the wild boar with bacon inside it. Things have changed a great deal since then because wealth is no longer measured by what we see only; it is measured by a host of other sticks -- many of which are invisible to the naked eye. In fact, there are people who possess enough wealth to decorate a whole city if they so wish; and yet they choose to live so modestly as to appear average. It is that in today's world, wealth is stashed in bank accounts and kept in portfolios that contain securities, promissory notes and certificates -- all attesting to the ownership of properties such as real estate, precious stones and precious metals, private companies and what have you.

There are many reasons why and how some people get wealthy and other people don't; why and how some people lose their wealth and other people don't. But this is not what I choose to discuss in this presentation. Rather, it is how the people who have money under their control deploy it -- whether it is their own money or it is other people's money. And what I emphasize here is the extent to which these people make the wealth contribute to the employment of other people.

There are two basic ways to possess wealth in the modern world: either you own equity which gives you a return on your investment, or you own debt which is the money you lend to someone in return for the interest they pay you. When you own equity, you own all or a portion of an institution that creates wealth, preserves it or enhances it.

For example, a farm, a mine, a factory or a utility make the sort of tangible goods we use in our daily lives. Other enterprises such as a department store, a restaurant or a beauty salon perform the kind of services that we all need at one time or another.

As to the institutions that preserve wealth, there is the entire system of health -- ranging from the small clinic to the large hospital -- where human beings (most valuable resource) are made to feel better and kept alive. There is also the hospice where people who are down on their luck -- temporarily or permanently -- are looked after. And there are the firefighters, the police, the coast guard and the military that maintain order and save lives. And to run all this, there is the government in all its three branches: the legislative, the executive and the legal.

As to the institutions that develop the human resources, there are the schools, the universities, the laboratories, the various training centers, the clubs and so on.

When it comes to investing in debt as opposed to equity, you can lend your money to a government -- from the municipal to the federal -- or you can lend it to corporations or you can lend it to individuals.

People who have some level of sophistication in the field of investment prefer to maintain a balanced portfolio. This means they invest (deploy their money) in both equity and debt. In general, these people would have enough of it to be in both types of investment at the same time. But there are also people who invest in only one type or the other. They would be the people who have a narrow purpose they wish to fulfill or the people who have a mandate to invest the money put under their control in a prescribed way.

The crucial point I wish to accentuate here is that the relationship you develop with your investment will differ markedly depending on whether you invest in equity or you invest in debt. And the consequence is that your view of the economy will also differ dramatically. It is that when you invest in equity, you deploy your wealth in the institutions that employ the people who create the wealth. Sooner or later, you will come to realize what Henry Ford realized long ago; and this is that your employees are also your customers. Thus, if you want to sell what you produce, you must pay your employees enough so that they may afford to buy the products they make. This being the case, you also want the other employers to do the same with their employees. When this happens, you will sell your products to these employees as well; while your own will be buying their products. This means in the end that you and all the people who invest in equity will instinctively wish to see a thriving economy because it is in your interest.

On the other hand, if you invest in debt, you only worry about the solvency of your client. He could be in a business that does well in an economy that is thriving or he could be in a business that does well in an economy that is slumping. As long as he can pay you the interest, and as long as you expect him to return the principal when the time will come, you will be eager to do business with him. But there is more to it than that because if your investment in debt is safe at a time when the economy is slumping, you have the best of both worlds and have many opportunities open to you. It is that you will have the money to pluck assets in distress at a fire-sale price with the zest of a vulture that swoops down on a wounded prey.

The lenders of money and the business vultures call themselves capitalists. Maybe they are in the sense that they own some capital. But they are not capitalists in the sense of the word as it was originally defined -- and this is because they do not create wealth. These people do not make goods of any sort, and neither do they produce the kind of service that would be useful to someone. What they do is use (as a medium of exchange) goods made by other people, and they produce a type of service that is self-serving and nothing more. The truth is that these people are wired so differently from the entrepreneurs who create wealth, and their talent is so different that they can never adapt themselves to create real wealth even when they try. If and when they do try, the chances are that they will succumb to the temptation of exploiting the opportunities blowing their way and they will take advantage of the misery inflicted on other people. It is in their DNA.

For example, if a vulture who calls himself a capitalist buys a factory or any enterprise in distress, the chances are that he will not retool it to make it work more efficiently as he would say; he will fire many or all of its employees, break the company into small parts and sell these to the highest bidder. In the end, he will make a profit that is big or small not because he created something that was not there but because he destroyed something that was there but is no more. The net result is that he will have added to his wealth by subtracting something from someone else – from a number of other people. And the subtraction will be not just a little wealth; it will be to deprive these people of a job and deprive them of the ability to provide for their families. If you want to call this capitalism; call it the dark side of capitalism.

So then, how do the self-described capitalists hide or whitewash the dark side of their activities? They do it by accusing the people who criticize them of envy even when those who criticize are as wealthy as they, but have made their wealth by producing the sort of goods and services that society actually needs, is willing to buy and gladly pays for. If you look closely, you will find that the phony capitalists who used to score with their phony arguments are being unmasked, and they are gradually losing credibility among the general public.

As to the lenders of money, the methods they employ to add to their wealth are no less wretched. To get a deep understanding of this, we need to remember a few fundamentals relating to fiat money. For many thousands of years, the ancestors who brought the bacon home inside a wild boar bartered some of it with a neighbor for maybe an apple or a shell full of honey. Eventually these early people settled down to farm the land and domesticate the animals, a move that increased their wealth tremendously. Thus, the wealth they had was no longer restricted to what they consumed on a daily basis; it was something that had a “stored” value.

To reflect this new reality, our ancestors picked precious metals such as gold and silver, stored in them a nominal value and used them as a medium of exchange. This meant, they no longer had to exchange the liver of a boar for an apple because they could exchanged either of them for a piece of metal and vice versa. The convenience of this innovation was that they could now carry with them a small piece of metal to represent as much as a herd of sheep or a basketful of apples or a beehive.

Life developed further, and wealth increased so much more -- especially in the wake of the Industrial Revolution – that the precious metals proved to be insufficient to reflect the stored value of all the services produced on a daily basis, and all the goods in both the durable and non-durable categories. This reality necessitated the creation of another medium of exchange called paper money. It was also given the name fiat money which is a good thing because the exchange is now done not only with paper but also plastic cards and electronic transfers.

What is important to know is that a Central Bank in each jurisdiction has the task of “printing” and distributing this fiat money, which it does to designated commercial banks and other similar institutions. The Central Bank operates according to rules that are supposed to protect society and the economic system itself from fraud. The integrity of its operation is absolutely essential because someone who produces not even a grain of wheat could -- by a simple trick -- acquire enough fiat money to buy a silo full of wheat, an orchard of apples and a factory processing honey. This is a huge problem but the truth is that no system can be fully protected from someone determined to game it. And gaming the system happens all the time despite the punishment because the temptation to get rich quick is a powerful inducement.

Thus, it happens that the institutions through which the Central Bank distributes fiat money have become the centers of corruption where all sorts of schemes are hatched to game the economic system and give silos upon silos of wealth to people who are skilled in the art of playing games but do not have the IQ to produce a grain of wealth outside the cocoon in which they operate. In doing what they do, these people create mini bubbles that end up fusing together to become a giant bubble. This bubble then implodes and takes with it the whole economy, an event that results in tremendous hardship being inflicted on just about everyone. And believe it or not, they have the temerity to call this capitalism.

To understand how the game is played, we need to know that for the Central Bank to allow the granting of money to an individual or a corporation there must be a request to borrow. Such request is not made directly to the Central Bank but to an institution such as a commercial bank or a brokerage firm. These institutions are supposed to verify that the borrower has a good chance to repay the loan before they approve it. The trouble is that they can be corrupted, and thus fail to do the proper verification. This results in an increasing amount of money being borrowed and being used to buy a fixed amount of assets. What happens, therefore, is that the price of these assets inflates and thus creates the dreaded bubble. Those who know what is happening – and they are the lenders – sell first and trigger the general panic to sell. The bubble is pricked and the economy as a whole gets to suffer in consequence.

Like the vultures, the lenders of money are prone to creating services that are entirely self-serving. Like them, they call themselves capitalists. Like them, they call the people who criticize them envious. And like them, they are gradually losing credibility among the general public.

Sooner or later there will be such an outcry to reform the system that no one will be able to resist. And true reform will come at long last. Am I dreaming?

Bad Goggles Corrupting A Good Writer

Every language I speak and every language I used to speak but have now forgotten feature a saying that goes something like this: You are looking at the world through colored glass. The saying is meant to convey the idea that what we see depends on the color of the glass we hold to our eyes. We may see the world as a rosy, carefree and joyous place or we may see it as a dark, scary and threatening place or we may see it as something between the two extremes. Of course, this is a metaphor to convey the notion that the frame of mind with which we live, plays a role akin to the goggles we may wear. An outcome of this notion is that people who are subjected to intense pressure can develop a frame of mind that will distort their vision of reality.

And so it is with Victor Davis Hanson who is a skillful writer but seems to wear glasses that impact negatively on his talent. He wrote an essay titled: “Iran's win, win, win Bomb” which was published on April 3, 2012 in the National Review Online. The essay also has a subtitle that summarizes the author's point of view. It is this: “Nuclear capability and feigned lunacy are a winning combo for a rogue regime.” But there is more to the essay than just that, including what I consider to be pivotal points of reference. I call them by this name because when modified a little, such points can make a big difference in the way that the beholder perceives the world. This being the case, a small tweaking of the facts by a propaganda machine can so impress the opinion makers of a nation and its political leaders as to influence their decisions and change the course of history.

The good thing about Hanson's essay is that he says at the very beginning how he views the subject he is writing about, and why he views it the way he does. Thus, he makes it clear that he believes Iran is enriching uranium in order to obtain a weapon, and that negotiations will not persuade it to give up trying. He adds that things are the way they are because they have to do with Iran's way of thinking. Simply put, nuclear-weapons capability has no downside and anyone who says otherwise is a liar, says the author. He then goes on to debunk a number of the reasons that diplomats usually cite to show the downside of having such capability. And this leads him to conclude that Iran will someday have the bomb; and he can think of no one who is able to deter it or that will be willing to try.

Another good thing about this essay is that it is put together with artistic flair. In fact, if it were a stage play, all of the above would constitute act one of a story in three acts. To see what this does, it is useful to remember that a well written drama is made of acts that are self contained in the sense that each can stand on its own as a block. This means, there has to be a break between one act and the other at the point where the curtain is slated to come down. And there has to be the feel of a change in direction when the curtain rises again at the start of the next act. But being part of a complete play, the acts depend on each other to tell the full story. This makes it imperative to maintain continuity from the beginning of the first act to the end of the last act. The challenge for the writer, therefore, is to make the action flow naturally and flawlessly from act to act to act despite the breaks between them and the changes in direction at the start of each act.

Thus, we see a break at the end of what can be considered act one of the story told in the Hanson essay. The writer then starts act two by hitting the reader with a change of direction that could not have been expected, but a change that still blends naturally and flawlessly with the rest of the storyline. This is how he does it: “Once a rogue regime has the bomb, it seems immune from foreign decapitation.” You see here the change in direction, and you also see how a skillful writer accomplishes a number of tasks with a single sentence. He establishes the character of the regime as being rogue, the hints that someone will want to decapitate it and he predicts that the regime will remain immune from that fate. Also, having started the sentence in general terms: “Once a rogue regime,” he tells the reader that there exist other such regimes. And this opens the door for him to tell what happened to other actors who lived through somewhat similar circumstances but met different fates. They are Pakistan, North Korea, Iraq, Syria, and Libya.

And this is where I get the feel that the goggles he is wearing are the wrong ones. It is that I see him try hard to accomplish a number of things but fails despite his great skills. Here is one bad entry: “We fought two wars against Iraq only because Saddam Hussein's nuclear-enrichment plant had been blown up earlier by the Israelis.” No, this is not true. In fact, it is absolutely false. The Americans fought the first Iraq war because they were hired by the Saudis and were paid to do a job. They fought the second Iraq war because the W in the White House was told he can better his father by “finishing” the job that the father started but failed to complete. It was to go all the way to Baghdad, which is what he did.

Moreover, Iraq never had a nuclear-enrichment plant and did not want one. What the nation was doing at the time was construct a civilian nuclear power station -- and this is what Israel bombed; a harmless commercial civilian enterprise. The mentality of World Jewry was then (as it is today) that no one in the Middle East but Israel should accumulate sufficient knowledge in the nuclear field that they can become a rival to Israel and be a threat. Thus, it was not the power station as such that they feared, it was the knowledge that would accrue to the Iraqis as a result of having it.

Also, the Americans believed – or so they stated, perhaps to deceive the world – that Saddam had WMD including nuclear bombs when they attacked him the second time. In fact, this was the reason that the W gave several times for attacking Iraq. The American military also thought that Saddam had shells tipped with radio active material, and they warned him not to use them or they will vaporize Baghdad if he did. The point is that the W would have attacked Iraq anyway which means that the claim America attacked because Israel bombed the nuclear station is a lie that someone of Hanson's caliber would have known it is. Thus, we must conclude that he lied deliberately and the question is why? The answer is that he wears bad goggles; and they are showing him a scary picture he is not talking about. What he fears is not the bomb, something he later admits in a passage that can be summarized like this: “Nuclear weapons instill fear not because one bomb is more lethal than napalm but because it could be. Today we talk of Hiroshima, not of the firebombing of Tokyo which killed more thousands.” Rather, what scares him is the religion of Islam, something he does not admit in this essay.

Hanson makes the same point about Syria but here again, you can see the fallacy of his proposition when you realize that the reason why no one has tried to intervene in the current civil war of that country is not the fear that it may have nuclear weapons but the fact that it has a powerful military which is armed with conventional weapons including a sophisticated air defense system. Even if what Israel bombed in Syria were a nuclear reactor, it would be the first time that this country had ventured in the nuclear field. If so, how long would it have taken the Syrians to produce a nuclear weapon? Considering that Syria is viewed as being way inferior to Iran whose effort in the nuclear field goes back three decades -- and has not yet produced the bomb -- to think that Syria was an immediate threat is pure absurdity. What can be concluded from all of this is that the Jewish propaganda machine in America has distorted reality so badly that a skillful writer was made to produce an essay that is technically well put together, but an essay whose historical content is mutilated in the Jewish style. It is said about computers: garbage in, garbage out. It can be said about human beings: BS in, BS out. And when it comes to writing history, no BS stinks more than the Jewish BS.

Sensing that he cannot get away with this much falsehoods without explanation, the writer tries to justify what he has done by impugning evil motives to the actors he has described. And the main motivation he advances is that: “Nukes are often hailed as proof of national prestige.” He gives the example of Dr. Khan whom, he says, is still a hero in Pakistan. Well, Einstein is still a hero to many people decades after his death not because his work suggested how to build the atom bomb but because he was a good scientist. Another example that Hanson gives is this one: “North Koreans are daily reminded how the world comes to Pyongyang's nuclear doorsteps with gifts.” But the fact is that no one has sent a smidgen of a gift since Pyongyang detonated an atom bomb. Hanson gives a third and lengthy example – this one about Iran – in which he makes several points; all of which being the sort of speculation you would attribute to someone you consider to be evil. In fact, it is what the Jewish propaganda machine has been spewing for decades; a reason why not to repeat them here.

The writer then breaks to get to the third act, at the start of which he takes a new direction like a well written drama does. He begins the act like this: “Rarely do intelligence services ever discover another nation's nuclear timetable.” What he tries to do here is reinforce an idea that was put out long ago, but one that nobody mentions openly because it is a horrifying principle to uphold. It can be put succinctly like this: “If you suspect but you're not sure, bomb anyway and claim self-defense.” And he gives several examples about Pakistan, North Korea, South Africa and Israel having eluded the “West”, having shocked it with a nuclear explosion or having left it in the dark as to whether or not they set one off.

And then the inevitable happens. The bad content of the drama overwhelms its good form and causes the collapse of the third act. Heartbreaking. You realize it when you ask this question: If the author believes in what he wrote up to this point, how could he have been so certain that Israel had the correct information when it bombed something in Iraq and something in Syria? Could it be that these were the sort of mistakes which added to the reasons why Israel is the pariah that it is in the eyes of the world? Does he, as an American, want the same fate for his country? Puzzled, you scratch your head and ask why he is doing this -- and the answer dawns on you. It is this: By the time he had reached this point, the writer must have been mentally exhausted.

You hit on this idea when you look at the opening sentence of the third act once again, and you see that it begins with the word “rarely” followed three words later by “ever”. Depending on how much rarity you ascribe to the word rarely, when you twin it with the word ever, you get either a contradiction or a redundancy. This tells you that the writer was mentally worn out by now; but it also warns you that the rest of the article will inevitably prove to be shoddy. In fact, you find it to be a compilation of old clichés, and the idle sputtering of the Jewish propaganda machine.

One idle sputtering is this: “The sad truth is that nuclear capability and feigned lunacy are a winning combo.” He gives false examples about Pakistan and North Korea when in fact; this is vintage Jewish game that only Israel has played. You see this as the secrets of the 1973 war slowly come to light. A picture is emerging about the Israelis advising President Nixon that they had a dirty nuclear bomb. They threatened that if he did not rescue them from the Egyptian advance in the Sinai, they will drop the bomb in Lake Nasser behind the Aswan Dam which will poison the Nile waters for years to come and threaten the entire civilian population. This would have been the fulfillment of the age old Jewish dream of plaguing Egypt as they still imagine has been God's promise to them. Be that as it may, the Jewish lunacy is not restricted to ancient history; it continues to this day with Israel threatening President Obama to ruin his chances at being reelected by bombing Iran if he did not order his military to do it for them.

The trouble is that if you are a writer and you start talking like this, you plunge into a cesspool of stink from which you find it difficult to come out. Everything you write after that becomes the kind of stuff which is only good for the toilet. What you do is speculate about what will happen, and you write about it with the certainty of a prophet. In short, you find yourself mouth-crapping loads of Netanyahu shit like this one: “As long as … Iran can convince the United States it would … lose Teheran in return for taking out San Francisco … the money will start flowing.” The fact is that Teheran does not need money from America; it has enough resources to lend money to needy America if China decided to end the practice. And when it comes to dressing up the cost and benefits of war, Israel is the country that advertizes how many people it is willing to lose in return for the pleasure of attacking someone.

Hanson ends the essay by saying that Iran will get the bomb if it is not preempted which is his way to suggest that it should be preempted.

All I can say is too bad this much talent was used to produce crap and little else. My advice is this: Change those goggles, Vic, and join the civilized world.