Time For Rich Lowry To Do Something Else

Rich Lowry is working as editor of National Review, and the time has come for someone to tell him he has been an embarrassment to the profession of journalism. It is time for him to look for something else to do; for him to leave the profession he was never meant to be a part of, and go somewhere else.

His latest foray in a territory that is as alien to him as a planet that is yet to be discovered – comes in the form of an article he wrote under the title: “The Brotherhood Delusion” and the subtitle: “Morsi consolidates his dictatorship while the Obama administration tells itself bedtime stories.” It was published on November 30, 2012 in National Review Online.

Lowry starts the article by quoting a sentence that was authored by Ambrose Bierce, and he ends the article this way: “The first step is to … perhaps read more Ambrose Bierce.” In fact, it is the habit of this young man to drop the name of someone and recommend that people read him as if everything this person ever wrote was gospel truth. And if you follow the writings of Lowry himself, you realize that he does not relate to ideas because of what they mean or stand for; he relates to them according to the view he has of the author. The way this happens is that if he likes something uttered by someone, he gets to like him so much, he considers everything he wrote in the past and everything he writes now to be the ultimate in high level knowledge and great wisdom.

Rich Lowry reminds me of a number of students I had during the years that I taught in a vocational school where students were generally more difficult than those who went to a regular school. I first realized what the problem was that impeded the progress of these students when one of them asserted to me that he had all the books recommended for the course but then admitted to something that flabbergasted me. After a long discussion during which he tried to be evasive, he admitted that he did not yet open any of the books even though we were three months into the school year.

While Rich Lowry may not be as extreme as that, he displays a similar sort of tendency you see in young journalists these days. They treat the acquisition of knowledge and of skills the same way they treat a political ideology by sticking with what they like and by ignoring what they dislike. To this end, they draw up two columns, one of which would be headed by the title: “I like these” under which they list all the people they tolerate and would read. As to the other column, it would be headed by the title: “I hate these” under which they list all the people they do not tolerate, and would never read. They only read what they like, but do so without turning up a critical eye on them. And they do not bother checking if what they dislike contains something worth knowing or at least something they should not miss.

What this does is that it turns them into a generation where the best of them can only be considered half-baked intellectuals. The reason for this is made easy to understand when you look at the analogous sayings that exist in the other languages. For example, the southern Europeans use the locution “a little education” instead of the half-baked one. As to the Arabs, they prefer to use the “half-educated” locution. You sense from these examples that the foreigners see a correlation between the effort that people make to acquire knowledge, and the ability to process that knowledge creatively so as to make good use of it whether it is the kind of knowledge that suit their taste or it is the kind they find abhorring.

But how do people like Rich Lowry go on to draw up the list of authors they like, and the list of authors they dislike? They do it through a process that is very close to what happens to ducklings. When these birds hatch, they consider the first thing they see move to be their mother, and so they follow it till they die or it dies. In a similar way, the first set of ideas to which the would-be journalists are exposed when they reach the age of reason which is the age at which they begin to think independently – they stay with that set of ideas and follow it for ever or follow it till something drastic causes them to flip. They place the authors of these ideas in the “like” column, and place everyone else in the “dislike” column.

The net result is that many of those journalists grow up to be like Rich Lowry. Look what he does in his article. After quoting Ambrose Bierce, he says this about him: “He would understand events in Egypt very well.” How does Rich Lowry know that? you ask. And the answer is simple; it is that he claims he knows both Bierce and Egypt very well. Great God! I exclaim. I must brace myself for a magnificent lesson from this giant in the field of intellectual gravitas.

So then, what do you want to teach me about Egypt, ye Rich Lowry of the gravitas? And this is what he says he wants to teach me: “Unfortunately, the Brotherhood's credo is: '...Jihad is our way.'” What? What is that again? He says it is unfortunate that the Brotherhood's credo is that “jihad” is the way of the Brotherhood?

Hey, listen to me you pathetic little ignoramus. I have two brothers and two sisters, and all five of us grew up hearing our parents tell us incessantly: “Gahed alashan tengah.” You know what that means you little asshole? It means strive so that you may succeed. And do you know from where the word gahed is derived? It is the Egyptian pronunciation of the imperative that is derived from the noun guehad (or Jihad in classical Arabic).

Yes, you disgusting little cockroach calling yourself Rich Lowry, our parents were telling us we can succeed in school and in life only if we strove to learn hard and do our homework. And when the politicians in Egypt speak of jihad – whether they use the colloquial or the classical – they mean the striving to build the nation with hard work. If this is unfortunate to you who are from the gravitas of the sewer, maybe you're telling the world why it is that America is going down the sewer as well being populated by people like you.

Go find another profession and leave journalism to those who have the talent for it. You have embarrassed us enough already.

Is Moral Relativism A Problem Or A Cure?

Imagine being stuck in an elevator with a man who looks ordinary to you; maybe even gentle, well behaved, refined and classy. You talk to each other and before long, he starts to complain about someone he knows that is bugging him no end. He escalates the verbal attacks on the one he now calls his enemy, and paints a picture which says to you that the one out there is so evil, you conclude on your own, he should be labeled enemy number one of all mankind.

You make that suggestion to the man in the elevator, and lo and behold, he breaks down, drops to the floor and weeps uncontrollably like a crybaby. You console him and ask what is wrong. He says that the contrary has happened in that the evil man out there is loved by the whole world, and that he is the one who is hated by everyone.

What an unbelievable story, you say. No, it is not so unbelievable. If you want to read about it as written by the crybaby himself, go to the op-ed page of the November 29, 2012 issue of the Wall Street Journal. You will find there an article written by Ron Prosor who is the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations. He wrote the article under the title: “What Kind of Palestinian State?” and the subtitle: “The U.N. should consider whether the world needs another nation that imports weapons and exports extremism and terror.”

Having read the article, you now ask: How can something like this happen? You think about it and find an angle through which you manage to shed a little bit of light on the subject. The angle has to do with “moral relativism,” a concept that some people find difficult to understand even though it is a simple thing.

People find the concept difficult because when they hear about it, they think of something complicated. They look for a hidden meaning in every word that is uttered while paying little attention to what is actually being said. Here is the problem: The core idea being relativism, the concept is often discussed in conjunction with the principles of morality. And this combination of the two is what leads to the concept of “moral relativism,” the expression that ends up confusing people.

As to those who bring up the concept in the first place, they do not always clarify what they mean because it is as difficult for them to explain it as it is for the others to understand it. But in actual fact, there is a simple way to explain the expression; it consists of doing a thought experiment. To this end, imagine standing by a counter on top of which rest three washbowls. The one on the left is filled with water at 50 degrees Fahrenheit. The one in the middle is filled with water at the room temperature of 70 degrees. The one on the right is filled with water at 90 degrees. You place your left hand in the left bowl, and place your right hand in the right bowl. You wait a few minutes then dip both hands in the middle bowl at the same moment. What will you sense?

You will sense confusion. The left hand will sense that the water in the middle bowl is warm. At the same time, the right hand will sense that the same water is cold. Why is that? Because when sensing is done by an organism, it is done in relative terms not in absolute terms. That is, one hand will sense that this water is warmer than the one from which it came. As to the other hand, it will sense that this same water is cooler than the one from which it came. Two signals, one being that the water is warm, and the other being that it is cold will go to the brain at the same moment and confuse it.

What this experiment says is that if we want to sense the state of something such as a body of water or anything else without using an instrument, we can do so only to compare the state of one body relative to the state of another body. That is, we can only determine if one body is warmer or cooler than another. What we cannot do with accuracy is determine the true or absolute value of either body. To do this, we need a thermometer that will measure the temperature as being 50 or 70 or 90 degrees, or what other value it may be.

The important idea to retain from this thought experiment is that where the hand comes from will make the difference as to what we sense. With this in mind, we should be able to see and accept that the same will apply in matters that deal with morality. It ought to be clear that in moral matters, the judgment that a person makes with regard to a happening will ultimately depend on where that person comes from.

For this reason, a current happening that is acceptable to one person may be objectionable to another because each will compare it to past happenings with which he or she is familiar – depending on where he or she came from. That is, each person will measure what they see now with the yardstick they came with, even if the yardsticks were constructed differently. And if the matter being measured or assessed concerns morality, which is almost always the case, then “moral relativism” will be seen as the concept that separates the position of one person from the position of another.

Whether or not we believe in the evolution of the species in the Darwinian sense, we all agree that being the organism that we are, we continually experience a sort of physical alteration because we see ourselves grow in size from a fertilized egg to a fetus, and from a newborn baby to an adult. We also see ourselves go through a series of moral alterations because we continually sense the need to learn new skills and adapt to a changing environment so as to stay alive.

And so, no matter what our position may be with regard to the evolution of the species, we all agree that a complex process of evolutionary changes affect us continually whether or not we provoke it. Those changes take the individual from a beginning that is no more than a sperm and an ovum to the end of one's natural life – which can be several decades away. And what this says ultimately is that everything which is natural about us is relative, and that nothing about it is absolute.

Yet, we can say with certainty that everyone of us sees one or more things as being so inviolable, we consider them to be absolute and not subject to alteration. Why is that? To answer the question, we need to look closely at who we are not only as an individual or a species but as a live organism. We must also accept the argument advanced by the narrative of Darwinian evolution which is that a species will not remain in existence for long if the individuals of whom it is made ignore a prime directive telling them to behave in ways that protect their own survival and that of the species. The reason here being that if the directive is violated, the species will ultimately perish, as many have throughout the ages, leaving behind only their fossilized remains.

Thus, it is the prime directive concerning survival which ultimately determines what we consider to be an absolute taboo that cannot be violated. And what this does to organisms – especially those of the higher species including humans – is that it motivates them to cobble up a “culture” based on rules that serve to maintain their survival and defend it when necessity. This happens when we have an encounter with the unknown, at which time the different experiences of the various individuals and cultures make up the different yardsticks by which assessments are made as to whether a situation is hot or cold; whether it is acceptable or objectionable.

So then, where do Israel and the “Jewish people” stand in the face of all this? Well, what we have here is the sad story of a crybaby in the elevator making matters worse for him and for all of humanity the more that he tries to put down the Palestinians he robbed, beat up, stole their possessions then asked the world to love him because he was chosen by God to rule over humanity.

When this is the kind of culture you are fed with your mother's milk, you grow up to be as sick as the Israeli ambassador. And there is nothing that will cure you; not even the concept of moral relativism.

You are doomed unless you change for good; change once and for all.

Playing The Religious Card Like A Jew

The Wall Street Journal ran an editorial on November 24, 2012 under the title: “Egypt's Islamist Coup” and never mind what the rest of the article says. The very idea that these people worry about Islam asserting itself in its region at a time when their Judaism and the Christianity of America they dragged along with them are asserting themselves worldwide, says that they fear being defeated at the game they have unleashed on a world they tried to control by playing the religious card. In short, they played with fire and now worry about it spreading.

It is said that danger looms when children play with fire. It can also be said that calamity looms when fanatics – be they young or old – play with the fires of religion. And the way to play this game is to play the religious card which is something that is done as a matter of course almost exclusively in the so-called democracies – be they real democracies or sham democracies as most of them are.

While people of every religion have played this card at one time or another, the Jewish leaders played it all the time. More than that, they played it not only with their own religion; they played it with other people's religion as promiscuously as they played with other people's money. They even played the religious card inside governing systems where religion was frowned upon or banned altogether, being considered opium used by men of the cloth to pacify the masses and render them docile.

I am neither a trained historian nor an expert on religion. What follows is a collection of impressions and observations I retain about an environment in which my early education was done almost exclusively in Catholic schools. But I also lived in the Muslim country of Egypt for a few years during which time I spent one year in the public school system. I received no religious education there but did enough reading on the history of Islam on my own to have learned something about it. I then came to Canada some half a century ago where I gradually began to question the utility of religion in our daily lives.

It was not the saying that religion was the opium of the masses that made me question the role of religion in the daily lives of people; it was the way that I saw how religion was used to motivate people. Like children, grownups of all ages were moved in directions that had political ends or worse. To give an example, one of the most important events in my life as I was growing up being Christmas, it pained me to see the subtle yet vicious ways by which the Jews were attacking the birth of Jesus, an event they said was the cause of their troubles for two thousand years. And I still cannot shake the memory of a saying uttered by a Jewish woman on television during the week of Christmas some decades ago. While pretending to speak on economic matters, she found a way to go on a tangent and curse “the woman on her way to Bethlehem with evil lurking in her belly.”

As I detected this sort of behavior in the mid Nineteen Sixties and beyond, I also noticed that they engaged in a three-pronged offensive in the religious field. First, they wanted to interface with the other religions by creating interfaith groups they planned to bring under their control. Second, they wanted to blend Christmas, Hanuka and the Festival of Light into one celebration that would be controlled by them. Third, they wanted to lead a fight that would lump together the right to wear the Jewish skull cap or the Sikh turban in places where both were forbidden. They must have been aiming to achieve a grand plan of some sort, but one that was never completed having been preempted in the late Nineteen Nineties by a turn of the events they could not have foreseen.

What happened was that Karl Rove appeared on the scene. He was managing the campaign of then candidate George W. Bush when he had the idea of capitalizing on the inroads that the Jewish rabbis were carving inside the Christian groups using the principle of “interface with interfaith.” By then, the rabbis had completed the snarling of pastors who had a skeleton or two in their closets, and had gotten these televised men of the cloth to proclaim to their flocks of human sheep that God was not in heaven but was right here on earth. He was not the Jesus who was born on Christmas day, they told the young and the old of America; he was the Jew who could be a neighbor of theirs or someone they worked or stood with shoulder to shoulder day in and day out.

And so Karl Rove promised to the Jewish honchos (their rabbis and their political leaders) that if they succeed in getting the Christian sheep to vote for the W, they will be rewarded not only with the moon which, after all, is conveniently promised to everyone else, but also the Jerusalem in the sky they alone fantasize about, and the Jerusalem in Palestine which belongs to the Palestinian people. Help the “W” win the election, said Karl Rove to the Jewish honchos, and you will be given everything you wish to own no matter whose thing it is today.

As it turned out, I was not the only one seeing the religious developments in the North America of the mid Nineteen Sixties and beyond; the whole world was watching and seeing the same thing. Among the people watching most anxiously were those in the Middle East who had a stake in the matter and would be most affected by the end result.

These people were seeing acts of political and religious machinations unfold like a horror movie and they wondered what was happening to the America that used to symbolize freedom but whose children are now told they will succeed in life not by learning to read, write or do arithmetic but by unearthing a Jew they can befriend. This done, they will worship him or her and serve them as slavishly as the American legislators serve their Jewish masters, something they do as faithfully as the devout of any religion worship their God.

And so, the people of the world, especially those in the Middle East said to themselves better hang on tightly to their religion – be it Coptic, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Atheist – before these characters come over here and proselytize a brand of religious syphilism in their quest to enslave the human race and bring it under Jewish control the way they did America.

And Egypt said “Yes” to the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Wall Street Journal is whining like only an Australian Jew can whine.

Seeing Past The Fog Of Moral Syphilis

If the editors of the Wall Street Journal could only see past the fog of moral syphilis which they help generate in partnership with the rest of the Jewish propaganda machine, they would be transformed into a force for good instead of being the force for evil which they are now. This thought comes to you clearly when you read their editorial piece: “Hamas's Gaza Victory” which also has the subtitle: “The cease-fire leaves the terror group intact and politically stronger.” It was published on November 23, 2012.

After overcoming your amazement at a title through which they admit that Hamas scored a victory in its latest encounter with the Israeli military, you feel let down by a subtitle in which they continue to call Hamas “a terror group.” You then read the first paragraph of the piece in which they quote Henry Kissinger who once discussed America's war in Vietnam from the angle of a guerrilla group that takes on a regular army. And when the editors of the Journal follow that quote by opining: “Regarding Israel's latest war against Hamas … the same considerations apply,” you get the feeling they might be up to something that will redeem them after all.

Believing that the editors of the Journal are setting up to draw a parallel between the North Vietnamese whose land was not occupied by America yet fought to liberate South Vietnam that was, you expect to see them opine at long last that Hamas in Gaza that won the election in all of Palestine had the right to fight for the liberation of the West Bank which is still occupied by Israel. But the editors disappoint you because it is not what they do. Instead, they lament that when a Gaza TV station called the latest encounter a victory for the resistance, it was not making an idle boast.

They go on to list the accomplishments of Hamas among which are the following: “Gazans [are] relieved ... the leaders of Hamas emerged politically intact and strategically stronger … suffered no military defeat … dared Netanyahu to invade [which he did not] … Israel has agreed to launch no ground attack or target killings … Hamas not responsible to enforce the cease-fire on other organizations.” Thus, instead of going back to calling the Palestinians the freedom fighters they used to be called, the editors of the Journal continue to call them terrorists having degraded the designation from freedom fighter to commando to guerrilla to terrorist.

And this is what tells you these people are still plagued by the fog of moral syphilis they help generate in partnership with the Jewish propaganda machine. Having looked at the parallel between the Vietnamese war on the American occupier, and the Palestinian war on the Jewish occupier, they deny to themselves what they see with their own eyes thus fall victims of the fog they generate to blind themselves and their readers from seeing the truth that the rest of the word sees so very clearly. And this is why they cannot understand someone saying that the terrorist is not the Palestinian who fights for his freedom but the Jew who kills the freedom fighter for refusing to submit to his whims.

Having blinded themselves from seeing past the fog of their own moral syphilis, they now spin the rest of the narrative in a way that is so contradictory, it rises to the level of a paradox. Thus, to explain Netanyahu's motives, they say this: “Mr. Netahyahu avoids a costly ground invasion shortly before a January election.” And you ask yourself, why then did he start the bombing campaign, sent 15,000 troops to the border with Gaza and mobilized another 70,000 reservists? They don't answer this question but mention the public protest in Southern Israel as well as the one texted by an Israel soldier, both of which “may spread in Israel as the election nears,” they opine.

What's it all about, anyway? you finally ask. And the answer is that Netanyahu is an out of control terrorist who cannot put a lid on his violent impulses, or that he and his team have underestimated the force underlying the cause of the Palestinian people regardless as to who is leading them at any moment in time. And the truth may prove to be that both hypotheses are correct. It may prove that Israel is a terrorist state – as pointed out by many people around the world over the decades – and that its leaders keep underrating the right of the Palestinian people, something they do by habit and do it at their peril.

Failing to face this reality and to embrace it, the editors of the Journal plunge head on into the cesspool of moral syphilis which compels them to rattle off the worn out observation that “Israel lives in a bad neighborhood” without admitting that where the Jews have gone throughout history, they turned the neighborhood into such a bad place, the toxicity of the culture they carried with them compelled the people of every race and every creed to disinfect the place after them with gas and with fire.

Then comes the ending of the Wall Street Journal which contains the obligatory lie that confirms what you have been looking at was Jewish inspired through and through. The following is how the editors have formulated the ending this time: “Iran … noticed that the Jewish state had an opportunity to strike a decisive military blow but declined to do so under world pressure.” No, you say to yourself, Israel did not decline under world pressure, it did this time what it has always done, which is to bluff.

Israel bluffed but the Palestinians called the bluff and the “Jewish state” proved to be the eunuch that only strikes those who cannot defend themselves when they are not watching or when they are unprepared.

When on the contrary, people are alert and the Jew bluffs, the people call the bluff at which time the Jew chickens out like a Netanyahu.

That's what happened this time and the world salutes the people of Palestine for their admirable tenacity.

They Pay Israel To Murder Palestinians

It is often said that when viewed in hindsight, the unfolding of a historical event appears to have been a logical occurrence, and there is a great deal of truth in that. The fact is that while most people believe that life imitates art – which is true in some cases – it is also true that art imitates life, and this is true in almost every case. It is true even when the art is done by beginners who start the practice by imitating the masters before branching out on their own and doing original works.

The fact is that the stories we write in the form of a novel, a film script or a stage play could not have been written in a vacuum. They exist because they are an imitation of life. And like the plot of a storyline in which we do not see what the author has in mind till we reach the end, we often fail to see the logic behind the unfolding of a historical event till it has taken its course and has reached a resolution. It is only then that we look back at what happened and realize it was all logical and that it could not have happened any differently.

And so it was with the latest murderous activities committed by Israel in the Middle East. Looking back at the way the events have unfolded, we realize that the elements in the plot line motivating them were many. As in a classical drama, you have characters whose background prepares them, even compels them to behave in a way that would be unthinkable to someone else. We usually call such characters Shakespearean because the English dramatist William Shakespeare was the one to stand out more than anyone else when it came to showing how captive people are of their character; something he excelled at doing in play after play.

This is the case with the cast of characters in charge of Israel today and those who cheer them in far away places like New York and the District of Columbia. The latter are also the ones who work behind the scenes to gather support for them. As to the immediate factors that have motivated the recent activities, they start with the failure of Israel to convince America to attack Iran. And there was the reelection of the American President Barack Obama, an event that did not sit well with those who financed the campaign of his rival for the specific purpose of motivating America to attack Iran and to get involved in a never ending war against the Arabs of every religion, and the Muslims of every race.

And while these were the immediate factors motivating the Israelis, there were then and there are now simmering factors ready to boil over and set off the pressure cooker. These are economic factors pertaining to Palestine, to Israel and to the comparison between the two. In fact, it has been the view of many – including ardent Jews – that the Jewish culture does not equip its people to have a normal country of their own because they can only lead a parasitic life, and do so at the expense of someone else. And you cannot have a bunch of parasites in one place living off each other for very long.

However, having been kicked out of every place where they attempted to lead that kind of life, the Jewish leaders plotted to have a country of their own and have it remain viable at the expense of someone else. They were able to pull off such a feat because they had the Europeans from whom they siphoned reparation payments by moaning, crying and bellyaching. They also had the American taxpayers from whom they sponged billions of dollars by cultivating the brain dead, potted plants of the Congress and by conditioning them to rubber stamp each demand they make, then go beyond it to show how dogged they are to be Israel's best friend.

By way of comparison, the Palestinians have proven in more ways than one they have one of the most productive cultures in the world. In fact, being barred by the Jewish occupation of their land to develop their own businesses, some of these people – in need to feed their family – accepted the alternative which was to work for a Jewish business. Once there, they demonstrated how good they are, and there has been various testimonies to this effect by the Jewish owners.

Other Palestinians looked for opportunities in the neighboring Arab countries and beyond where they excelled in everything they did. Thus, they proved here as well how conducive to high productivity their culture is. And when the Israelis were forced by world pressure to ease the restrictions on the inhabitants of the West Bank, the Palestinians demonstrated how well and how quickly they can build the country they are forbidden from having by force of arms.

Enter at each side of the stage two events that finally caused the pressure cooker to explode. The first event was that the sources in Europe and in America which kept the Israeli economy afloat were drying up. The second event was that the Arab leaders of the oil rich nations who were staying clear of Palestinian affairs lest they pour money where it would be stolen by the Jewish occupation, changed their mind. They began to look to Gaza as a place where they could put their money and have it work exclusively for the Palestinian people while waiting for the liberation of the West Bank.

This conjured up the image of a Dubai-like Palestinian state rising on the Mediterranean Sea at the very moment that Israel was proven incapable of heading off a looming famine. At last, the true nature of a productive Palestinian culture was going to stand side by side against the true nature of a parasitic Jewish culture now starving without a host on which to feed. And the world will see why the Jewish leaders of America paid Mitt Romney a million dollars to help them mask the truth by insulting the Palestinians and praising the Jews.

And now that the truth was about to be demonstrated in concrete terms, panic set in throughout the corridors of power in Israel, New York and the District of Columbia where the alarm bells went off and the decision was made to destroy Gaza before the Palestinians can start building on what is already there in terms of roads, bridges, buildings and the power grid.

Those in charge of this sickest of the sick cultures decided it was time to do what the Old Testament instructs them to do. It is to exercise their religious duty by killing and destroying, and thus earn the right to eat. Having American jets, bombs, tanks, armors and frigates, they will use them to show the world what it means not to have daylight between them and America. It means that America is partnering with a people mandated by religion to be bloodthirsty or starve to death. America was asked to be an accomplice in the ongoing Jewish crime against humanity, and America said yes. Not only that, but America will now be compelled to run around the world and defend Israel's murderous campaign by calling it self defense.

But first, the Israelis needed to get America to guarantee the four billion dollars tranche of the debt that was coming due. Yes, this is only a small part of the massive quarter of a trillion dollars that Israel owes in large part to American and German banks but it was coming due, and without America's guarantee, Israel would not have been able to roll it, and would have defaulted. The result would have been the instantaneous collapse of the economy and the triggering of the dreaded famine. Worse in the eyes of Netanyahu was the prospect of Ahmadinejad laughing his head off at being vindicated.

They got the guarantee that avoided the collapse but this, in itself, will not be enough to keep the economy afloat. They will have to restore the stream of revenue without which there could never have been an Israel. To this end, they will go back and siphon off more taxpayer money for the non-existent thing they call Iron Dome. In preparation for doing this, they put out a video they say shows that the system has worked when in fact it shows nothing of the sort. And there were journalists on the scene who saw that nothing has worked. Instead, these people were told that what they saw was the intent of the system which determined that the incoming rockets were not going to cause any damage, and so it fired and deliberately missed. Oh yeah! Oh sure!

Nobody was fooled but everybody expects that the Jewish parasite has once again found a way to suck the blood of the already exhausted American taxpayers. A payment made for killing Palestinians; how will they ever justify this to posterity?

I shall soon have my second cataract operation, and may have to take a short vacation. I'll see you here again as soon as I can.

America A Gilligan Island For The World

The boneheads of America lost the election, and they are going through the predicted ritual of self recrimination and mutual accusations, doing more of the latter than the first. They are accusing each other of choosing the wrong man, Mitt Romney, to represent them in the election for the post of President, but no one is taking any responsibility for the blunder.

Now that the loss of the election has sunk in, they portray the man as being like the fictional character Thurston Howell, a millionaire who is so removed from the life of ordinary people, he cannot connect with them well enough to secure their love or their vote. This happened, they say, despite the message he delivered which they insist was a sound message given that it was their own. And they promise it will remain the same, and will be maintained in future campaigns. Apparently, these people never learn from their mistakes; they only recognize that something went wrong when, like a mule, they are hit on the head with a two by four.

To be sure, Thurston Howell is a character in the television situation comedy of the Nineteen Sixties, Gilligan's Island. It is the story of seven people who went on a cruise in a boat, and were shipwrecked in the Pacific Ocean on an island not shown on any map. Now castaways, their challenge in each episode is to stay alive; to look for a way to leave the island and to go home if they can. The most comical figure in the show is Gilligan, one of the two crew members on the boat. The other crew is the Skipper whose life was saved by Gilligan when both were serving in the Navy. They remain buddies, and their antics generate most of the comedy.

Four other characters play supporting roles in the series. There is the Professor who is in charge of finding ways to keep the castaways fed despite the meager resources of the island. He keeps them out of danger when the storms hit, when a wild animal visits the island and when one of them commits a blunder. And he keeps them informed about the world out there with a radio he whipped up using parts and equipment salvaged from the doomed boat. It picks up a station in Hawaii to which they listen when the professor manages to keep the radio powered and operating.

There are also three women in the show, one being the wife of the millionaire who is as detached from real life as him but is not as smart. This being the decade of the Sixties when the roles played by women were stereotypical, you also meet the farm girl, Mary Ann whose presence exudes innocent sexiness without her trying to be sexy. And you meet the movie star, Ginger who wants to be seductive at all time but has no one to seduce on that desolate island. Still, she performs every task as if she were doing it in front of an adoring audience that wants to be seduced by her.

What makes this story a parody of present-day America is not only that the boneheads selected Romney to represent them in the election but that they started to turn America into a comical act long before that, and they continue to do so now. In fact, they are turning the country into an episodic farce which, to be brutally honest about it, looks as pathetic to the rest of the world as a political Gilligan Island. And now that they failed to get their man elected, they continue to play the act as if nothing had changed. It seems that the mule has forgotten all about the hit it took on the head.

The way things work in an American election is that the top brass of each Party appoint the people who will manage the campaigns for President and for the Congressional and gubernatorial positions. As it happened this time, the appointees of the Party supported someone for President but when that one lost to Romney during the primaries, they switched their support to the winner. As it turned out, however, it was Romney's outlook on life that matched almost exactly the philosophy that the Party brass had pursued on the international stage when they were in charge and in control of the levers of power.

In fact, their ongoing effort in and out of power has been to reshape Uncle Sam's character from being the post-WWII benevolent rising superpower to a figure that closely resembles a Thurston Howell. This is a character whose riches are doing him no good, having no access to them, yet he behaves as if he has financial clout on a desolate island where a banana could do him a lot more good than millions of dollars locked in a vault in a far away city. In a similar fashion, the boneheads fail to see that what used to be mighty America is no longer in charge of the world's riches – partly because of what they did to it when they were in the White House – and yet, they act as if they are still in control of the world's finances.

That was the time when the threat of an American economic ostracism directed against a nation could send the shivers down the spine of those in charge of that nation. And so the rulers toed the line to get on the good side of America and stay there. These people feared not only what America could do to them with its riches but also how it could use the influence it had on its allies to partake in the ostracism; and how it could push institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to refuse extending aid to them.

But things have changed since that time with an America whose finances now depend on the good humor of the Asians and the Arabs that hold most of America's debt and much of its floating currency. As well, things have changed with the World institutions about which the Asian and Latin American countries have vowed never again to deal with. They had a few bitter experiences with those institutions, and they have judged them to be – let's be blunt about it – more than useless; they found them to be destructive of their interests.

In fact, what is left for these institutions to do now is scrounge around to put together enough cash to help not the developing Third World countries of Asia, Africa or Latin America but to bail out the newly forming Third World economies of Western Europe – those same old allies of America whose survival now depends not on America but on doing business with the former have-not countries. They trade with them and do all sorts of other business exchanges such as investing in each other's country. How the mighty have fallen! And how the meek have risen!

The table has turned but the Romney people who are known to be of the neo-Conservative variety and the Tea Party ideology, are still behaving on the world stage like the Thurston Howell character. In doing what they do, they pull America away from a world that wants to remain friends but can no longer march in lockstep with a financial empire that used to be but is no more.

The result of their effort to achieve the illogical is causing America to drift apart from the rest of the world as if pulled away into a diplomatic ocean, and made to look like a Gilligan's Island. America is becoming lost in the middle of nowhere, and things are getting worse by the day. It is shown on the map as having ties only with Israel and a handful of small island nations that still bother to toe its line at the United Nations and the other world forums.

You see these people continue to push the nation to its doom as they pursue their old philosophy even after the defeat and their breakup into factions. They continue to do what they have been doing on the local stage and the international arena. In fact, they act as if each faction were living in a separate media universe, absolving the self and vilifying the others for being part of the “entertainment media complex” that instructed Romney to treat America and the world as clumsily as he did.

That sort of display may be comical to the humorists of the late night television hours but is not so funny to the people who suffer the consequences. This being the case, you can imagine why it is beyond the New Conservatives and the Tea Party hacks to understand that they damage the interests of their fellow citizens when they try to describe the country as something it is not. And of course, they will never understand the significance of a world that is watching America transform into a farcical island while pretending to have magical powers it never had even in its heydays.

Whatever the faction to which they belong, all of these people repeat one and the same refrain. It is to threaten the Arab and the Muslim countries, especially Egypt, that if they do not cheer the terrorist activities of the bloodthirsty Israelis, and if they do not accommodate the incitement generated by the bloodthirsty Jewish leaders in America, they will ostracize those countries economically. They also threaten to call on America's allies to do the same, and call on the World financial institutions to follow suit.

And the Arabs and the Muslims are saying to them: Go ahead, make my day, you pathetic bunch of drifters, lost souls and useless bums.

How I Make The Mistakes That I Do

Someone brought to my attention the fact that I made a mistake in the previous article; the one that came under the title: “Start Of A New Season To Rape America”. It is that one of the names I quoted, Hayat Alvi, is not a male but a female, that she is not an Israeli but an American and that she is not a Jew. I did some checking, and it looks on the surface that this is technically correct.

And so, I went over the posting and changed a few things in the text to comply with that reality. But I did the change in such a way as to keep intact my original assessment of the situation. What I did, in fact, was change the designation: “the Israeli Hayat Alvi” into: “the Israeli adopted, Jew at heart Hayat Alvi.”

But how did I make the apparent mistake in the first place?

What happened was that I saw the article “Obama's dilemma: Egypt Is Looking more like Pakistan” in the Jerusalem Post. I remembered seeing other articles under that name in that same publication. Because I scan a huge number of pieces in many publications, I do not have the time to read them all. What I do is start reading those that sound interesting and continue to read them as long as they are sincere and informative. However, I often find after a paragraph or two that the piece is not the sort of thing I want to waste my time on. And so I abandon it.

I must have done this with most, if not all of the Hayat Alvi articles in the past. And I never bothered checking who the writer was or what his/her background may have been. I did the same thing with her latest article but then hit, a few hours later, on the Daniel Pipes article: “Turkey's Islamist Turn, 10 years Later”. This is when a bell rang in my head as I sensed the existence of a thematic similarity between the two articles. I went back to the Jerusalem Post article and read it in its entirety. I then wrote the article the way that I did without checking on the author.

I am keeping the designation “...the Israeli adopted, Jew at heart...” even though I know that technically, the woman is an American citizen of South Asian descent, and that she may not have formally converted to Judaism. I do this because I met women, and I know of other instances in which Christian and Muslim people (mostly women) are beckoned by the Jewish organizations to come into the fold and be indoctrinated. This completed, they are sent out into the world to do the dirty work for them.

It is also a reality that “modern” Judaism says: You are a Jew if you feel like a Jew. It also says: If you're a Jew you are automatically a citizen of Israel even if you've never been there. And in my view, the Jerusalem Post has embraced Hayat Alvi so closely that she cannot be less of a Jew than some of those who go there to do business and get out when the going gets tough.

She was adopted by Israel, she is a Jew at heart and she is doing the dirty work for the Jewish organizations.

Start Of A New Season To Rape America

The Jerusalem Post of Israel which is the senior of all pornographic publications in the realm of political journalism has once again joined the Wall Street Journal of America which is the junior of all pornographic publications in the same realm to pull off the same old number. They have launched the new season to rape the American homeland as they have been doing for a number of years now. It is what they will be doing during the next two to four years unless the American people rise up and demand that the complicity of their Congress in the dastardly act of letting the Israelis and their cohorts rape America ends here and now.

The voting in the American election has ended, and a reconfigured Congress will soon begin a new session which means that a crop of freshmen legislators will need to be “educated.” As well, the crop that was there and got reelected will need to be reeducated. This will happen by refreshing the lessons that the members had absorbed in previous years, and by updating them where and when it will be required. To this end, the Jerusalem Post has on November 12, 2012 unveiled the syllabus of the first lesson it intends to ram through the skulls of the congressional hordes. The unveiling was done in an article written by the Israeli adopted, Jew at heart Hayat Alvi who is now teaching at the US Naval War College.

The article comes under the title: “Obama's dilemma: Egypt Is Looking more like Pakistan”. It was followed a few hours later by an article in the Wall Street Journal written by Daniel Pipes and published under the title: “Turkey's Islamist Turn, 10 years Later” and the subtitle: “The last vestiges of the country's stable, secular, pro-Western past are fading. If voters rebel, democracy may be imperiled as well.”

If you want to know how the moral rape of America is done by the demonic axis which links Israel and the Jewish lobby in America, imagine someone telling you this: It was a Wednesday afternoon that I saw a guy wearing brown shoes when a truck came at high speed and rear-ended a car thus killing everyone in it. The lesson you need to learn from this is that you must appoint yourself policeman of the district. This done, you go out in the streets every Wednesday afternoon and shoot anyone you see wearing brown shoes. If you do this, you will save innocent lives, and people will consider you a special friend.

This is the sort of logic by which the axis of demons has managed to convince the America of Karl Rove and of George the W that Iraq was similar to Nazi Germany. And this was the advice that ultimately led to the horror of the second Iraq war – the horror that started the process of bankrupting America and of tearing down its moral fabric. This is also how that same axis is trying to convince America that Islam in Egypt and Islam in Turkey are now engaging or will soon engage in activities which are similar to the worst of what is said is taking place in Pakistan. The goal of the axis this time is to fire up the U.S. Congress and to incite America to launch yet another war against the Muslim World.

Look how Hayat Alvi does all that in her article: “The fear is that Al Qaeda could return on the backs of Islamist parties.” If you ask: Who said that? she replies: “This quote is by ... Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid, in his book Pakistan on the Brink.” And right after that, Alvi says this: “Unfortunately, Egypt is looking more and more like Pakistan.” As you can see, my friend, what the Jew has done here is latch onto the speculation of a foreign journalist to the effect that something may or may not happen in Pakistan. The Jew then asserted that what may not happen in Pakistan will happen in Egypt because this country is coming to look more and more like the Pakistan that has not happened and may never happen. And this demonically convoluted sort of argumentation is how Jewish moral syphilis is produced, and how it is ejaculated in the heads, the hearts and the souls of the American people.

Here it is in black and white, a clear example as to how the Jewish moral syphilis is put to work and how it drags a superpower the size of America into wars that end up killing thousands of Americans and foreigners, that create refugees by the millions, that destroy properties worth billions and that cost the American people trillions of dollars – money they borrow from potential adversaries because they find themselves too exhausted and too dispirited to produce the wealth themselves.

If you ask: How does the demonic axis justify any of this? The answer is that it does it by letting the Jewish propaganda machine tell the American people the world hates them because they are exceptional. The mouthpieces of the Jewish propaganda machine then get into the act and explain that this is a good reason why America must appoint itself policeman of the world. At the same time, the American office holders are incited to go out and fight against more people in more places around the globe. They are instructed to pay special attention to the Arabs in the Middle East, and to the Muslims elsewhere in the World because these people are the number one priority at this time.

And in the current debate, elsewhere in the World happens to be the country of Turkey. This is where Daniel Pipes uses an argument that is the mirror image of the Hayat Alvi argument. He does not say that Turkey is becoming more and more as bad as Pakistan; he says that Turkey is becoming less and less as good as it used to be. To carry on with the argument, he hints (only in passing) that Turkey is of a respectable size, that it occupies an ideal location on the Globe and that it has a good economy. Alas, he asks wearily if the country is not “set to become the West's greatest problem in the Middle East?” Note that he places Turkey in the Middle East even though the Turks consider themselves to be a European country.

Pipes goes on to give a quick rundown of Turkey's history then says the following about its current Prime Minister: “If Turkey only a year ago appeared … to be the Middle East's 'new superpower' Mr. Erdogan's excessive ambition might be exposing the limits of Turkish influence.” Using this bit of speculation as segue, he opens the door for himself to run amok with a set of more outlandish speculations. Here is one: “Should Mr. Erdogan ever lose voters' approval, look for him to adopt nondemocratic means to stay in power.” And another speculation: “His proto-dictatorial mentality can already be seen...”

And so it goes down to the last paragraph where the author invokes the most outlandish of all the Jewish speculations: “look for the Republic of Turkey to further reject the West and grow to resemble the repressive, stagnant and hostile regimes that characterize the Muslim Middle East.” What the author does here is pack into one sentence the trick that has enabled the Jews to fake their way to great heights, then fall precipitously down to the pogroms and the gas chambers. Pipes is here saying to the “West” what the Jews have said at one time or another to the Asians, the Africans, the Muslims and the Arabs. He is saying this: “We are friends because we are alike. They are different from you and us, and they are our common enemies. Let's finish them off before they finish us off.”

And if you ask: How would this translate into action? You'll find the answer in the last sentence of the last paragraph: “Watch to see whether Western leaders ... act accordingly.” Pipes is not yet saying what those leaders ought to do because we are only at the start of this campaign. Also, the American Congress has not yet started the new session. But what happens normally in a situation like this is that the arguments which began like a whisper do grow more shrill with the passage of time. If nothing happens to interrupt the progression, you should expect to see the Jewish mouthpieces come out at some point and talk about Turkey the way that they now talk about Iran. You could hear the refrain: bomb Turkey, bomb the Turks, bomb them all.

What tells you this is the start of a new campaign against an enemy whose threat – real or imagined – may someday be classified as “existential” is the fact that the Jewish propaganda machine has started to run a parallel job. It is currently sweeping the background so as to clear it of every possible distraction that may get in the way. The main distraction being the Palestinian question which never seems to be resolved, you see every Tomstein, Dickberg and Harryblat pick up their pen or pop in from a television camera to tell America's leaders they must let the Israelis and the Palestinians settle their differences alone without interference.

But these characters never neglect reminding America's leaders that they nevertheless have the obligation to keep sending money and weapons to Israel. They must also keep rubber stamping everything that the Israeli leaders do whether it is good or bad or ugly. This would not be interference in the view of the esteemed characters because it is the fulfillment of an obligation that no one can explain.

The article in the Jerusalem Post, and the one in the Wall Street Journal did not get there by coincidence; they were planted by design. Their purpose is to launch the newest strategy of the Jewish lobby which aims to keep America on edge and keep it fighting the Muslim World for the benefit of Israel and the other Jewish causes.

It is up to the American people to tell their legislators to stop acting like prostitutes or exile themselves to Israel if that's where they would rather be.

Issues To Bewilder The Women I Knew

A lovely thing happened in the year 2012. There was an election campaign in the United States of America during which two hot subjects among others were debated. They were taxation issues and women issues that included healthcare. To be clear, I have not sat down with women lately to discuss these issues because there are only 24 hours in a day, and there is only so much you can do in this span of time. Thus, I base the discussion that follows on the memory of the interactions I had with women sometime ago, contrasting my recollection of that time with my perception of the women I see and hear today in the print media and the audio-visuals.

In my long life, I met women and worked with them on the shop floors, in the offices and in the boardrooms. I was doing maintenance in the shop when I met women that operated production machines. I was designing industrial projects and doing cost analysis when I met women and interacted with them in the office. And I sat in the boardrooms of private companies with women who contributed to the decision making process.

That was the time when the movement to liberate women in North America was gaining steam. It started a few years before it caught my attention but some people say it started decades before that. In any case, because I had been interested in communication since I was very young, I developed the tendency to study the people's responses to the message of the media. Fascinated by the phenomenon, I sought to explore the connection between the way that the media handled an issue and the way that people responded to it. The hottest issues at that time being those which related to women, they saturated the mass media and rendered each of my days a field day to explore and to enjoy.

I still remember the women I met at the time because I kept thinking about them as I began to withdraw from the active life I led then. Watching the world, I saw it evolve and saw the media transform into something different from what they used to be. What happens now is that when I read something interesting in the newspapers or I see something fascinating on television, these women come to mind. And I ask myself: How would this incident have affected the woman I sat with in the company cafeteria long ago, or the woman I sat with in the restaurant around the corner? And how would either have responded to the incident I just learned about?

Before I get into specifics answering those questions, I need to make a general observation. It is that I can tell the following with confidence: the relationship that exists between women mirrors the relationship that exists between men. That is, you will find that the more physical the work is that people do – be they men or women –  the more tightly they bond together. For example, you will find that the people who work in the shop bond more tightly than those who work in the office, themselves bonding more tightly than the people who sit in the boardroom. This is so true, it is not unusual to see men and women in the shop bond (in a purely platonic way) more tightly than they would with individuals of the same gender from a different job classification. In the shop they view each other as sisters and brothers; in the office they are rivals; in the boardroom they are enemies.

An outcome of this is that the men and women who work in a shop can sit together in a cafeteria, have lunch at the same table and talk openly about anything without the fear of being derided by a colleague. More than that, you will find that women can be the most blatant critics of other women, especially the ones they consider to be phoney. There were a few of those in the media when the women liberation movement was going full throttle and I had the chance to sit with women who worked in the shop. I remember one special woman who had no fear of using the forbidden four letter words of which she commanded a rich lexicon.

The women at the table would call ugly duckling the not so attractive women who went on television and spoke angrily about the men that treated women as sex objects. The special woman with a rich lexicon would say these women hated men because they were frustrated and could not find someone to f**k them. But time passed and what happened after that was that a crop of attractive women began to take up the cause. They popped up in from of the television cameras with full makeup on, but they too spoke angrily about the cause. Their complaint this time was not about men viewing them as sex objects; it was about landing a more rewarding job, the chance to be promoted, to shatter the glass ceiling and to have a higher pay. But the women at the table were not impressed with this argument either; and they called them painted dolls that got more than they deserve already yet were asking for more.

In fact, the discussion around the table dealt with more issues than those pertaining to women only. The most favored ones dealt with money such as pay levels, inflation and taxation. As the discussion progressed, you could sense that what was said came out the daily experience of the people who spoke. Knowing little or nothing about the central bank's balance sheet, its open window or its overnight bank rate, they painted a simple and lucid image of the situation as they saw it. They knew about the expression “another day another dollar” and so they spoke of an economic system in which people go to work and get paid for the day. They thought in terms of people who produce goods and services, and of people who print money. They explained that the printers give the producers a little of what they print, and give themselves the rest of the money. The printers then share that money with people that produce nothing yet go on television and complain about everything.

Far from being envious of the ugly ducklings or the painted dolls that pop up on the television screens, the women at the table sought the kind of social justice which says you cannot shortchange someone time after time. Thus, they wanted equal pay for equal work but while this concept loomed large in the minds of the office women and those in the boardroom, it did not loom as large in the minds of the women in the shop. Yes, they sweated as much as the men while standing in a 120 degrees heat in front of a plastic machine and yes, they felt the same level of discomfort doing a repetitive work from eight to five, but they knew something that the office and boardroom women did not know.

They knew that if something happened in the office – be it a big emergency or a small one – for which physical intervention was required, the women will not step aside, and the men will not rush to help. But this will happen in the shop because the bond between the men and the women there is as strong as it is in a family. The truth is that in the case of an emergency, the women in the shop will instinctively step aside, and the men will rush to contain the situation risking their own life if necessary. For this reason, the women who do manual labor will accept a difference of as much as 10% in pay between the sexes. They will begin to ask questions if the difference goes larger than that. A stance like this would be unthinkable in the office or the boardroom.

With time, the women's movement evolved further and spawned the phenomenon of the supermoms. These were women who had it all in every sense of the word. They were highly educated, physically attractive, married with children and holding a well paying job with a fancy title to boot. They were the quiet and confident type with nothing that was nervy about them. I had retired by then and did not have the opportunity to see the women at the table react to this phenomenon but I can imagine their reaction. I can imagine them express respect and appreciation for the supermoms. I even say they would have wanted their daughters to grow up and be like that. But this is not what happened in real life because the opposite is what did happen.

It happened that the daughters of the supermoms may have grown to look confident but they did not grow up to be the quiet type. Instead, they transformed themselves into the sex objects that their forerunners used to frown upon. In fact, as soon as the little ones pass the age of puberty, they make themselves look every bit like the sex playmates that make the boys their age salivate. Not to tease them for long or seek to be chased by them, the girls wear the T-shirts that openly advertise their readiness to be laid. To them, liberation means the liberty to solicit sex and have it when they want it, which they confess they enjoy as much as the boys. They consider this attitude of theirs to be the expression of real equality between the sexes.

The question now asked by the parents is this: How did we get here? To formulate a sense of what the answer might be, we need to go back to the beginning of the women's movement. It started when the women of America realized they were not being treated as equal. But so did the other minority groups, a reality that gave the “white” women the opportunity to make common cause with them, and to advocate a level playing field for all. But by the time that a generation or two had passed, most of this history was forgotten.

The white women who won the fight began to identify more readily with the white men that their forerunners had battled against and defeated. Some of these women – mostly young and physically attractive ones – turned against the colored and hyphenated men and women of America; the very people with whom their forerunners had allied themselves against the white men they feared and loathed.

Currently, these women show no inhibition in flashing their newly acquired identity which is unmistakably white. However, knowing that their species is dwindling in America, and seeing the need to attract members from the other groups, they and their male counterparts shy away from specifically identifying themselves as a racial group. And so, to make their movement look genuine and sincere, they have ascribed to themselves the political label of Conservative, the religious label of Christian and a concocted label they call Judeo-Christian.

This done, they whipped up a political doctrine and an agenda they admit are severely Conservative. But they say this was done deliberately to counter the tendency of America to drift toward the severely Liberal and European style Socialistic state that the country will become if nothing is done to rescue it.

The healthcare law known as Obamacare being what these people dislike the most, they made it the target they love to attack most vociferously when discussing politics or economics or anything else. To this end, you see the painted dolls – now wearing blonde wigs – pop up in the studios of Fox News (their favorite network) to angrily discharge loads of shrill insults; a ritual they perform all day long, day in and day out, fifty-two weeks a year with no respite, no breather and no easing on the hate.

This is the sort of thing that the little girls begin to see even before they reach the age of puberty. It is what confuses them about life; what confuses them as to what is real and what is not. This is why they grow up distrusting everything and rejecting anything that does not yield instant satisfaction. And so they behave the way they do to immerse themselves in a permanent state of a gratified existence.

One particular woman who goes by the name of Ann Coulter causes me to wonder how the special woman at the table who commanded a rich lexicon of four letter words would have reacted to her. I imagine that woman sitting with a dozen people of both genders talking about Coulter and yelling in dismay:

What's this c**t bitching about now?

Nicely said, sister, nicely said.

Looking Back At The Campaign Of 2012

Karl Rove looked back at the political campaign that culminated in the 2012 reelection of President Obama and wrote a column that was published in the Wall Street Journal on November 8 under the title: “The President's 'Grand Bet' Pays Off”. Coincidentally, there appeared on the same page on the same day an article by editorial writer Stephen Moore under the title: “2004 All Over Again” which is about the political campaign that culminated in the 2004 reelection of President George W. Bush.

What makes this coincidence a strange thing is that Karl Rove was involved in both campaigns. He managed the campaign of the incumbent, George W. Bush in 2004, and he ran a Political Action Committee that backed the challenger, Mitt Romney in 2012. Thus, it can be seen that Rove's involvement in the two campaigns was so symmetrical, the close juxtaposition of the two articles easily lends credibility to the temporal relation known by the scientific name: Synchronicity.

Look what Stephen Moore says about all this: “The Democrats stole a page out of the Karl Rove play book to win … Bush won a second term by adopting the Karl Rove strategy of demonizing his opponent, John Kerry.” As to the Rove article, it says this about President Obama: “While victorious ... his campaign was unprecedented in its negativity and ugliness ... [it] may have produced a re-election victory, but it will exact costs.” Has Rove unwittingly cursed himself and the work he did during the 2004 campaign?

To get a sense as to what the answer may be, we need to define the key word which is “demonize.” To this end, we say that to demonize someone is to describe him as being demonic even though he does not deserve the description. And this prompts the following two questions: Was John Kerry demonized by the Bush campaign handled by Karl Rove in 2004? Was Mitt Romney demonized by the Obama Campaign of 2012?

What Rove did in 2004 was seize on the Kerry claim that he served his country well during the Vietnam war, and he disputed the claim in a way that demonizing the man. The claim was to the effect that he commanded a team of swift boat riders who carried out dangerous missions in the rivers of that country. No, said Rove, the man did not serve as well as he claims he did. To prove the point, Rove brought in a handful of former teammates who contradicted some of the claims made by Kerry. Rove's attack was so effectively done that Kerry's campaign was derailed, and the expression “swiftboating someone” entered the American political vernacular.

And swiftboating Romney is what Stephen Moore says the Obama team did to the man's campaign. But is this true? The answer is no, it is not. And this is because the Obama team did not say a thing that Romney did not himself reveal about his financial dealings. All that the Obama people did was interpret what Romney revealed then challenged him to give an alternative interpretation by divulging information he preferred to keep hidden even though it is the sort that everyone divulges.

What Romney did instead was to say that at the time he engaged in that sort of accounting, the practice was legal. It is still legal, he added, which is a bad thing. But he would like to change all that – which is why he was running to be President. And this, my friend, is like a bank robber saying he is running to be sheriff because he does not like what he was doing which is why he wants to catch bank robbers. He will not divulge how he did what he did but he wants the voters to trust him on this score. Well, this is so mind boggling; it only deserves being called demonic.

As to what Kerry's former teammates said about him; it amounts to less than a hill of beans. In fact, what they said shows only that the worst thing the man could be accused of is that he exaggerated the contribution he made to the war effort. And no matter which way you look at it, this matter is no worse than seeing someone tell a story about the big fish that got away. It comes nowhere near being at the level of a demonic act.

When you add to all this the consequences that will flow from Romney's act, as well as the consequences that will flow from Kerry's act, you reinforce the view that Romney was demonic and Kerry was not. This is what the voters have done in their own minds – which is why they voted the way that they did.

Remember the saying: You can fool some of the people some of the time but...

The Invented Candidate And His Inventor Lost

Despite the Jewish vote in Florida and elsewhere that never existed in reality, despite the Evangelical vote that never manifested itself now or ever, and despite the protestations of Karl Rove to the effect that the vote was not all in, incumbent Barack Obama was re-elected President of the United States of America on November 6, 2012, Mitt Romney has conceded, Barack Obama took his victory lap with a rousing speech and the confetti came down like rain from above.

And a delighted world took note of all this but the real story turned out to be a rumor that may or may not be true; that may or may never be proven. It was a story to the effect that Sheldon Adelson who bankrolled Romney's campaign was going to appear with his recipient on the podium to share in the victory lap. It is that both were so confident of victory, Romney had written only a victory speech and not the customary two speeches – one to be given in case he wins the election, and one to be given in case he loses. Well, he lost and he gave a short impromptu concession speech.

And so, it was delightful to learn of the irony that the gambling mogul was hiding somewhere at the back of the stage brooding over the defeat instead of celebrating the anticipated victory. And it was delightful to know that he witnessed the going in smoke of the tens of millions of dollars he bet on this demonic venture. Yes, Mitt Romney was not the one to say that the Palestinians were an invented people; it was Newt Gingrich who did so. But Newt the neut – as he is referred to – was not the one to invent that expression despite the fact that he likes to call himself a man of ideas.

The truth is that the expression was invented by none other than Sheldon Adelson who stuffed it in the mouth of the neut inasmuch as he invented a false notion about the Palestinians and stuffed it in the mouth of Mitt Romney. This was a notion to the effect that the parasitic habit of Jews by which they accumulate wealth created by others is superior to the habit of the Palestinians who create the wealth in the first place.

To be sure, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney were the two candidates that Adelson created originally to help him take control of America and make it work for the benefit of Israel and all the Jews everywhere in the world. As it happened, however, they both lost when Romney defeated Gingrich in the Republican primary, and was himself defeated by Barack Obama in the general election.

The delightful part of this story stems from the fact that Adelson showed signs of regret at the approach he took when he sensed that the gamble he made was not going to pay off. This is displayed clearly in the article he published on November 5, 2012 in the Wall Street Journal under the title: “I Didn't Leave the Democrats. They Left Me” and the subtitle: “There is an anti-Israel movement among the rank and file, and the party no longer appears to value self-reliance, charity and accountability.” As everyone knows, to say I did not leave them, they left me is to say I am sorry we parted.

But why did he and the Democrats part in the first place? He says they did because there is an anti-Israel movement among the rank and file of the Party. He then added a few more reasons to the list that caused the parting but did so only to soften the image he acquired for being the rabid supporter of the horror that Israel has come to represent. In fact, he admits that he grew up to be what he is because he was shaped by views that hark back to the “Jews of Boston in the 1930s and '40s.” This is when the Democrats were supportive of Jewish causes, he says, something that happened at a time when the Republicans would not accept Jews in their fancy country clubs.

The cause of Jews in the America of the '30s and that of today's Israel being interchangeable in his mind, he gives an example of why the Democratic Party no longer suits him: “A sobering Gallup poll … asked: 'Are your sympathies more with the Israelis or more with the Palestinians?'” And the answer given by the poll was that barely 53% of Democrats chose Israel, he says. He then contrasts this figure with the Republicans who chose Israel by an “overwhelming” 78%.

And this was not lost on the people who followed the electoral campaign from the start. These people saw a remarkable resemblance between the attitude of an Adelson who rejects 53% of one community in favor of 78% of another community – and between the attitude of a Romney who rejects 47% of society in favor of the remaining 53%. And all this happened at a time when Romney was voicing the intent to favor the 1% of society that is super rich over the remaining 99% of it that is not. He promised that if elected President, he would do just that by rewriting the tax code and implement such ideas.

But now that this Adelson-Romney adventure has crashed, the time has come for everyone involved in American politics to understand that they cannot please one constituency by hurting another. America got away with this kind of behavior for a while but the cost is becoming so high, the country can no longer afford it.

The thing that a candidate must do when a Jew or a Cuban American or a Taiwanese American promise to make a donation in return for an act that will hurt an Arab nation or the Island of Cuba or the Chinese superpower – is to say NEVER AGAIN will you come and talk to me like this. Get off my face and stay away.

The Romney Dogma And The Obama Toolbox

On Saturday November 3, 2012 the Wall Street Journal published an article by challenger Mitt Romney and another article by incumbent Barack Obama – both articles being the closing arguments made by the candidates before the electors go to the polls the following Tuesday and elect one or the other to be President of the United States of America for the next four years.

The Romney article came under the title: “A New Direction For America” and the subtitle: “A Romney-Ryan administration will confront the problems that politicians have avoided for a decade.” The Obama article came under the title: “Real Progress, But We're Not Done” and the subtitle: “Americans shouldn't surrender to the same philosophy that hurt the middle-class families for so long.”

The two articles have a theme common to them. They both recognize the economy as being the most important subject in this debate. Romney summarized his argument this way: “Our plan … will create jobs … and put America back on the path of … opportunity … This, in turn, will enable us to … promote the principles of peace as leaders of the Free World.”

As to Obama, he summarized his argument this way: “Our free market is … driven by risk-takers, innovators and dreamers. Our people succeed when they … get a good education and learn new skills ... so do the businesses that hire them, or the companies they start … When we support research … new industries will start here and stay here. We grow faster when our tax code rewards … companies that create jobs in America.”

Although the two candidates are tackling the same subject, the reader cannot avoid being impressed by the fact that the Romney argument looks like an empty plate while the Obama argument looks like a full meal. And so, you ask: Why is it that Romney could only promise that his plan will create jobs and put America to work without giving details, whereas Obama was able to give a list of specific actions he implemented as President and will continue to implement if reelected thus realize for America what Romney could only ask the reader to imagine?

And the answer is that Romney never thought seriously about the promise he just made because he has been saying something different for more than a year. The point he kept making was that America's prosperity depended on its ability to scare the world. To do this, he argued over and over, would make America so respected everywhere that no one will dare challenge it, and this will mean prosperity for the people – but don't ask how that works. In brief, Romney has been arguing for the transformation of the American economy into a war economy, a move that every sane person could see was the perfect accelerator to America's total ruin.

Understandably, the public rejected that economic policy which – to be fair about it – was fashioned not by Romney alone but by him working with a group of neocon advisers and tea-party handlers; all of whom adhere religiously to the dogma of a permanent state of war for the nation. And so, when the public rejection came, Romney threw the policy in the faces of the neocons and tea-partiers who formulated it.

The consequence of this has been that Romney found himself unable to formulate a new policy he could sell to the public in the short period of time that was left for him to do so. All he could do was make a promise that was still based on the same old dogma but without repeating the militaristic details that turned off the public. And the plate he put on the table looked empty when compared to Obama's full meal.

The question to ask now is this: How and why did Romney and his group go so far off the rail, they could not put together an economic policy that the public would accept? Well, my dear reader, the answer to this question is long and complex. It takes up the rest of the discussion and goes as follows: There are many ways to look at a situation. This means there is an infinite number of metaphors we can invent to describe the same thing. And sometimes it is useful to invent several metaphors to highlight each part of a complex situation thus give a full description of it.

A situation of this sort would be the design of an economic policy for a jurisdiction that is as big as America. What you see in most discussions is the tendency to use the metaphor of the silver bullet. That is, some of the people who discuss the subject do so not because they understand it in depth but because they come indoctrinated with a dogma that is meant to serve a political or social agenda in which the economy is seen to play a role. They see the dogma as being the silver bullet that can lead to a good economy and to prosperity. This was the case with Romney's neocons and tea-partiers who saw the adherence to a permanent state of war as being the dogma that will save the American economy.

And when you speak of a political or social agenda, you speak of a wide spectrum of positions that extend from the extreme Left to the extreme Right in the system of governance itself. But no matter where some people may stand on that spectrum, they would have so little understanding of the economy; they talk about it as if it were a simple mechanism that has only one or two moving parts which – if taken care of – will lead to the cure that will make everything right.

And so, to appeal to the “base” that decided to support him only grudgingly, Romney chose to advocate the positions of the extreme Right (severe conservatism as he put it) even though he started his political life as a moderate who took after his father, George Romney, who was more of a pacifist than a war monger. And when addressing the general public as he does in his latest article, Mitt Romney could not help but flip-flop, a trait that is innate to him to begin with, and that makes him look and sound flaky as well as shallow.

But an economy is a complex mechanism that has many moving parts each of which requires a tool that is specific to it. The tool is used to maintain the part in good operating condition at every moment. This means that to have a good economy, you cannot just get the one or two parts that dogma says you ought to have, get them operating and go to sleep expecting the economy to perform on its own without supervision or tune-ups.

No, this approach has never worked for an extended period of time as shown by the periodic shocks that unregulated economies always experience. And yet, this is what Romney and his team are advocating at a time when the electors are still suffering from the shock produced by the policies of a previous administration which Romney promises to emulate.

What you need instead is a box full of tools of every description to take care of all the parts in the existing mechanism. More than that, you need a roster of ideas and drawings for contingency tools you may have to fashion in a hurry if and when the need will arise as surely it will. Planning for the contingency is necessary to take care of the unexpected when it strikes, and the existing tools prove inadequate to respond to the resulting emergency. Only then will you have a complete set-up that is made of a mechanism which produces wealth and can repair itself if necessary.

If you wish, you may do better than that by including in the toolbox of your economic system a mechanism that will allow it to evolve and keep up with a world that is itself growing and changing with time. This, in fact, is what President Obama has in his toolbox as demonstrated by his four-year presidency and his latest article.

As to Romney, he is nowhere near this level of sophistication when it comes to understanding how an economy works or what the world out there is about aside from the knowledge that secret bank accounts exist in places where he can hide his money to evade paying taxes in America where he accumulated the money in the first place.

And he wants to be President of America?