The Worldwide Flesh Eating Network

It was brought to my attention that the New York/Tel Aviv axis of disinformation which I discussed in my previous article – the one published below under the title: “Inside The Kingdom of Ignorant Disinformation” – has struck again. It is that the demonic axis has convinced the CNBC network to republish on its website the article that was written by David Kirkpatrick and was published in the New York Times on March 31, 2013 under the title: “Short of Money, Egypt Sees Crisis on Fuel and Food.”

Not only that, but the axis has also convinced CNBC to peddle the article around the world so as to hurt Egypt to the maximum extent. Now you know why humanity considers Judaism to be not the religion it claims to be but a kind of cultural flesh eating disease disguised as a religion. The thing has already eaten the New York Times; it is now in the process of gnawing at CNBC, and all the unguarded publications that are expected to fall into the satanic trap of the demonic axis.

In my previous article I described the axis as being a kingdom of ignorance harboring the “Hate Egypt” propaganda machine. And I ended the presentation this way: “There is so much more to say in this regard, and I am certain I'll be saying them in the future because the jackasses abound out there, and they will provoke me enough to say them.” Little did I know I shall be provoked only a few hours later.

If there is an editor out there who has pride in his or her profession, and wants to avoid being viewed as a hopeless jackass, let me tell you something you could use to protect yourself. It is a lesson on how the agents of the axis manage to pull off the sort of tricks that can make people like you look bad. What I have is a true story that was taken from real life.

It was 5 years ago or thereabout that Egypt was consuming 12 million tons of wheat; producing 6 million tons locally and importing 6 million tons. From here came the idea that Egypt was importing half of its consumption in wheat. The population of the country has been growing ever since, and so did its consumption of wheat. The thing, however, is that the local production of wheat has grown even faster. This means that the country is expected to consume 14 million tons next year, having produced 9.5 million last year, and expected to produce 10.5 million this year if the weather will cooperate. And this would represent 75 percent of consumption.

But while the evolution was unfolding during 5 years, the “Hate Egypt” machine was maintaining that Egypt imported half its wheat consumption. Look now what effect this has had on people like someone who could be on your team now or might be on it in the future. It happened that at some point, Egypt produced 9 million tons of wheat. You know what happened then? It happened that someone who was fixated on the idea that Egypt produced only half its consumption made up a story to the effect that Egypt was consuming 18 million tons of wheat. That's because 9 is half of 18, you see! And everyone after that based the stories they told on this fallacy.

You want to know why David Kirkpatrick came to say that Egypt imported 75 percent of its wheat? It happened because Egypt plants wheat twice a year – the Spring crop and the late Summer crop. Years ago before deregulation, the government bought all the wheat both times and disposed of it to the subsidized and non-subsidized bakeries. Since deregulation, however, the farmers have been selling as much as they can themselves, and selling the remainder to the government.

The latter then turns around and sells what it gets to the subsidized bakeries. It happened this time that the government contracted to buy about 4.5 million tons of the upcoming crop. Since this represents 25 percent of the fictitious 18 million tons stuck in the mind of people, Kirkpatrick calculated that Egypt was importing 75 percent of its wheat.

And because the imported wheat is subsidized by the foreign governments from where it is imported – therefore too cheap for the Egyptian farmers to compete against – the Egyptian government has been paying the Egyptian farmers a higher price than the imports. Thus, if the Egyptian wheat is not in fact superior in quality to the imports, the fact that the farmers are getting more for it than the imports should make it look superior.

But do you think Kirkpatrick was going to say so? Of course not; he would be fired from his job if he did. So he turned the thing upside down and said that the Egyptian government was mixing the low quality Egyptian wheat with the high quality imports to improve the subsidized bread. Ah! That flesh eating disease.

Like my Jewish friend would say: Light up the oven.

Inside The Kingdom Of Ignorant Disinformation

Did you ever wander how it would feel like to attend a lecture on Shakespeare given by an illiterate? A lecture on the theory of Relativity given by a career floor sweeper? A lecture on brain surgery given by a witch doctor? Well, my friend, if you wish to get a sense of how you would feel to be in a situation such as those, all you have to do is read the articles which are written about Egypt these days, and published in the North American media.

One such article is titled: “Short of Money, Egypt Sees Crisis on Fuel and Food.” It was written by David Kirkpatrick and published in the New York Times on March 31, 2013. This man has been writing about Egypt for several years now, and he seems to have filed the current piece from the province of Qalyubeya in Egypt. Thus, you expect him to know better than what he is reporting.

Yes, he can be forgiven for choosing to talk to the people in opposition and get their views more than the people standing on the side of the government. And yes, it can be said that he made the effort to represent both sides of the argument. But where he cannot be forgiven is on the matter of verifiable facts that he so grotesquely mutilated. He did so not because someone he interviewed said something false but because he decided to echo the poison pills which are manufactured by the “Hate Egypt” propaganda machine that is based in the kingdom of ignorance known as the New York/Tel Aviv axis of disinformation.

Look how he does that: “Energy subsidies make up as much as 30 percent of Egypt's government spending, said Ragui Assaad,” which is correct and Kirkpatrick should have stopped here but he did not. Instead, he added the following on his own: “The country imports much of its fuel, and for the first time last year it was forced to import some of the natural gas used to generate electricity – the reason for the recent blackouts.” This is not only confusing but deliberately misleading.

The confusion stems from the fact that the writer does not know that natural gas is classified as fuel. Thus, if the country imported “some” of it last year, it means it would not be importing “much” of its fuel. If the journalist had bothered to educate himself on this subject, he would have known that on a yearly basis, Egypt uses the equivalent of one and a half tons of coal per person. That would be roughly the equivalent of one ton of crude oil or a little more than 7 barrels of it.

Some of that fuel comes in the form of hydroelectric power, solar, wind and coal. The rest comes in the form of petroleum products (about 30 million tons) and natural gas (about 35 million tons.) Most of this energy is produced locally by companies that are purely Egyptian or joint ventures with foreign partners. As it stands now, Egypt buys the share of the foreign partners, and pays for it. This is why such transactions are classified as imports.

Kirkpatrick could be forgiven for not knowing this much. But where he cannot be forgiven – even called a hopelessly ignorant jackass by choice – is when he writes something like this: “Diesel fuel is the crux of the crisis, in part because Egypt has no refineries and relies entirely on imports.” The fact is that Egypt has 9 refineries with a capacity of a little under a million barrels a day. The country needs about 750,000 barrels of refined products a day which is supplied more or less from the local production of crude.

The problem that Egypt has is the same that every country which owns a refinery has. It is that crude oil refines into myriad products, the quantities of which you can manipulate (by cracking) but only to a certain extent. For example, a barrel of oil whose weight may vary between 145 and 160 kilograms depending on the quality, would refine by weight into 50 percent chemicals and 50 percent fuels ranging from the high octane gasoline to fuel oil. Between these two come the diesel, the jet fuel, the kerosene and the rest.

Depending on the kind of economy that a country has, it could be using more gasoline than diesel while another country could be using more diesel than gasoline. Because neither of them can produce enough of what it wants even though they both have access to plenty of crude, they swap gasoline for diesel. Egypt does that in most part with Italy, and comes out with a surplus of about 4 billion dollars a year because it exports more high octane gasoline than it imports diesel fuel.

Then there is the fact that the problem of refining crude petroleum into the desired products intersects with the problem of the choices that you make when using natural gas as fuel or using it as ingredient to make chemical products such fertilizers, insecticides and the like. Making chemicals is more lucrative but there is also the fact that in Egypt, 70 percent of the electric power on the national grid is produced by co-generation stations that use diesel and/or natural gas. Thus, a shortage in one can result in a shortage in the other, and the choices that you are required to make each day are difficult ones.

The current difficulties in Egypt seem to have been aggravated not because the supplies were diminished but because the demand had increased. It so happened that after the Revolution of two years ago, everybody got a raise in the order of 25 percent or better. They all rushed to buy appliances – all of which use electricity. This increased the demand for power to something like 10 percent a year when the previous averages were in the order of 6 or 7 percent. And that required more natural gas and more diesel fuel.

Then, there is another thing which puts David Kirkpatrick firmly in the category of the hopelessly ignorant jackass. It is this: “Egypt also imports about 75 percent of its wheat, mixing the superior import wheat with lower-quality domestic supplies to improve its subsidized bread.” The fact is that with an arable patch of land that is in the order of one percent of America's patch, Egypt feeds a population that is 25 percent that of America. It manages to do this well because it has the highest yield of products per acre. And a higher yield means a higher quality. Only a hopeless jackass can be ignorant of this fact and of other associated facts.

One associated fact is that Egypt does not import 75 percent of its wheat. It is expected to consume 14 million tons this year, and the goal has been to produce 10.5 million tons which means produce 75 percent locally, not import that much. The production last year was 9.5 million tons, and if the weather cooperates this year, the harvest may well get to 10.5 million tons. Otherwise, it may only be 9.75 million tons.

There is so much more to say in this regard, and I am certain I'll be saying them in the future because the jackasses abound out there, and they will provoke me enough to say them.

They Change The Habit To Suit The Scene

The word habit has two meanings in the English language. It is employed to describe a human behavior that is not easily relinquished. For example, it can be said that someone has the bad habit of smearing the people who disagree with him. The word is also employed to describe an attire that people wear. For example, it can be said that the habit worn by priests has not changed in style since the beginning of the Christian era.

I am using the word in the title of this article as a theatrical metaphor to help me describe a group of people who change their posture as easily as they change the habit they wear. They do so when the circumstances change and they find themselves thrust into a new scene. But this does not make them throw away the old habit of smearing the people they designate as the enemy of the day. Thus, the situation as I see it is not that of an old wine in a new bottle; it is that of an old habit in a new habit – by which I mean they maintain the old behavioral habit while changing their look by wearing a new habit.

These are the people who deceptively call themselves Jews, Hebrews, Israelis, Zionists or what have you depending on what would be more convenient for the moment and the circumstances. To illustrate my point, I use two articles published in the Wall Street Journal – one on March 27, 2013; the other on March 28, 2013. The first has the title: “Stopping an Undetectable Iranian Bomb” and the subtitle: “Washington and its allies must insist that Tehran verifiably stop increasing the number and quality of its centrifuges.” It was authored by David Albright, Mark Dubowitz and Ordie Kittrie. The second article has the title: “How Iran Could Get the Bomb Overnight” and the subtitle: “Building a nuclear weapon takes time. Buying one does not.” It was authored by Edward Jay Epstein.

What tells me there has been a change of habit to misrepresent the old habit, is the fact that the Foundation for Defense of Democracies is now associating itself with David Albright. In getting him to author an article with one of its members Mark Dubowitz, it is attempting to project an image that is less that of a clown in his colorful habit, and more that of a scientist in his white coat. Indeed, to associate itself with Mr. Albright at this time suits the Foundation well because he is known to have gone against the grain, warning repeatedly that there was no evidence to suggest Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

This being the false reason why Paul Wolfowitz and his band of emotionally rattled “children of Holocaust survivors” unleashed Armageddon in a quest to set the world on fire, the Foundation whose name has heretofore been synonymous with Armageddon is now trying to distance itself – if only temporarily – from its own past. Thus, when you read the article signed by Albright and Dubowitz, you see at the start that the discourse about Iran has shifted away from what used to be a forceful and persistent old emphasis.

What you detect now is not a rant about an Iran that is building a nuclear bomb in hiding; it is about stopping Iran's advance toward “critical capability.” Make no mistake though, because you still sense the fingerprint of the Foundation's Mark Dubowitz when you read a passage like this: “Mr. Obama has implicitly threatened to use force, if necessary, to prevent Iran from 'obtaining' nuclear weapons.” But as the article starts to explain the technical steps that would allow Iran to dash to fissile material and the bomb, you sense that David Albright had taken charge of this portion of the presentation.

But then, after all the marvelous technical talk, the writers find themselves compelled once again to go back to the old habit of setting a date after which they proclaim being fearful that all hell may break loose. They set the new date at mid-2014 when they estimate that Iran “will be able to dash to fissile material in one to two weeks.” Unlike the past, however, they do not recommend that America bomb Iran.

What they recommend instead is that “the U.S. intensify economic sanctions and crack down on Tehran's imports of centrifuge equipment and materials. In addition any interim deal must verifiably prohibit Iran from upgrading the type or increasing the number of operational centrifuges. More frequent IAEA inspections at key Iranian sites are also essential.” Thus, the Armageddon look of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies has suddenly changed to project not the image of a gory devil seeking blood to feed on, but the image of an entity that is more reasonable.

But don't bet the house on it because this is where something typically Jewish happens as these people turn greedy and try to have it both ways. You see this phenomenon materialize in the Epstein article that came the next day on the same page of the same Journal. His point being that: “By focusing on preventing Iran from manufacturing a nuke ... the U.S. may be neglecting Iran's far more dangerous option of buying the bomb … Not being ready to stop it could prove catastrophic,” the author finds himself compelled to demolish the argument that was advanced the day before.

Look at this passage: "When it comes to manufacturing WMD, the Iranian regime is in a bind. To further enrich its current stockpile ... to weapons-grade material, Tehran would need to reconfigure its centrifuges. Since these are closely monitored by inspectors of the IAEA, Iran would have to ... break out of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Then it would take four to six months ... to produce enough enriched uranium for a bomb. During this interval, Tehran would invite an attack by the U.S which has munitions capable of destroying all of Iran's centrifuges … Iran would likely lose the means to manufacture nuclear weapons before it could make a single one.”

The Albright/Dubowitz argument thus demolished, Epstein advances his own. He begins by asking the question: “What if Iran buys one or two nuclear warheads from North Korea?” To answer the question, he tells why such a deal could take place between the two countries. He then counsels that America concentrate on preventing a deal of this kind from going through.

This being a far cry from advocating that Iran be bombed, it projects a more reasonable image of what the Jewish organizations have been projecting thus far. All they need to do now is stop being so greedy as to contradict themselves and each other every time that one of them opens his mouth.

A Mother Unfit To Raise Her Children

Liz Cheney wrote this lately: These days Washington careens from crisis to crisis ... The Obama White House and its allies are engaged in the kind of sky-is-falling melodrama normally reserved for the lives of teenage girls. (As the mother of teenage girls, I speak with authority on this.)

What the woman is saying conveys the notion that her teenage daughters careen from crisis to crisis in a sky-is-falling melodrama. If this is true, the girls need someone to raise them because this mother is not fit to look after them. But if she made the whole thing up to give herself a kind of authority on the subject, then she is showing signs she is not fit to remain on the loose, but ought to be locked up in a mental institution for the good of the society she says she wants to protect.

Liz Cheney wrote those infamous words in an article titled: “Republicans, Get over the 2012 Loss – and Start Fighting Back” and subtitled: “Those who counsel that the GOP should move left are wrongheaded or Democrats or both.” It was published in the Wall Street Journal on March 29, 2013. In it, she claims authority not only on being the mother of teenage daughters living a chaotic life, but authority on something else too. You won't believe this but she wants to say she is an authority on the late President Ronald Reagan.

She did so by quoting a passage from a speech Mr. Reagan gave in 1961 on the subject of freedom. She inserted the quote below the title and before beginning her presentation. This is a cheap trick often used by the people who know they cannot articulate the subject matter they are about to discuss, so they put the reader in the right frame of mind by siphoning the intellectual “energy” of someone else. Still, Cheney is trying to do even more than that because she also calls herself Chairman of “Keep America Safe,” an outfit that claims to deal with national security issues.

Putting aside her claim of authority on motherhood and Reagan, we look at what she is trying to articulate. She starts with this: “President Obama is the most radical man ever to occupy the Oval Office.” Okay, I'm with you but tell me why Ms. Cheney. And she tells why: “In one of his autobiographies, the president writes that he felt 'like a spy behind enemy lines.'” Is that it? That's what makes the man a radical? Yup. Let's now talk about something else. Something as important, she means to say.

Like what, Liz Cheney? Like this: “The president has launched a war on [the] Second Amendment ... a war on religious freedom ... a war on fossil fuels. He is working [on] ObamaCare. He wants to collect [more of] American paychecks ... to expand his governing machine. He believes in greater redistribution of a smaller pie. If you're unsure of what this America would look like, Google 'Cyprus' or 'Greece.'”

Cyprus or Greece? That's where democracy is supposed to have started – presumably the same democracy that America has been championing since independence; the one that she, Liz Cheney, is trying to defend through her outfit “Keep America Safe.” What happened to democracy, my dear lady? Something went wrong with it?

She does not answer this question directly but posits that: “The president has ... diminished American strength abroad ... He is working to ... disarm the United States. He advocates slashing our nuclear arsenal ... He has turned his back on America's allies.” This last part is euphemism to mean that Obama is not giving Israel what America can no longer afford to give itself. But guess what, Liz; Israel has two and only two friends in the region. They are Cyprus and Greece. And guess what; these two have only one friend in the region; Israel. With friends like these, who needs enemies! Wanna join them? If yes, Israel will take you there.

The woman goes on to write this: “Al Qaeda is resurgent across the Middle East ... its affiliates in Libya killed the U.S. ambassador and three other brave Americans ... Today, no one has been held to account. The clear message ... to America's enemies around the world is: Attack us with impunity. You will suffer no consequences.” She is saying what you often hear the clowns say when they go on the Fox News channel and speak on this subject.

What these people tell the Al Qaeda operatives is basically this: “Be scared you little punks because I have been trained to shoot. If you wear that exploding belt, and you come to blow yourself up in my presence, I am going to shoot you. So, be scared now.” They, like Liz Cheney, mean to reassure the American public that you can scare someone who is prepared to die for the cause. Mental cases. All of them; a bunch of mentals.

The fact remains that these people have no idea how to deal with a matter that was created by her father, Dick Cheney, the war criminal who endangered America more than anyone ever did in the history of the Republic. And he did it by wresting the power from the hand of the W, the moron president, and handing it to a bunch of emotionally rattled “children of Holocaust survivors” whose fixation has been and still is to do to the world what they believe the world has done to them.

This said, Liz Cheney gives the Republicans advice on how to fight back and save America from the Obama policies. In this sense, she sees herself as the embodiment of Ronald Reagan when, in reality, she would not be fit to walk his dog. In fact, despite the fact that he was a sociable person and a true gentleman, he would be offended to know that she quoted him in an effort to siphon energy from a speech he gave.

She ought to apologize to him publicly.

What Everyone Wants From The Economy

On March 22, 2013 the Wall Street Journal carried an article under the title: “What would Hayek Do?” The latter being Friedrich Hayek, the economist of Austrian descent whose life has spanned almost the entire length of the Twentieth Century. As to the writer of the article asking the question, he is Eamonn Butler who is the current director of the Adam Smith Institute in London, England.

Except for a short mention of these two men again at the end of my presentation, I am not going to write about Hayek who is too complex to handle in this space, and I am not going to write about the Butler article because it speaks for itself. What I am going to do is set the background as I see it for those who may wish to ponder the question: What do I want to see done?

Well, my friend, think about it for a moment; if the good fairy came to you one day and asked: What do you want from your investment portfolio? What would you say? Rest assured that whatever you will say, and whichever way you will put it, has been said before because people ask themselves a similar question all the time, and they answer it almost the same way each and every time. What they want for now is a steady and reliable income stream; and what they want for the future is for the value of their portfolio to grow year after year.

This means that an investment to satisfy everyone would be the common shares of a company that pays dividend quarter after quarter, and promises to grow year after year, never to falter. Since no company exits that can give this kind of guaranty, most investors put together a portfolio that is diversified. It would have a component that is close to risk-free and yielding a steady income, and it would have a riskier component that offers a high probability of growth with the passage of time.

That is the best approach to take but even then, there is no guaranty that things will unfold as planned because external factors will intervene and upset the calculations we make. Such factors will be rooted in the economy, a beast that has its own cycle, and a rhythm of its own that is totally unpredictable. This is why if you get to see the good fairy, ask her not for a portfolio that will grow year after year but an economy that will run at a steady and predictable pace. This is because it will be the best guaranty that your portfolio will do well. And never forget the adage which says that a rising tide lifts all boats. What we need, however, is a tide that rises on a solid foundation, not on the skin of a bubble.

Unfortunately, you will never get to meet a fairy because neither a good fairy nor a bad one has ever existed outside the storybooks of children. This is why investors look for an alternative that will give them as much as possible of what they want. Regardless of the political inclination of the individual investors – be they of the Left or be they of the Right – they will all think of the government as being an integral part of the economy, and will act accordingly. Thus, the investors who have an average portfolio or better, will take the government into consideration when making decisions. What these people want, they want it from the economy thus want it from the government.

As mentioned earlier, people want a steady and reliable income now, and they want the value of their wealth to increase year after year. Since most people see little or no difference between the economy and the government, they view government securities as being at least as good as the economy thus less risky than a single enterprise in it. This is why short term Treasury bills and long term government bonds make up a good part of the better than average investment portfolios. The essential idea to take away from this point is that a portion of the population lives off the government by trading in its securities.

A number of these people call themselves names ranging from market maker to arbitrageur, and do nothing but trade in government securities. For this reason, they fit in a category that the public calls financier. They spend their time picking not projects that produce goods or services, but spend it picking the right moment at which to buy or sell a security. Thus, they take advantage of the swings in the marketplace – swings they help exaggerate by participating in the activity. Thus, they manage to make a high enough profit with each trade to pay themselves a fat salary now, and to increase their wealth. They are, in fact, their own fairy – good or bad depending on your point of view.

And so, it can be seen that society is made of a group of people who work to produce the goods and the services that make up the wealth of the nation. Society is also made of another group of people who accumulate the money by helping to swing the marketplace all day long. At the end of each day, they grab the highest paying government securities and keep them to enjoy receiving a steady income for life. But this is not the whole story because there is another group that lives off the government for a different reason.

That group receives money not because there exists a legal contract between the two which says the government is obligated to pay the holder of this security a specified amount, but because there exists a social contract between the two which says that individuals unable to sustain themselves for any of the listed reasons, are entitled to receive assistance from the government by right of citizenship. The old, the very young and the disabled make up this part of the population; and they are sometimes undeservedly called welfare recipients.

As to the group of people who produce the wealth in the advanced industrial economies, they are sometimes referred to as the middle class. These would be the people who own the enterprises that produce the goods and services that make up the wealth of the nation, and would be the people who work in these enterprises for a wage or a salary. Some of them have an investment portfolio, and some do not. Some depend on a payment from the government from time to time, and some go to the age of retirement having never taken a payment from the government.

Now, given that the business (or economic) cycle has not been repealed, and given that the swing between the high point and the low point in the cycle depends on the amount of money that the financial institutions inject into the economy, it stands to reason that we should hold these institutions responsible for the bubbles that burst and cause the sort of crashes that Butler describes at the start of his article in this manner: Why did no one see this coming?" asked Queen Elizabeth II at the London School of Economics shortly after the 2008 crash. The LSE's finest stared at their shoes.

Butler goes on to discuss the Hayek theory of economics, and ends the article this way: As for central bankers ... Hayek suggested they should lose their monopoly over currency ... Farfetched? Maybe. But when you ... realize that private companies today are often trusted rather more than governments, perhaps not.

Thus, we see that Hayek was a proponent of the free market system. But he was more than that because he balanced his position by advocating a role for the government. He put it this way: "In a society like ours ... security should be guaranteed to all; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health ... the state should [also] help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision."

At the end of the day – whether we are of the Hayek school or the Keynesian school – we realize that we want the same thing; an economy that grows steadily and reliably. We talk about it incessantly but do so at different levels of intensity. Those who produce the wealth talk with pragmatism and little emotion. Most of the time, they let the other two groups carry on with the debate.

Of those, the people who cannot provide for themselves and need assistance, talk with passion about their needs but do not demand that their rights be fulfilled all at once. On the other hand, the financiers who live off the government more than do the welfare recipients, talk loudly and passionately about their requirements.

What they do however that is objectionable, is blur the line between themselves and the producers of the wealth. In doing so, they ask that the same considerations be applied to them when in fact, they are nothing more than glorified welfare recipients.

No, the success of a day trader that hits the jackpot cannot be given the same respect as the craftsman that produces a gadget as good or better than any on the market, thus makes life easier for society and collects a just reward.

Hayek and Keynes would agree with that.

The New York Tel Aviv Axis Of Theatrics

The story we saw play out before our eyes during the week just past was that of the American President, Barack Obama going to Israel, having a good time there, giving a speech that was viewed as the proverbial bottle of acid, and throwing that bottle in the face of the Arabs.

The President then went to the airport where, just before leaving Israel for Jordan, called the Prime Minister of Turkey on the telephone and arranged for him and for Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel to talk to each other and restore normal relations between the two countries. How romantic but also how misleading!

The truth is that we saw unfold a stage play whose script was written weeks before. Every move that was made and every word that was said were planned in advance to construct a narrative that was meant to send a false message to the Arab world. It was a message to the effect that Netanyahu was back in the saddle and that Israel was back in command of the White House and America.

The way to accomplish all this was to plant a story in Egypt's major newspaper Al Ahram; a story that would interpret the events as being a coup engineered by Mr. Obama to hurt Egypt. This will happen, they meant to say, because Turkey was now in a position to play the role of mediator between Hamas and Israel, a move that will sideline Egypt and render it irrelevant to the peace process.

But as usual, the Jews got too greedy playing the game, thus caused the fake narrative to blow up in their faces. As it turned out, the Turks agreed to talk to the Israelis not because Mr. Obama called from the airport on his way out, but because an apology from Netanyahu was the condition that the Turks had cited to resume normal relations with Israel. This is what they got and were told about it weeks before the call came from Mr. Obama. In fact, this was also the incentive that made the American President think of going to Israel at this time.

But the Jewish act of greed did not take its full dimension till the moment when these guys went beyond what they could safely handle without being exposed. They just could not let it be recorded in the history books that Netanyahu apologized to the Turks, and wanted to make the whole thing look like it was a mutual and reciprocal apology. To this end, they called on some obscure newspaper in Europe and asked it to conduct an interview with the Prime Minister of Turkey during which he would be asked questions in response to which he would say something that could possibly be interpreted as a Turkish apology for saying that Zionism was a crime against humanity akin to Fascism.

They did not get what they wanted from the Turkish Prime Minister but went ahead and called his uttering a mutual and reciprocal apology anyway. Not only that, but in revealing it to the world, they gave themselves the coup de grace. What they did was tell their closest echo repeaters that Turkey had apologized before the interview was published. This raised some eyebrows. But then, the interview was published, and the people failed to see in it a Turkish apology. They started to put two and two together, and came to the inevitable conclusion that the whole thing was a cheap Jewish piece concocted by the New York Tel Aviv axis of theatrics and disinformation.

But why would they do that? The most obvious answer is that they are Jews, and deception is their religion. The less obvious answer is that they wanted to send a false message to the Arabs, especially the Egyptians. Luckily, the Egyptians are aware of the trick they employ to get a story planted in Al Ahram. What they do is approach an Al Ahram correspondent in Europe or America, and they give him or her not a news item but a spin that sounds like an authentic news item.

Apparently, they tried this trick many times before, but Al Ahram never published the spin exactly as stated. The editors cleaned it as much as possible and published a little of it to make the Jews believe they had scored something.

The intent here was to encourage them to continue coming up with fake stories from which the Egyptians would determine what they were up to. It is a well known trick in counter espionage – which is what you must have under your belt when reading a Jewish publication.

Will The Higher IQ Fix The Mess?

Let me begin this discussion by setting up a fictitious scene. A group of well armed bank robbers rob a bank and don't run away. Instead, they call the police and complain that the staff and customers at the bank are harassing them. They also complain that these people are getting in their way as they try to carry on with the caper they came to pull off.

What do you think the police ought to do in such a circumstance? Well, that question was put to George W. Bush (also known as the W) with regard to a similar situation unfolding in Palestine where the well armed Jewish hordes are robbing the Palestinians at gunpoint. Not surprisingly, the answer of the former American president reflected the fact that the level of his IQ hovers somewhere between the imbecile and the moron.

This has come to the fore because we live at a time when the things that used to destroy a man's life or that of a woman are now done in the open. More than that; the people who do such things brag about what they do – even get paid for doing it. The truth is that people were labeled antisemitic for saying that the Jews were responsible for any of the wars that have erupted in the past, or those that continue to erupt today.

The people who said so at the time were destroyed professionally, financially and socially. It may still happen today unless you are a Jew, and you argue Israel's right to murder and rob the Palestinians, then call on America to come and help. That is, America is asked to help even if it must get into a never ending series of wars against anyone and everyone who would side with the Palestinians, and help free them of the occupation.

Made to believe that the Palestinians are all Islamic Jihadists, and promised that his legacy in the history books will shine brighter if he saved humanity from them, the W gave the Israelis everything they asked for to allow them to complete the caper they started. It was as if the police had given the bank robbers more and better guns to subdue, and if necessary, kill the staff and the customers at the bank.

But when confronted with the reality that the elected Jewish leaders in Israel and the self appointed Jewish leaders in America only wanted to maintain the policies that dragged America into needless wars; and wanted to maintain the policies that destroyed America's standing in the world, the W said it was fine with him because he had the sacred duty to go after the Jihadists no matter the cost. He could not have displayed his moronic level more starkly than that.

The W might also have been made to believe that the leaders in Israel had the support of their people with regard to maintaining the occupation and expanding it with more Jewish settlements. And he might have been made to believe that the self appointed leaders of the Jews in America had the support of the Jewish population. But the reality turned out to be very different from that. In fact, the last election in America and the one in Israel proved that the policy of occupation and expanded settlements has no support in either place.

More than that, the American election has shown that the much vaunted Jewish and Evangelical votes are not to be feared. Indeed, the Jews voted for President Obama overwhelmingly despite the fact that the Jewish press – chief among them the Fox News network – vilified him in a way that was never seen since the Nazi propaganda machine used to portray the Jews as rats foraging in garbage dumps. As to the Evangelicals; they did not show up at the poles to vote for the challenger, Mitt Romney, despite the incessant calls that came from the foxy bullhorn of the Murdoch propaganda machine.

Thus, the promise made to Mr. Obama to the effect that his party could only win the mid-term election in 2014 if he courted the Jews and the Evangelicals, is a false promise. This point out of the way, there remains two other points advanced by World Jewry that need to be debunked. First, they say that Israel is facing an existential threat. Second, they say that things are happening in the Middle East which render this moment not a propitious one for a peace settlement. Because of this, goes the argument, America must continue to support Israel at any cost lest it be annihilated.

Well, the first point is contradicted by the argument they make themselves to the effect that Israel feels so secure and so comfortable, it has no incentive to talk peace. With this, they mean to send a strong signal to the effect that if the Palestinians want peace, then someone – perhaps America, the oil rich Arab states or both – should make a big financial offer to whet the Jewish appetite for a peace settlement. It is money, money, money.

As to the second point, the fact remains that the events in Middle East are unfolding as they should. What is happening there at this time is the unwinding of the situations that were created by the Sykes-Picot Agreement at the start of the Twentieth Century. Such unwinding happened on the Indian sub-continent, in Southern Africa, the Balkans, the Falkland Islands and may happen in a few other places too. There is nothing odd about any of this, but what is odd is what is happening inside Israel where the internal problems make apartheid Rhodesia and apartheid South Africa look like a game children play.

So then, what should we expect to see in the near future? Well, President Obama has an IQ that made him see the wisdom in winding down the two wars that the W started at the behest of the Jews. Will he now see that the best way to deal with these people is to say to them they will get nothing from America till they end the occupation of Palestine?

And if the sick dogs in the Congress start making noise – as they surely will – he should run not to the Israeli public and ask it to side with him; he should run to the American public and tell it to tell the Congress that enough is enough.

The Obama Plan To Shake The Congress

Those of us who engage in debates practice something to which we rarely admit. When arguing a point that is too difficult to drum into the head of an interlocutor, we take the point to an absurd extreme thus expose its weakness. If we succeed in convincing the interlocutor of that, we build on the success by discussing the other points which make up the rest of the argument.

The American president, Barack Obama, must be aware of that technique because he went to Israel and gave a speech there to a young audience on March 21, 2013. As it turned out, the speech was so full of extreme absurdities, it could only mean that Mr. Obama was trying to signal something more profound to people who were not there – people who may be naturally incapable of following simple logic. You do not have to rake your brains trying to guess who these people might be; they are the members of the odious Congress of America.

Obama's strategy was simple and clear. He asked the Israelis in the audience to stand with him against their own leaders knowing full well that this will not happen. When this point will have been illustrated, he will turn to the members of the American Congress who chomp the flesh off each other's back as they compete to be first at genuflecting in front of every visiting Israeli – and tell them they are a bunch of treasonous dogs that ought to be treated like a bunch of treasonous dogs.

Until this happens, Mr. Obama begins to list the absurdities with a description of Israel: “[It] has built a prosperous nation – through kibbutzeem that made the desert bloom.” Well, kibbutzeem being the place where Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann was infected with the mental disorder that turned her into the odd creature that she is, the President is here signaling to the Congress that he is talking to it and not to the Israeli audience in front of him.

This done, he gets into the subject of security and points to “the largest program ... help[ing] you retain your qualitative military edge.” To highlight the absurdity of this situation, he takes up the effect that it must have on the region. He does so by talking about the children. Without mentioning the Palestinian children who regularly get slaughtered by the American weapons in the arms of their mothers in their bedrooms in the middle of the night, Obama draws the contrast with the children of Israel “who went to bed at night fearful that a rocket would land in their bedroom.”

Do you detect the ruse here, my friend? If not, let me tell you about it. For countless years, the Judeo-Israeli propaganda was vehement about the horror of Palestinians launching rockets in the morning when the Israeli children were going to school because they did not have the bombs that were precise enough or powerful enough to go through the roof and kill someone in their bedroom. For the President to come now and tell the story of children being bombed in their bedrooms, he could not have been talking about these children. In fact, he was talking about the children of Palestine who were bombed by the powerful American precision bombs that came into their bedrooms not to kiss them goodnight but to blow them to smithereens. See how clever is this man, Barack Obama?

What else do you talk about having shed this much light on that kind of absurdity? Well, you tell what effect it must have on people – that's not just the people who are directly affected by it but people everywhere in the world. Here is how the American President put it: “You live in a neighborhood where many ... have rejected [you] … Your parents lived through war after war … Your children grow up knowing that people they have never met hate them … that sense of an Israel that many in the world refuse to accept it.”

So you ask: If everyone in the world hates what they see unfold in that region, has all of humanity gone nuts? Or is it that the situation as it stands today is totally absurd, being maintained in that condition by the nature of the Zionist entity that was dumped on it, and by the unlimited support it gets from the American Congress? Then you hit on this other question: What was the President trying to communicate to the treasonous dogs back in the Washington Beltway?

The debating magician that is Barack Obama now pulls another trick from his sleeve. It is called the onion effect because it piles the absurdities on top of each other like the layers of an onion. Look at the following passage, assembled with quotes taken from several paragraphs: “You withdrew from Gaza and Lebanon, and then faced terror and rockets ... you have extended a hand of friendship, and ... have been confronted with anti-Semitism … It can be tempting to put aside the frustrations ... particularly when an Iron Dome repels rockets … But peace is necessary given the demographics west of the Jordan River [and] given the frustration in the international community. Israel must reverse an undertow of isolation … As more governments respond to popular will, the days when Israel could seek peace with a handful of autocratic leaders are over.”

Well, my friend, that is a treasure trove. The response to all this is that no, Israel did not withdraw voluntarily from Gaza or Lebanon; it was kicked out of there by Hamas and Hezbollah respectively. It did not face terror and rockets; it faced retaliation when it terrorized the Palestinian and Lebanese peoples. No, it did not extend a hand of friendship; it bit the hand that fed it. It was not confronted with anti-Semitism; its leaders called themselves not Semites but Europeans, and then tried to convince the Europeans and the Americans that the Semitic Arabs were inferior. They even paid an American SOB a million dollars to go to Israel and say so.

The magician adds new layers to the onion by stating that the Iron Dome repelled rockets when the evidence is to the effect that it did not intercept or blow up a single rocket, let alone “repel” them – whatever that means. But while this statement is a grotesque falsehood, it highlights the reality that Israel does not make peace because it wants peace; it makes peace when it is defeated by force of arms as it happened in Gaza and in Lebanon, or it is defeated by demographic means as the American President has warned will happen sooner or later.

To get around this, says Mr. Obama, Israel must end its isolation because it can no longer count on America maintaining autocratic leaders around it – leaders who will defy the democratic aspirations of their people thus protect the aspirations of the bloodthirsty Zionist entity that is at their doorstep. This being a powerful condemnation of all the disgusting lies that were uttered about democracy and the rule of law being practiced in America and Israel but not the Arab States, Mr. Obama seeks to soften the blow to Israeli sensitivities by resorting to yet another absurdity.

Here is how he did it: “The days when they [Arab States] could condemn Israel to distract their people from a lack of opportunity are over. Now is the time for the Arab World to take steps toward normalized relations with Israel.” To begin with, how can someone claim that the autocratic leaders who protected Israel also condemned it? Well, he can because this is the sort of Jewish absurdity that is relentlessly drummed into the heads, the hearts and the souls of Americans. Not only that, but while Israel was benefiting from that autocracy, its running dogs in the American media and political circles pretended to condemn it. Go figure.

As to the normalized relations between the Arabs and Israel, the reference here is to the Arab Initiative (now more than a decade old) to normalize relations with Israel. No, said the Israelis, they don't want it now, but maybe later on. It does not take a genius to figure out why. It is that the Israeli leaders want a continued state of war for themselves and for America because it is how they will continue to live off the American taxpayer. Normal relation with the Arabs would mean business and industry and this in turn would mean that Jews who want to eat will have to work. However, many of them live on welfare not because they are handicapped but because they study the Torah, they say. They don't exactly get manna from the sky; they get handouts from America, and that's sweet enough for them. Hallelujah! Pass the dollar, the ammo and praise the Congress!

The American President goes through all of the above to come to the most important part of his speech which is the following paragraph:

“It is not fair that a Palestinian child cannot grow up in a state of her own, and lives with the presence of a foreign army that controls the movements of her parents every single day. It is not just when settler violence against Palestinians goes unpunished. It is not right to prevent Palestinians from farming their lands; to restrict a student’s ability to move around the West Bank; or to displace Palestinian families from their home. Neither occupation nor expulsion is the answer. Just as Israelis built a state in their homeland, Palestinians have a right to be a free people in their own land.”

And he ends the speech by reassuring the audience that America will stand with Israel to the end. But the end is what the Israeli leaders and their cohorts in the Jewish lobby and the Congress of treasonous dogs don't want to see. They want a permanent state of war during which the Israelis will live like leeches on the body of an America that can no longer support itself, let alone support them.

Well, we can only hope that the onion of absurdities introduced by the Magician of debates, Barack Obama will do the trick.

An Obsession Worse Than Fatal Attraction

You do not have to be a psychiatrist to know there is a close relationship between an obsession that is out of control and an attraction that is out of control; both are related to a mental disorder that may have a biological origin or have a cultural origin. To be dangerous to the world, the biological disorder would have to affect a powerful dictator such as those who have plagued the planet from time to time. But if the disorder is cultural in  origin, it can turn contagious and threaten the world by metastasis.

This last prospect is starting to happen in parts of the world, most notably the United States of America, where a band of thieves stole the symbols of a defunct religion that used to be called Judaism. They went around identifying themselves as such, and have assumed the Hebrew ethnicity on the false pretense that Hebrews and Jews are one and the same. The trick worked well for them in America because it gave them the protection that is normally bestowed on religions and ethnic groups.

With a cover story this solid to protect them, it took the identity thieves three generations to raise a band of followers who now adhere to the culture they created artificially. Calling themselves and their followers alternatively by the name of Jews, Israelis and Zionists, these people pretend to be a religious lot but are not. What they do, however, is hang onto precepts that resemble the extreme love and the extreme hate you see exhibited by religious fanatics.

And this is where signs of obsession and possibly fatal attraction slip stealthily into the equation and play a role that is hard to detect. You get an insight into all this when you read Daniel Pipes latest article. It has the title: “Explaining Obama's Fixation with Israel” and the subtitle: “The Left thinks the Arab-Israeli conflict is key to world problems.” It was published on March 19, 2013 in National Review Online.

You see right there that the author is accusing President Obama of being fixated with Israel to imply he is doing something wrong. Pipes goes even further than that and does something that was never done before. He accuses the President of being of a Left that thinks the wrong sort of thoughts when it comes to Israeli matters.

Well, let me tell you dear reader, that if Daniel Pipes is younger than me – which he may or may not be – he is not too young to remember something. Indeed, if he were mentally balanced, he would remember himself and others like him shout hysterically that world peace depended on bringing peace to the Middle East. They warned that an Apocalypse of biblical proportion was about to explode, and they urged the Administration to intervene. Then as now, the cry came not from the Left or the Right but came from both sides. It was a bipartisan cry.

If so, then why this apparent change of heart on the part of Daniel Pipes? Well, the change came because the control of America has passed from the hands of Americans to the hands of the phony Hebrews/Jews who are also called Neocons at times. These people can no longer tolerate an Administration that gets in the way of implementing their agenda – now more comprehensive than the mere preservation of Israel. It is the conquest of the world using the power and prestige of an America they own in whole and in part.

And what these people do to impress the Jewish and non-Jewish foot soldiers they recruit to do the work for them, is that they deconstruct the arguments they once constructed themselves when they used to call on America asking it to drop everything it was doing, and devote its energies to solving the Arab-Israeli conflict because it was in Israel's interest. In fact, at the start of their rise to power, the Neocons openly boasted that they will easily defeat the Left because they were it, and they know well the phony arguments they created in the past, therefore know how to deconstruct them now.

And this is what Daniel Pipes is doing in his latest article. But you may ask: what does that demonic game do to ordinary Americans? Well, unlike the voices that fell on deaf ears in the past warning about the effect of the game that the Jews were playing, there is now a verifiable record that can be pointed to and discussed without having to speculate. And you will see what this does to ordinary Americans.

It is obvious that America has become polarized and that the polarization is manifested in a Congress which is too partisan to process anything that is an American interest. But when it comes to doing something that is in the interest of Israel, you get a bipartisan consensus, even a unanimous one to pass the legislation and the non-binding resolutions that support Israel or insult and warn its enemies. It is that the Congress of the American superpower has become the private toilet of the Jewish lobby when it is not borrowed by the members of the gun lobby who seek to relieve themselves – something that happens from time to time.

But this is not the whole story because there is still the part where the obsession that one has with a cause, can lead to an Apocalypse that may not affect the whole world but would hurt the innocent. Take the example of Fox News which is doing two opposite things with fanatic zeal. It is portraying the Benghazi incident as an Apocalypse that ended in the death of a diplomat and three soldiers. To this end, the network is parading anyone who would come to the microphone and parrot: There are four dead Americans.

At the same time, Fox News is portraying the massacre of 20 innocent children and 6 adults as being part of the normal cycle of life that people ought to get used to. To this end, the network is parading anyone who would come to the microphone and parrot: We must preserve the Second Amendment. Clearly then, the people who run the Fox network have no regard to life – American or otherwise. If so, these people must be trying to accomplish something else while hiding behind the fake posture they have adopted.

In fact, the four Benghazi people knew what they were getting into. They died in the line of duty, a reality they were prepared for. But what Fox News is trying to do is use the incident as a springboard to whip up hysteria about an Administration that is too lax with regard to what it calls the Islamic threat.

The intent here is to snatch the military from the hand of the Commander-in-Chief and place it in the grip of a Paul Wolfowitz who would keep America in a permanent state of war and cause people to die everywhere as if the whole world had transformed into one giant Chicago.

And you cannot whip up that much hysteria among the public unless you are yourself so fixated on something that you cannot see anything else. This is what Fox news is doing audio-visually, and it is what the Neocon print media is doing in black and white.

Daniel Pipes is part of that group – and in the best tradition of the new Judaism, he began his argument by accusing someone else of the fixation that is plaguing him. The man needs help and so does America.

Israeli Opportunists Seeking New Opportunities

Ehud Barak who is a big honcho in Israel wrote an article in which he inadvertently demonstrated how and why the occupation of Palestine – which is the Middle East only imported problem therefore only real problem – has festered for decades, and promises to continue festering for a long time to come. The title of the article is: “With Obama's Israel Visit, an Opportunity” and the subtitle is: “Forming a 'strategic triangle' to ensure Middle East security.”

No, Ehud Barak is not talking about a Bermuda Triangle for the Middle East but he is suggesting something that comes awfully close. It would be a situation in which America will be trapped more securely than it is now inside the quicksand of Zionist ambitions. You can see all this in the article that is published in the March 20, 2013 edition of the Wall Street Journal.

As to the three cornerstones that will form the triangle of the new Ehud dream, they would be what he calls a Regional Security Framework, what he calls a reinvigorated peace process with the Palestinians, and what he calls an effective halt of the Iranian nuclear program. He wants to achieve all this, he says, because it would be “the most effective approach to deal with the dynamic challenges on our horizon.”

So, you go through the article to see what he means by dynamic challenges, and you find that the only thing really new to the region is what he introduces to the readers in this manner: “Many in the world would do well to learn that ... the Muslim Brotherhood would still have come to power in Egypt.” Thus, he is arguing that the advent of the Muslim Brotherhood – an indigenous movement to that country no different from Europe's Christian Democrats – is a problem in the Middle East. And this means that in his eyes, the advent of the alien Zionist movement to the region was never a problem. Get it, my friend? Jewish logic says that a movement indigenous to a place is a problem, but that an imported movement is no problem. See how Jewish logic works?

Puzzled (or perhaps not) by this Jewish mutilation of reason, you look into the cornerstones of his proposed solutions and find nothing in them that will deal with the Muslim Brotherhood. This puts a big question mark on what he calls Regional Security Framework. With this cornerstone in limbo or out of the way, we are left with the peace process with the Palestinians, and with the Iranian nuclear program. But there is nothing new about these two subjects; they have been around for decades.

Still, the title of the Ehud Barak article says: “With Obama's Israel Visit, an Opportunity” so you ask: What opportunity is he talking about? And you find the answer at the end of the article. It is the following: “this triangle ... demands an even stronger U.S.-Israel alliance. President Obama's visit to Israel ... offers an opportunity to kick-start an effort to accomplish just that.”

Well, well, well. An alliance being a relationship of reciprocity, you see that Ehud Barak is proposing to continue the same old relationship under which Israel would continue to behave like the murderous terrorist state it has always been while America will stand as bodyguard to defend it from any possible retaliation, even from a bunch of kids who would do nothing more than is reported in the moaning vocalized by Israelis and by New York Jews: “They throw stones at our soooldiers; oh pity me, piteee meee.”

That's when the congressional male and female bimbos of America usually come out of their whorehouses and chant in unison: “Terrorists! Terrorists! Let's pass unanimous and bipartisan resolutions condemning these acts of terrorism. Let's also give Israel more bombs to kill more Arabs, and let's give it more money to buy more food from the Arabs.”

Implicit in the Ehud Barak presentation is also a rejection of the Security Council resolutions pertaining to the end of the savage occupation of Palestine. The man makes a mockery of the American repeated calls to stop building settlements on Palestinian land. And he expects to see America continue having Israel's back, continue showing no daylight between the two, and continue arming Israel with the most advanced weapons in its arsenal; weapons that will allow the terrorist state to widen the circle of conflagrations in which to drag America.

This is how new opportunities will present themselves in the future so that Israel may again take advantage of them. This is what Ehud Barak is articulating in his piece.

He wants Israel to continue having a piece of America.

Governing By Repeating The Failures Of History

It is said that the generals who fight the last war end up losing the current war. There is no reason to doubt the validity of this saying although someone could perhaps point to an exception or two. But if the saying is generally true, it can be said with confidence that the generals who are plagued with the habit of fighting old wars end up being perennial losers. They may win a battle here and a battle there at the start of every skirmish but they end up losing the wars in which they remain engaged to the end.

If this sounds familiar, it is because one such scenario has played itself out incessantly in the recent past, and continues to play itself as if the generals who play it were incapable of learning from history. Yes, they have the ability to look at old battles and accurately replicate the tactics they learn from them, but this is the point where their abilities wear-out, and they fail to see that the long run strategy in which they are engaged is a perilous one and bound to end with their defeat.

This has been the history of Israel during the past few decades; it has been the history of the Diaspora Jews for 2000 years in Europe, and has been the ancient history of the Jews in the Middle East. But this is the history that was never reported accurately by an independent observer. Instead, it was distorted and put in the form of a religious saga, and was written into a book they call the Old Testament. It turns out; this is a book of fake history that shows a people winning every war in which they engage under the command of a God that is a warmonger par excellence. Then what? you hasten to ask. Then nothing, comes the answer. Having won all those phony wars, these people end up being the marauding Jews that nobody wants to see in their neighborhood. The phony history has proved to be a bunch of boloney mixed with slices of kosher salami.

If you tried to figure this one out, my friend, but could not because you lacked the necessary information, you may relax now because someone has put on paper the procedure by which the Jewish generals carry out their duties before they hang themselves and hang their so-called people. Actually, two authors did this work. They are Simon Henderson and Gabriel Scheinmann who wrote the article “Risking the 'Finlandization' of the Persian Gulf” and had it published on March 19, 2013 in the Wall Street Journal.

You don't have to go too far to get a sense of what is involved here because you can see it right away in a subtitle that reads like this: “A nuclear-armed Iran may bring Soviet-style intimidation to the Middle East.” The first thing that strikes you is the word “may” because it says that even the writers have begun the endeavor with the sense that they are only speculating. But by the time you get sucked into the presentation, you find that they leave no room for the reader to doubt that what they say is the gospel truth. And so you ask: Who are they trying to impress? And the answer pops right out at the moment you start to read the bulk of the article.

Here is how that goes when put in a condensed form: “That will be the discussion when President Obama visits Israel. In Washington officials tend to discuss whether time remains to prevent an Iranian bomb. Many speak with certainty, but their most basic assumptions remain questionable.” They go on to cast doubt that anyone in Washington knows what they are doing. Look how the two authors put it: “Can even the most sophisticated intelligence services know the nuclear progress of a country half the size of Europe? The U.S. was caught off-guard by nearly every country that has gone nuclear.”

Now that the American intelligence services have been disposed of like a used handkerchief (an Iranian expression) by the Jewish writers, they offer their own speculation which they present as if it were the inevitable reality which comes with the certainty of a religious prophecy. This is very Jewish already but there is still more Jewishness in it. Not only do these people want to tell you they know the future, they also want to tell you what goes on in the hearts and minds of the people they like and those they do not like. This is the ultimate in Jewishness, and look how they go about doing it here: “Tehran wants to dominate the Middle East, playing for regional hegemony, energy resources and cultural supremacy.” Even their God could not be this certain when speculating about the motivation of others.

Undaunted, they go on to present the recent history of the region in a way that harmonizes with the theory they tailor-made for the moment. To add force to their argument, and to allow themselves to prepare for the conclusion they will be drawing, they do what failed generals always do which is to invoke history and draw parallels between the past and the present. They start this segment of their argument like so: “The Gulf region looks today like the Central and Eastern Europe in the late 1940s.” And they end it like so: “An Iranian bomb would engender a similar crisis in today's Middle East.” It could not be any clearer than that.

And so they draw the conclusion at which they were aiming from the start: “If the U.S. allows Iran to go nuclear, it risks the 'Finlandization' of the Persian Gulf.” That's it; no ifs or buts. And no sweat.

But this is the kind of presentation they kept making during the past dozen years that got America involved in two losing wars trying to carry water for Israel, for world Jewry and for the self-appointed Jewish leaders in America. The result has been that in the same way the marauding Jews were treated like lepers everywhere they went, so was America treated like the leper nation that no one wanted to see in their neighborhood.

Despite all this, many in the world shed a tear for what had become of the America they once loved and had a great deal of respect for. But things may be changing.

Listen to those who will do it to you again, America, and you will end up being seen by people around the world like the perennial loser which they see when looking at a Jew.

And no one will ever again shed a tear for you, America.

When Children Imitate The Roar Of Lions

It happens too often that little boys and little girls in the media of the Washington Beltway attempt to talk as if they were roaring lions, but ordinary people fail to notice them. This is because the attempts have become so routine, they are now a part of the “new normal” as the saying goes. But there comes a time, once in a while, when amid the cacophony of the feeble attempts, a sharp sound rises and pierces the ears of ordinary mortals.

This happened on March 18, 2013 when the editors of the Wall Street Journal roared: “Obama's Missile-Defense Reversal” followed by “A tacit admission that the U.S. will soon be vulnerable to attack.” Actually, the first quote is the title of their newest piece, and the second is the subtitle. This alone would make the piece a kind of routine roar that people normally fail to notice. But what makes it the sharp sound that people have noticed is this passage: “...one of the biggest switcheroos of the Obama Presidency.”

When big boys engage in a debate, they do not start a new round by saying they have so far been right or that the opponent has been wrong. Those who start like this only communicate that they are so insecure about their abilities, they are trying to claim victory before people have noticed how badly they failed. And when they go as far as say that the opponent has committed a “swicheroo,” you realize that what you have here is not a child imitating a roaring lion but one that is burping what sounds like a lion's fart or sounds like the puppy's fart he has at home.

And when the debate involves a subject that is as solemn as national security, and you see the editors of the Wall Street Journal behave the way that they do, you wonder what happened to journalism in America, and by extension what happened to America itself. This is the Journal that used to be one of the flagships of excellent journalism sailing proudly in a sea of mediocrity, now stooping so low, it disappears below the level of the most mediocre of publications.

The apparent reason for why the editors of the Journal feel the way they do is that: “The Pentagon now [is] reversing a 2009 decision … part of Obama's fantasy of a world without nuclear weapons.” This matches their view of a world that is inherently evil; one in which lives an America that is the paragon of exceptional goodness and virtue. The trouble, as they see it, is that the people of America keep electing a president who fails to see how bad the world is, thus fantasizes about turning it into something different from what it was meant to be.

Knowing what the Journal was like in its heyday, you wonder what happened that has mutilated it so badly. To find out, you read the editorial to the end where you encounter this passage: “Israel has shown what modern defenses can do, reducing the damage from … missile attacks last year with 90% hit rate.” Knowing as does the rest of the world that Israel's real or imagined contraption has intercepted not 90% of the missiles, not even one percent of them but zero percent (that's exactly zero as in the big O), you realize where the mutilation of the Journal has originated.

This being a Judeo-Israeli position that the Journal has adopted, it contrasts with the position of an American Administration voted into office by the people not once but twice. It is a position that consists of using America's power, aura and political capital in the world to steer that world towards a safer future while maintaining a state of vigilance and flexibility that allow it to respond quickly to any threat if and when it arises. And then, you realize that a “grown up” position of this caliber will never be grasped by the little boys and little girls who populate the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal.

That happens to you when you read the following passage: “It's nice to see the Obama Administration finally admitting reality.” And so you ask: What reality are they talking about? So far, their reality has been that a bunch of Middle Eastern kids were plotting to set up a Caliphate. This done, they will bring the Judeo-Christian world to its knees, subdue it completely and impose Sharia law on its citizens. There was never a talk about mushroom clouds forming as a result of missile attacks coming from North Korea.

So then, what happened here? you ask. To answer the question, you face the truth that children have a vivid imagination. They also have the power to transform what they imagine into a belief so powerful, they treat it as reality. Simply put, the editors of the Wall Street Journal believe the lies they formulate.

And true to their nature, they do not stop here. Believing that they have been vindicated, they now want to build on their imagined victory, and ask for the positioning of America where they always wanted to see it. Thus, they go on to say this: “...the growing nuclear and missile threats are also an argument for building a third antimissile site on the U.S. East Coast ... to guard against an Iranian strike … the U.S. also needs protection against an ICBM threat, sooner rather than later.” And they go on again with this: “Henry Obering ... recommends that the US ... launch a new 'multiple kill vehicle' program ... also ... develop technology to strike missiles in their early or 'boost' phase, and space weapons.” Give them time and they will add to that.

The subject under discussion is a serious one. Those who do the talk at the Wall Street Journal are little boys and girls who could not tell the difference between the roar of a lion and the fart of the puppy they play with.

Someone should send them to a journalistic kindergarten where they will learn how to think and learn to practice their craft the way that adults do.

The Economy And Its Monetary Expression

Under the title: “Senate Democrats Finally Take a Stand” the editors of the New York Times wrote a piece on the 2014 U.S. budget, and published it on March 16, 2013. They say the following in the first paragraph: “...the result … at least makes most of the right choices and is a solid rebuttal to the … House budget.” And they end the piece like this: “The Senate now needs to make a strong defense of the principles it has put on paper.”

The core of the piece consists of contrasting the Senate Democratic budget proposal against the House Republican budget proposal. It is obvious that the editors of the Times favor the Democratic budget because, as they say, it rebuts “the heartless collection of obsolete dogmas that is the House budget.” Fair enough.

But this, in itself, will not be sufficient to sway the independent readers that the choice they made is the right one simply because the opposition is heartless and dogmatic. What the readers want is a more comprehensive explanation as to where the budget fits in the larger context of where the American economy stands today. This is truer than ever before because there is now a great deal of confusion as to what an economy is and how it works.

What confuses people the most when economic matters are discussed is that they fail to make out the difference between the economy and its monetary expression. This is not a confusion that has always existed but one that has evolved with time – becoming more pronounced as the economic interactions among humans became more complex and more abstract.

At the start of human interactions, the neighbors bartered goods. That is, if you had enough of something to satisfy your needs and had a surplus, you could exchange that surplus for something I had that was a surplus to me. For example, if you raised chicken and I grew tomatoes, we could exchange the extra chicken you had for the extra tomatoes I had, and serve both on your dinner table as well as mine.

When life was this simple, we could also compare your wealth against mine. We could do so by stacking the number of chicken you had at the end of the season against the number of tomato baskets I had. For example, if we used to exchange one chicken for one basket of tomatoes, and you counted 10 chickens while I counted 20 baskets, I was considered to be twice as wealthy as you. But if the fortunes reversed the following season and you were left with 15 chickens and I with 5 baskets, you were considered to be 3 times as wealthy as me. The math was no more difficult than life itself.

But then life became more complicated. It started to happen when people employed animals such as horses, donkeys or camels to travel long distances taking with them heavy loads of goods. Because they did not need to barter all their goods against other goods, they developed the more convenient method of exchanging their goods for valuable objects such as pieces of gold or silver, precious stones or colorful seashells, even feathers of rare and exotic birds. These were small items considered to be stores of high value that the bearers could exchange for goods or services anytime later on, anywhere close to home or away from it, with someone they knew or someone they never saw before.

That development was an important transformation in the way that the economy was made to function from that moment on. For one thing, to be considered wealthy, you no longer had to produce chicken or tomatoes or any of the goods that people bought and paid for. And neither did you need to have a skill that would allow you to render a service of any kind in exchange for the goods or the services that you wished to acquire. It is that you now had an alternative to the way you accumulated wealth, thus had the means to buy anything you desired.

What you could do was go to the mountaintop and prospect for gold and silver. You could also go to the beach and gather precious stones and colorful seashells. And you could go hunt for rare and exotic birds plumed with attractive feathers. These were the stores of high value – now called currency or money – you could accumulate thus make yourself as wealthy as you want – in accordance with the effort you put into the endeavor.

Another effect of the transformation was that the economy started to be expressed less by the goods and services that were produced and more by the amount of money that was in circulation. This is how economic aberration was created in the sense that you could now have a small amount of goods and services represented by a large amount of money. Or you could have it the other way around when money became tight at a time when the amount of goods and services increased or remained steady.

This is how and why people started to get confused about what constitutes an economy. It is that they find it difficult to see the difference between the real economy which is represented by the amount of goods and services produced, and the monetary expression of that economy which is represented by the amount of money in circulation. To make matters worse, the aberration became even more acute when another big transformation took place.

This happened when paper money was invented, was made to replace all forms of currency and was used to serve as legal tender. With this, you could be wealthy overnight without having to gather precious metals, colorful stones, or exotic feathers. It became the new reality because you could now counterfeit the money by printing it illegally, or you could get a job in a privileged place where you had the opportunity to beguile the central bank and have it print the money for you legally without it being counterfeit. The place to work and have that privilege is called financial services – a place that has lately acquired a great deal of unwanted notoriety.

To see how this came to be, we need to remember that by the time it was necessary to have a central bank that was in charge of printing the money, have it set the nation's monetary policy and have it regulate the financial services – the way that people did work had changed at least twice. The change came once when the agrarian system gave way to mercantilism, and came again when the system transformed into the industrial economy we see around us today.

The mercantile economy was characterized by the fact that most people were independent craftsmen who earned a living producing goods or services they sold for money or traded for other goods and services.  As to the industrial economy, it is characterized by the large buildings where a number of workers operate fast machines to produce goods in large quantities. This setup has created the need for services that are themselves produced and delivered in large buildings. They are the schools and places of worship, the hotels and restaurants, the hospitals and hospices, and last but not least the financial institutions that dispense the notorious financial services mentioned earlier.

These institutions were invented to function as utilities and conduits that would channel money from the central bank to the productive parts of the economy – the parts that actually made the goods and produced the services that people bought and paid for. It was the function they filled till the day when someone decided they were an integral part of the service industry yet were underrated. Upon this, the financial institutions took on functions that allowed them to change their status from utilities and conduits to full-fledged players at par with the productive parts of the economy.

This gave them the opportunity to increase their control over the money they were supposed to channel somewhere else in the economy. Having the control, they gave themselves functions they were never meant to have, and used them not to add to the nation's production of goods and services but add to their own wealth. They did so by trading not in goods or services but trading in equity and debt instruments. Doing so, and having complete control over the entire operation, they won every bet they made because the clients against whom they played, lost every bet in this zero-sum shell game.

The net result has been that the people who produced the goods and services that made up the real economy ended having just enough money to pay their employees and maintain their enterprises afloat. In the meantime, those who were supposed to channel the money kept enough of it to buy for themselves the means of production that were out there in the economy. It happened because they became the arm that stretched to the spigot of the central bank and turned it wide open. Indeed, free of a set of meaningful regulations, these people repeatedly asked for any amount they dreamed of, got it all each time and kept most of it.

This explains the phenomenon of aberration in the economy, and explains why the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. When the independent minded people understand it, they accept the role that the government plays when trying to level the playing field, even if the exercise begins to look like a redistribution of the wealth.

And if someone still maintains that the rich are envied because they are successful, that someone will end up being laughed out of the room.