Time For America To Turn Right Side Up

The New York Times (NYT) ran an editorial on December 27, 2012 that began this way: “Ideally, a new constitution … would unite citizens around a consensus … The Islamist-backed constitution that took effect this week [in Egypt] has only exacerbated divisions...” On the same day, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) ran an editorial that began this way: “Egypt … rammed through a new constitution this week … at a steep price in … political … turmoil.” Coming out on the same day, neither of these editorials could have been the echo of the other, but being almost identical, they must be echoes of something that has been in the works for sometime now.

In any case, when you read passages like these, you cannot help but ask yourself: What's wrong with these editors, anyway? Do they believe that a referendum on the constitution is a kind of wedding ceremony where it is all kisses and pleasantries? Still, you go on to read the rest of their works and discover that there is more which is puzzling in the Times piece that is titled: “Egypt's Flawed Constitution”. You also discover that there is more which is similarly puzzling to the Journal's piece that is titled: “Egypt's Constitutional Disorder”.

While reading those editorials, you are reminded of how the practitioners of Yoga look when standing on their heads. In fact, such posture may be a useful thing to have if you consider the world to be upside down, and you wish to see it right side up – something you may achieve by turning yourself upside down. Whether or not this is the intent of the Yoga people is, however, another matter. But mentioning the practice here only serves to give a metaphoric support to the discussion that follows. It is that the American media – be it of the Left such as the NYT, or the Right such as the WSJ – are turning the world upside down when it comes to the discussion of any subject that relates to the Middle East.

What puzzles you even more is that when you read such editorials, you discover long before you reach the end that “group think” is still very much alive in America. You see, for example that speaking of the Egyptian President, the Times said this: “...the chaos he did so much to create...” As to the Journal, it described the situation as being a “crisis of their [the leaders] own making.” Moreover, the Times made sure to mention that this was an “Islamist-backed constitution.” As to the Journal, it made sure to mention that this was the work of “Egypt's Islamist leaders.” No, these are not echoes of each other; they are echoes of something that has been in the works for sometime now.

And both editorials ended by making the same veiled threat against Egypt. To be fair, however, it must be said that the Times was more subtle in that it did not mention a condition that must be met by Egypt for revoking the threat. This is how it formulated its version of the menace: “Egypt's … foreign currency reserves have plummeted from $36 billion to $15 billion … The country requires a $4.8 billion loan from the IMF … other aid, from the United States and elsewhere ... is waiting on the fund...” Make what you will of this.

As to the Journal, it formulated its version of the menace this way: “Foreign currency reserves are $15 billion, down from $43 billion [oops, their typo not mine] … and Egypt needs the IMF loan to unlock other sources of foreign credit … The U.S. can help.” From here, the Journal went on to cite the condition for revoking the threat. It did it this way: “Mr. Morsi needs American support … His commitment to preserve peace with Israel is one important test for [that] support.” It is to be noted that the Journal is owned by Rupert Murdoch, the Australian Jew who now lives in America. He is also considered under Israeli law to be a citizen of occupied Palestine whether or not he likes it.

That approach to foreign policy has been followed by America for a long time now despite its repeated failures. And so you ask aloud: How much longer will you, America, remain upside down considering that if the world is not upside down and you are, you will be seen as the odd man out? If and when this happens and if it persists, it will result in you being ineffective in whatever you try to achieve. But if the world is indeed upside down – as you seem to believe it is – and you choose to be like it, you will have turned yourself into another one of those crazies who populate a world that has gone mad. But think about it, America, if you choose to become this kind of nation, you will not be able to contribute to the effort that will fix the world. And this attitude, as far as I can tell, was never a part of your vision of yourself. Have you forgotten your past, America? Or is it that the Jew is so overbearing, you cannot shake loose from his grip?

Whatever the answer to that question, this is where America stands today. It is upside down looking at a world that is right side up while asking itself: Why is the world so skewed? Some of the nation's leaders – such as those in the media or inside the political apparatus – answer the question by engaging in daily acts of deception that can only be described as colossal frauds mercilessly inflicted on the self and the nation.

What these people do, in fact, is say to themselves and to the world that the world is upside down because America has neglected to maintain it in the right side up position. The solution as they describe it is for them to walk the Earth while dangling the carrot of reward in the face of those who look in America's direction, and waving the stick of punishment at those who look in the other direction. But guess what, my friend, they have been trying this solution for a time now, and it has consistently failed because the conditions that come attached to the American offer reek of Jewish interference so badly, they nauseate even the strongest of stomachs. As to the threats America makes, well since the days when George the W was in office, the world has discovered the middle finger of the right hand, and has learned to wave it in America's face. In short, the carrot has been invalidated, and the stick has been voided.

To an American who is upside down, however, the aforementioned solution would be seen as the most generous thing his country can do. To a world citizen who is standing right side up, that solution would be like the anorexic character that wants to teach the world how to gain weight. It would be like the 500 pound individual that wants to teach the world how to lose weight. It would be like the sex addict that wants to teach the world all about the virtue of chastity. It would be like the castrated eunuch that wants to teach the world how to perform the duties of a he-man stud. It is all a charade and a sick one at that.

In short, that solution would be like a dysfunctional American Congress that never tires of telling the world shamelessly and with a straight face it must learn to be functional. It would be like the Congress of an America that has become a laughing stock for the whole world to laugh at. It would be an atrocious happening inflicted on a world that never expected something like this to happen, and knows not how to deal with it except to pray that no destructive force will be unleashed at the end of it all.

But how did this situation come about in the first place? We find the answer to this question by reading an article that was published on December 26, 2012, one day before the two editorials came out. It has the title: “Talking Turkey” and the subtitle: “As Turkey's 'chief social engineer,' Erdogan talks up secularism and prepares the way for sharia.” It was written by Daniel Pipes and published in the National Review Online. It is, in fact, the sort of thing that has been in the works for sometime, and has served to produce the echoes we heard reverberate in the two infamous editorials, and in all similar editorials carried by the American media.

When you see that sort of subtitle, you get the impression that it summarizes the conclusion of the writer. So you read the article to see what could have led him to reach a conclusion that is as harsh as this. You find that he starts the piece by describing a situation he characterizes as being odd. It is that the menu on a Turkish Airlines flight said the food was free of pork even though alcoholic drinks were served on that same flight. What Pipes sees as odd is that Islam prohibits pork and alcohol, but here on that flight, they banned one and not the other. Odd, the writer cries out, and builds a case on that.

But as if to discredit himself, he mentions an article he wrote more than five years ago in which he speculated on something that turned out to have no relevance. It is that he was asking about the intention of those who are now governing Turkey. He wanted to know if these people retained an Islamic program or if they had accepted secularism. But as he learned from his recent discussions in Istanbul, the Turkish people “worry less about [Erdogan's] Islamic aspirations than about his [other secular] tendencies.” He is a human being, after all, and has human weaknesses that are not much different from those of everyone else.

In fact, the people in Turkey have told Daniel Pipes that “applying the sharia in full … is not feasible in Turkey because of the country's ... nature.” They also told him about the ongoing debate by which they struggle to find a balance between maintaining the best of the old traditions, and mixing them with the more modern trends. But being the Jew that he is, Pipes ignores the speculative mistake he made five years ago, and repeats it by again seeing something inherently evil in something that is inherently good. In this vein, he says that the Party of Erdogan (AKP) softly coerces “the population to be more virtuous, traditional, pious, religious conservative, and moral.” Who is he talking about? Is it Santorum? Is it Huckabee? Were these people coercing the population when they ran to be president of America?

The idiot then administers to himself the deathblow by making one statement at the end of a paragraph, by making an opposite statement at the start of the next paragraph, and by ending the article with something that contradicts the entire premise of his presentation. If this sounds too stupid a mistake for someone to make it, check it out yourself. Here is how he ends one paragraph: “Put in terms of Turkish Airlines, pork is already gone, and it's a matter of time until the alcohol also disappears.” And here is how he begins the next paragraph: “Islamic practice, not Islamic law, is the goal, my interlocutors told me.” And here is how he ends the article: “Erdogan possibly will win enough … power … to achieve his dream and fully implement sharia.”

Stupid but mind goggling in that it was possible for someone to make it. Consider now that this sort of toxic rubbish has been the steady diet that was fed to the American media for nearly half a century absent a push back to mitigate the damage being inflicted on a steady basis during all these years.

Now you know why – try as they may – neither the New York Times nor the Wall Street Journal could write an editorial on the Middle East that would sound normal. It is that massive doses of toxicity have been injected in their systems for too long.

You can only pity them for their handicap and hope that America, as a country, would recover from the damage that the Jew has caused it, and get back into the mainstream of civilized behavior.

America The Exceptionally Freakish Nation

According to the dictionary, to be a freak is to be a monster, a mutant, a variation, a demon, an alteration or a perturbation. Looking at America's transformation during the past half century or so, that nation has become all of these and more. At the core of the transformation is America's refusal to face up to its own responsibilities while at the same time preaching the doctrine of personal responsibility to other nations, trying to force them to adopt the philosophy as their national priority and live by it.

What happened half a century ago or thereabout that changed matters in America is that a crack began to develop with regard to the way that the culture there began to implement the pressing moral issues of the day. No longer was there a single standard by which to measure the behavior of everyone on the planet; there were now at least two standards by which to assess the nations and the individuals in them. To be sure, there was one standard that applied to America alone thus recognizing it as being apart from the rest of the world. And there was one standard that applied to everyone else thus recognizing the rest of humanity as being more or less equal. This is how, and this is when the double standard was born, and this is where the freakish nature of America began to show itself.

No one at the time understood why such phenomenon had taken place, much less understood the subsequent transformation to which it was subjected. In fact, with the passage of time, things became more complicated because shades began to develop around the American standard, splitting it into different levels. This happened to accommodate America's friends – to each in accordance with the level of approval that was attributed to it. For example, the gamut spanned from the very friendly Brits to the not so friendly French. At the same time, shades began to develop around the standard of everyone else on the planet, splitting it into different levels so as to stigmatize America's enemies – to each in accordance with the level of disapproval that was attributed to it. For example, the gamut spanned from the somewhat distrusted Soviets to the absolutely hated Castro of Cuba. In more recent times, the most hated have become the Arabs and the Muslims.

Still, the fact remained that the world was divided into two main groups: the good and the bad. The first group included individuals and nations considered to be America's allies, or those friendly to it whatever official relationship existed between them and America. The second group included individuals and nations considered to be America's enemies, or those antagonistic to it whatever the state of the relationship between them and America. Then, something happened that shed light on why the double standard was born in the first place – it is that the Jewish phenomenon was beginning to take roots in America, and it gave itself away in the process.

It happened that the Judeo-Yiddish culture wasted little time muscling its way into the existing Anglo-Christian model, planting inside it the “us” versus “them” syndrome. The associated activities were transforming the mentality of inclusiveness that used to characterize America, into a mentality of exceptionalism that would be modeled after the idea of the Jews being the chosen children of God, and harmonizing with it. When this work was completed, the Jews renamed the Judeo-Yiddish culture “Judeo-Christian” where the Judeo part of it overwhelmed the Christian part and made of America a Jewish colony of world Jewry and of Israel. The consequence for America has been that the Jews became Gods – so proclaimed by themselves and by the pastors who were blackmailed to publicly make a proclamation to that effect.

All of this comes to mind when you read Dennis Prager's latest column in the National Review Online, published on Christmas Day, December 25, 2012. It is titled: “A Yeshiva Boy & Christmas” and subtitled: “Memo to ACLU: Leave that Christmas tree alone.” What happened this year that prompted someone like Prager to write this kind of column is the fact that the American people began to reclaim their Christian heritage after nearly half a century of silence while the Jews were waging a relentless war on their most cherished day of the year.

But be careful, America because in the eyes of Jews, Dennis Prager is good enough to be a rabbi which means he can look you in the face, lie to you and make the lie so convincing, you will fall for it. Here he is only now telling a story he says happened to him a long time ago. It was a time, he says, he visited the Muslim country of Morocco where he first realized that “Those [in America] who wish to remove Christmas trees … where Americans gather are … robbing this Jew.” And you ask yourself: Where was he during all those years? What has Islam got to do with this? Why does he blame the ACLU and not the Jewish leaders who started the war on Christmas in the first place?

And now that you know who is meant by “us” and who is meant by “them,” you ask yourself what happened to the non-Jews who inhabited the rest of the American colony. You think about it and realize they were reduced to being the plebes of the Republic, and were assigned the purpose of serving the Jewish and Israeli interests at the expense of everyone else. For example, the U.S. Congress was made into a cesspool of Judeo-Israeli treachery and treason. In the meantime, the honorable people who failed to adhere to the edicts instructing them to serve Israel and the Jewish causes, were invited to get out of the way, and some did voluntarily.

As to those who refused to remove themselves from the scene voluntarily, they were banished from the public stage in the style of the Communist figures who fell out of favor and were erased from the official record. Most of the activities in this area took place quietly but a few incidences became public and caused a momentary stink. For example, the “dis-invitation” issued to Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa caused a stir for a while and became part of the historic record. The same happened to President Jimmy Carter who was “dissed” by his own party to please the egomaniacs that run the Judeo-Israeli lobby.

Behaving like a true colony of the Jewish Kingdom, the American Republic was transformed from a superpower that used to stand on its own two feet, to a territory that exists for one reason only: to reflect the will of the Jews and that of the Israelis, expressing their thoughts and their sentiments as loudly and clearly as only a superpower can. And this was the time when the friends and enemies of America were assessed not according to the friendship they maintained with the American people or the respect they had for the American system of governance but according to the friendship they developed with Israel, and the level of devotion they displayed toward the various Jewish causes in America and elsewhere in the world.

By now, America was rushing headlong into the crack of viewing itself as being an exceptional nation and yet, it kept on insisting that all nations except Israel adhere to the rule of law, and that they be treated equally under it. Still, the Jews and the Israelis viewed themselves as being not only at par with America in its exceptionalism but as being more exceptional than America by virtue of being a Kingdom of eternal Gods as opposed to a Republic of mortal plebes.

And this is where you begin to understand how and why the rest of the world has developed an image of America as being an exceptionally freakish nation that believes it ascends upward to a lofty level of existence the more it descends downward into the abyss of the banal, the absurd and the insane.

You will be seeing more and more the sort of article that Dennis Prager has published because it is the Jewish way to calm the spirits, buy time, regroup and prepare for the next phase of the war on Christmas.

All the while, America will be portrayed as the exceptional nation that makes it possible for the Jews to claim they have a special relationship with God.

And that's all that matters to these people.

Medal Of A Cowardly Opportunist

The online version of the December 21, 2012 edition of the Wall Street Journal carries an opinion piece by Congressman-elect Tom Cotton that ought to be assessed by comparison with a report which appears on the front page of that same publication. The Cotton piece has the title: “A Soldier's-Eye View of Chuck Hagel” and the subtitle: “His record on Iraq alone should disqualify the former senator from leading U.S. troops in time of war.” As to the report on the front page, it is written by Michael M. Phillips and has the title: “War Tragedies Strike Families Twice”.

To get a sense of what is really involved here, my friend, you ask yourself this question: What does it all boil down to? To answer the question, you read the Cotton piece again and find that it boils down to this view:

“...in 2006 ... Mr. Hagel penned a column ... entitled "Leaving Iraq, Honorably." He asserted that ... "the time for more U.S. troops in Iraq has passed … [we] must begin planning for a phased troop withdrawal." Imagine my surprise at the senator's assertions, having just returned that week from combat in Baghdad.

Yes, you imagine that surprise, dear reader, and keep it fresh in your mind because you will soon have to recall it. You now read the Michael Phillips report again, and find that it boils down to this view:

One night in March 2008, William and Christine Koch opened their front door to see two soldiers in green dress uniforms bearing news that their son ... had been killed ... in Afghanistan … Two years later, Mr. and Mrs. Koch opened the door to see two police officers in blue. This time, they learned their daughter, Lynne, brokenhearted over her brother's death, had killed herself … "She is a casualty of this war, and I don't care what anybody says," Mrs. Koch said. "If my son was not killed, my daughter would be here" … anecdotal evidence from military families, support groups and suicide survivors suggests that … the U.S. has experienced a little-recognized suicide outbreak among the bereaved. This second round of tragedy often takes place years after a loved one's death, when the finality of the loss becomes inescapable.

And so, my friend, when you compare those two views – the surprise of Tom Cotton against the series of surprises experienced by the Koch family – you cannot escape the conclusion that Chuck Hagel is the kind of political saint America needs at this time to start the process of healing the long festering wounds. By contrast, the newly elected Congressman Tom Cotton is the kind of political animal who will turn the congressional zoo into a place even more loathsome than it is already.

This man, Tom Cotton, wants you to believe that the pain he felt when reading an article advocating the end of the war surpasses the pain that the Koch family must have felt upon learning their son had been killed in the war; then learning that their brokenhearted daughter had committed suicide to end the pain she felt at the death of her brother. No, Tom Cotton is not a political animal. He is an animal, period.

So you want to know what happens to an animal after it gets surprised? It gets astonished; that's what happens to it. Look what Tom Cotton goes on to say: “...most astonishing, Mr. Hagel voted in 2007 against designating Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization.” What's that all about, you want to know. And he tells you that these people invented a weapon called “explosive formed projectile,” used in Iraq to kill American soldiers.

Given that these were soldiers dying in a war to which they were sent by their American leaders, you realize that the words encapsulate the whole philosophy of governance Tom Cotton will be taking to the Congress. It boils down to this: You get into a war you have no business getting into but that the Jewish lobby has forced you into it. When you lose – as it will most certainly happen – you label the enemy a terrorist, and keep on fighting till you bankrupt the country.

Then what? Then nothing more because there is no plan B and no exit strategy. Too bad, the God of the Old Testament did not come to the rescue as promised. Maybe next time if there is going to be a next time. In the meantime, there should be no room for someone like Chuck Hagel who might just bring sanity back to America, and spoil everything towards which the Jewish lobby (now renamed Israeli lobby by Jewish decree) is working so diligently.

Whether Tom Cotton is a thinking animal or a dumb animal, he does not deserve the medal he was awarded because he is a cowardly opportunist who will lunge at any bone, even if it is that of a dead comrade, and chew on it.

Horror, cannibalism or ghoulishness – all this has to stop if America is to remain a civilized society among the nations of the world.

They Are At It Yet Again

December 18, 2012 has been a bad day for common sense because it is the day that the Wall Street Journal chose to inflict its brand of logic on the world yet again. On that day, the journal published two pieces, one by its columnist and editorial writer Bret Stephens who wrote under the title: “Chuck Hagels' Jewish Problem” and the subtitle: “The would-be secretary of defense has some curious views.” The other is an op-ed piece by the trio Charles Robb, Dennis Ross and Michael Makovsky, that came under the title: “The Economic Cost of a Nuclear Iran” and the subtitle: “Sanctions and U.S. military force carry risks, but Teheran with a bomb would wreak havoc on global markets.”

Bret Stephens says that Chuck Hagel has a chance of being appointed secretary of defense, and opines that it would be a bad idea. Why is that? you ask, and he responds: “because a 'Jewish lobby,' as far as I'm aware, doesn't exist.” But what does that do? you ask. And he responds with this: It proves prejudice on the part of Hagel, something that has an odor that is especially ripe now because the Jewish lobby does not exist. See the logic? Therefore, Hagels' pronouncement to the effect that “the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here” has by the Stephens logic a bothersome olfactory element to it. Get it now?

He then uses a great deal of publishing space to try and differentiate between the “Jewish lobby” and the “Israel lobby” as if this were relevant to the current discussion especially when you consider the fact that “creative ambiguity” is an invention that was used as a weapon over the decades, one that is in use even today to muddy all discussions about “them” whomever they are, and wherever they hide.

The fact is that the rabbis, the members of the Jewish propaganda machine and their cohorts have worked hard to blur the lines between Semitic, Yiddish, Jewish, Israeli, Zionist and every possible combination thereof to make the point that if and when non-Jews decide to take up a related subject, they better be prepared to say good things and only good things because if they don't, they will be denounced as anti-Semites, put on a watch list and attacked relentlessly.

Stephens also minimizes the purported effectiveness of the Jewish vote by citing the fact that in Hagel's State of Nebraska, there are only 6,100 Jews in a population of 1.8 million people. And he quarrels with his use of the word “intimidates … because it suggests that legislators ... adopt positions … out of personal fear. Just what does that Jewish Lobby have on them?”

Good Question, Bret! But guess what, my dear reader. He answers his own question at the end of the piece. Speaking of the 63% of Jewish Americans who voted for Mr. Obama last month, he says this: “...maybe some of these voters could speak up now … [they] like to fancy their voice carries weight in their party … prove it.”

And the author is seconded in his effort by the Wall Street Journal that chose to publish on the same page the Robb, Ross and Makovsky piece. These are members of the notorious Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a septic tanks that pretends to be a think tank. And if Stephens is still asking the question: “Just what does that Jewish Lobby have on them?” he better have a talk with Charles Robb whose long list of scandals involves such things as adultery he lied about, allegations of drug use and breach of fiduciary trust. They blackmailed him, Bret, and they got him to bark the nonsense on their behalf.

So then, what are these three clowns saying now? They already suggested on previous occasions that Uncle Sam should get into the business of raping Iran while making things look like the Israeli eunuch is doing the screwing. This way, they said, the world will come to believe that Israel is a stud and not the eunuch that it is. And the clowns went on to say that Israel needs to cultivate the image of stud because it needs a deterrent that will make everybody fear it, and thus remain peaceful.

You see, my friend, these sort of ideas don't come out of nowhere. They begin as horrible things and mutate to become other horrible things. For example, rapists justify what they do by saying that rape is the ultimate act of love. Out of this group comes another group that says its members rape only to safeguard virginity. This is like Hitler saying war is the ultimate act of civilization. And now we have a Semitic, Yiddish, Jewish, Israeli, Zionist group that says when America maintains Israel as an ongoing crime against humanity, it does humanity good because it saves it from itself. It's all made of the same screwed up material that takes on different shapes, forms and colors.

And what else does the trio of clowns want to do? It wants to do a group masturbation of the intellect, and do it in public. Look what they do to ejaculate their moral syphilis into the heads, hearts and souls of America's legislators: “Living with a nuclear Iran is … like the fiscal cliff, this is a matter of … economic … security.” As you can see, the first thing they do is connect the fiscal cliff with the question of Iran.

Then to make themselves believable, they assure us that: “We led a … task force … that examined the energy-related costs of inaction.” Inaction here means America refraining from bombing Iran. But see how the masturbation goes? People are worked up about the fiscal cliff, and while the energy is still floating in the air, they tap into the subject to suck some of its excitement. This way, they hope to render their readers excited enough to attain orgasm about what they will say next.

And what they found, they say, is the unfolding of five possible scenarios, the worst case being “a Saudi-Iran nuclear exchange.” The first thing that comes to mind is that Iran – which is well ahead of Saudi Arabia in this field – has taken more than 20 years to get to where it is today, and still has no bomb, let alone an arsenal to risk a nuclear exchange with a neighbor.

What that means is that Saudi Arabia will not have a bomb, let alone an arsenal for a generation or two should the government there decide to embark on such a program which it has not done. But if it does, the energy situation in the world will be so different by then, any assumption we make today will be like predicting the weather forty years into the future. Only Jewish masturbators of the Intellect would attempt to make such a prediction.

Go play with yourselves somewhere else, kids; your pornography is disgusting the rest of us.

A Christmas Moment for Great Science

The following is a fictitious tale that is based in part on a true story.

Of the twenty students in his class, only nineteen have registered to go on a field trip overseas during the upcoming Christmas season. Jeremiah is not going and the teacher knows why. He knows that something serious is about to happen to the town of Rallyville where Jeremiah lives with his parents. A one industry town that is ten miles away from the big city where the school is located, the town has been doing well for half a century but things are about to turn nasty for the people there. It is that the big factory will shut down early in the new year, and so will the shops that feed it with components, and the service industries that sprang around them including the bank branches, the insurance offices, the big stores and a few of the government offices – maybe even the elementary school and the church. Two thousand families representing eight thousand people in total will have the rug pulled from under them and nowhere else to stand; nowhere to go.

Rallyville was started by the grandfather of Jeremiah who was an electrical engineer. He opened the factory in the middle of nowhere and saw the place grow year after year as he kept expanding the factory and kept hiring people from out of town who then chose to settle in the town. The factory makes control panels used in the transmission of electricity to residential subdivisions and to industrial clusters that use electricity heavily. But there came a time when a holding company bought the factory from the grandfather and signed a contract with the son who is Jeremiah's father, to supply it with the relays, an important component of the control panel. Originally, the big factory was itself making the relays but the grandfather split the relay auxiliary from it and gave it to his son before himself splitting with the money they paid him, never to return to the town he founded.

Not known to be as ambitious as the grandfather, Jeremiah's father still managed to do well over the years, running the plant he inherited and never contemplating to upgrade the production line that kept producing the same old relays. In fact, he is fond of reminding anyone who would talk to him about the history of the town that his father had originally called the place Relayville in honor of the relays he used to make before expanding the operation to produce the entire control panel. The old man then changed the name of the place to Rallyville in honor of the people who rallied to it and put roots in it. Sadly, however, it is the lack of ambition on the part of the father that is the major factor at the root of the troubles that the town is now facing. It is that the holding company has decided to close the big factory because the competition is making modern control panels based entirely on solid state technology, something to which Jeremiah's father refused to switch when so advised.

The man has always insisted that there should be a way to continue making the control panels using the electromechanical relays that his plant is producing. Yes, the solid state technology is superior in some ways but his relays are superior in many other ways. If only the price of the precious metals had not skyrocket as it did, the customers that buy the control panels would still prefer the mechanical relays over the solid state relays. The trouble is that the contact points of the mechanical ones are made with silver, a precious metal whose price has gone up in tandem with the other precious metals. This made it more economical to use the solid states, something that more and more customers choose to do even though such relays cannot handle a heavy load of electricity as robustly as the electromechanical ones.

As to Jeremiah who will be going to college next year, he inherited the ambition of his grandfather, and has been raking his brains trying to find a solution to the town's problem. He knows that it all hinges on finding a way to keep making the control panels with mechanical relays that his father produces. But the price will have to come down to a level that can compete with the solid states. How to do that when it is obvious that the price of the precious metals will not go anywhere near the old levels again? Yes, the boy knows a great deal about electrical engineering because it has been the subject he liked the most during the high school years, and he plans to study it in college. But even he and his teacher, who is himself a specialist in the subject, have not found a workable solution.

The teacher who is responsible for this class and for two other classes gave up thinking about the subject, diverting his mental energies to organizing for the field trip. But he gave a final advice to Jeremiah before cutting loose from the project. As it happens, the teacher who is in a way a scientist has a brother who is a priest. The two have argued endlessly about the compatibility or lack thereof between science and religion. Unable to find a scientific solution to the problem, the teacher discussed the upcoming plight of the town folks with his brother who advised him to pray to God. And the teacher has dutifully transmitted the message to his student.

Jeremiah took the message to heart and went with it one step further. Instead of praying with words alone, he decided to pray with deeds. He thought of producing something he never produced before, something that will be harder to make than any project he made previously. He thought of a display for the church of the town where the parishioners will be able to push on a variety of buttons so as to light up the Christmas greeting of their choice. And he hoped that God will inspire him with an idea that will help save the town.

With faith in his heart and nothing more, Jeremiah bought the parts and components he needed for the project, and put it all together. But when he tried to make the thing work, he got gibberish instead of the clear messages he expected. Unable to determine why the gizmo is not working, he takes it to his teacher and asks for help. Of course, says the teacher, you have push buttons that are not buffered by debounce switches. What's that? asks the student. And the teacher explains that even though they are not seen by the naked eye, sparks (called bounces) are created by the push buttons. An ordinary light will not be affected by the bounces but when it comes to a digital circuit like this, every spark is taken as a new command to which the circuit responds, hence the gibberish that is displayed. The way to solve this problem is to design a buffer called debounce switch, and place it between the push button and the input of the circuit. What the switch will do is respond to the first spark then block all subsequent ones. And the intended message will be displayed with clarity.

Jeremiah takes the gizmo home, studies how to make a debounce switch, makes one, tries it and finds that it works. He makes a few more – one for each push button and mounts them all. He puts the finishing touches to the gizmo and takes it to the parish priest who likes it very much and promises that “Jesus will reward you for that.” Walking home, which is not far away from the church, a light suddenly shines bright inside Jeremiah's head. He exclaims: That's it! That's the solution! I found it, I found it! He runs home, grabs a pencil, a pad and a calculator. He does a few calculations and designs a contraption that will make it possible for his father to produce mechanical relays without the costly silver contacts, yet the contraption will transmit heavy loads of electricity as sturdily as before, and better than the solid states.

The idea is to make the contacts of the relay in copper which is something like a hundred and sixty times cheaper than silver. The problem with this idea, however, is that the sparks – which are created at the moment that the relay is activated – tend to melt the copper and weld the contact points, something that silver does not do as badly. The welding of the contact points will cause not only a malfunction in the system but can set it on fire thus create a far more dangerous situation.

But thanks to the idea of the debounce switch that has solved the problem of the push button, Jeremiah has thought of a way to adapt the principle to the problem of the relay contacts. What he will do is delay the load current a few microseconds by causing it to pass through a coil. This will be enough time for the relay contacts to go into the close position unburdened by the load that would have created the spark. Once closed, the current will then pass through the contacts without sparking and without welding.

Jeremiah builds a prototype of his invention and shows it to his father who takes it to the brass at the holding company that owns the factory that makes the control panels. The board of directors likes the idea and decides to keep the factory open. The town is saved, the people will have the best Christmas ever, and Jeremiah calls his teacher to say he will go on that field trip after all.

What did it? Was it Jeremiah's prayer or his scientific acumen? Let the teacher and his brother debate it.

NOTE: Unless something happens that will require an immediate response, I'll be on vacation till the New Year. Merry Christmas to all and a happy New Year. So long for now.

Lieutenants Of The Fifth Column In America

Metaphors abound describing a genre of ruse that is real at times and fictitious at other times. Perhaps the oldest metaphor of the genre is the story of the Trojan Horse according to which the Greeks tricked the rulers of Troy by pretending to abandon the siege they had thrown around their city-state and gone away.

But what the Greeks did, in fact, was leave behind a giant wooden horse that the Trojans proudly dragged into their city in celebration of what they thought will forever stand as a symbol of their triumph over the Greeks. What the Trojans did not know, however, was that the horse contained in its belly a number of Greek warriors. Once inside the city, and when the night came, the warriors got out the belly of the horse and opened the gates of Troy for the Greek army, that had not really gone too far away, to come into the city and capture it without a fight.

Another metaphor is that of the Fifth Column. It is supposed to have happened during the Spanish Civil War when the “Nationalists” were fighting the “Republicans.” Apparently, the Nationalist faction was able to enter the city of Madrid with four columns of soldiers because it was assisted by a Fifth Column of wreckers who were operating inside the city behind the front lines. The job of this column was to sabotage the defenses put up by the Republican forces, thus soften them before and during the assault mounted by the other four columns.

While the use of deadly ruses is commonplace even in modern warfare, there exists a milder version of the game that some countries play against each other when the ongoing war is not a hot one but a cold war. These countries play a subtle version that can take the form of a psychological war between two bitter enemies. An example of this would be what goes on right now between Iran and Israel where the range of attacks on each other spans the gamut from the imposition of terror by bluff to the imposition of terror by the assassination of each other's scientists and other nationals.

But the ruse may also take on the form of a socio-political game that is designed to nudge or embarrass the other side. Some countries play this game against their own friends in retaliation for a sin they believe to have been committed by the other side. An example of this would be what goes between the United States and Israel where the Israelis consider America to be their muscular bodyguard. The problem is that they see America slackening at times when it comes to protecting Israel's interests as much as they would have liked.

So then, how do the Israelis play the ruse against America? To explain this game, we may invoke the metaphor of Tokyo Rose. This was a woman of Japanese descent who was born and raised in America, and who spoke English as well as any American. For some reason, her loyalty switched from America to Japan during the Second World War, and she joined the Japanese propaganda machine. She took on the job of broadcasting damaging material to the American people, especially the military operating in the Pacific war theater. Hers was not a hot war against America; it was a war of words designed to affect the morale of the troops.

The idea was borrowed by the Jewish propaganda machine in America known as AIPAC. Its generals got into the business of recruiting American Jews and non-Jews to infiltrate the media, and be lieutenants for a fifth column that would work on behalf of Israel. The lieutenants were to do that by spreading Israel's gospel thus create new narratives and new perceptions that would alter the landscape. I became aware of this game some three decades ago or thereabout when I saw the propaganda generals of AIPAC and their affiliates in Canada practice the game here. This being the place they consider the soft underbelly of America, they tested their theory, as they always do, before inflicting it and spreading it south of the border.

Of the many things I saw them do, I remember them arrange gatherings for which they invited prominent people they had in their sights as people who needed to be “educated.” For example, they arranged for a gathering during which media personalities, especially those of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), were invited to answer questions that were of concern to the general public. A number of questions in that vein were asked of the journalists who responded as honestly and professionally as they could.

Then, out of the blue, came the unexpected question that had obviously been well rehearsed beforehand. After a long preamble that suggested what the answer should be, it was asked in a manner that went something like this: What does that do to the level of trust that media people, such as yourselves, would want to place on what the Palestinians have to say? With this, a first shot was fired at the heart of North America's Democracy, and the one who fired it became the first lieutenant born to serve a Jewish Fifth Column on this Continent.

One after the other, the journalists who responded to the question gave answers that were unsure and confused. This gave the public the impression that there was something inherently wrong with the cause of the Palestinians. But those who were familiar with the issues saw the exchange as proof that the Jewish propaganda machine was up to no good, playing as it was a dirty game that may go on for a long while yet. In fact, the result has been that a few months after the incident, the CBC opened a permanent office in occupied Jerusalem to tell the story of the entire Middle East from the Israeli point of view.

Later on, the truth came out, and it was to the effect that following the infamous incident, a flood of letters were sent to the network's brass and to the Canadian government that bankrolls it – all asking for one and the same thing: Open a permanent office in Israel from where to tell the story of the Arabs. And this was the moment when journalism in North America was transformed from a proud profession to that of a daily exercise in shameless prostitution and pornography. But guess who the losers have been. No, it was not the Arabs who did not give a fart's worth of concern about the matter; it was the North American people who, from that day on, have had the Jewish moral syphilis ejaculated into their skulls, their hearts and their souls by the barrel.

Concurrent with those activities, there was the moment when the affiliates of AIPAC in Canada invited the leader of the New Democratic Party (NDP) to speak at a gathering. The gentle lady got to the podium and made the mistake of not puking out the standard Jewish insults at the Palestinian people. And the attendees who were all Jewish lieutenants of the AIPAC causes responded by booing her as if she had committed an unforgivable act of antisemitism.

That incident was widely covered in the media to tell every future invitee they can only do two things when speaking at a gathering of this kind or any kind: You ought to praise Israel and the Jews to the hilt using all the superlatives you can think of, and you ought to damn their enemies of the day by throwing insults at them as you would when speaking of evil incarnate. Otherwise you will be made to suffer the consequences one way or the other. And this, my friend, was a stark display of democracy as they understand it.

Having perfected the game in Canada, the AIPAC people took it to America where they adapted it to the local conditions. To do this, they planted people who masqueraded as journalists and asked candidates running for office irrelevant questions that were rehearsed beforehand, and were designed to confuse the intended victims. The questions had a long preamble and in the melee, suggested one possible answer and nothing else. With this, democracy in America took another giant step toward becoming the laughing stock of the world.

The AIPAC people and their cohorts also used the trick on the representatives of institutions such as the State Department. An example of this happened on November 20, 2012 between press secretary Victoria Nuland and a journalistic pornographer that the Associated Press calls Matthew Lee. It is worth going over the exchange that ensued and see how a gathering that happened in Toronto long ago had paved the way for a pornographic act of this magnitude to happen today.

But this is not the whole story because there is also the question of Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal and the Fox News network that merit being discussed. There is much that can be said in this regard, and in fact, I wrote a great deal about the Journal. What I did not do enough of is write about Fox News because I do not have the time to watch much television. All I could tell from what I saw was that Fox News was worse than the Journal. What I know now is that it is infinitely worse.

Here is what happened. I saw Megyn Kelly harp on the notion that the government in Syria was “killing its own people.” Even though something inside was telling me this woman is a phony, I did not think of writing about it. But then someone let me hear a voice recording of her saying something that astounded me. It was a few days before the election of November 6, 2012 when she said on live television that she wishes it would rain on the day of the election so that the people whose homes were destroyed by the storm, and who saw a hundred of their neighbors die, would get so angry at the government, they will vote against Obama.

Well, if the leaders of Syria are monsters, Megyn Kelly is a ghoul that would dig up the graves of her countrymen and eat their remains. She is a horror story and so is Fox News but she is a valuable lieutenant in the Fifth Column that is working for Israel and the Jewish causes. This is why she will be there for a long while yet.

Obsessing About Non Existent Shiny Objects

If you read the latest column by Tom Friedman, you will not fail noticing a slight shift from what he used to write, most of which was standard Jewish propaganda. The column is titled: “The Full Israeli Experience” and was published in the December 9, 2012 edition of the New York Times.

Make no mistake about it, this is still Jewish propaganda but it is not what used to be. It is propaganda because it compares what is not comparable for the purpose of saying that the Jews are good and everyone else is bad, especially those who refuse to swallow the Jewish bait hook, line and sinker – such as the Arabs the Muslims and all of humanity.

At the same time, it is not the propaganda it used to be because the column ends this way: “The world is full of risks … avoid self-fulfilling prophesies that are extremely dangerous here.” And so you ask: What happened that got us from there to here? To answer the question, you need to know what got us there in the first place.

It was the story of the inmates who had taken over the asylum.

What happens when inmates take over the asylum is that their insanity becomes the normalcy they tolerate, and what used to be the normal order of things becomes the aberration they obsess about and never stop talking about. This situation was gradually seen as being the existing order in most of the American media, ironically because things were trying to go back to the old normal again. The shift was happening ever so slowly but was unmistakable and becoming easier to discern the more that the mindless order of the day was contrasted against the reasoned order of yesterday.

But when faced with a situation like this, how can you tell which is the correct order and which is the fallacious one? Well, you know that someone is insane when you detect in them the inability to differentiate between what they think they see from what they wish to see happen. Time after time, those people in the media have described what they see happen, time after time they told what they wish to see happen, and time after time you could see that their vision and their wish were matching exactly right. And this is a definition of insanity.

Let us take the example of how the Middle East was covered in the American media over the years. There was a time before the decade of the Nineteen Eighties when the journalists in America used to enjoy a certain level of independence from Jewish dictates. This was the normal order of things in the old days; what a handful of journalists in today's America are trying to go back to. They are experimenting with a trend according to which they push against what used to be the small wave that grew to become the tsunami of Jewish propaganda.

Told in one form or another, the storyline has always been to the effect that Israel is surrounded by people who hate it because it is full of Jews who are the children of God, the One they love so much and are loved by Him in return. As to the haters of Jews who happen to be Arabs and the Muslims, they also hate America because the country is full of Christian people who love freedom as much as they love God. This makes of America and Israel two natural allies who should be fighting shoulder to shoulder against the evil ones who hate them both for no reason except that the latter have a monopoly on the love of God and the love of freedom. See how logical the whole story is?

But how did the captains of the Jewish propaganda machine, such as Tom Friedman, know that the people surrounding Israel hated it that much? This was the question often asked at the start of the tide that became the tsunami. And the answer given by the captains was that the leaders of the countries surrounding Israel were obsessed about it as would be a child that is looking at shiny objects. The leaders pointed at the objects to their own people and informed them of the reality that they will remain under a dictatorial rule till the time that Israel is dealt with after which they will be allowed to enjoy a democratic form of government or something like that. This was the diet fed to the American people, and like an obsessed maniac, Tom Friedman harped on the point with undiminished insistence.

But look here, said the sane people of the world, there are 22 Arab countries of which 5 could be construed as “front line” states. They are Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Jordan and Egypt. The other Arab countries lie well beyond them, extending as far away as Morocco to the West, the Comoros Island to the South and Dubai to the East. Beyond the Arab countries lay some 40 other states where Islam is the predominant religion. So then, tell me this, ye young-old wise man of the Jewish propaganda machine: Which of these countries had leaders say to their people you're out of luck, guys, because as long as there is an Israel, you'll never have what you seek? Whatever it is that you seek.

To answer that last question, it would be foolish for anyone to point to a state like Morocco or Comoros or Dubai, and say that they have an interest in whatever oozes out of Israel, be it shiny, dull or stinky. This leaves the front line states, three of which have territory occupied by Israel, an entity with which they are at war. These are Palestine, Syria and Lebanon who have every right to talk about their current condition as much as anyone has the right to talk about the history of their current wars, and the wars that go back several decades. As to Egypt and Jordan, they have a peace treaty with Israel, and the last thing they want to talk about is the little fart that the American Congress – under pressure from the Jewish lobby – keeps shoving down their throats.

The refrain has always been: Do this for Israel. Do that for Israel. Don't forget Israel when this happens. Think about Israel when you go there. It is always Israel, Israel, Israel because in the American Congress, in the Administration and in the media there is nothing but Israel, Israel and Israel again. But don't get obsessed about it; it's only Israel we're talking about.

The truth is that the Israelis and the Jewish leaders in America wish that the Arabs, the Muslims and the rest of the world were as obsessed about Israel as America's media and its political apparatus have been and still are. These people fantasize about the matter, and because it is not happening, they tell themselves and each other that it is. They also say it to the Americans, most of whom believe it, but some journalists are beginning to say: enough of this nonsense because we've had it up to here with this kind of Jewish nonsense.

Give us a breather, they say; we want oxygen, the kind of fresh air that is free of the farts put out by the Jewish propaganda machine. We are choking, they cry out.

And Tom Friedman seems to have gotten the message though he has a long way to go before he grasps all of its dimensions.

The Ironclad Rules To Fleece The Unwary

Michael Oren who is Israel's ambassador to the United States wrote a piece that was published in the Wall Street Journal on December 7, 2012. It has the title: “The Iron Dome Military Revolution” and the subtitle: “Historically, defensive measures lag behind offensive capabilities. Not so with Israel's new antimissile system.” Right here you get the sense that he says the Iron Dome is a defensive measure that was developed for an offensive capability that does not yet exist. And you can't wait to see how he articulates this idea.

But after you have read the first few paragraphs in which the idea is supposed to have been articulated, you scratch your head and ask yourself if you missed something, or was it the author who missed something? In fact, the historian that he fancies himself to be, Oren begins the historic demonstration with: “Two hundred years ago...” to reach a point – a few paragraphs later – where he says this: “But today, the attacked in Israel are now trumping their attackers,” without ever developing the idea. And so you exclaim: where's the beef, Michael?

There is no beef. In fact, there is not even a morsel of meat or a bone to chew on. What there is, you begin to realize, is the ordinary Jewish clumsy way to flatter America and mix with the flattery a promise to save the superpower from a looming existential threat. This would be the case because only the genius of God's chosen children encapsulates the ability to detect an existential threat, and the ability to “trump” it. But the Jews of Israel will do that if and only if they get what they want from America which is money, money, money.

Here then is the flattery: “... in the spirit of Old Ironsides and the ironclads [American warships] Israel developed the Iron Dome antimissile system.” This is his way to say to the Americans: We are like you. And this is meant to suggest that “we” and “you” have a common enemy who is not like us. Therefore, there is us versus them, and you must help us defeat them to protect yourselves, something you can do by giving us money, money, money.

Well, if he could not show the beef, he can certainly show the Jewish genius. Here it is: “From drawing board to development … Israel completed the Iron Dome in a mere three years.” Get it? More than three decades after Ronald Reagan's vision of a defensive system called Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), the Americans could still not develop a system that worked. By contrast, God's chosen children did it in a “mere three years.” But they only have 6 batteries now, and they will need 7 more to defend the whole country. This means they will need to get from America more of what is called money, money, money.

To amaze the reader, Oren gets into the technical description of how the system works: “Intercepting supersonic projectiles in midflight is literally rocket science,” he says. Okay, you say: Show me how that is. And he shows you: “Israeli engineers pulled off the feat by combining cutting-edge tracking radar with electro-optic sensors and mounting them on highly, all-weather air-defense systems.” What's that again? Tracking radar? Electro-optic sensors? All-weather air-defense systems? That's electronics but where's the rocket science he promised? Where's the beef, Michael?

There's no beef but let's look at what he says, anyway. He says electro-optic sensors. You want to see an electro-optic sensor, my friend? Go to the nearest elevator, and as soon as the door starts to close, try to get in. The door will reopen so as not to crush you. What did it was an electro-optic sensor, a technology that has been around for 6 decades or more. He also says all-weather air-defense systems. The truth is, you need these things to detect missiles coming above the clouds, which means coming from far away. Gaza is not that far from Israel. And he claims that this is what the Americans could not do since Ronald Reagan?

He goes on to say there is something even more ingenious than that: “Most ingenious, the Iron Dome determines … whether an incoming rocket is headed for an open space or a populated area – and saves its fire for the latter case.” To see why this is nothing more than an exercise in spinning hogwash, you need to know what is involved in intercepting an incoming missile, and hitting it in midflight.

To do that, you can hit the incoming missile directly in which case a bullet from a machine-gun or a shotgun would be enough if you're lucky enough to hit the target dead on. But in this case, hitting the target alone would not be enough because the missile will then fall to the ground with a warhead that can still detonate and destroy what is below. What you need to do is detonate a charge powerful enough at close range to destroy the missile and detonate the warhead inside while it is still in the sky.

How do you do that when the incoming missile and the interceptor are approaching each other at supersonic speeds, meaning at least 2,500 kilometers an hour? Even if the interceptor were so maneuverable that it could be made to head directly toward the incoming missile, it will have only one millisecond to come as close as a meter to it, blow itself up and damage the missile so badly as to blow up the warhead inside. Well, the people who worked on SDI discovered that the best way to detonate an incoming missile carrying a nuclear warhead was to detonate a nuclear bomb not a meter away but a few miles away. Iron Dome is not doing that.

And so, when the onlookers discovered this truth during the last Israeli adventure, the Jewish propaganda machine spun the hogwash about the system being able to determine where the missiles were headed. But the fact is that the Gaza rockets are ballistic missiles that lack a system of guidance. They were used as flares to annoy the Israelis in response to Israel's acts of terrorism.

During the years that the Gazans have used those flares, 85 percent of them fell in unpopulated areas without causing any damage which is why no more than half a dozen casualties occurred in Israel. All the while, the American-made precision guided “smart” bombs used by the Israelis killed Palestinian mothers and their babies in their bedrooms by the thousands. Now that's deliberate terrorism.

Having flattered the Americans and having repeated the hogwash, Michael Oren now makes the closing argument: “Iron Dome … isn't a game-ender … nuclear warheads would pose an existential threat … Israel has developed the Arrow .. and we have tested David's Sling … These innovations will … enhance security for America and its allies world-wide … Yet no air-defense system is foolproof.” Translation: Give us more of what is called money, money, money.

The suckers in the Congress are being nudged again, and no one is there to protect the American taxpayers from the Oren who is there to fleece them yet again.

It is time for money, money, money.

Achieving Growth In The Industrial Economies

What is clear about a modern industrial society is that it needs to maintain a minimum level of economic growth to keep the population satisfied. In the meantime, there are several ways to measure the growth of an economy because many of its aspects tend to correlate to one degree or another. However, the measure that counts the most is the indicator that correlates growth with the economy's ability to absorb the new entrants into the labor market. That is, when all is said and done, the level of employment is the indicator that best determines the state of satisfaction in a modern industrial society.

The question now is how to maintain the economy at a level of growth that equals the increase in the labor market or do better. To answer the question we first need to form a mental picture as to what an economy is and how it works. An economy exists first and foremost to produce the goods that fill the needs of society. And where goods are produced by industries such as farming, mining, manufacturing, construction, industrial transportation and utilities, a need is created to provide the kind of services that assist those industries and help them perform the best that they can.

In an industrial economy, a need is also created for another kind of service. It is that such economy forces onto society a hurried sort of lifestyle that requires services of convenience ranging from fast food to relaxation massages. It also causes the kind of stresses and diseases that require a variety of preventative and palliative medical services – psychological as well as physical. All of this makes the production and delivery of these services an inseparable part of the economy. In fact, in a modern industrial economy, the value of the services generally amounts to twice as much as all the goods produced. Thus, we begin to define an economy by the potential of its private sector to produce the goods and services demanded by the population.

And then there is the inevitable service known as government which has several levels – from the municipal to the federal – and whose duty is to administer the civic operations that range from the collection of garbage to defending the nation against potential enemies. Government also administers the redistribution of the wealth to ascertain that no citizen falls between the cracks of the safety net.

But this is not the picture that represents the whole economic equation because what is produced must go somewhere for the production to be maintained. For this reason, the complete definition of an economy takes into account society's ability to consume what it produces. What we have, therefore, is an equation that is made of two parts: there is the production side and there is the consumption side. We see from this that when the level of production in goods and services is high in a given economy, the level of consumption in this economy should also be high for the society to enjoy a standard of living that is commensurate with its potential.

Alas, things are not always this simple. They were simple enough for a short period of time at the start of the Industrial Revolution when the countries that experienced the Revolution relied on their own resources in raw material and in manpower to achieve growth. But things began to change when the industrial economies of the time saw the need to rely on the resources as well as the cheap labor of the societies that did not participate in the Revolution. The industrial nations took the actions that helped them develop their economies further, but these were actions that eventually came to be viewed as politically unacceptable and socially abhorrent.

In any case, this was the time that the economic equation was distorted. You had on one side of it a society that produced the least in terms of goods and services yet consumed the most. But for the economic equation to remain an equation, it must have two sides that equate. Because of this, you had on the other side of it a society that produced the most yet consumed the least. And what the latter produced which it did not consume went to the former whose members spent their time doing military service rather than produce the goods and services their society required. And this was the distorted symmetry that the world has called colonialism or slavery and deemed it unacceptable and abhorrent.

What happened after that was a reversal of sort. It is not that the economic equation was corrected; it is that we now have a sort of creeping colonialism in reverse that is upsetting the equation by doing the same as before but doing it in the opposite direction. What is happening, in fact, is that the advanced economies are made to pay for the habit of high consumption they never gave up, by trading their inheritance for the goods and services which are now produced in the emerging economies. While this is obviously not the kind of balance that will correct the economic equation, it is tolerated because no alternative has yet been formulated.

What all this means is that the current state of the world economies is so convoluted, it would be impossible to discuss with clarity how to achieve economic growth in a modern industrial society – be it a fully developed economy or one that is still developing. And so, to discuss the subject, we first imagine an industrial economy in isolation, one that relies solely on its own resources in raw material and in manpower.

This done, consider the following argument: Growth is achieved in an economy where you plow back into it a percentage of what you produce. For example, in an agrarian economy, you do not consume all the grain that you harvest in a given season; you save some of it and use that as seed to plant next season. The same idea applies in an industrial economy except that the operation is done not by setting aside grain or seed but by setting aside money that ordinary people save rather than use it to augment their consumption. The money thus saved is then borrowed by people who invest it and help grow the economy.

All factors being equal, the more that a society saves, the larger the growth that can be achieved. But when it comes to making a choice as to how the money should be apportioned between the various parties, we find that the parties are many, the factors they bring to the table are numerous, and the conditions under which an economy may find itself are varied. Thus, we realize that we face a daunting plethora of permutations from which to choose. So then, how do we sort things out? And how do we combine the factors that will lead to the correct choices? Well, the marketplace of a free economy has proved to be the best allocator of resources, and we should continue to let it make the difficult decisions.

But there is still the matter of having to decide what percentage of the nation's production known as Gross Domestic Product (GDP) should be transferred as taxes from the private sector to the government. And when this is done, we must decide how much of that money should go toward the building and continued maintenance of the soft and hard infrastructures of the nation. Just as important, how much of the tax dollars should go toward the entitlements and the safety net that some people call redistribution of the wealth?

These questions are so important, we need to step back and focus on a narrow aspect of the economic engine. It is this: What helps make an economy hum is (first of all) the availability of capital – called money, and (second of all) how easily this money is circulated through the economy – a phenomenon called velocity of money. Thus, what matters is not who has the money at any given time but who will make it circulate at a higher velocity. That is, what matters is who will spend the money or invest it faster than someone else? On both these counts, the government will outdo everyone else which is why there should be no cause for alarm when the government raises the tax rate. It will circulate the money out of its treasury as fast as it takes it in.

Now, considering that the banks make money available for borrowing to those who do not need it because they are wealthy to begin with, and considering that the level of borrowing decides how much capital there is in the economy, we see that the wealthy determine the availability of money, which is half the formula that makes the economy grow. On the other hand, we know that the less wealthy members of society have “a higher propensity” to spend the money that comes to them – if and when it does – thus circulate it faster; and this is the other half of the formula that makes the economy grow. But we see a disconnect in that neither side gets the two halves of the formula. And so, this is the area where we look for a solution.

We ask: Why is it that the wealthy seem to go on strike some of the time, and sit on the money or invest it abroad rather than invest it locally? It used to be that the wealthy borrowed money to start new enterprises and hire people to make products and services that the local population was eager to buy. But things have changed in this era of globalization, an era in which the opportunities as to where the money can be invested are more numerous and more varied than ever before, and where the returns are potentially higher.

But the people who chase those opportunities locally and abroad are mostly financiers who push the papers and pull in the profits without running any of the operations themselves. They could also be corporate raiders, the kind that seek local enterprises going through a difficult moment. They buy these enterprises cheaply, borrow against them with the pretext of refurbishing them but then lay off the workers and prepare to liquidate the enterprise.

They sell the parts of the company to the highest bidders (usually foreigners who buy the production machines and the patents,) pocket the money and look for the next opportunity. To accomplish all this, they would have borrowed money that could have gone to medium and small enterprises, to the people who would have hired locally and made the products that fill the needs of the local population.

To reverse the situation and put an end to those destructive practices, legislation must be introduced that will force the banks to lend to the medium and small enterprises at a rate that is more attractive than what the financiers and the big businesses get. Prime rate must be offered to those who help grow the local economy while subprime rates will go to those who exploit the bad situations and make them worse so as to get rich in the process.

In some cases, the chance to borrow should be denied outright to the people who have had a track record of malpractice in the field. All the while, a good percentage, perhaps as much as 80 percent of the money lent to businesses, should be allocated to medium and small enterprises as a condition for the banks and the other financial institutions to borrow from the Central Bank.

When this is done and the economy runs at close to full employment, there will be more money coming to the treasury in the form of taxes, and there will be less demand on it for the purpose of serving the safety net. And no one will fuss about how much is collected in taxes or how the money is redistributed.

Until this happens, the government should be there to help those who need it so that the specter of what is unacceptable or abhorrent never again loom over society.

Justice By The Laws Of Rupert Murdoch

On the first day of December in the year 2012, the editors of the Wall Street Journal published an opinion piece under the title: “The Palestinian Mirage” and the subtitle: “A futile U.N. gesture that violates the 1993 Oslo Accords.” It is a response to the resolution passed by the United Nations a few days earlier recognizing Palestine as a state.

As can be seen, the piece is about the law. It can also be seen that nearly 20 years have passed between the Oslo Accords and the move by the United Nations to correct the failure of a document whose reason for being was to dispense of the Palestinian issue in a few short years. Why then are the editors of the Journal dismayed at what the U.N. has done now? Did they want the Palestinian question to remain unresolved for ever?

In answering that question we get to understand why the Palestinian issue was not resolved long ago. In fact, a thorough probing of the subject shows that without U.N. intervention this time, the Palestinian question will never have been resolved because the Jewish Lobby and the Jewish propaganda machine that is headed by the Wall Street Journal have always wanted the matter to so remain.

To get our arms around the matter, we first need to understand how the rule of law took hold on Planet Earth.

When we think of the rule of law, we think of a system of justice that is administered by the courts. We think of judges, lawyers, members of parliaments, members of congress and what have you. Well, this is only the latest manifestation of the rule of law because it all started long before that. It started with the Big Bang when the laws of physics for our Universe were first spelled out by Nature itself, and what else may have been behind Nature.

The laws of physics ruled the Universe as they governed the behavior of inanimate matter for billions of years all alone. But then, the first organisms appeared on Planet Earth and perhaps somewhere else too in the vast Universe out there, and it all happened as a consequence of those laws of physics. And this is when a new set of laws to govern the behavior of organic matter arose, superimposing itself on the laws of physics without dethroning them.

As the early organisms started to evolve into more complex species about half a billion years ago, new layers of laws to govern the behavior of each new arrival were formulated. These layers superimposed themselves on top of the laws already in existence without dethroning any of them. After that came the higher species, and they began to formulate their own rules and laws to suit their individual needs. These were the protocols by which the interaction between individuals was regulated, and by which the social behavior of the collective was governed.

When it came to mankind, the highest of all the species, its governance required that an elaborate set of rules and commandments be formulated, and these took the form of a body of laws called the “law of man.” It took roots in the caves and the jungles as well as the mountains and the savannahs of our Planet where the early members of our species first lived. In time, the body of laws grew so complicated it required the installation of members of parliament and the like to legislate and codify them. This, in turn, required that lawyers and judges be trained to administer what had become an elaborate system of justice.

But for every case that goes to court to be adjudicated by a judge and a jury, millions of other cases are adjudicated every day by the litigants themselves or by a mediator who may be a friend, an acquaintance, a member of the family or a prominent figure in the community. And this is where we see that the law of man is predominantly made on the spot by individuals, and predominantly adjudicated by them outside of the system of justice. But where a resolution cannot be reached, people go to court and seek justice there.

What this means in practical terms is that we all participate in the making of the laws that suit us, and we help adjudicate the cases that come to our attention. We get involved in the affairs of other people when invited, and recommend that the issues be resolved in a way that will serve our interest now and in the future. We do so by setting the precedent that will form the example to be followed, and hope that the table will not someday be turned resulting in the irony of making the precedent work against us.

The same applies to nations on the international scene. This has been the norm since the time that the nations of the world gave themselves an international code of conduct (called International Law) by which to govern the interactions among its members thus insure that the rule of law will be there to resolve the issues that individual nations cannot resolve on a bilateral or multilateral basis. Institutions such as the UN, the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court were created to perform that function.

But because the making of the law, and the adjudication of the cases depend on the truthful representation of the facts, some people make it their business to constantly hide the facts they can hide, distort those they cannot hide and fabricate new ones out of thin air and out of their fertile imagination. The people who are most active in this area are the Jewish lobby and the Jewish propaganda machine as can be detected in the piece written and published by the editors of the Wall Street Journal.

What comes out clearly from this piece is that the game the Jews play consists of doing the unthinkable while accusing their opponents of doing just that. In the case under discussion, having called the UN action a Mirage and a futile gesture, they simultaneously attack the Arabs for rejecting the 1947 UN resolution that partitioned Palestine. But this is not all because the game that these people play is even more complicated than that.

What they do in practical terms is grab what belongs to someone else then play the carrot and stick game with that someone. They did so when hordes of them fled the Europe of the Nazis and went to Palestine illegally where they unleashed a wave of terrorist attacks against the British troops that were stationed there and the Palestinian civilian population that lived there since the beginning of time. The Jews grabbed all the land they could grab, and waved a threatening stick to the effect that they may just grab some more if not blessed and loved for what they just did.

But they also waved a carrot to the effect that they would accept peace if the Palestinians relinquished title to what the Jews had already stolen. Now these questions to you, my friend: Would you have trusted a horde of armed barbarians that crashed through the gates of your city, robbed you of your possessions and committed atrocities along the lines of those committed by the Nazis in Europe? Would you have shaken hands with a hand that was still dripping with the blood of your loved ones murdered by these hands? You would be nuts if you accepted an offer like that.

But look how the Wall Street Journal describes those events: “The Jews accepted the [1947] Resolution … Had the Arab world voted for the plan, a Palestinian state would be as old as Israel today, and within larger borders than [what] the Palestinian President now claims for his new, national, 'state.'” And guess what, my dear reader; this is not all they say which describes how the Jews play the carrot and stick game.  What they do next is prepare to play another round of the same game. The way they do it this time is by enumerating the conditions they hope will lead the Palestinians to the carrot they dutifully place at the door of the trap which the Jews will be setting for the Palestinians.

For one thing, the editors of the Journal want Mr. Abbas “to acknowledge the Arab error in rejecting the creation of a Jewish homeland [in Palestine].” They also want him to stop talking about the “...injustices inflicted on the Palestinian people since … 1948.” The editors also want Mr. Abbas to stop accusing Israel of “ethnic cleansing,” of being “an apartheid system of colonial occupation,” of symbolizing “the plague of racism,” all of which being so obvious to the rest of the world, even the editors admit that Mr. Abbas was given a standing ovation for telling the story of his people as he sees it; as he personally lived it.

But to think that a demand of this kind is coming from a publication whose pages are filled day after day with calls to the effect that everyone who has access to a megaphone should be out there insulting this Palestinian, damning that Arab, cursing those Muslims, “sending a signal” to that enemy or kicking the ass of that other one without showing a moment's respite – is to look directly into the face of dread itself. This horror, in fact, is so horrendous, it can only be Jewish. No one, but no one on this Planet but a Jew can acquire an attitude as disgusting as this and flaunt it. No wonder these people always end up as badly as they do.

As to the waving of the stick, the Journal begins by pretending to speak on behalf of the Israelis. Never mind that in reality, the Journal speaks only for Rupert Murdoch and for the Jewish lobby in America, both of whom stand at variance with the population of Israel and the ordinary Jews in America. But the Journal editors confer on the Israelis of their imagination the final say as to whether or not “a Palestinian state is ever to come into being.” This done, they warn of the following: “Those Israelis won't be reassured by the lopsided [UN] vote.”

Still, the Journal editors do not believe it is enough to wave the stick at Mr. Abbas alone, and so they decide to warn someone else while they are at it. This is how they do it: “Israelis will know that countries such as France … and Germany will not have their backs.” Watch out Europe, the editors of the Journal who happen to have a European edition to play with, have you in their cross-hairs as of this moment.

But if you really want to blow your mind, my friend, there is something that will do it for you in grand style. It is a peek at the mental retardation and the shameless gall which are simultaneously displayed by the Journal's editors. To this end, you may read the following two passages which come in back to back paragraphs. The first passage is this: “the General Assembly voted to violate the 1993 Oslo Accords, which are the legal basis for Mr. Abbas's Palestinian Authority and require negotiations with Israel to create a state.” The second passage is this: “It will be interesting to see if the Palestinians now use their new U.N. status to harass Israelis in venues such as the International Criminal Court.”

Even if you accept the implication that the Israelis have adhered to the Oslo Accords – which they never did – to say that the General Assembly violated them after nearly 20 years of negotiations that went nowhere is to say that a judge cannot alter the terms of an accord which proved to be worthless, or say that a legislator cannot amend a law which proved to be ineffective. This is never done, but what is even more significant in those passages is that they show the extent of the contempt that Jews have for the rule of law they pretend to be at the basis of their culture. To the astonishment of the world, they make that claim with a straight face then demand that they be recognized as being above their neighbors if not above everyone else in the world.

In fact, that contempt is so deep that the editors of the Journal are asking that the Palestinians be punished for wanting to adhere to the rule of law. Can you believe it? And look how hard they push forward their ideas. First, they hint at the stiff consequences that will result by telling of the interest they have in seeing how the Palestinians will use their new UN status. Then, they say this: “Somebody needs to send to Mr. Abbas the message that there's a price to be paid for flouting the agreements with Israel and ignoring the pleas of the Administration.” The editors did not have the courage to directly threaten the Palestinians should they take their case to the International Criminal Court; they only suggested that someone should threaten the Palestinians. This is so cowardly, it can only be Jewish inspired.

What is also very Jewish is to do it to yourself trying to have it both ways. Having made hay earlier in the article of the idea that the U.N. voted for a Palestinian state in 1947 but that the Palestinians rejected the plan, the editors of the Journal now say this: “in 1947 … the Jews of Palestine demonstrated that they were ready to create a functional state. [Now] the U.N. voted for a 'Palestine' that has become a byword for political dysfunction, ideological extremism...” Thus, the question that comes to mind: What happened in the 65 years between 1947 and 2012 that changed the situation so much?

Well, the question may or may not be relevant or even valid in the current context but what comes out clearly from the passage is that the Jews view themselves as superior. When they say so at a time that the world has sent them a message saying their mentality stinks, they oblige people to believe they are the opposite of superior which means they are inferior. But since they are made of the same genetic material as the rest of us, their inferiority must be caused by their culture. And the conclusion we draw is that the inferiority of the Jewish culture is what caused the troubles that have plagued these people since the beginning of time. If anything, the U.N. should do with Palestine and Israel what it did with mainland China and Taiwan.

What is also worth noting is that the world can sometimes be changed by a happenstance that seems innocent at the time it is observed, or a saying that sounds innocuous at the time it is uttered. For example, there is the story of a woman's face that launched a thousand war ships. There is also the saying that broke the back of superpower America. It went like this: “Zey know nossing about za damacracy of za Shamir.” And now, there is the saying that goes like this: “Zey know nossing about za chustice of za Murdoch und za Netanyahu.” It is the saying that may eventually break the bones of the superpower's remains. What a compounded tragedy!

And yet, this is how they end their editorial piece: “The tragedy of Thursday's vote is that it will only encourage Palestinians to remain in their make-believe world.” Here it is, my friend, not only do they pretend to speak for Israelis and for ordinary American Jews, they also want us to believe they know the Palestinian people so well, they can predict how the latter will react to the UN vote.

And of course, they expect us to believe that they, as editors of the Wall Street Journal, have their feet planted firmly on solid ground right here on this Planet of Man.

And I have a Brooklyn bridge to sell to you. Wanna buy?