Neither A Keynesian Nor A Classical Model

In an editorial published on April 30, 2013 under the title: “Debt and Growth” and the subtitle: “Attacking Reinhart-Rogoff to revive the spending machine,” the editors of the Wall Street Journal write about the economic model they choose to follow, saying the following about it: “In our model, every dollar of government spending has to come from somewhere, which means it is either taxed or borrowed from the private economy.”

That point is worth discussing in depth, and I'll come to it in a moment. Before I do that, however, here is what the editors of the Journal go on to say in that same paragraph: “Thus the crucial issue isn't merely the level of debt … The important matter is what that additional debt is buying.” This takes the edge off the accusation they make in the subtitle to the effect that someone out there wishes to revive the spending machine as if this – in itself – were a bad thing. Well, the Journal editors now say it may not be all that bad after all – at least under some circumstances. Fine, and I hope the apology is accepted by the other side.

This matter settled, we come back to the subject of economic model. I begin by putting down two points that no side in the debate can refute. They are these: First, the velocity of money in the system – of which the government is a part – plays a major role in the matter of growth. Second, the amount of cash in the system (called money supply) is elastic as can be seen by looking at the balance sheet of the central bank. And when a bubble is forming – in housing or the equity markets, for example – the same elasticity can be seen in the balance sheets of the private financial institutions.

Consequently, if something happens to a society that makes the private sector reluctant to invest, the money supply may remain high in the system but the velocity of money will be reduced. This will shrink the economic growth, a situation that the government can remedy by getting into the loop in a more prominent fashion thus add velocity to the money. The disadvantage of this move is that the government must get the money from somewhere. The question to ask, therefore, is where from?

Well, there was never an objection to the central bank doing “quantitative easing” which meant that the Fed printed money and exchanged it with sovereign debt, commercial papers and the like to flood the system with cash, and get the economy moving again. The idea was that the bank was merely exchanging cash, which is a form of equity, with assets which are another form of equity. This would not be inflationary, it was reasoned, because when the time will come and the economy will have started to grow, things will be returned to the way they were, thus get back to normal again.

The policy worked for a while but, like their Japanese counterparts before them, the people at the Fed discovered at some point that they had reached a saturation level after which pushing money into the system was like pushing on a string. The money sat in the vaults of the banks, the safes of big corporations as well as the wealthy but was not moving. If it did at all, it is because it had found investment opportunities abroad.

As to the local population, it chose to “deleverage” and repair its own balance sheets rather than spend the little it was earning to buy anything more than the necessities of life. This kept the local rate of growth at a low level which is why some people started to say that the government should get into the loop and help boost the velocity of the money.

This meant that the government had to borrow from a private sector that was flush with cash it was not spending, or do better than that and borrow from the central bank at near zero interest rate. The effect of this would be to put the money in the hands of people receiving entitlements or welfare or food stamps, for example. The idea being that these people would be the ones to pull on the string that the Fed could no longer push from its side. The money should gain velocity, it is thought, thus add to the growth of the economy.

Time will tell how well this model will work. In the meantime, however, it must be recognized that this is a model that neither the Keynesians nor the classicists have seen before. It is a new experiment that merits a different kind of debate not the going back to old models that no longer apply as fully as they once did.

Two Horsemen Of The Same Old Apocalypse

Jon Kyl and Joseph Lieberman wrote an article: “The danger of repeating the cycle of American isolationism,” and had it published in the Washington Post on April 25, 2013. You read that title and you say to yourself: here we go again; a Jew and a non-Jewish Neocon that is more extreme than a radical Jew – both advocating arming America to the teeth. And you wonder if this has anything to do with the longstanding Jewish demand that America stand by Israel like a bodyguard allowing it to launch ill-advised misadventures, and protect it when it gets into trouble like it always happens.

You start to read the article and it does, in fact, cause you to scratch your head. It does that as the authors give three historical examples as to when the United States of America tried to retrench from the world but was called by events to remain engaged. These were (1) The time after WW I when America tried to retrench economically and politically from the world. (2) Right after WW II when America retrenched by reducing its military spending. And (3) After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 when America slashed its defense spending.

The two authors then express the fear that America may want to retrench economically and politically now that progress is seen to have been made in the fight against al Qaeda. You also notice that nothing was said up to this point about the military, which is something that pleases you. But you remain skeptical because the long experience you had with these people has taught you a few lessons that are hard to forget. What puzzles you the most and causes you to scratch your head is that the authors make no mention of the Vietnam war either – which is the only war that America admits to have lost. So you ask yourself: Do Kyl and Lieberman see an American retrenchment after this war? But they are not saying anything in this regard one way or the other.

You think about it and ponder in the quiet of your thoughts that if Kyl and Lieberman say America retrenched after the three encounters it won, but did not retrench after the one it lost, what did they mean when they expressed the fear that America was about to retrench now? Do they believe that the progress made against al Qaeda is not sufficient to be classified as a win? You're not sure what they meant to say, and so you posit tentatively that they bungled this part of the presentation by being ambiguous.

As if this were not enough, the two authors now torpedo the main point they have been trying to illustrate. Look at this part of their argument: “After W W II, US aid helped rebuild European and Asian economies. Those nations are now among our most important trading partners. The hundreds of millions who rose out of poverty are markets for US goods.” Does this sound like economic retrenchment? Of course not. So then, why are they lamenting that America has retrenched? This is a mystery that needs to be resolved.

To do so, you begin by wondering if they are not making another point that is so subtle; it remains invisible to the naked eye. And you find a hint as to what it might be in the following: “Rather than cutting first and then asking how we can manage with what's left, we must define our priorities and interests – and only then determine how to allocate resources. There must be a reasoned discussion of the ways in which diplomatic retrenchment and military budget cuts may limit our capacity to achieve critical goals.” Whoa! What in the world is this convoluted mumbo jumbo about?

You wonder why they accuse someone they do not identify of cutting first and asking questions later. Who could that be? You notice that having done this, they advise that priorities and interests must be defined before allocating resources, but they make no contribution to this part of the debate. What would be the priorities? What would be the interests? Still, they go on to say that for this to happen, a reasoned discussion must ensue as to the ways that the cuts of the military budget, among others, will limit the capacity to achieve critical goals. What critical goals need to be achieved? Is this the Kyl and Lieberman way to conduct a “reasoned” discussion?

And then it hits you and you shout your Eureka! So that's it. That's what it's all about. They gave the reader a big runaround to admit in the end that what they mean to say is that the military budget must not be cut. They come to this conclusion not by offering a reasoned discussion but by asking for one. Thus, in a typical Jewish fashion, they first put down the conclusion then ask the reader to find a reasoned debate that will support it. How so very Jewish! How so very Neocon!

In effect then, the two authors pretended to talk about humanitarian aid to the needy, and pretended to talk about trade exchanges with the world but all they wanted was procure for America what will be useful to Israel. The military budget is what keeps the Israeli parasite strong enough to cause mischief and mayhem, and this was the subtle part of their argument. As to the visible part, it was a fake discussion used as a vehicle to carry the subtle part, cloak it and move it along. This approach was hidden from the naked eye; it was the mystery that needed to be resolved. It has now been resolved.

Like two horsemen, Jon Kyl and Joseph Lieberman have once again called for an American war without end against humanity. They wish to revive and to maintain the apocalypse that broke the back of America; that made it lose every encounter it had in Asia and Africa; and that made it disrespected the world over. They want more of the same old Jewish dream that will never be fulfilled.

No Anemia In The Anemic Growth Syndrome

The editors of the Wall Street Journal heralded: “The 2.5% growth pace in GDP through March [2013] seems like a wild night on the town after the 0.4% slog at the end of 2012. That's the good news. The bad news is that the recovery is still half the pace of the normal expansion.” They said this in the piece they published on April 27, 2013 in the Journal under the title: “The Growth Deficit” and the subtitle: “A modest first-quarter rebound, but not enough to lift the middle class.”

They gave an overall review of what transpired economically in America during the first quarter of 2013; a review that aligns itself so well with the official statistics, no one can object to it. But the editors also expressed opinions which they peppered throughout the piece; opinions that oblige us to take a closer look. These opinions led them to end the editorial by pointing the finger at what they described as Keynesian economists. This is what they said about them: “What this economy really needs is a statute of limitations on intellectual denial.”

While the word denial does not rhyme with the word dishonesty, it comes close enough to it in meaning as to imply intellectual dishonesty. This requires that the discussion be broadened so as to take into account as much as possible of the relevant factors, because economics is a subject so vast, everyone can see something different in it, and so describe what they see without being motivated by dishonesty.

The readers who wish to get a sense of how vast this subject is can go over the debate that took place and may still be ongoing between Carmen Reinhart, Ken Rogoff, Tom Herndon, Mike Ash, Bob Pollin and Vice Reinhart. It dealt with the relationship that may or may not exist between the national debt and the rate of economic growth in the advanced economies. To this end, those authors went back 200 years, compiled the statistics of 44 countries, reviewed them, analyzed them, wrote about them in the New York Times as well as the Financial Times, and they critiqued each other.

What that debate did to me is that it made me view the economy as something resembling the sea. It has waves in it, some of which are high waves and some of which are low waves. Once in a while, you even see a giant wave with nothing about it or around it to explain what caused it to be much larger than the others. In fact, when you think about it, nothing explains why each wave has the size that it has. The only thing you can be certain of is that each wave is affected by all the others, and in turn each wave affects all the others. If now, you take the size of a wave to represent the rate of growth for a given economy in a given period of time, the only thing you can say about such rate is that it is what it is because everything else is what it is.

Yes, you can tell that the wind, the undersea currents, the shift in temperature and the earthquakes do affect the surface of the sea, therefore the size of the waves. But that would be a macro view of the situation; one that says little or nothing to describe what happens at the micro level of each wave. Likewise, you can tell that a Keynesian injection of funds in the economy may or may not boost the rate of growth, that a tax cut may or may not do so, that a reduction in the interest rate may or may not do it – and so on and so forth … but what you cannot do is tell how well that will work and if it does, when it might work.

And since the rate of growth affects everything else in the economy, especially the employment situation, it is surprising to see that the editors of the Journal mentioned it only in passing to then concentrate on politically sensitive matters that do little to shed light on the situation. They said this: “One disappointment was the humdrum 2.1 % pace of business spending on plant, machinery and computers. Business spending is one of the best predictors of future hiring and wage increases, so this suggests continued tough times for workers ahead.”

Had the editors slowed down at this point and looked at what they just wrote instead of rushing to talk about the politically juicier subject of “the tax increases that hit in January” and everything else that followed, they most likely would have seen what I saw. And what I saw was that each economy in the world is no longer a disconnected sea but that all the seas have been opened to each other. The result has been that every economic manifestation in each economy is now caused and affected not only by the waves of its own sea, but the waves of all the seas.

And this explains why business spending in America is humdrum even though “the wealthy have done well as the stock market has recovered.” It is that the American companies are investing American money overseas where they make the big profits that inflate the price of their stocks. In view of all this, a realistic analysis of an economy can no longer be made in isolation. We must look at each economy as being a province of the larger world economy. Thus, what happens in Michigan could well be caused by what happens half way around the world than it is by what happens in Michigan or say, California or anywhere else in America.

And when we take this approach, we see that a healthy economic growth does exist on this planet. It is just that it has shifted from the advanced economies to the ones now advancing. And any analysis that ignores this reality must be regarded as unrealistic.

Floor Sweeper Masquerading As Law Professor

If you want to know what a floor sweeper masquerading as law professor sounds like, read the article that was written by Eugene Kontorovich and published on April 24, 2013 in National Review Online. It has the title: “Abbas's Bogus ICC Concession” and the subtitle: “His threat to challenge Israeli settlements in court is completely empty.”

When you read the thing, you come out the experience with the feeling that the man who says he is a professor at Northwestern School of Law, has a void in his skull, and a volcano in his belly. And I mean it is an absolutely empty skull devoid of even a tiny brain; and it is a volcano that is spewing molten lava, not just an ordinary fire in the belly. The man also says he is a fellow at the Lawfare Project – whatever that is, and whatever it is supposed to be doing.

It seems that no one told Kontorovich it is one thing to want to defend someone; it is another thing to botch the case so badly you leave them worse off. You prove them guilty of the charge you sought to defend, and guilty of all the other charges. This, in fact, is what he does at the start of his presentation. First, he foams a half truth at the mouth, then builds a shaky case upon it. He says that Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas offered to refrain from bringing Israeli officials before the International Criminal Court (ICC) “for charges related to housing construction in settlements” which – he goes on to say – was the motivation behind the effort to gain recognition at the UN General Assembly last Fall.

But the fact is that the Palestinian case against the Israeli occupation is not only the question of settlements; it is that of war crimes, and of crimes against humanity. If Abbas goes to the ICC, it would be for all these reasons, and not just the settlements. Thus, when the self-appointed defense lawyer neglects all that to concentrate on a small part of the case, he loses the part he took up by incompetence, and loses the rest of the case by default.

The truth is that already now, several Israeli officials would not travel to European capitals because they would be arrested for war crimes, and for crimes against humanity. And what is valid in Europe is also valid in The Hague which happens to be in Europe.

Setting all this aside, the fired up and brainless floor sweeper masquerading as law professor makes his point based on what he sees as a possible technical consideration. It is that “the court would have no jurisdiction over settlements issue,” he says. Well, well, well. The man loses the case right here because to say something like this is to say, in effect, that the client he is defending is guilty as charged but that he is beyond the arm of law enforcement.

And this means that the thing calling itself Kontorovich was stupid enough not to see that by pleading the “outside your jurisdiction” article, he did what every lawyer in America tries to avoid – pleading the “Fifth Amendment” of the Constitution – the one pertaining to the refusal to incriminate the self. It looks like the shadow lawyer has managed to put his shadow foot in the mouth of a client that never retained him officially in the first place. Will he now be sued for malpractice? Or will he be subjected to something else?

What he does after all that bumbling is lay the blame not on himself or Israel but (get this now) on the American Secretary of State John Kerry. I'm not making this up for; this is what he says: “By taking Abbas's noises about the ICC seriously, Kerry's diplomatic efforts inadvertently lend credibility to the notion that the ICC would have jurisdiction.”

And why would he not want the ICC to have jurisdiction? Because “this undermines America's ability to avoid such charges against its servicemen in the future.” What? What the f**k is this brainless asshole saying? Is he saying American servicemen are running around building settlements in occupied territories? This thing is so dangerously retarded, it ought to be locked up, not let loose on the public. Someone please catch him and commit him to an institution.

Having dabbled in all those idiocies early on, the rest of the article consists of destroying every point he makes by making another contradictory one. Read it and be sickly entertained by the flimsy performance of an aspiring impersonator still in training.

They Know Nothing About Redemption

The late Yitzhak Shamir, a former Prime Minister of Israel went to visit the United States of America at a time when it was becoming clear that the old Soviet Union was dissolving for good, never to be revived. Speaking in America about the Muslims in general and the Arabs in particular, Shamir blurted out the expression that planted a dagger in the heart of America's image as a superpower worthy of continued respect.

“Zey know nossing about za damocracy” was the expression that Shamir blurted in America in his distinctive Yiddish accent, and this was enough to incite the Jewish dominated American media; incite the successive administrations that followed as well as the Congress of the brain dead. They were incited to rise up and set in motion debates, policies and resolutions that culminated in a series of tragedies befalling America and the people they intended to hurt half way around the world.

In fact, the Shamir blurt got America mired in wars in places it had no business being under pretexts that no one believed. People laughed at the immaturity of the Americans, and they cried at their country's potential to inflict pain on far away peaceful groups. Underneath it all, America's mission was meant to disrupt the progress that the Arabs and the Muslims were making to allow Israel to shine in the region, and look less miserable than it really is. But instead of diminishing the Arabs or the Muslims, the result has been that the image of America as a superpower was tainted and made to look like the has-been that managed to do it to himself.

The lingering effect of all this is that the war against the Arabs and the Muslims did not stop when America exhausted itself. It continued unabated because two forces were unleashed that the American officials could not snuff out. They were on one side the worldwide Jewish organizations and their non-Jewish recruits, and they were on the other side the young Arabs and the Muslims who rose to defend their respective homelands and the faith they share between them. To this day, the two sides continue to fight it out at the expense of America whose media is still controlled by the Jewish organizations and their non-Jewish followers. The battle is still raging as can be seen in four articles published on the same day, April 23, 2013 – three of which came in the same publication, and one in a different publication.

The Three that came in the same publication came in National Review Online. They were (1) the Dennis Prager contribution that has the title: “The Lessons from Boston and Chechnya” and the subtitle: “There are obvious lessons about good, evil, and Islam.” (2) The Rich Lowry contribution that has the title: “Radical Islam, Once Again” and the subtitle: “The motive of the Boston Bombers is obvious to everyone who will look.” (3) The Mona Charen contribution that has the title: “A 'Friendlier' U.S., To No Avail” and has no subtitle. As to the stand alone article, it is (4) the John Bolton contribution to the Washington Times that has the title: “We can't ignore foreign roots of the massacre” and the subtitle: “America won't be safe if inconvenient facts are ignored.”

The one thing that the four articles have in common is that they clearly demonstrate that the Jews have no understanding of the redemptive act, a powerful concept in the Arab and European philosophies as well as the Christian and Muslim theologies. Dennis Prager put it this way: “One of the greatest insights I learned as a young man came from reading Viktor Frankl. [He] was a Jewish psychoanalyst who … conclud[ed]: 'There are two races of men in this world … The race of the decent man and the race of the indecent man.' Those races do not understand one another. More important is … destroying the indecent.”

This is the first of 6 lessons that Prager says come out of the Boston events. As you read through the rest of the article, you realize he means to say that the Jews and everyone else are decent people except for “tens of millions of Muslims” for whom “Islam is beyond good and evil.” They are, therefore, the indecent ones that the decent must destroy, in his opinion. The problem is that Dennis Prager seems to forget that throughout time and everywhere on the planet, humanity thought of the Jews as being the indecent ones. It did more than talk about destroying their race; it actually tried to do so on many occasions, and came close to succeeding at least on one such occasion. Go figure.

From there, Prager goes on to discuss the concepts of victimhood and lack of happiness; states of mind which he attributes to the brothers of the Boston event. He does so as if he had no clue victimhood is what allows the Jews and the Israelis to make a living, while the state of unhappiness is what he and those of his ilk project with every word they write and everyone they utter. As if this were not enough of a reversal to stuff into one article, he makes the point that “Boys will be bad men if they had no good men.” Really? Is he now blaming Viktor Frankl for the way that he turned out? Maybe so. And then there is the inevitable act of blaming the whole thing on the political Left in America which he says, includes the universities.

And this brings us to the Mona Charen article. You really have to be a forgiving Christian or a Muslim to endure reading more than the first ten words of this article because they form the sentence in which the author slaps your face once, then slaps you again with the seventh words in the next sentence. Here is the first sentence: “Despite Obama's Mideast outreach, the Muslim world still hates America.” You see, my friend, when it comes to this woman, everything dances around who loves who, and who hates who. As to her second sentence, it goes this way: “If there was one thing the Left...” Kaboom; it's the Left again that's at fault. I give up.

I give up; and I ain't readin' any more of this woman's writing. You go ahead and read the rest of the article yourself if you want, because I am Christian enough to endure only two slaps on the face, and no more than that. Besides, the woman bores me to death, and I am not ready to die as yet. I still plan to say a great deal before I'll be ready to go, and I intend to say it come hell, high water or the monotonous rants of Mona Charen.

We now come to Rich Lowry who happens to be the editor of National Review. His article starts with this revelation: “We are in the midst of the least-suspenseful investigation.” Tongue-in cheek, he goes on to muse about what may be uncovered. And he ends the article this way: “The chances are that we will learn nothing … about the threat against our country. When the next attack comes … we will again … wonder who could do such a thing, and why?”

By the time you get to this point, you realize that Lowry is missing one big thing. Unlike the investigators who will be seeking to discover the motive of the Boston bombers, many around the world know the motive of those like himself who keep inciting America to bomb them in their bedrooms. Some of these are not Christian enough or Muslim enough to forgive, or even pray that the Americans will seek to redeem themselves. And so, they take it upon themselves to get revenge in the name of righting the wrong done to them and their families. To this end, they do the thing that the Jews make America do to them. They prove in this way to be no better than the Jews.

We finally come to the John Bolton article. The first thing we notice about it is that it resembles in many respects the Bret Stephens article I discussed in my previous posting: “A Style That Kills Half The Message.” Look at this passage: “Unfortunately … many commentators ... are displaying a willful blindness … Before we engage in a contentious debate … we need to know more.” It is as if the two authors received instructions from one and the same source. But given the fact that each has a style of his own, each has left a distinct fingerprint on his article.

What distinguishes the Bolton fingerprint is that he takes an approach that looks legalistic when making his points. In doing so, he slips through some subtle hints, and some that are not so subtle. They are to the effect that what is needed now is a declaration of war. It will be a war that will remain open till the enemy is vanquished for good. And he wants to do this by: “The far better approach [that] may well be to take the fight to the terrorists overseas.”

What he wants is maintain the policy of steady as she goes – one that has ruined America already. Obviously, this man lacks imagination, and he cannot be the friend of America. Since he designated himself as being an enemy of the World, whose friend can he be?

A Style That Kills Half The Message

Those who have an idea how a movement in the arts begins and develops know that it goes through several stages during which time each of the participating artists takes it a step further ahead till it reaches its ultimate form. It is then given a name such as Expressionism or Cubism or Modern, for example.

While this sort of development is associated with painting more than any other endeavor, it applies to the other forms as well, though in a less spectacular way. Sculpture goes through a similar evolution too, as does writing where for example; Classicism, Romanticism and Elizabethan make the list.

What is not yet taken seriously is the movement that has been developing in journalistic punditry over say, the past three decades. I do not have a name for what is developing; and there might not be one for several more decades. But what I can say with certainty is that a distinct movement is shaping, and Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal may become one of its leaders.

The reason why I bring this up is that Stephens took the movement a huge step further ahead while writing his most recent column. It has the title: “The Evil in Boston” and was published in the Journal on April 23, 2013. More than any time before, he comes out and serves notice that he has no use for a debate that will unfold in the style of the “give and take.” He will simply put his ideas down, and the reader will have to accept them as definitive and absolute. Otherwise, it's too bad for the reader, and that's that.

He begins by saying he saw human carnage; he understands it and has no words for it. He then gives a hint as to how he will frame this discussion. He does so starting with the proposition: “Before we move on from Boston.” He goes on to acknowledge six other topics he could have discussed before moving on to something else but neglects to discuss any of them. Instead, he demands that we: “remind ourselves what the [Boston] duo was up to on the afternoon of April 15, 2013.”

He does that by describing in detail the bombings that the Boston duo committed. He also probes their minds as they took the time, made the effort to build the bombs, took them to the place where they were to be detonated, placed them in their strategic positions “...then the explosions. And the panic. And the cascade of blood on the street.” He also reports on the description given by the hospital doctor who triaged the wounded victims that came in. This part reminded Stephens of his own experience when he saw the aftermath of a similar act a little more than ten years ago.

He then does something that reminds you, the reader, of the old saying: “War brutalizes some people and ennobles other people.” It is obvious that Bret Stephens was brutalized by his experience because what he does next is write the following: “That's why so much of the commentary about Boston seems so curiously off point.” In other words, he says that no commentary made previously could begin to compare with the commentary he just made. And no commentary after that is worth making.

To justify this last point, he mocks (1) the commentators who mentioned the role of the Twitter in the manhunt, (2) the commentators who spoke of the courage exhibited by the residents of Boston, (3) the commentators who delved into the alienation of young men. To end his presentation, he concedes that these points may be important “but … before you go into constructive mode, reflect on what has been destroyed … by whom?”

And this is where you see how false and empty is the movement that the new writing style represents. First, Bret Stephens mocks the commentators who spoke of the alienated young that committed the violent acts. He then urges the same commentators to reflect on those who committed the violent acts. He does it like someone totally oblivious of the fact that the alienated young committed the violence because the alienation played a role in motivating them.

It is evident that Stephens has difficulty accepting that people everywhere are made of the same genetic material. Were he to grasp this notion, he would have understood the argument that a violent act committed by one is as bad as a violent act committed by another one. Thus, he would have reasoned that someone seeing his mother or little sister blown up by a smart bomb dropped from a jet plane or a helicopter can be ennobled or brutalized the same as someone seeing a homemade bomb explode in the middle of a crowd.

When alienated in addition to that, either one of the two can go on to commit bad acts because violence begets violence – and that's a vicious cycle we can do without. To avoid it, we need to deescalate the conflict by reducing the differences between the antagonists whenever they appear on the scene.

To do this, we look at the two sides of the story by allowing the debate to go on unimpeded rather than kill the full message or kill half of it as suggested by Bret Stephens.

A Vanity Train On Track To Self-Destruct

I can't believe I'm saying this but a hopeful sign is showing itself in a piece written by the editors of National Review Online. Published on April 22, 2013, it has the title: “After Boston”. It is a hopeful sign because it hints at a shift from what used to be a slavish adherence to Judeo-Israeli instructions – to what looks now like a made in America set of solutions to problems that are essentially made in America.

It used to be that everywhere you looked, you saw the self-proclaimed experts on one thing or another advise America to get on the Israeli page. On its face this was an absurd suggestion because Israel is a parasite that lives off America. It is inhabited by two million non-Jews who fend for themselves, and five million Jews who feed on the goodness that is sent to them from America, a population of 310 million people enjoying one of the highest standards of living in the world.

Thus, for America to lead a parasitic life at the expense of someone else, that someone will have to have a population equal to 62 times the size of America. This comes to 19.22 billion people – almost three times the current population of the Earth. And they will all have to be enjoying a high standard of living. But from all the observations that astronomers have made of our galactic neighborhood, there are no three planets in the vicinity that can take on this task. As a matter of fact, there is not even one such planet aside from Earth itself whose population is around seven billion people – half of whom live in poverty.

So then, what were the so-called experts who advised America up to? First of all, we must identify them as being the Jews and their echo repeaters. We set aside the repeaters because they represent a nuisance that does not deserve a minute of our attention. When we concentrate on the Jews, we see that they said what they said because they were and still are a bunch of vain people. They reckoned in their own mind that if Israel had a page that America wanted to get on; it would have made Israel appear like a great something. In turn, this would have made them look like larger than life Jewish figures.

To be exact, there is actually a little more to the story than that. While vanity was the dominant motivation behind the call for America to get on the Israeli page, there were practical reasons in the category of greed as to why these people wanted to see the implementation of a plan of this kind. What they wanted was harmonize America's industries, especially the military ones, with the needs of Israel. This way, America would have become the giant department store where the Israeli planners could go to grab from the shelf the hardware they needed when they needed it. Also, if and when the plan became a reality, it would have necessitated that America harmonize its military philosophy to suit the requirements of Israel. This would have transformed America into the military wing of the worldwide Zionist movement.

The trouble with this idea and all ideas like it is that long before a plan of this kind can be fully implemented, America will have become a bankrupt and desolate place. This prompts the question as to whether or not the Jews who regularly parade as advisers to America are aware that such outcome may result from their self generated activities. The painful answer is that these people never think of the consequences of what they do before they do it, or even after they do it. This is because they grow up with the notion that they have the right to do anything they want. If things work out, it is well and good. If they don't work out as envisaged, the expectation is that God will intervene and make things right because they are Jews; the people he chose to be his favorite children.

But things have never worked for the Jews since the beginning. So how can they latch on to the idea that things will work out now, especially that they led a never ending chain of bitter experiences such as those they met everywhere and through time? The answer to these questions can be given in one word: Vanity. These people continue to believe they are the chosen children of a God that keeps testing them to see if they are worthy of his benevolent largess. And when the reward will come, all their troubles will have been worth it because the payoff will be massive – or so they believe. The dream of being handed the tutelage of the Planet and everyone in it will be fulfilled the moment that God will place the key in their hands, and proclaim them masters of the Universe.

When this will happen and every inch of the planet will have come under their influence the way that America has, they will begin to fully actualize the Jewish Jihad which is to turn everyone in the world into a Palestinian in their own country. In fact, the Jewish leaders are so pleased with the reality that the American people have become the docile Palestinians in America with not an intifada to speak of; they wish to duplicate the model till everyone in the world had become an intifada-free American in their respective countries.

But given that this is a promise of the kind you find in every religious fantasy, could it have been a realistic project in the first place? Maybe it was for a time, but given the editorial in the National Review Online, the prospect seems less promising now. And the whole project may end up looking like a vanity train on a track to self-destruct.

Keep up the good work NRO; you may yet save America from the Zionist nightmare.

Not An Act Of Supremacy But One Of Revenge

“Jihad Will Not Be wished Away” says Andrew C. McCarthy in his latest anti-Muslim diatribe. But unlike the previous diatribes in which he never made clear what he wanted, he finally gets to say what his point is and has been all along: He wants to see Jihad go away, he says. In fact, the quote with which I start this discussion happens to be the title of his latest article. It also comes under the subtitle: “But willful blindness remains the order of the day,” and was published on April 20, 2013 in National Review Online.

To begin with, it is universally acknowledged that when someone wants something, it helps if he explained how he imagines obtaining it. It would help even more if he had a detailed and concrete plan on how to go about doing that. The trouble with McCarthy, however, is that he never did anything of the sort, and he is not doing it now even though he makes one minor point in that direction he never made before. Otherwise, he acted this time the way he always did which is to present his views in the manner of a lawyer who litigates a case in court then leaves it to the judge and the jury to decide on a remedy.

There is no doubt that Andrew McCarthy is smarter than this. So why is he taking that approach? The answer is that his goal is not to reach an immediate workable solution; it is to score the ultimate grand solution when all will have been said and done. You reach this conclusion when you read the entire article but more specifically three of its paragraphs. Each one of these begins with a sentence that leads to the next and to the conclusion that he wants the “West” to get engaged in a fight to the death with Islam. The sentences are these: (1) “So will we be roused to meet the challenge?” (2) “We are in a war driven by ideology.” (3) “You do not defeat an ideology by hoping it will change or disappear.”

The question now is this: What role will his latest diatribe and the entire anti-Muslim campaign he has been waging, play in the grand scheme of things? Well, his goal has now been made clear, and it is to the effect that he wants to see Jihad defeated and removed from the scene. As to the immediate objective of the campaign, it is what he says it is in sentence (1), to rouse the public. And he goes about doing this the old fashioned way. That is, in his attempt to demonize the Muslims, he uses lies, spins, distortions, insinuations, false interpretation of the events, and non-existent associations.

He uses the tragic event that took place at the Boston Marathon to argue that “The bombs … won't kill thousands or even hundreds ... but the goal is to instill terror into the flow of everyday life.” But instead of suggesting that people not allow themselves to be terrorized – a suggestion that is usually made when a mass killing takes place in a movie theater or a school, for example – McCarthy links the 2013 event to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, and from there to what is happening elsewhere in the world.

Not only does he make that linkage but he also uses the occasion to beat up on those who may hold a different point of view, accusing them of “willful blindness.” To this end, he provides the readers with an internet link to an article written the day before by Kevin D. Williamson under the title “An Answer to Liberals' Prayers.” In it, Williamson makes the point that because the brothers responsible for the bombing turned out to be: “a pair of Chechen Islamists” they did not exactly fill the bill of those who wish they were “White” and non-Muslim.

And there lies a big long story that neither Williamson nor McCarthy fully explore. It is that Chechnya lies at the heart of the Caucasus mountain range where the White “Caucasian” race originated. This is the place where, according to Hitler, the Aryan master race took roots and made of  the art and science of war (therefore all forms of violence) the supreme expression of civilized behavior. Thus, faced with the fact that the brothers who committed the Boston act were Muslims, satisfies the likes of Williamson and McCarthy. But being of the Aryan race demolishes their argument that Islam was out to destroy a “West” they have always associated with being white skinned.

So then, what to do under such circumstances? Well, instead of saying they had a problem, they flipped the coin and said that the opposition had a problem. They explained that yes, the prayers of the opposition were answered but only partially. And this is because what turned out to be more lily white than many a European skin, also turned out to be more Muslim than many of the darker skin types.

But wait a minute … wait a minute. That may be a problem but there is a solution for it. Why not take advantage of the confusion and the raw emotions to put out the lie that the culprits have been apprehended, and that they turned out to be dark skinned? Yes, this is a great idea but what happens when the truth will be revealed and the world will know that the culprits are of the Aryan master race? No matter, the Jews always put out a lie that serves them for a day or an hour or even a minute. But they always survive to lie yet again, confuse again and take advantage of the raw emotions again. The truth is that if no one calls you to account for what you do while hiding under the principle of “freedom of speech” you go right ahead and be free to lie and lie and lie. And the Jews are never called to account for what they do or fail to do – so they lie and lie and lie, and they get away with it each and every time.

Okay, this is a good plan, but how to implement it? Well, the CNN network has a worldwide audience, and the Jewish Wolf Blitzer happened to be anchoring the special report on the Boston event. So why not call his colleague John King, himself a convert to Judaism, and tell him that a dark skinned individual was apprehended. This done, watch the lie spread around the world like a disease that may or may not have a serious side effect. But who cares about side effect – serious or not – when the satisfaction that results from spreading a lie is as good as having a Jewish orgasm; however long that may last.

And that's exactly what they did. Those who watched this part of the CNN broadcast tell me that the two and the few others who joined the conversation, repeated the lie at least a dozen times. Will someone now be held accountable for this deliberate act? Are you kidding! There will not even be an investigation to determine how the lie started and how it spread. They would fire an old Lebanese woman or a Latino man for expressing an honest opinion but they will not investigate a lie whose possible side effect may have been to delay the apprehension of the culprits thus allowed them to commit more violence before being apprehended.

None of this concerns Williamson or McCarthy because their ultimate aim is to trigger a war called Armageddon between the religions. It will fulfill the prophecy of the Rapture according to which the Jews believe the Messiah will come for the first time and bestow on them the mantle of master race, and let them rule the world. By contrast, some Christians believe that this will be the moment when Jesus will come for the second time, and convert the Jews and everyone else to Christianity. Like two scorpions, these two face each other, waiting for the other to drop its guards so as to strike and win the grand prize.

No, Andrew McCarthy is too smart to believe that the Boston event expresses the wish of a couple of brothers to take over the world armed with a pressure cooker and a pipe bomb. He must have already determined in his mind that the older brother developed a personal vendetta against a society he feels has rejected him because of his religion despite the fact that he married one of their own. He then dragged his younger brother into a scheme that ended as tragically as many other events in America.

Thus, McCarthy has joined the Jewish lobby in America and the influential pastors such as Mike Huckabee, to create and maximize the discord between the religions, especially the anti-Muslim sentiment, to accomplish an end they are too cowardly to admit to it right out.

A Ghoulish Story For The Ages

Look at this passage: "I came to know Carmen Weinstein in the course of my trips to Cairo. She was far from warm and fuzzy, and I couldn't call her my friend. I found her tough, acerbic, abrasive and combative. I tried to woo her, citing my background as a fellow Cairene-Jew. But she had no use for journalists and regarded us with suspicion.”

Really? Did Carmen Weinstein regard all journalists with suspicion? Or was it only those American Jews – journalist and otherwise – who had a reputation of eating their own, and eat what they thought were their own? Time and again these people ate everyone they could lay their hands on, displaying no shame and showing no remorse. They ate them alive, ate them dead, and Carmen Weinstein was not going to be eaten alive.

                     

That quote above was from an article authored by Lucette Lagnado, a reporter with the Wall Street Journal, who wrote: “Almost the Last Jew of Egypt” published in the Journal on April 18, 2013. The article also came under the subtitle: “Carmen Weinstein died in Cairo, working and waiting for a time when Jews might thrive once again.”

Another passage, a little below the one I mentioned above says something about the relationship that did or did not exist between the two women. Lagnado writes this: “I once told her of the piece I longed to write about her under the headline, "The Last Jew of Egypt." What a sizzling story she could tell – how she outwitted each of the military regimes, starting with Nasser. What compromises had she made? What deals had she cut? No matter how I pleaded, she refused to cooperate.”

And this, my friend, is exactly the out-of-the-sewer mentality that Carmen Weinstein had no use for. She had no illusion that Lagnado longed to write a “sizzling” story about her, but nothing in her past or present sizzled in the way that the journalist from America wished it did. Nothing sizzled, that is, because the woman was too busy doing her job – never trying to outwit this one, cut deals with that one or make compromises with that other one.

So then, what exactly did Lucette Lagnado long to do? To guess what it might be, consider this passage: “She [Weinstein] had her enemies, including back in New York, where some in the expatriate Egyptian-Jewish community saw her as a traitor … To these expats, Carmen Weinstein was the enemy, as much as the Egyptian government that forced them into exile.” As you can see, the expats called her the enemy even though she did not merit that characterization, and they accused the Egyptian government of forcing them into exile which is a false accusation. You can be certain, my friend, that the Jewish woman from Egypt and her government were civil. And you can be certain that the expats in New York were the stuff that sewers are full of. And these were the people that Lagnado wished to entertain with a book of lies she longed to write about Carmen Weinstein.

But what was the excuse cited by the community of expats for calling the woman an enemy? It was this: “Its members attempted to retrieve religious books and Torah scrolls left behind in Egypt, where they withered. Weinstein fiercely opposed their efforts, insisting that the holy items should stay where they were and belonged to Egypt.” It is not clear from this passage whether it is the expats or the author of the article saying the scrolls withered in Egypt. But whoever it is, the author refutes the claim in several places. Here is one place: “She set out to rescue what she could, piece by piece, this old temple, that broken-down headstone.”

And there is this long passage: “Her passing comes ... as Egypt is starting to reckon with its Jewish past ... there is a surge of interest among young Egyptians in the Jews who once lived among them … Older Egyptians are nostalgic for the Egypt of their youth, they will tell you, when they enjoyed Jewish friends and co-workers. A documentary on Egypt's Jews by filmmaker Amir Ramses premiered to acclaim in Egypt in March, and my own memoirs of my Egyptian-Jewish family sell more briskly in Cairo than in Jerusalem … Aaron Kiviat, an undergraduate in Cairo a decade ago, recalls how she had him clean abandoned synagogues and dust off gravestones.”

The author of the article piles up lie after lie, spin after spin, conjecture after conjecture then demolishes what she built up inadvertently by slipping this Freudian truth: "In the course of my interviews, I realized Weinstein harbored a fantastical dream that someday the Jews would return ... She told Mr. Kiviat, now married in Seattle, to come back with his family." Yes, the Jews could have returned to the Egypt they left on their own free will as did many others (including my family) to pursue more promising opportunities elsewhere.

People do that everywhere and they do it all the time. A few return to the place of their birth when things get better but that's only very few. In fact, when the late President Sadat adopted the policy of economic “infetah” which means economic opening, and thinking that Egypt was about to experience the sort of growth that China is now enjoying, he invited all Egyptians, including the Jews, to return to Egypt but very few did. No one in my family took up the offer, and neither did Mr. Kiviat despite the pleadings of his friend Carmen Weinstein. That was his choice as it was ours – and there is nothing wrong with that.

What remains undeniable, however, is that Lucette Lagnado could not eat Carmen Weinstein alive. And this is why she is now eating her dead. This is not ordinary cannibalism; it is ghoulish cannibalism.

These people ought to stop living like that.

The Dogs Of War, The Bimbos Of Netanyahu

Within hours, the chamber of horror known by the name: Senate of the United States of America, voted in favor of a bipartisan resolution that was called for by Netanyahu of Israel. It also voted down an equally bipartisan resolution that was called for by the American people. Thus, the old pattern has been maintained whereby Israel wins in the U.S. Senate each and every time, and the American people lose in that same chamber of horror each and every time.

The resolution in favor of Netanyahu is meant to support him if and when he decides to unleash his dogs of war against Iran. The resolution against the American people is meant to deny them the protection they yearn for when criminals and the mentally ill are given access to guns. It is that the Senators of America love to see the butchers of Israel butcher their neighbors; and love to see the criminals and the crazies of America butcher their children and those of their neighbors.

How and why can something like this happen in a democracy when two thirds of the people demand that their country refrain from getting involved in another war, be that directly or indirectly? And how can it happen when ninety percent of the people want to see the enactment of a law requiring that potential buyers of guns be universally subjected to a background check? Well, the answer as to how this can happen is easy to formulate. In contrast, the answer as to why something like this is allowed to happen is more complicated to explain because it is hard to demonstrate how the legislators of America can be turned into the bimbos of Netanyahu.

It can happen in America because the Republic no longer functions like a true democracy. It was reshaped into a fake construct that is now run by two autocrats – one called the Jewish lobby; the other called the gun lobby. The heads of these lobbies rule over the U.S. Congress (of which the Senate is but one of two chambers) with the iron fist of blackmail, personal attacks and character assassination. This makes the heads of those two lobbies the actual rulers of America, having come to this position by winning not a single vote but going against ninety percent of the population.

This is how the illusion of democracy unfolds in modern America. As to why that situation was allowed to develop in the first place, the answer lies in the fact that the people who would have disallowed it had sand thrown in their eyes early on. They were thus subjected to a massive dose of confusion before they had the time to see what was being woven around them or understand it.

That confusion continues even today, and the best place to see it in action is on the Fox News television channel. In fact, aliens from outer space not familiar with who is who, or who owns what on Planet Earth but able to pick up the signal of that channel, would believe that the Planet is divided into two powers: America and Israel. They would think that the powers are engaged in a cold war, that Fox News belongs to Israel and that it is used as a weapon to mock and denigrate the pacifist leaders of America while extolling the militaristic dogs of war that run the government of Israel.

Watching that channel during the day and also at night; watching it during the week and also the weekends, they would see a non-stop crusade to promote comrade Benjamin Netanyahu, the dear leader of Israel who has attained that position by conducting himself with the sort of magnificent courage and glorious wisdom that his counterparts in America could never achieve, and never will in a million years.

The aliens would come to that conclusion at the start of their encounter with the events on Earth. But it took a little more time for the earthlings, especially the Americans, to become so confused as to be indoctrinated with those notions. In fact, the process began in America before the Fox News channel had come into being. It happened when the Jewish lobby saw to it that America got confused and remained so for decades.

The lobby did it by accusing everyone who did not toe the line of being antisemitic thus shutting them up, and killing their freedom of speech stipulated by the First Amendment of the Constitution. The exception was the right of Jews who alone were allowed to speak freely.

When this happened, the other amendments could easily be tampered with, which is what happened with the Second Amendment; the one that deals with the right to bear arms. And this is how the gun lobby grew to become the monster that it is today.

Two lobbies, one coming into being to betray the Republic; the other to kill its young.

A Case Of Dyslexic Moral Equivalence

Did you ever wonder what happens when a dyslexic looks at a left handed person? Does he see him as right handed? This is not meant as a joke; it is a metaphor for the puzzle that is created when a publication with a strong Jewish bent takes up the subject of moral equivalence. It happened this time when the editors of the Wall Street Journal came up with an editorial they titled: “Puttin's Got a List” and subtitled: “Vladimir's idea of moral equivalence.” The piece was published on April 16, 2013 in the Journal.

The first time that I remember someone high up speak of moral equivalence happened in the 1970s when President Jimmy Carter spoke of the effort to overcome the energy crisis as being the moral equivalent to fighting a war. It was at this point in time that I estimate the Jewish propaganda masters and their echo barking dogs spirited the expression and made it an integral part of their lexicon.

What they did, however, was not to see a moral equivalence everywhere, but reject any hint of it existing between an Israeli concern and that of someone else – anyone else. The rejection came automatically where an equivalence was made, and where it was not. The aim was to set Israel apart from any human activity that would lump the Jewish entity with the rest of the human race thus take away the distinctiveness they attributed to it. The braying of the rabbis went like this: “You can't compaaaare, you can't compaaaare,” and the barking of the echo dogs went like this: “There is no moral equivalence here” even when no equivalence was pointed to.

And while placing Israel and everything Jewish at the highest point on the totem pole of existence, the rabbis and their echo repeaters placed the enemy they chose for the day at the lowest point on that pole. Thus, with a three tiers system where the Jews occupied the place of honor, humanity was given the middle part, and the enemy of the day the bottom part. Having achieved this construct, the rabbis and their barking dogs set out to interpret God's creation and all current events to those of us in the middle who noticed that the old Soviet Union was made a frequent occupant of the lower part.

Believe it or not, the Arabs and the Muslims, especially the Shia Muslims of Iran were not placed near the bottom part of the pole while Christianity – especially the scenes of the nativity that were displayed in public – were permanently nailed near the bottom, even below ground. Needless to say that a war raged between the Christians and the Jews in America at a time when the Christians were calling the Jews killers of Jesus, and the Jews were calling Jesus the illegitimate son of Mary. To them, she was a prostitute nicknamed Virgin who lived and worked in a bordello where another Mary (Magdalene) also lived and worked until Jesus grew up, and she became his mistress as well as disciple.

Conducting the war in the manner that they always do, the Jews gathered the dirt on the Christian pastors and blackmailed them into submission. Those that refused to submit were exposed and removed from the scene; those that submitted were given the task of preaching the new gospel to the American people. It was to the effect that God is not in Heaven but here on Earth, living as a Jew and walking among us. Yes it is true, my friend, the pastors were telling the American people that they must worship the Jew like a God – any and every Jew, that is. Thus while the Muslims were saying that there is no God but God, the Christians in America, especially the young among them, were taught that there was no God but the Jew.

And this is where Karl Rove saw the opportunity to have his puppet the W win the election and become the forty-third President of the United States. He converted him to the worship of the Jew at a time when the Soviet Union was crumbling. At the end of this process, the Berlin wall fell, the Soviet Union became Russia, the world changed and the Muslims became the automatic occupants of the lower tier on the totem pole of existence. As to Russia, it was left in limbo pending a decision with regard to its new place. All this happened not only in the eyes of the Jews and those of Karl Rove's White House but also the eyes of the American media – left, right and center.

Where to from here? Well, given that America won the cold war against Communism and became sole superpower, the logical thing to do was to unleash a cold war against Islam and defeat it so that the new religion in America, now called Judeo-Christian, may triumph. This done, the Jewish groups that were huddled under an umbrella called Neocon, will come out in force and implement the agenda they secretly developed over the centuries to take over the world. They will ride a policy they temporarily called Pax Americana but whose ultimate aim was to become a Pax Judaica.

One unexpected snag after another began to develop, however, and the whole Jewish scheme started to crumble. The miserable China of Tienanmen Square turned out to be not so miserable, the Russia of docile Boris Yeltsin was handed over to feisty Vladimir Putin, and the hibernating Arab world turned out to be awake and welcoming a new Spring in a world where it lived for thousands of years alternating between seasons of deep chill and uplifting warmth. As to China, it was instrumental in shifting the center of economic power to the Orient while Putin was making it clear that Russia was still a worthy pole in the multi-polar world that is shaping, and not a satellite in the orbit of America.

What this did to America was reduce its aura from one that used to command reverence to one that commands little more than scorn, especially when it comes to the stance it takes on matters relating to Israel's non-stop criminal behavior. And this was the reversal that caused the Jewish doctors of spin to reverse their approach from that of latching onto glorious America to that of spitting it out. They also changed their tune from one of “you can't compaaaare” to one of “you can't single Israel out.” The dyslexic, as you can see, is no longer looking at the right-handed write; he is looking at the left-handed and thinking he writes from right to left.

You see this American confusion when you start reading the editorial of the Wall Street Journal and keep reading it while wondering when the punch line will hit you. It does eventually hit in this form: “This is Mr. Putin's idea of establishing moral equivalence between U.S. and Russian justice, but no one outside the Kremlin will fall for that.” No, no, no, you cry out, this does not sound like a moral equivalence. Putin could not care less about establishing a moral equivalence with American justice; what he did was respond with a tit for a tat to show that Russia is equal to America not inferior to it.

But why did the Americans think of the Putin response as something else? They did because they lost confidence that their country remains the great power it used to be. Rather than sail majestically the way it used to while enjoying the sight of everyone else scrambling to move close and get caught in its draft, America now demands that the world follow it. When this does not happen, the Americans fantasize about it happening to satisfy a deep psychological reason.

The fact is that when someone follows you, he cannot get ahead of you. When you are confident of your abilities, you do not worry about someone trying to go his own way. But when you lose confidence in yourself, and you catch someone break away from the line behind you, this is when you begin to worry he may get ahead of you. You respond by demanding that everyone follow you, and if they defy the order, you fantasize that they are complying and convince yourself of same. And this is what the editors of the Journal have done not only in telling themselves that this is what Putin did, but also that “no one will fall for that.” They need a psychiatrist and they need one now.

With all this in the background, you look for a sign in the editorial to the effect that the people who wrote it have an idea as to what is unfolding around them but find nothing of substance. Instead, you see this: "Rumsfeld and Cheney must wonder what they did to merit exclusion from this club. We also like Mr. Yoo's response, which was to say there goes his judo match with Putin.” How trivial can someone get?

When you ask: What would lead the editors of a major American publication to stoop this low, you find the answer in this: “the failure of Moscow to hold anyone to account, led Congress to pass the Act with an overwhelming bipartisan vote.” The mention of a bipartisan vote is euphemism to mean that the exercise was Jewish through and through. This is why it could not rise above the trivial.

Then comes the ultimate in child play: "Our recommendation would be that as long as these U.S. officials are banned in Russia, no American [of consequence] should accept invitation to visit Russia."

Is this a tit for tat or is it moral equivalence?

How FDR Saved The Jews From The Rope

No, the Jews were not about to hang and FDR saved them; he only refrained from giving them the rope with which to hang themselves, something that others did gleefully – and the Jews hanged themselves with the rope. It happened during the period of time that extended from the early part of the Twentieth Century to its mid part, says Rafael Medoff who wrote an article not to thank Franklin Delano Roosevelt for what he did or refrained from doing but to chastise him for his attitude.

The article was published in the LA  Times on April 7, 2013 under the title: “What FDR said about Jews in private” and the subtitle: “His personal sentiments about Jews may help explain America's tepid response to the Holocaust.” To show that he did the research, Medoff writes the following: “In Roosevelt's case, a pattern of private remarks about Jews, some of which I recently discovered at the Central Zionist Archives in Jerusalem and from other sources, may be significant.” Good for Medoff but he seems to have missed the memo which says the approach to Jewish history must now emphasize the notion: “How did we get ourselves in this mess yet again?” Rather than emphasize the notion: “Look what the world did to us once more.”

In taking the wrong approach, the author has managed to confirm what was demonstrated through the centuries, mainly that the artificial culture adopted by the Jews is incompatible with the natural culture adhered to by the rest of humanity. The two will always clash, and one will always lose. Since humanity cannot lose, the Jews will. This outcome will result each and every time, and the Jewish survivors will ask for compensation, a move that is regarded by humanity as asking for blood money. It will set the stage for another clash to happen; one that will end in yet another Jewish defeat that will prompt yet another demand for compensation. And the vicious cycle will go on and on as it has for centuries.

The question now is this: Can the Jews harmonize their culture with that of humanity thus avoid a clash between the two and safeguard the Jewish existence? The answer is yes, and we don't have to go too far to see how it can be done because the example is right here in the Medoff article. The remarkable thing is that the approach is spelled out in the last paragraph. Here it is: “This attitude dovetails FDR's views regarding Asian immigrants in particular … he complained about immigrants 'crowding' into the cities ... warned against granting citizenship to 'non-assimilable immigrants' and opposed Japanese immigration ... He recommended that future immigration should be limited to those who had 'blood of the right sort.'”

Obviously, the passage of time has proven FDR's views on the Asians to be unfounded since they have assimilated well in America as they did everywhere else they went. But how did the Asians take FDR's indiscretions? They took them in their stride because they understand that he is human and fallible like they are. They moved on and did other things rather than dredge up events that happened nearly a century ago as did the Jews who argued that the FDR stance may have been responsible for “the American government's tepid response to the Holocaust.” This being the eternally milkable cash cow upon which the Jews feed and line their pockets, it sets the stage for yet another clash to happen between the cultures.

What else did Rafael Medoff do with his article that other Jewish writers did before but no Asian writer ever did? Well, what Medoff and other Jewish writers did was skate on thin ice to build a case whose ultimate aim would be to lay guilt on the American government. Medoff framed the argument this way: “Why didn't the president quietly tell his State Department to fill the quotas for Germany and Axis-occupied countries to the legal limit? That alone could have saved 190,000 lives.” Whoa! You see that? He's talking about 190,000 lives. At a million dollars a piece – that's a big chunk of money. Therefore, the response must be yes indeed, who the hell knows why the president did not tell his State Department. In reality, the question must not be why he did not tell? It must be why should he have told?

The amazing part is that Medoff answered his own question at least partially, not realizing that he did. He says this: “It would not have required a fight with Congress or the anti-immigration forces; it would have involved minimal political risk to the president.” But seeing how the proverbial political sausage is made in the Congress and elsewhere, you ask: How can he look back nearly a century and assert that the president was wrong on something about which he had little or no information?

To come now and say that Roosevelt should have guessed how history was going to unfold decades before it did, and determine from this that the Congress presented minimal risk thus be motivated to tell his State Department to fill the quotas to the legal limit, is to display the kind of insanity that the other cultures do not display. Only the Jews seem to suffer from this condition, and only they end up paying the ultimate price – which they do over and over again without ever learning.

To get a sense of the gulf that separates the Jewish culture from the rest of humanity, look at the following passage from the first paragraph of the Medoff article: “At one point ... FDR offered what he called 'the best way to settle the Jewish question.'” This thought was not unique to FDR because the Jewish question has been a regular topic of conversation in Europe and elsewhere throughout the centuries. Like many others, FDR correctly identified the Jewish troubles to emanate from a culture that does not allow for the independent existence of the individual. Instead, everyone belongs to the Jewish collective for which they must all work or be ostracized, even attacked and destroyed.

Given that the Jewish collective cannot survive by itself, it operates like a parasite that infiltrates a productive body where it softens the internal organs by spoiling them, and then sucks the goodness to nourish itself. Thus every member of the collective must work to this end or be expelled because the parasitic individual cannot be allowed to feed on the parasitic collective.

This must have been the knowledge that prompted FDR to come up with the idea "to spread the Jews thin all over the world." It would have kept them apart thus prevented the formation of a collective parasite. The plan would have compelled every individual Jew to work for a living as do everyone else in the world, something that would have contributed to the salvation of all Jews, and earned the gratitude of humanity.

In fact, it sounds like FDR tried something like this on a small scale and made it work. As reported in Medoff's article: “The president said he had tried this out in [Meriwether] County, Georgia [where Roosevelt lived in the 1920s] and at Hyde Park on the basis of adding four or five Jewish families at each place. He claimed that the local population would have no objection if there were no more than that." And this could be the reason why the tragedy that happened in Europe did not happen in America. If so, it looks like FDR saved a few Jews from the rope that others gave them to hang themselves.

According to the article, FDR had many complaints regarding the Jews. But the fact remains that none was new and none disappeared with his departure from the scene. The same complaints or similar ones existed throughout the centuries before the great wars of the Twentieth Century, and they persisted ever since. They were expressed by various individuals from a variety of races living in all sorts of places around Europe and around the rest of the world. This says that something is wrong with the Jewish culture not with any one individual, any one race, any one place in Europe or any one place somewhere in the world.

The FDR solution was humane in that he tried to make it harder for the Jews to coalesce into a collective. This would have saved them from a process that never ended well as evidenced by the events of WW II. The FDR plan was never attempted on a large scale, and may not work now. But there is an alternative that better suits the time in which we live; a time in which cowardice is the fiber from which democratic politics is woven.

The alternative is for the Jewish rank and file to tell their leaders to go hang themselves with the rope that the cowardly Western democracies are handing them because they – who are ordinary Jews – simply refuse to hang on the altar of a Jewish takeover of the world. They definitely have no use for this idea even if it were workable which it is not. And that's final.

Then, the ordinary Jews must see to it that the complete demise of the Jewish leaders happens before the end result ends up being Hitler's Final Solution. Better have a humane solution now than be faced with a Final version that will certainly not be humane.

When Vile Is Dressed As Moral Excellence

Who else but Daniel Pipes would take the time and make the effort to build a monument honoring what is meant to look like Moral Excellence, then stuffs the thing with the vilest constituents you could find only in the most devilish of constructs? Look at this sentence: “Western powers should guide enemies to stalemate by helping whichever side is losing, so as to prolong the conflict.”

And that, my friend, is what you encounter in the latest article authored by Daniel Pipes and published on April 12, 2013 in National Review Online under the title: “The Case for Supporting Assad” and the subtitle: “When enemies of the West are in conflict, it is in our interest to aid the losing side.” You see no attempt here to disguise the immorality of the suggestion because the author has no idea how immoral it is.

Those of us who saw early on that the principle of “Responsibility to Protect” was but a gimmick to provide Israel with the cover to expand its policy of cultural and physical genocide against the people of Palestine, now have the proof that what we saw was real. We could see from the start that the pretense to practice moral excellence was nothing more than a cheap trick meant to give Israel's advocates the legal cover and moral justification to incite the “Western” powers to act in a demonic fashion yet appear saintly doing it.

And that whole exercise was meant to do then what it means to do now: divert the attention from Israel's war on the Palestinian people who remain under its occupation after three generations. The diversion would be achieved by creating the impression that those who “kill their own people” are more evil than those who kill people other than their own. To this end, the team that crafted the Responsibility to Protect has also worked to facilitate the meddling in the affairs of other nations by the so-called Western powers.

The aim here would be to create discord among the diverse groups populating those other nations then use the ensuing conflict as excuse to intervene militarily under the pretense of protecting the population from its own government. And the charade would go on while the government of Israel, its army and its settlers are given free rein to butcher the Palestinians who – as it happens – are not classified as their own people, thus making it acceptable to butcher them. And Daniel Pipes shows us how the demonic charade is made to work.

When you read his article, you see more than the evil that is inherent to the policy he describes; you get to see how devilish are the sentiments that motivate him. Look at this introductory paragraph as he discusses the civil war in Syria: “Analysts agree that a rebel breakthrough and an Islamist victory [are] increasingly likely. In response, I am changing my recommendation from neutrality to … Western governments should support the malign dictatorship of Bashar Assad … so as to prolong the conflict.” An evil sentiment motivating him to cheer for the maintenance of the horror.

What else should we expect from a piece written by Daniel Pipes? Well, this being an easy question, there is an easy answer for it: You expect him to mutilate history and use the parts to stitch together a new body of evidence that will support his current argument, however temporary it may prove to be. And that's exactly what he does in the article by first asserting that “This policy has precedent.”

He then goes on to cite an example from World War II, ascribing to Franklin D. Roosevelt motivations that were never mentioned previously because they never existed. Pipes also cites an example taken from the Iraq-Iran war of 1980-88 without mentioning Presidents Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan. What he does, instead, is quote himself who had taken a position in 1987 comparable to what he now advocates. He did so in an article he published at the time. As can be seen, the man is a recidivist who is not ready to repent.

But what is it that motivates him to come out and advocate support for Assad at this time? Good question, and here is his logic as he describes it himself: “Yes, Assad’s survival benefits Tehran, the region’s most dangerous regime. But a rebel victory would hugely boost the increasingly rogue Turkish government … Continued fighting does less damage to Western interests than letting the Islamists take power … Better that neither side wins.” Turkey, as you can see, is the latest enemy of the day; it is the object that stirs the acid in his belly; it is where he aims the fire of his hatred.

To shed light on that point, it must be noted that Turkey and Israel were once bosom buddies who had a falling out for a while but then started talking again, and may eventually kiss and make up. But this prospect alone does not seem to satisfy Daniel Pipes who may harbor a secret hate for the idea that Turkey chose to be bosom buddies with a garden full of Middle Eastern nations than remain in the sole embrace of Israel, the solitary skunk in that garden.

This is saying a great deal already, but is there something else that Daniel Pipes would do besides mutilating history? Yes, there is. He would concoct a made-to-order opinion to posit that what America is doing will not work. He would then offer an alternative that will support his goal; the prolongation of the fight in the ongoing dispute. Here is how he put it: “Nice idea, but manipulating the rebel forces via remote control has little chance of success ... Better to aspire to the feasible: propping up the side in retreat.”

And so you exclaim: But this is horrible! Does he not realize how this will look in the eyes of the world? The answer is yes, he does but relax because you need not worry about a thing. It is that after the mutilation of history and the concoction of fake opinions, there comes the pretense of adhering to high morals. This is how he put it: “Westerners must be true to their morals ... Western governments should … pressur[e] the rebels’ suppliers and the Syrian government’s supporters … That would fulfill the responsibility to protect.”

See how easy it is? All you have to do is pressure someone to do one thing or another; or pressure them to refrain from doing one thing or another. Whether or not they will listen is another matter, however, but the important thing is that you do the talking thus appear to have fulfilled the famed “responsibility to protect.” Now you're home free.

Prey tell what comes after that if indeed something else comes after that? Yes, something else comes after that, and it is the promise. After the mutilation of history, the concoction of fake opinions and the pretense to adhere to high morals – must come the promise. In fact, the whole exercise would not be Jewish if not for the promise – be it real or be it fake.

Here is the promise in his own words: “On the happy day when Assad and Tehran have fought the rebels and Ankara to mutual exhaustion, Western support then can go to elements in Syria, helping them offer a ... better future.” What more do you want? What more would anyone want?

See why these people think of themselves as being the chosen children of God? They don't just make miracles; they are the miracle.

Israel's North Korean Present

Victor Davis Hanson wrote: “Iran's North Korean Future” but as always, he got his ideas not from what Iran is doing or neglecting to do; he got them from what Israel is doing, and projecting that into Iran's future. Hanson wrote the article in National Review Online on April 11, 2013; a piece that is also given the subtitle: “A Tehran armed with nukes can play Pyongyang's game – but with no Beijing to keep it in check.”

After an introduction in 130 words, Hanson begins the core of his argument with this: “The present crisis with North Korea offers us a glimpse of what, and what not, to expect should Iran get the bomb.” So you ask: What's the introduction about? And he answers: It's about the poor terrified analysts who cannot figure out what to do with Iran. And now you ask: What's their problem? And he answers with the two words by which he describes Iran: “unpredictable neighbor.”

Puzzled by that answer, you go over the entire article to see where he may have explained why he believes that Iran is unpredictable, but find no explanation. Instead, you encounter the possible recommendations that the confused analysts may give – recommendations which, in themselves, would represent a powerful element of unpredictability.

And when you dig deeper into this element, you find that it is closely related to Israel's own posture of “ambiguity” as to whether or not it has nuclear weapons that were never tested, as to whether or not it has the capability to bomb Iran and get away with it, as to whether or not it has the ability to bribe and blackmail enough Congress morons to drag America into a foolish act of that magnitude.

Having called Iran unpredictable, Hanson now offers this: “We should assume that the Iranian theocracy ... would periodically sound lunatic: threatening its neighbors and promising a firestorm...” What? Who is he talking about? Was it Iran that recruited thousands of Victor Hanson clones to write article after article inciting a firestorm in the region from Morocco to Iran, and from Syria to Yemen? Or was it World Jewry that owns and operates the New-York/Tel-Aviv axis of hate and incitement?

Still, to add strength to his diatribe, Hanson employs the metaphor of the proverbial nutty neighbor who pulls tricks in the neighborhood to obtain what he wants. Hanson says that North Korea is doing it now and that Iran could do it in the future. Well, maybe yes, and maybe no – but that's beside the point. What is certain is what happened in 1973 when it became obvious that Israel was loosing the war. It asked America to come to the rescue, and when America dragged its feet, Israel threatened to drop radio active material in the Nile so as to endanger the lives of Egyptians for decades to come.

And this was not the only time we know of that Israel threatened America to get what it wants. It did so again when it said it might bomb Iran so as to put itself in danger thus force America to come to the rescue. And now, my friend, you ask: Who is nutty? Who is irrational? And who is unpredictable?

Finally, when someone has gone this far into the realm of the “upside down reality,” he can imagine any fiction he wants and attribute it to the character of his choice. Thus, to prepare for the following conclusion: “If North Korea has been a danger, then a bigger, richer, and undeterred nuclear Iran would be a nightmare,” with which he ends the article, Hanson sets up an extraordinary scene.

What he does is assert: “Iran would be different from other nuclear rogue states.” To explain this point, he uses Pakistan as an example and drags into the narrative India, China, South Korea, Israel and the West. At the end of it all, says Hanson, “China does not want a nuclear war [which] means North Korea is muzzled once its barking becomes too obnoxious.”

This would not be the case with a nuclear Iran, he goes on to say, because there will not be someone to establish “redlines to its periodic madness.” And this is why Iran would be a nightmare, he concludes.

This is the reality in the Hanson realm of the upside down but not on Planet Earth where madness is expressed in Hebrew and in English, not in Farsi.

Wake up, Victor; it is time to get real.