To Detect The Superficial Smart Aleck Types

It happens at the start of every school year that a teacher would receive a student who puzzles him. At times the student would show a high degree of intelligence; at other times he would show the opposite. The way to assess the intelligence of such a student is to probe his depth of understanding in the subject where he seems to display a high degree of intelligence.

It is important to do this because it often happens that a student would come from an environment where he was immersed in a subject he learned something about, but learned it at the superficial level only. Thus, a probing of the depth to which the student understands the subject will help the teacher determine the student's level of intelligence.

That same technique can be used to assess the level of intelligence shown by the editorial writers of a publication – people that may puzzle you at times by their erratic performances. It is not that their intelligence or lack of it should be of interest to you; it is that you need to know how much credibility you should assign to the points they make in the areas where your knowledge is not complete.

We have an example against which we can apply that technique and see what comes of it. The piece is a Wall Street Journal editorial, published on January 31, 2013 under the title: “Hagel and the Shrinking Gulliver”. The editors who wrote it begin with this confident assertion: “The Senate needs to pin down the Defense nominee on big issues.” And they give their reasons as to why it should be so. They say that a few things happened which tend to negate President Obama's declaration to the effect that “a decade of war is now ending.”

And they itemize those things: Israel bombed a neighbor yet again. An American Commander in Afghanistan has once again made a prediction that was not too rosy. The French conducted a successful military operation in Mali. Egypt's military chief has hinted for the umpteenth time that if the street demonstrations do not end, he may order the troops to intervene. The Chinese navy conducted another legitimate exercise along its coastline. And the Pentagon announced plans concerning cyber defenses and air bases in North Africa.

Based on that litany, the editors of the Journal draw the conclusion that “war is not ending” which, in their view, negates the President's declaration. And so, they go a step further and question the qualifications of Mr. Hagel to be Secretary of Defense. To do that, they bring up the subject of the Pentagon budget. Since your knowledge in this field is limited, you want to know if you should believe what they say. How do you do that?

You do it by returning to the litany they say proves the war is not ending. Knowing what wars the President was talking about, you ask: What war are the editors of the Journal talking about? Do they consider the litany they gave as proof that some kind of a war is still on? You go through the whole article in search of an answer to that question. And this is what you encounter at the very end: “The US [is] the world's superpower. This has … kept Europe peaceful, Asia mostly stable, the seas secure … and the US safe for nearly 70 years.

And so you ask: But what about the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Cuban revolution, the Bay of pigs fiasco, the Cuban missile crisis, the Cambodian Genocide, the Rwandan genocide, the Balkan genocide, the Spanish Revolution, the fall of Communism, the Eastern European revolutions, the various South American revolutions, the Rhodesia/Zimbabwe transformation, the South African transformation, the various African tribal wars, The Sri Lanka civil war, The East Timor uprising and the hundred other wars that erupted in the past 70 years? Don't they count for something?

If the world was manageable while those wars were happening, why the panic now with a litany that only looks like this: Israel bombed a neighbor yet again. An American Commander in Afghanistan has once again made a prediction that was not too rosy. The French conducted a successful military operation in Mali. Egypt's military chief has hinted for the umpteenth time that if the street demonstrations do not end, he may order the troops to intervene. The Chinese navy conducted another legitimate exercise along its coastline. And the Pentagon announced plans concerning cyber defenses and air bases in North Africa.

You see a puzzle here that leads you to conclude the editors of the Wall Street Journal do not know in depth what they talk about. It is that they were immersed in the subject for a while, and they have learned to rattle off a few smart sounding utterances but these are superficial utterances of the Smart Aleck kind.

The Human Drama And The Tragedy To Come

Boy have I got an idea for a movie script! It is the story of a town that gets invaded by a bunch of outlaws. The cavalry comes to the rescue but stops at the gates of the town instead of going in and confront the evildoers. No one knows why the chief of the cavalry has so decided at a time when the outlaws are looting the place, raping everyone and murdering those who stand in their way.

No one inside the town or outside of it is buying the argument put forth by the cavalry to the effect that it is better to negotiate with the outlaws than to confront them. On the contrary, many believe in the rumor which says that the chief is in cahoots with the outlaws, but they cannot explain why this is so or how the relationship works. All they know is that the chief has allowed food and water to be brought to the town – supposedly to keep the population in good condition. But the move also serves to keep the outlaws in good condition, and some people are uneasy about that.

Well, my friend, you must be thinking this is a metaphor I created to analogize a real situation, and you would be correct. The town of my story represents Palestine, the outlaws represent those who call themselves Israelis or Jews or Zionists, and the cavalry represents the bipartisan politico-journalistic establishment of America.

Here is a revelation: The muse that got me to think up that story came to me in two steps.

The first step was the time that I was reading about Israel boycotting the Human Rights Council of the United Nations whose job is to conduct a “Universal Periodic Review” of the human rights condition in all countries. The Council wanted to review the Israeli policy of looting Palestinian lands on which it built Jewish settlements. The policy resulted in the violation of Palestinian human rights, and the Council wanted to ask a few questions but the Israelis did not show up for the meeting this time even though they did on all previous occasions.

The second step of the muse's work happened when I was reading Reuel Marc Gerecht's article in the January 30, 2013 edition of the Wall Street Journal. It came under the title: “Israel's New Islamist Neighborhood” and the subtitle: “If Western history is any guide, the growth of democracy slowly diminishes religious imperatives.” It is a rant that is so rambling and so meandering, it shows that the author is not trying to impress the people of the neighborhood he is talking about but trying to impress the bipartisan politico-journalistic establishment of America that nurtures the ongoing horrendous situation in Palestine and maintains it at a great cost to the country's credibility.

Gerecht begins the article this way: “Israel last week held … elections, and many … are interpreting the results as a triumph for moderates that means new hope for the … peace process.” And he ends it this way: “It is conceivable that Israelis, Arabs and Iranians will finally find a modus vivendi based on something more profound than land-for-peace.” In other words, he is saying forget about the peace process, forget about the outlaws returning the loot they hauled, and forget about them ending the pillage and the rape. The outlaws need not change, says Gerecht, what needs to happen is for the town to adapt to them and learn to accommodate their whims now and in the future.

If we take the performance of these types in America as a guide, we conclude that they will not stop escalating their demands even after they turn the place into a giant whorehouse full of male and female bimbos, all biting each other in the back, and vying to become the preferred male or female hooker of the Jewish master. This is the reality of the bipartisan politico-journalistic establishment of America today, and the Jews are viewing it as a model to duplicate everywhere else in the world.

But no, the history of the Middle East is not unfolding along a similar line. It is unfolding as it must, and will continue to do so whether Israel is there or it is not. The history of the Middle East is the telling of the human condition with all its sorrows and all its triumphs. Invaders have come and gone throughout history in that part of the world more than they did anywhere else. But guess what, my friend; the Middle East has remained true to itself throughout; always triumphant and always human.

What is wrong with the current invaders is that they are the most destructive recidivist outlaws in history. They never cease to see themselves as being at the center of history, and they perennially come to think that the world revolves around them. They keep thinking that way till they discover otherwise; till they discover that the moment the world notices them is the moment it wants to do away with them, and usually does.

In fact, this scenario has repeated itself so many times, the world no longer considers it to be a noteworthy part of the human condition. It views it as something that happens because it must happen – nothing more serious than that; nothing to get excited about.

The outlaws can change all that by adapting to the world but they will not do so because they want the world to adapt to them. They have achieved this much in America, and they believe they can duplicate the feat everywhere else in the world – using American power if they must.

What they fail to see is that this is a recipe that will not change the world but will ruin America and take them down with it.

It happened this way many times before, and will happen this way again unless America wakes up and says enough is enough.

They Better Get The Right Expert Witnesses

It seems that John Bolton is mediocre in physics as much as he is in the law. He just shot himself in the foot on both counts. Let me admit at the outset that I am neither a lawyer nor a physicist – especially not in nuclear matters – where I am about to challenge him. I also know that he is a lawyer, one that may well be good in theory but is lousy when it comes to arguing a case for his client. This is because he has consistently made the mistake of saying anything to make a case for his client which is a strategy that has always backfired. This is why he joins the likes of Alan Dershowitz at consistently failing to argue a convincing case for Israel.

Bolton displays his deficiency in both those fields in an article he wrote under the title: “What to Ask Chuck Hagel About Iran's Nuclear Threat” and the subtitle: “Senators should probe if he endorses the dangerous step of letting Iran enrich uranium to reactor-grade levels.” It was published in the Wall Street Journal on January 29, 2013.

So let me begin with the lawyering part of my argument. Here is what he says in the article: “Materially breaching a treaty voids the entire agreement, including “rights” found elsewhere in the deal. Iran has readily exploited the West's bad lawyering.” If this is true and if everyone is equal under the law, then the resolution to recognize Israel as a state has been voided by Israel's breach of its obligations under international law. And the consequence is not only that Israel no longer has the “right” to defend itself; it has no right to exist at all. This, my friend, is the consequence of the sort of lawyering that Bolton and Dershowitz have been doing on behalf of Israel.

Now to the physics part of my argument. I never studied or worked in the business of enriching uranium. But what is involved here are science and technology; two things I spent a lifetime doing – along with a few other things. What is usually done in research, often successfully, is that a researcher would see the analogy between a newly observed phenomenon and one that is understood. For example, the theory of light as being an electromagnetic wave was understood and formulated by analogy with the dropping of a stone in a pool of calm water.

Likewise, my argument about what it would take to enrich uranium to different levels rests on my understanding of two phenomena I know well because I studied them, worked in them and taught them. The first phenomenon is electromagnetism; more specifically self-inductance. What applies here is something called Lenz's Law. It says this: “The direction of the induced current is such that its own magnetic field opposes the action that produced the induced current.” If you want to know more about this, you will find a book authored by yours truly under the title: “Fundamentals Of Circuit Analysis” which, I was surprised to know, is still being circulated on the internet.

When the students asked me what that Law meant, I explained it this way: When you pump air in your tire, a lot of it goes into the tire in a short period of time at the start. But the more air you have in the tire, the more it pushes back against new air going in. That is, it becomes more difficult to put a little bit of air in the tire towards the end than it takes to put a lot of it at the start. The same applies when a current tries to produce a magnetic field because the field will push back against the current that produced it in the first place.

The second phenomenon that comes to mind is something I worked on one Summer while attending college. It was a company that produced components for other companies. One of those components had to be vacuumed to better than 98% before sealing it. To do this, the company had a vacuum machine with a gauge on it that indicated how much air was left in the chamber where the component was held. Upon starting the machine, you could see that a large amount of air was sucked out in the first few minutes. It then took several hours to bring the vacuum level to 98%, and another 24 hours to do a little better than that. I don't remember ever getting to the 99% level.

Thus, whether you pump air in a tire or you pump air out of a component, you have an easy time at the start of the process, and a more difficult one towards the end of it even if what you reap in terms of result is mathematically inferior. Now, given that the “work” so liberally used by Bolton in the article but never defined by him, actually has a definition in physics which says it is equal to the force applied for the duration it is applied, he better explain if he means to say it will take the Iranians less force to attain the higher levels of purification, or if it will take them less time to get there.

Where I take issue with John Bolton is this passage: “recent efforts have added debilitating mistakes in basic physics.” He later says this: “Mr. Obama's negotiators are playing with numbers they don't really understand. Their crude physics is seriously flawed.” But then admits the following in the paragraph that comes after that: “Here's the basic fact that puzzles us laymen, but not nuclear physicists.” Note that he has physicists in the plural. Well, I only know of one that attempted to make such argument but was shut down in flames by a few others. Most other nuclear physicists did not bother getting involved in this kind of silly talk.

Yet, John Bolton rests his argument on this sort of flimsy approach to lawyering for the cause of Israel, and tells the senators who will be questioning Mr. Hagel to ask him what he thinks of Iran's nuclear program. Before the senators do that, however, they better get expert witnesses for both sides of the argument to give them a true picture of what is going on here.

The truth is that Bolton and Dershowitz are as useless when it comes to litigating this cause as a monkey would be when it comes to giving a lecture on the legal implications of Einstein's Theory of Relativity being used in the making of the GPS gizmos.

Failed Putsch To Secure A Harem Of Bimbos

The would-be Fuhrer King had it planned to the last detail. His rival who was holding the power, was going to be yanked out of his post and replaced by a poodle that he personally handpicked. In fact, the poodle was an old acquaintance of the Fuhrer; an individual known to sell himself to the highest bidder for a value that never exceeded a fistful of dollars given his low caliber.

The rival was Barack Obama who was then President of the United States of America, seeking to be reelected for a second and last term in office. The poodle was Mitt Romney, the individual that the Fuhrer had bought for a million dollars – a trivial sum if you compare it to the billion dollars or more that were spent by the candidates during the election campaign of that year.

As to the would-be Fuhrer King, he was none other than Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel who had another year to go before he would have to call an election. What he did, however, was exercise his right under parliamentary rules to call for an early election. He designated January 22, 2013 as the day on which the election was to be held in Israel, an extremely significant date for, it came only two days after the inauguration of the new American President, the one that the Fuhrer thought was going to be Mitt Romney but was not.

Thus, in the mind of the would-be Fuhrer King, America was going to flip from being the unofficial Israeli colony in the Americas to being the official colony, and was going to be run in his absence by a viceroy, Mitt Romney. As to the Fuhrer himself, the fantasy was that he will be reelected two days later as the absolute monarch of the New Kingdom of Israel with a majority that will look like a near unanimity. It will be the kind of majority he has been getting from the shameless bimbos who were in charge of America's congress.

In reality, none of these events were going to happen haphazardly as they were planned to the last detail in an elaborate putsch that was put together by the would-be King working with collaborators in the Likud Party of Israel. He and they manipulated the bimbos in their American political hangouts such as the two wings of the Congress, and in the media watering holes that were frequented by characters who could not tell Right from Left anymore than they could tell right from wrong. And of course, there were the characters of the septic tanks that pretended to be think tanks but got their thinking material from the unthinking Likud. Finally, there were the freelancers who volunteered to add their two cents worth to the pot in the hope of being considered valuable contributors to the ongoing effort of anointing World Jewry as master of the universe.

One particular media outfit that had both a print publication and an audio-visual network, was instrumental in making the haggard eunuch that is Netanyahu appear like a Fuhrer King possessing absolute wisdom when it comes to the art of wielding power by which to deter the world, and the science of using that power to make himself feared by the enemy of the day rather than be loved by the friend of everyday. More specifically, that media outfit had the Wall Street Journal with which to attack those who stood in the way of World Jewry from conquering the world, and had the Fox News Network with which to sing and celebrate the fictitious potency of the eunuch that was Netanyahu – now disguised as a would-be Fuhrer King.

Unfortunately for the suckers out there who made the wrong bet, it happened that by the time the calendar was showing the date January 20, 2013, President Barack Obama had been reelected and was officially inaugurated on that day. He had also increased his majority in the Senate of the Congress, and had managed to diminish the majority of his opponents in the House of Representatives. As to Netanyahu, instead of increasing the number of seats under his control in Parliament, he decreased it substantially. You can only wonder what song of regret he has been singing ever since for calling an early election when he didn't have to.

But what was it that gave those suckers the impression they were going to pull off a putsch of this magnitude, anyway? The regrettable answer is that they had a few small successes in the past; enough of them to signal that they had a chance at winning big this time. In fact, just a few months before those events, Netanyahu and his Likud collaborators had organized a spectacle by which to show President Obama and the world what kind of harem full of male and female bimbos the U.S. Congress had become. To this end, Netanyahu had himself invited to the White House where he figuratively urinated on the rug, then went to the Congress where the bimbos there gave him 29 standing ovations.

As to the ongoing contribution made by the media outfit which stood by him all along, there is a recent example in the Wall Street Journal as to how it paved the way for Netanyahu to play the game, and paved the way for World Jewry to advance towards its goal. The example is an article written by Thane Rosenbaum under the title: “A Bleak Anniversary for the Arab Spring” and the subtitle: “The riots and deaths in Egypt signal another grim turn in a story once filled with hope.” It was published in the Journal on January 28, 2013. The author mentioned a number of Arab countries but I shall take up only one, Egypt.

As you begin to read the article, you quickly get the sense that Rosenbaum is not talking to the Arabs in an effort to give them insights they can use to ameliorate their situation. Indeed, you discover that he is talking to the existing bimbos in America and to future bimbos anywhere in the world. He is leading them all to the conclusion that he has at the end of the article. It is this: “There is a reason why realpolitick … has … guided American foreign policy … Democracy in some countries won't make America any new friends, nor is it likely even to last.” What Rosenbaum is doing here is what a harem guard would do when seeing a stranger approach the harem. He tries to fend off the stranger while reminding the harem population (males and females alike) that it is forbidden to talk to strangers let alone seek to be friends with them.

Thus, to warn America that it is dangerous to be friends with Egypt, Rosenbaum must tell lies about that country by distorting and exaggerating what is happening there. The truth is that on January 25, 2013 – the second anniversary of the Revolution – Cairo saw a demonstration in Tahrir Square. This is not a bad thing in itself; it is the civil right that the Revolution had fought to acquire for the people of Egypt. Unfortunately, however, a handful of people got hurt and a couple may have lost their lives when opposing factions fought each other.

By coincidence, something else happened the next day. It was unrelated to the Revolution and was far away from Cairo. What happened was the work of soccer hooligans calling themselves “Ultras” who styled themselves after some European and North American gangs. As a result of what they did, something like 30 people died in the battles that ensued.

How bad is that? It is bad for Egypt, a society that has been as calm as a sleeping baby for thousands of years. But when you compare the death toll that resulted from a revolution that has occurred in a country of 85 million people with revolutions that have occurred in Europe, Asia and America, you realize that Egypt still remains as quiet as the sleeping baby it has been all these years. To take an example, in the span of a year and a half, as many people were killed in the city of Chicago alone as did during the entire Egyptian Revolution.

Thus, when Thane Rosenbaum describes the situation in Egypt as being bleak and grim, he tells the Netanyahu harem of American male and female bimbos in the Congress and the media they should not be talking to Egypt or seek to be friends with that country because they belong to their master Netanyahu and only to him. He is, after all, more than a Prime Minister of Israel; he is a wise King and a Fuhrer with an iron fist. And don't you, bimbos, forget this for a minute.

All in all, we see that as he works to realize a putsch that will forever turn America into a colony of Israel governed by a loyal viceroy, Rosenbaum is also working to protect the Netanyahu harem from a putsch that would pivot the harem in the direction of someone else.

Pity the man for, he is trying to do two impossible things at the same time.

When The Brain Is Tiny And The Mouth Is Big

If you want to see a glaring example of the mentality that powers the Judeo-Israeli movement, there are a plenty of them around; all provided by the self-appointed leaders of that movement. One such leader is Clifford D. May whose gift to us this time is a column he wrote while visiting Israel. It has the title: “Discussing Islam: A Religious Taboo” and the subtitle: “American officials can kill our enemies. They just can't discuss our enemies' beliefs.” The column was published in the National Review Online on January 24, 2013.

Despite the author's effort to be subtle, the column demonstrates how these people use trickery to confuse their interlocutors and score a success. To be sure, this would be the kind of success that history says cannot be a lasting one. The reality has been that the aftermath of each act of trickery was never the concern of the people that pulled it because they believed that no matter how much they blundered, God will come to their rescue in the end and give what they started a happy ending.

Alas, this has remained the fantasy they held onto for thousands of years despite the fact that they could see they lost the trust and the goodwill of their interlocutors each time that the latter put the pieces together and saw the full picture of the tricks they were pulling. As to the anticipated rescue by the divine, that thing never came, and the happy ending never materialized. On the contrary, the end of each episode in Jewish history has been a calamity for the Jews and a difficult time for those who stayed close to them.

With regard to the latest Clifford May column, the picture he is painting can be framed in the reader's mind by looking at the start of the presentation then looking at the way he ends it. Having such a frame in mind at the outset will help the reader formulate a better understanding of the tricks that the author uses while taking the reader from point to point, and working his subtle magic to affect the psyche and shape the thinking.

Here is how he begins the discussion: “Can we at least agree that reports of al-Qaeda's death have been greatly exaggerated?” And here is how he ends it: “Can we at least agree that … the death of the peace process have not been exaggerated – and that Israelis' constructing … in and around Jerusalem … is not the reason why?” Thus, we see that after hitting us with a title that speaks of Islam, the author makes the point that the war against the Muslims is not over because al-Qaeda is still alive. And this leads him to conclude that the peace process is dead therefore Israel can go ahead and steal Palestinian lands. What can be more Jewish than this?

How the author gets from the beginning of the column to that conclusion is what the rest of the column is about. Indeed, what we have here is an example of how these people dismantle several historical events and – using parts from each event – manage to assemble something new; a monstrosity that will support their newest argument. And here is how Clifford May does it this time: “In stump speeches [Obama] said al-Qaeda had been 'decimated' … in his inaugural address … he claimed that 'a decade of war is now ending' [but] the evidence that AQ is alive and lethal is abundant.”

The truth, however, is that President Obama was talking about a war in Iraq that he ended as he promised he will do. As to the war in Afghanistan, it too was coming to an end which is what the President promised he will do also. This is what he was referring to in his speeches, nothing more and nothing less. Come to think of it, the Iraq war had nothing to do with al-Qaeda (AQ). As well, the Afghanistan war was launched not against AQ but against the Taliban who refused to hand over the leaders of AQ; those responsible for the 9/11 event. Bringing these people to justice being the goal of the Afghan operation, the President achieved that goal by decimating the AQ leadership. This is also what he was referring to in his speeches, nothing more and nothing less.

Thus, for a Jewish author like Clifford May to take bits of those speeches and bits of the events to which they refer, then assemble the pieces into an argument that leads to the conclusion Israel can steal with impunity what belongs to the Palestinians is the sort of mentality that someone has called the Jewish hunger to acquire and use the proverbial one-way ticket to the gas chamber. And from the looks of it, these people have no intention to stop buying that ticket now or ever.

But contrary to May's conclusion, we reach our own conclusion which is that each event mentioned by the President was correct when looked at in the context in which it came. When taken out of that context, and when assembled with other pieces that were themselves taken out of their contexts, an author can give himself the possibility of putting together a new picture showing an al-Qaeda Islamic army marching across the Globe the way that the Nazi army marched across Europe. This is what Clifford May has done. It is a Jewish montage of pieces of truth assembled in such a way as to produce a big lie.

However, because the assembly is made of pieces that reflect a half truth here and a partial truth there, it has the ultimate effect of deceiving the onlooker as to its veracity. And that's where the confusion begins; one that these people turn to their advantage till they are unmasked and dealt with harshly.

And the author of the column does not stop here for, he starts what may be called the second act of his dissertation. He does so with a preface which he sticks in the middle of the presentation – one that is worthy of a book on philosophy. Take a look at this: “Serious analysts sometimes arrive at wrong conclusions. But serious analysts acknowledge their errors, attempt to determine what data or misassumptions led them astray, and work to reshape their narrative in conformance with reality.”

To show how and where this philosophy may apply, he does something that is very Jewish. Here it is: “I spoke with someone I'll identify only as a senior American military official.” He then proceeds to put words that will make his point, in the mouth of that mythical someone. But because you know of the standard Jewish practice of arguing he was led to a conclusion that had been developing in his head for ages, you say “bunk.” You skip the useless verbiage, go directly to the conclusion and see for yourself what he is up to now.

And this is his conclusion: “American officials can kill our enemies … They just can't analyze, criticize, or challenge the beliefs that motivate them. Fighting a kinetic war is permitted, but waging a cognitive war is prohibited. If we are to avoid defeat, we need to be fighting both.” In other words, Clifford May is saying he went to Israel where he met a senior American official who told him that if the politicians and the media types in America do not start frothing at the mouth the kind of lies and insults that he and those of his ilk froth regularly, America will be defeated on the battlefield no matter what weapons of war she uses and what strategies she employs. It all boils down to this: It's not the drones or the smart bombs, stupid; it's the shower of Yiddish style insults. And so you think to yourself, no wonder these Jews always end up in the gas chamber.

Is that the end of May's presentation? Of course not. Why would he end here when the going looks so joyful in his eyes? See for yourself what comes next; it is what may be called the third act of his presentation. Here it is: “Closely related to the 'AQ is dead' thesis is the 'Muslim Brotherhood is moderate' thesis.” Thus, in line with what these people do which is to identify a new enemy each day and call on the Americans to join in the celebration of hate and incitement, Clifford May has called the Muslim Brotherhood enemy of the day.

To incite the Americans, he is doing yet again what he has been doing for years. He is doing the two things where I repeatedly challenged him on this website. It is that he mutilated history, and he accused someone of saying something in a foreign language he did not say. This time, he tried to malign the President of Egypt.

I shall not discuss every distortion he made this time but will take up one point because it is the one that pops up everywhere these days. Here is what May wrote: “he [Morsi] called Jews and Israelis 'the descendants of apes and pigs.'” In fact, Morsi did not speak of Jews or Israelis; he spoke of the Zionists who were at the time bombing with unusual savagery the unarmed women and children of Palestine as they slept in their bedrooms. Thus, Clifford May did what the Jewish leaders have been doing for ages which is to treat as synonymous and substitutable the words Jew, Israeli and Zionist.

What is noteworthy about this is that the discussion these days concerns the latest Jewish lament to the effect that someone has called the “Israeli lobby” a “Jewish lobby;” a confusion that reeks of antisemitism, they say. But what Clifford May has inadvertently demonstrated is that these people will do it to themselves then complain that someone has hurt them by not saying exactly what they can never get exactly right themselves – either because they are confused or because they want to confuse someone else. Who cares anyway? I don't.

As to Mr. Morsi calling the murderous Zionists a bunch of apes and pigs, I apologize to the apes and the pigs in the zoos and the jungles of the world, especially those among them who will never fly an American warplane or drop an American bomb on women and their babies. They did nothing to merit being so insulted.

John Barrosso Is What He Says He Is Not

He is intimidated and scared stiff but he is in denial. That's Senator John Barrosso who says he is offended by the remark made by Senator Chuck Hagel to the effect that “the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people” on Capitol Hill. The occasion is that Mr. Hagel was nominated by President Obama to be Secretary of Defense, and Mr. Barrosso will be asked to give his “advice and consent,” something he does not seem too eager to do. And he tells the reason why: “My national-security votes are based on America's national security – not lobbyists' issues, interests or intimidation.”

It would be nice to think of it that way. You may even have wanted to accept his denial without question. But Barrosso did not only assert that he bases his votes on America's national security interests, and he did not only deny that fear and intimidation motivate him; he did more than that. What Barrosso did was write an article under the title: “Chuck Hagel's Unsettling History” which also came under the subtitle: “A senator on his doubts about the nominee's judgment regarding Iran, missile defense and much else.” It was published in the Wall Street Journal on January 24, 2013.

What you encounter in that article tells you that Hagel is correct and Barrosso is wrong. It also tells you why Barrosso dropped another remark said to have been made by Hagel concurrently with the one he made about the Jewish lobby. It was a remark to the effect that he is an American senator, not an Israeli senator. All these realities hit you in the face like a cannonball when you read the very first sentence in the Barrosso article. It is this: “I recently returned from meeting in Israel with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.” No, John Barrosso does not take his orders from lobbyists; he only listens to them, and then goes to get his orders directly from the horse's mouth.

Yes, Barrosso did mention that he also went to Afghanistan and met with U.S. generals and troops in the field. But you ask what did he get out of his one-on-one meeting with Netanyahu? And what did he get out of his meeting with the many generals and the many troops who assembled in a single field to be with him? What did the Israeli Netanyahu say to Senator Barrosso, and what did the multitude of Americans say to him?

In fact, the man tells you what he got out of those meetings. Here it is: “The discussions touched on some common themes: supporting Israel, America's strongest ally in the region, and protecting U.S. interests in the Middle East.” You stop to think about it only to come to the conclusion that Americans fighting in Afghanistan are not going to sit with a senator and say they want America to support Israel. And they are not going to say they want to see America protect its interests only in the Middle East because what they live and die for is to protect their country everywhere in the world.

As to Israel being America's strongest ally in the region, you analyze this part in conjunction with what else Barrosso says: “These talks have reinforced my understanding of the tremendous challenges the next secretary of defense will face on a range of national-security issues. Strong leadership and sound judgment will be required day in and day out.” You see what it's all about, my friend? It's about fusing the idea of “strong ally” with “strong leadership” so as to produce sound judgment. So you ask: But will Chuck Hagel not deliver as much?

No, no, no says Barrosso. The proof is that Hagel the American, made controversial statements which prove him to be less qualified than the Israeli Netanyahu to judge what is good for America. From this point forward, Barrosso goes on to echo-repeat the talking points concerning the reasons why America must bomb Iran, and why it must prepare to get into a never ending war against the rest of the world; something that Chuck Hagel has rejected.

Barrosso ends his article with this: “When we are faced with unpredictable national-security crises, we can't afford to have a secretary of defense who has unpredictable judgment.”

Well, there is nothing unpredictable in this matter for, it can safely be predicted that Chuck Hagel will consult with Americans to find out form them what is best for America whereas John Barrosso will run to Netanyahu, throw himself at his feet and beg the master to tell him what is good for America. For cover, Barrosso may even assemble a few thousand Americans in one field and talk to them for a minute or two so that he may swear he consulted with Americans too.

The truth of the matter is that the man is terrified of the Jewish lobby, and he is in denial about it. He will not admit it because if he did, he will want to go back being a medical doctor again where he stands to do more good for his people than get together with other dogs and bark the Netanyahu praises.

The Obama Vision And The Murdoch Trickery

On January 21, 2013, President Obama of the United States of America gave his inauguration speech in which he described a vision he formulated for the future of the country. The next day, the Wall Street Journal – which stands as the current megaphone for the alien movement known as World Jewry – published a piece in which it inadvertently exposed the sort of fake arguments and fake approaches it will employ to try and thwart the President's vision. These would be the same arguments and the same approaches that Rupert Murdoch, the majority owner of the Journal, has been employing for a long time now.

The President's speech is made of something like 20 paragraphs each of which is full of ideas worth reading and worth mulling over. But for the purpose of this discussion, however, two paragraphs stand out because they contain the ideas that hint at the ground on which the upcoming battles will be fought.

The abridged version of one paragraph reads as follows: “We believe that every citizen deserves a basic measure of security and dignity. We reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future. For, we remember the lessons of our past, when twilight years were spent in poverty, and parents of a child with a disability had nowhere to turn. The commitments we make to each other – through Medicare, and Medicate, and social security – these things do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us.”

What this set of ideas says is that America must now face the reality that its reach can no longer be allowed to exceeding its grasp. This is because the memory of the choices that poor people were forced to make in their twilight years, and the choices that parents with a disabled child were forced to endure are no longer acceptable. There is now a better set of choices to make, says the President, and the abridged version of the paragraph describing these choices reads as follows:

“We believe that security and peace do not require perpetual war. Our men and women in uniform, tempered by the flames of battle, are unmatched. Our citizens, seared by the memory of those we lost, know too well the price that is paid for liberty. [Such] knowledge will keep us vigilant. But we are also heirs to those who won the peace, who turned enemies into friends, and we must carry those lessons into this time as well.”

Thus, what the President says is that the big choice to make at this time is not between having to provide for the current generation or having to provide for future generations; it is to provide for all the generations by returning to the role that America used to play so well in the past. It made friends out of former enemies, and pared down its military after each victory rather than spark a useless war here and there the way that it did in more recent times to satisfy an approach called Pax Americana. This is what sapped the country's human resources and eroded its economic potential; an approach that can no longer be sustained.

Opposed to the President's vision are the advocates of Pax Americana. They are the characters who run World Jewry, and who operate in America under the banner of the Neocons. Their vision for America and for the world is spelled out in a piece of writing that comes this time under the signature of Bret Stephens, a columnist at the Wall Street Journal, and one of its editors. The column is titled: “Obama's You're-On-Your-Own World” and has the subtitle: “George McGovern wanted America to 'Come Home.' In Obama's second term, he may just get his wish.”

The most striking point made by Stephens is this: “Americans need to think carefully about what the retreat from Pax Americana will mean.” He articulates this point of view by standing on two pillars. One is history; the other economics. I have always taken the view that Jews are incapable of talking history because all that they are capable of doing in this field is mutilate history beyond recognition. Stephens gives me no reason to change my mind, hence I shall not take up the historical argument he is advancing.

As to economics, even though the Journal employs people who know their stuff, Stephens himself is illiterate when it comes to math and to economics. Thus, I must assume that the arguments he is presenting in this column are not his own but those of his comrades.

He mentions – on their behalf – figures without saying how they were produced. However, by doing a little bit of forensic work on them, we can expose the principles that went into their production. In turn, these principles will unveil a philosophy that says: It is perfectly acceptable to let the American people live in misery now and in the future because the aim is to maintain this nation in a perpetual state of war whether it manages in the end to achieve Pax Americana or not.

Stephens says at the start of his column that the United States has “haggle[d] with France over the federal equivalent of a $2.15 check.” You ask: Where did this figure come from? And he says that France asked America for logistical support consisting of 30 flights that would cost 600,000 dollars each. You do the math and find that the operation would cost the American taxpayers 18 million dollars. No chicken feed, you say, which is probably why his comrades did not provide that figure. Instead, they spoke of a federal equivalent of 2.15 dollars.

But where did that last figure come from? Well, this is the point where things get complicated because these people don't tell you what assumptions they made while doing the math. All that can be said is that the ratio between the little more than 10 billion dollars they say the government spends each and every day, and the 18 million dollars that the taxpayers of America would have had to fork out is approximately 560.

Now, if this ratio is supposed to mirror the ratio between the spending powers of the federal government and the spending powers of the citizen they have in mind (an average citizen or not), it means that their man spends each and every day 560 times 2.15 dollars, which comes to 1204 dollars. Multiply this number by 365, and you get the value of 440 thousand dollars that the citizen they have in mind is supposed to spend in a year. And that's certainly no average citizen in anyone's book.

This is complicated stuff, and there is a reason why they make it so. It is that they always seek to confuse the people. In fact, that's not the only thing they do to confuse people. When you look closely at the totality of their daily arguments, you'll find that they use two kinds of measurements. Think of one measurement as being a yardstick that is a foot long, and think of the other measurement as being a yardstick that is a mile long.

When these people speak of their side getting something, they say, for example, we only got a tenth of a mile. When they speak of the other side getting something, they say he got a whopping five hundred feet of that something. But you know what? Contrary to the psychological impact that such figures have on us, five hundred feet are less than a tenth of a mile. By the same token, it is more convenient for the Murdoch people to speak of 2.15 dollars than to speak of 440 000 dollars. It's psychology, you see.

But why do they go through all that? What does it mean to them in the final analysis? It means that the neocons will use every trick in the book to deceive the population so as to keep America in a perpetual state of war and serve their religious purposes which are to provoke Armageddon, and fulfill a prophecy that has motivated them for thousands of years. They hope to establish a Pax Americana which, for now at least, will serve as proxy for what they ultimately aim to accomplish – the establishment of Pax Judaica.

And they consider the American people to be the suckers on whose shoulders they will climb to realize their ancient prophecy, even if it means that America must go broke in the process, and its people must live in misery for ever and ever.

These are the Murdoch ideas, principles and approaches and – come hell or high water – they will be pitted every inch of the way against the vision that the President has for America.

He Went To Kick Asses, Got Terrorized Instead

The American culture is such that it can make a joke out of any situation, and the people will laugh at it – but not always. There are times when the occasion is so solemn you can neither think of it as funny nor seek to trivialize it by turning it into a moment of cheap humor. Those who make a living producing the comedy that adds to the American culture and enriches it understand this reality, and they adhere to an unwritten code that has kept them from crossing the line between what is acceptable and what is not. But things are changing.

Things are changing in a way that was totally unexpected not long ago. It is that a humor – a kind of sick humor is now coming not from the professional humorists who still restrain themselves but from people who came close to being a casualty in a serious situation but were lucky enough to escape a dire fate. The sickening part is that some of these people have started to cash in on their experience by turning it into a farcical moment to be laughed at. They are doing so in complete disregard of the other people: those who perished, those who suffered and may have recovered, and those who still suffer and may continue to suffer to the end of their days.

One of the would-be comedians is Tom Cotton, a character recently elected to represent an Arkansas district in the Federal House of Representatives. He was a soldier in Iraq who must have had a cushy job because he never encountered the enemy, never saw actual combat and was never injured. He is now back in America doing two unexpected things. First, he is doing the sort of thing that the Jewish lobby used to do; the thing by which the lobby trivialized the Holocaust. Second, he is doing the sort of thing that the Israeli army used to do; the thing by which it acquired the image of an army of cold blood killers and of male bimbos.

Tom Cotton must love doing this sort of things because he has done it yet again. He wrote an article under the title: “Hagel's Historical Delusions” and had it published on January 19, 2013 in the National Review Online. He starts the article with this statement: “...Chuck Schumer … implying [Hagel] to be … massively ignorant of history...” And so you ask: What's he beefing about? And he tells you what that is. He says this: “[Hagel] basically said, look, the bottom line is the world has changed since 2005, '06, and '07. Iran is … more militant [now] than it was then.” And you are puzzled that he should beef about something like this.

So you ask if there is humor in trivializing something as serious as this. You think about it, and all you can tell is that there is no hard hitting humor in it but maybe a light one – enough perhaps to make people smile, or chuckle a little. It is that when it comes to being massively ignorant about history, Tom Cotton has shown to be the most massive of them all. He did so when he forgot – or was being deliberately ignorant of his own history. This would be the history which pertains to the expression of an opinion on how the world is changing, and what the consequences of that change may be.

Look what happened here: At some point near the end of the Twentieth Century, a cocky young Tom Cotton wrote an article and had it published. It was an article in which he attacked the use of the internet in the classroom. Shown how wrong he was by the passage of time, Cotton refused to admit he was fundamentally mistaken about the subject, but acknowledged that he has undergone a change of heart and a change of mind on the matter.

To this end, he posited that the world has changed and so did the internet. He also said it is for this reason and this reason only that he now believes the internet is okay to have in the classroom. Well, we can only say it is too bad for the Cotton to have chosen being so massively ignorant of his own history before attacking Chuck Hagel's treatment of history. He made a fool of himself in the process, and he knitted a story that shows the historical delusions he talked about to have been not those of Hagel but his own. Laughter please.

While there may be humor in this, there can be no humor in another stance that Tom Cotton has taken. Look at this passage: “Iran was smuggling a ... roadside bomb into Iraq … To be fair, though, perhaps Mr. Hagel didn’t think these acts of war made Iran dangerous ... After all, he voted in 2007 against designating Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization.” To explain how staggering this is to an international audience, I must say something that is taboo here in North America but is not in the rest of the world where this sort of stance is mentioned more often and more solemnly than here.

When you go to war, you don't expect the enemy to treat you with courtesy. You try to kill him before he kills you because if you don't, you end up dead and he goes home to his loved ones. The enterprise called war must be as frightening to him as it is to you. Thus, the one thing you should never say is that you were a good soldier facing him, but he was a terrorist facing you. If and when you talk like this, the world will say about you what is no longer uttered in North America. It will call you a faget while in North America, they may only call you a male bimbo in a soldier's uniform.

This idea about “us” being soldiers, and “them” being terrorists was put forward by the Judeo-Israeli league for the poison of the American mind and the American culture. It all started when the world began to see the extent of the terror that the heavily armed Israeli soldiers and the Jewish settlers were committing against the unarmed civilian population of Palestine. To legitimize Jewish terrorism and delegitimize the Palestinian resistance to occupation, the Jewish propaganda machine in America first attacked the Palestinians by recruiting people who stood in front of the cameras and sniveled: “They throw stones at our soooldiers, oh pity me, pity meee.”

When they did not get enough pity from a public that had it up to here with Jewish self pity, constant whining and forever exacting something for nothing, the Jewish propaganda machine upped the ante in that it started to describe the Israeli soldiers of occupation as being “just kids” barely 18 years of age who should never see a stone thrown at them even when they shoot to kill Palestinian babies in the arms of their mothers, and kill the mothers too.

When that kind of propaganda failed to make the people of America run in the streets to demand justice for the Israelis and punishment for the Palestinians, the Jewish lobby got into the act. It blackmailed the prostitutes that populate the Congress as well as their male counterparts, the bimbos of that same institution.

They all got together and passed resolution after resolution in favor of Israel and all the Jewish causes. Among these was a resolution to the effect that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps was henceforth regarded as being a terrorist organization. The prostitutes and the male bimbos signed it; the real men and real women refrained. Now, Tom Cotton is whining that the outcome was not unanimous.

If America is to be respected again in the world, it will have to have real men and real women at the helm governing it. No longer can it afford to send GIs “to kick asses” then complain they were terrorized by an enemy that refused to treat them with courtesy. This is not what real GIs expect; it is what the world sees as being the wish of a faget right out the mold of a Tom Cotton.

I will only say to him: Shut up, you male bimbo. Just shut up and spare your country further embarrassment.

The world will not apologize for its views and neither will I for mine.

A Word Of Advice To Potential Recruits

The Wall Street Journal which is known to represent World Jewry, and known to stand as the movement's loudest megaphone, has revealed what it wishes to see happen sometime in the near future. It did so in an editorial titled: “Al Qaeda, again” and subtitled: The terrorist don't seem to agree that they have been defeated,” published on January 19, 2013. The editors of the Journal have expressed their wish this way: “Between his Inaugural address … and the State of the Union speech … we hope President Obama finds space to include some comments on Algeria. And Mali. And Benghazi.”

The occasion is that there has been an election in the United States of America where the President was re-elected. A new Congress was also elected and inaugurated as will soon be the President. Composed of members of the House representing their districts, and of senators representing their states, the veteran legislators and the rookies among them will soon begin doing their part in the Congress to join the President in the governance of the nation.

The legislators will do their part using the powers that were conferred on them by the American people, will do it in accordance with the terms that were enshrined in the Constitution by the founding fathers of the nation, and do it in accordance with the amendments that were introduced in later years as well as the statutes that came into effect after that.

There is no doubt that if left to themselves, the legislators would discharge their duty at a high level of honesty or better, each according to their talent and their abilities. However, the constitution provides for the petition of these people by their constituents, a necessary provision in the democratic system that is not without consequences. It is that the provision leads to pressure being brought to bear on the legislators from the outside – some of which will be legitimate pressure and some will be illegitimate. This is where the matter usually starts to go complicated; where the system opens itself to potential abuse and deterioration.

Looking at the life of a nation that may be a full democracy or a quasi democracy, the groups that exert illegitimate pressure on its legislators can only be identified or assessed after the fact – most likely a long time after the fact. The reality is that the members of such groups or their proxies will come into the life of a legislator from the outside, disguised as legitimate lobbyists. They will go through the motion of presenting what seems to be a lawful petition when, in fact, the presentation will be neither a petition nor a lawful act. Instead, it will be a bribe, a blackmail or both, wrapped into a proposition that invites the legislator to betray his or her conscience – even betray their oath of office to advance the causes of the outside group.

Some legislators will knuckle under the pressure of the blackmail, other legislators will succumb to the lure of the bribe, and one or the other will end up using the powers conferred on them to act not in accordance with the terms enshrined in the Constitution or the amendments introduced in later years or even the statutes that came after that. What they will do, instead, is act in a scandalous manner then hope to get away with it.

This has been the political history of the United States of America since it came together as a nation, and where groups that promoted one cause or another have come and gone. Some groups lasted a long time; other groups lasted a short period of time, but never before did a group come along with the intent to fundamentally alter the substance of the nation. Never before, that is, until now.

There is now a lobby that is a veritable shape shifter; one that changes its appearance as easily as it changes its methods of operation, even its name. It started as an anti-defamation league then became a political action committee then became a Jewish defense league then became a Jewish lobby then became a Zionist lobby then became an Israeli lobby then became je ne sais quoi, which (translated from the French) means: don't know what else – probably a thousand other things.

Whatever the name they assume for a given occasion, the members of that group are gradually adopting the policy of spending less energy to fight the notion that their intent is to alter the substance of the nations they infiltrate. Instead, they are spending their effort to make their activities look like a package of divine virtues handed to them from above. The package contains a revelation, they say, to the effect that they were chosen to fix the affairs of humanity by subjugating it to their volition – a mental disposition they promise will someday prove to be the expression of God's will.

All of that is spelled out in the Old Testament, they say, a book they consider to be the bible of their religious beliefs. When you go through that book, my dear reader, you will find in it all the blood, the terror, the gore, the horror, the pain and the suffering you can imagine – all spread out from cover to cover on each and every page. And there is also the fire that will be used to cleanse what is undesirable, and make way for what the Jews will bring to humanity when the Messiah will hand them the scepter of the sovereign, instructing them to take command of God's creation and head it from here to eternity.

Hence, the question for the rest of us to ask: What is it that these people do to prepare for the day when they believe the Messiah will show up? The answer is that they try to take as much control as they can of anyone who will let them get away with it. They have learned over the years that President Obama is less a pushover than some of his predecessors, thus they concentrate on the Congress which has traditionally been the cesspool of American political treason and subordination to Jewish dictates. They will get to work and will recruit as many members of both chambers as they can to tell the people of America and the people of the world that the Jews are in charge of the superpower; of its culture, its finances and its military.

You can see this in the way that their current editorial is structured. Having lamented that: “Mr. Obama has tried to keep the world … at arm's length,” they went on to assert that: “it is impossible to blink from the reality … al Qaeda is … an active threat to U.S. interests.” Then they did something that is very Jewish. To see what that is, look at the debating style they have used. First, they said this: “When the French sent troops and planes to Mali last week … the U.S. support it expected didn't come.” Without hesitation, they added that they know: “The geopolitical strategists at al Qaeda promptly (that's promptly) upped the ante.”

But you ask: What is it that the strategists did promptly? And the editors of the Journal answer: “[they did] what's described as a well-planned offensive.” Well planned offensive in a week? Wow, you say to yourself, these Jews did it to themselves again. Eager to have it both ways, they stated a paradox. They said that al-Qaeda mounted and executed a well-planned (time-consuming) offensive, and did it (promptly). Just as it is with the clarity they see in the moral ambiguities they continually spout, these people see promptness in the time consuming activities of al-Qaeda. What sick mentality!

And so you ask what do they propose America should do now? For one thing, they say at the beginning of the editorial they want to see the President address the issue at some point between his inaugural address and his State of the Union speech.

Then toward the end of the editorial, they lament the policy called “light footprint” which America has adopted with regard to what they call “committed terrorists.” And then, they conclude with this: “It's a dangerous world” which is the reason why they “hope that at John Kerry's … confirmation … at least one Senator presses ... deeper … about the threat of terrorism in the Maghreb.”

So here you have it, my friend, they say that talk by the President and deeper talk by a Senator should do the trick. Do you believe this? Of course not. Unconvinced of their argument, you ask yourself: Is this the story of the mountain that went into labor and produced a mouse? Or is it something else?

From the looks of it, the answer should be that it is something else. It must be that the editors of the Journal are serving notice on the members of both chambers of the Congress that they expect them to froth at the mouth deeper “pearls of wisdom” than they ever did before.

And my advice to the American legislators is to rebuff these lobbyists the moment they approach them. It is important to do so early on because if they succumb to the temptation even once, they will be drawn into a cesspool of horrific toxicity as would a baby that is pulled by its umbilical cord into the jaws of a monster whose habit is to never let go of a prey.

Satan Unveils Her Hand At Long Last

Imagine you are the parent of a teenager. One day, it occurs to you that you should check to see what your kid is learning in school. You spend an hour with him only to come out of the experience totally puzzled. All you can tell is that the kid's head is being stuffed with a great deal of something but you're not sure what that something is. It all sounds like a bunch of tangents going in a million directions, but the kid knows not how any of that connects, or that something is supposed to connect at all.

You go see the principal of the school and ask her to let you sit in the classroom so as to see for yourself how the teacher teaches the lesson. The principal grants you the request, and you go sit at the back of the classroom where 20 students, including your child, are taught. At the top of the blackboard, you see the inscription: Creative Ambiguity. Below it, you see a question with 4 possible answers marked A,B,C and D from which to choose one.

The teacher asks the students to raise their hand if they know the correct answer. A few hands are raised and the teacher points to one of them. The student says the answer is A. No, says the teacher, look at answer B. Hands are raised again, and the teacher points to one of them. The student says the answer is B. No, says the teacher, look at answer C. A few hands are raised, and the teacher points to one of them. The student says the answer is C. No, says the teacher, look at answer D. Hands are raised, and the teacher points to one of them. The student says the answer is D. No, says the teacher, you all missed the point of this lesson. Class dismissed.

You come out of there thinking to yourself this is not a learning institution but a mental institution where the inmates pose as educators and teach not creative ambiguity but authentic madness. Well, my friends, this is exactly what the rabbis did when half a century ago, they started posing as teachers. They set out to “educate” the North American public on Jewish sensitivities, then branched out to give lessons on everything that's in the universe of politics, religion, history, geography, motivation, clairvoyance and what have you.

The offshoots of those rabbis are now in total control of the North American media or close to that. Like their rabbi mentors before them, they pretend to educate the public about Jewish creative ambiguity and everything else which goes with that. Some of the offshoots even teach in real universities where they lecture on the moral clarity to be found in going in a million directions and get nowhere. One of these so-called professors is Ruth Wisse who has a teaching position at Harvard University, and writes an article for the Wall Street Journal once in a while.

Her latest article is titled: “What the 'Lobby' Knows About Animus for Israel” and has the subtitle: “The Jewish state, as the 'little Satan,' is a stand-in for the 'big Satan' and Western values.” It was published in the Journal on January 17, 2013. The first baffling thing you encounter in this article is right there in the title. At long last, Ruth Wisse admits she is writing on behalf of the 'Lobby,' something that was vehemently denied by the writers who used to take up the Jewish causes. They all pretended to be not an organized bunch but free thinkers motivated only by a morality that compelled them to get involved and clarify the ongoing narrative.

The approach that Wisse takes at the start of her article is that of: “No, the correct answer is not A but look at B.” Here is how she does it in her first two paragraphs: “The … process … to guide American … policy can … be used to clear up … confusion, What's at issue is not … affection for Jews or for Israel … The ... imputation of … Jewish influence … is less worrisome than [the] failure to recognize why the 'Lobby' exists … Never mind the Jews: Opposition to Israel camouflages … hostility to America.”

Great, you say to yourself, the rest of the article is undoubtedly meant to show how opposition to Israel camouflages hostility to America. You are eager to see how the author will demonstrate that the issue is not affection for Jews or for Israel (which was answer A) but that the correct answer may possibly be that opposition to Israel camouflages hostility to America – which would be called answer B. And so, you go on to read paragraph after paragraph hoping to encounter that magical moment when the elusive connection will pop up.

Alas, it does not happen this way because the author goes into a million different directions on a million tangents never to show how opposition to Israel camouflages hostility to America. To be sure, there is in what she writes everything you might encounter in the universe of politics, religion, history, geography, motivation, clairvoyance and what have you. But what you do not encounter is the reason why the Palestinians oppose the occupation as hinted by the author, if not promised by her.

The suggestion has been that the Palestinians do not see the occupation as a bad thing for them. Thus, it must be that Ruth Wisse is asking us to believe that the Palestinians oppose the occupation only as a way to hate America. If so, it must be that hating America is something that the Palestinians – if not all the Arabs do – to satisfy an unexplained genetic defect they were born with. After all, the rest of humanity has inherited the genetic defect of antisemitism, a phenomenon that remains unexplained to this day.

But unlike the mythical teacher we started with – the one that dismissed the class without drawing a final conclusion – Ruth Wisse draws the following conclusion in her last paragraph: “Chuck Hagel does not have to like Jews, but if he expects to defend the United States, he needs to understand the nature and scope of the war against Israel.”

What she is saying is what all of them in the Lobby have been saying for decades: It's not about America; it's Israel, stupid.

So says the handwriting done by a she-Satan on the payroll of Harvard University.

They Do It To Themselves Then Cry Foul

Suppose someone had written the following passage years ago: The Jewish leaders keep changing the narrative because a false picture of an epidemic of antisemitism distracts Americans from Jewish hatred and enshrines the Jews as the country's leading victim class, a strategy intended to intimidate citizens into remaining quiet about Jewish supremacism and lay the groundwork for granting Jews special privileges and protections at the expense of others. In short, anti-Jewish hate crimes are a powerful Jewish weapon.

Would you look at that passage and think that its author must have been clairvoyant because what he described has transpired in that exact manner over the decades? Well, you would be correct in thinking this, my friend, but for the fact that the passage was not written years ago; it was written only days ago, and written in a slightly different way. In fact, this is a paraphrase of what came in an article written by David Rusin and published on January 11, 2013 in the National Review Online under the title: “Hate-crime Stats Deflate 'Islamophobia' Myth” and the subtitle: “Islamists inflate the number of anti-Muslim crimes in order to silence critics.” Replace Jewish with Muslim and you will have the passage as it was written by its author. But what's going on here?

What's going on is the same old Jewish game of looking at themselves in the mirror, spotting the ugliness they inflict on the human race with their activities, then turning around and accusing someone else of what they see in themselves. What Rusin is doing in his article is use statistics not for what they may reveal, but use them as a pretext to make a point which is contrary to what logic would dictate.

The point that Rusin makes is this: “analysis of FBI statistics covering ten ... years ... reveals that, on a per capita basis, American Muslims ... have been subjected to hate crimes less often than other prominent minorities. From 2002 to 2011, Muslims are estimated to have suffered hate crimes at a frequency of 6.0 incidents per 100,000 per year ... blacks (6.7) ... homosexuals and bisexuals (11.5) ... Jews (14.8). Americans should keep these numbers in mind whenever Islamists attempt to silence critics by invoking Muslim victimhood.”

Well, I am not aware of Muslims attempting to silence critics by invoking Muslim victimhood but I am well aware of Jews attempting and succeeding to muzzle, even silence critics by invoking Jewish victimhood. I have been so muzzled myself, and silenced for a period of 40 years till the internet came along and gave me the opportunity to make my voice heard. But I am not complaining because I know I have been in good company with thousands of other people suffering more or less the same fate, including Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa and President Jimmy Carter of America whom the Jews have tried to silence to the extent that they could. And why do they do that? Because they say that criticism results in victimizing them.

This is ugly, and it is the ugliness that Rusin saw when he looked in the mirror. It is what he rushed and accused the Muslims of trying to do when, in fact, the Muslims tried to do no such thing. But while he was belaboring a fake argument, the poor thing made the point that should be clear to anyone with an IQ higher than his. The point is this: despite the wall to wall dreadful publicity surrounding Islam and the Muslims in America, and despite the wall to wall glowing publicity surrounding Judaism and the Jews in America, the rate of hate crimes committed against the Muslims is “59 percent lower than Jews” according to the FBI statistics that David Rusin has cited. Why is that?

Well, I have been answering this question for several years now – something I have done repeatedly on this website and elsewhere – without having the luxury of reliable statistics to prove my point. What I did, instead, was rely on observation and analysis. In fact, the point I have been making was simple. It is that people hate what they fear. And what people fear the most is what may be done to them in stealth. Yes, they will get angry and hate someone who will attack them openly, but will only hate till the anger subsides then forget about it. As to the one they suspect is damaging their interest in stealth, they will develop a visceral hatred toward him; a hatred that can only be made to subside by eviscerating that individual and his group from their community.

The examples I used to make my point were those of the ethnic mafia groups that have operated and still do in America. Such groups have ranged from the Italian and Irish mafias of decades ago to the Asian and Russian mafias of more recent times. In fact, at one time or another, America was at war with those nations while giving shelter to their citizens – all of whom could not be called exemplary characters. And yet, even at the height of the cold war, the American people did not hate or fear the Russian mafia as much as they hated and feared the glorified and “exemplary” Jews.

The reality is that the American people have treated the Russians in their midst with respect, and have extended that same courtesy to the Asians, the Cubans and the Muslims, all of whom were treated and still are with no more animosity than were the Russians, and a lot less fear than the fear they have of the Jews.

The one thing that remains constant despite the wall to wall glorification of the Jews is that the Americans still distrust and hate these people no matter the color of their skin, their ethnic background or the accent with which they speak the English language. But why is it that the people of America fear the Jews and hate them more than anyone else? The answer is this: Precisely because of the mentality that is displayed in the Rusin article.

No human being can bring himself or herself to tolerate a sight that is as horrifyingly mutilated as the spirit which is displayed by David Rusin. It is an atrocious sight.

People will forgive a kid who may attack them physically, and they will forget about the incident after a while. But what people will never forgive or forget is a David Rusin who would inflict on them the look of his spirit.

This is human nature and try as they may, no Jewish organization will ever change that.

Proof Positive That A Sea Change Is Coming

When something has been going in the wrong direction for a long time and needs to go through a sea change to get back to normal, such change seems to happen fast to an observer but the reality is that a great deal needs to happen imperceptibly before the visible transformation can actually materialize. A case study supporting this hypothesis comes in the form of an article written by Bret Stephens and published in the Wall Street Journal on January 15, 2013. It has the title: “Colin Powell's Double Standard” and the subtitle: “The former secretary of state offers a dubious defense of Chuck Hagel and his comments about the 'Jewish lobby.'”

The first question that comes to mind is the following: Why is it that Bret Stephens can write a column like this and still project a straight face knowing that it is worse than a bad joke? And the answer is that most everybody is still being polite, and still refraining from saying loudly that the emperor has no clothes. Well, I say it loudly that the emperor has no clothes. I have been saying it for sometime now, and the time has come for the sea change to happen perceptibly so that we may all get back to normal.

The truth is that the term Jewish lobby was coined by the Jews themselves to confuse the two identities: Jewish and Israeli, thus make the point that if you criticize anything Israeli, you attack all Jews which means you advocate their annihilation. This was the process that led to the term “Jewish lobby;” it is that the Jews created it to confuse the American people – which is an abomination by itself. But what makes it even worse is that they are now compounding the abomination by carrying on with a useless debate instead of tending to the needs of a nation requiring a great deal of concentration.

A sea change would mean that instead of Colin Powell apologizing for Chuck Hagel's use of the term Jewish lobby, calling it an innocent mistake when it is no mistake at all, and suggesting that Hagel could atone for his non-mistake by writing something on the blackboard – instead of any of this, Powell should say next time: Go ask the AIPAC people and those at the Anti Defamation League. I have neither the time nor the temperament to sit with you and stroke my intellect in the Jewish or Israeli style. I have better things to do.

And when the sea change will have happened, the atmosphere will be settled enough to rationally discuss the wisdom in having a bunch calling itself “children of holocaust survivors” make momentous decisions with regard to the use and deployment of America's military. The truth is that the office where Douglas Feith was operating did more to damage America, Iraq and the world than the Gestapo could ever do to damage the regime they served, or damage their European victims. Indeed, America and the world need a frank and open discussion about putting people who are so emotionally disfigured in positions where they can act out their darkest fantasies using the super military of a superpower. Feith and his gang were in the wrong place at the wrong time doing the wrong things.

The Bret Stephens column then gets into an area which is so self-defeating, you wonder if the author means what he says or if he is deprived of as much as an iota of common sense. I grant you, he may be too young to remember the time when the rabbis used to get on radio or television and bray: “You can't compaaare, you can't compaaare” every time that someone tried to draw a parallel between Israel and another country, or draw a parallel between the Jews and another group of people. If he missed that episode, he should know that you can draw a parallel between situations which are close enough to be compared (like apples and apples, for example) but you cannot draw a parallel between situations which are too far apart (like apples and oranges, for example.)

Thus, for him to conjure up a hypothetical sentence about the African-American lobby intimidating people, to then argue that this would be the moral equivalent of saying the Israeli lobby intimidates people – is to compare something that happens with something that does not happen for one reason only. It is to say that what happens does not happen or to say that there is here a double standard. The fact is that the African-Americans do not have a lobby that pushes and pushes the way that the Jewish lobby pushes and pushes. The African Americans do not intimidate; the Jews do. Lying about this fact used to be the polite thing to do but no more because the sea change is about to descend on America like a tsunami. Nobody does what the Jews do, and it is now considered impolite to lie about this fact.

The same goes for the sentence about the hypothetical Kenyan senator. It did not happen that Senator Barack Obama recruited African-Americans and others to push and push the Congress to pass resolution after resolution in favor of Kenya or Africa. In fact, the truth is that members of the Arab-hating and Muslim-hating Jewish lobby were the ones who forever sought to recruit African-Americans, and get them to say or do the things that would spark a war between the Sub-Sahara and North Africa. And one of those they tried to recruit was none other than Senator Barack Obama who had the good sense not to get into this sort of criminal activity against humanity under the guise of engaging in a political or humanitarian activity. Only a handful of African-Americans fell for the ruse, and I am certain they regret it now.

Stephens calls a crackpot allegation a letter he received suggesting that the Jewish lobby was responsible for William Fulbright's defeat. Does he really believe that this is a false accusation? No, he does not. But whether true or false, he wants the world to believe it is true because it would prove that if Israel is the eunuch in the Middle East, the Jewish lobby is potent in America.

Of course Bret Stephens is neither utterly naïve nor utterly stupid. He must have been aware of what the Fox News Network (the sister publication of the WSJ) was doing during the last election campaign. It had a Jew or an Israeli come on a daily basis and warn right out that if Obama does not bomb Iran before election day, he will lose the election because in America, the Jewish lobby controls the Jewish vote and the Christian lemmings who were instructed by their pastors to worship the Jew. But they lost. They all lost and Obama won.

Nice try Bret, but reverse psychology isn't working anymore because the tsunami is coming.