Crocodile Tears Of The Foxes

There are times when, in the course of human events, simple occurrences take place, the significance of which should be obvious to everyone yet are not seen by a segment of society. Arguments, counter arguments and points of view of every kind are advanced by those who care to participate in the exploration of the differences between the antagonists. But instead of reaching a consensus, the participants sometimes create a haystack where the needle of truth that may have existed at the start gets lost for ever.

In a case such as this, the burden falls on the shoulder of fiction writers to clarify the situation. To do this, they set up a parallel fictional situation inside of which they recreate the main points of the actual occurrence after stripping it of the tangents that were added to it by the participants. One of the techniques they use is the setting of a tribunal in which they try the case as if in a court of law. The smarter they make the judge of the tribunal, the more convincing they can make his or her final judgment. Perhaps the readers are familiar with the character Q in the television series Star Trek, the Next Generation. He played such a role in a number of episodes.

I bring this up because we have a case such as this on Planet Earth, and so I ask: How would Q have decided? You can get a sense of what the case is about if you read: “Curious IRS Timing,” a Wall Street Journal editorial that also came under the subtitle: “Did the tax agency also target groups that support Israel?” It was published on May 29, 2013.

After discussing a number of other matters, the editors of the Journal tackle the subject making up the subtitle. They explain that organizations doing charity work can apply for a tax exemption status under the 501(c)(3) rule. Then they present the facts of the case as follows: A pro-Israel group filed for that status, intending to operate purely as an educational group. To explain the slow pace of approval, the IRS acknowledged its targeted enforcement especially to groups connected with Israel. Applications related to Israel were sent to D.C. to determine whether the organization's activities contradict the Administration's policies. The group filed suit alleging viewpoint discrimination.

And so the editors of the Journal ask the question: Why the special scrutiny for pro-Israel groups? And they answer that tax-exempt groups were donating to West Bank settlers. That the American Treasury was helping to sustain the settlements through tax breaks on donations to support them at a time when the American government was seeking to end the four-decade Jewish settlement enterprise. And so the editors of the Journal opine that this is a violation of public trust.

Knowing very little about the subject of Jewish settlements in Arab West Bank, Q quizzes his computer and gets a thorough backgrounder on the subject. He learns that the activities of the settlers are a violation of international law, a point of view that America has embraced, and has never repudiated. Moreover, America has warned Israel repeatedly that the activities of the settlers were a detriment to the peace process it has tried to broker between the Palestinians and the Israelis for four decades now.

Given these realities, Q decides that not only the IRS was correct in making the decisions that it made, but that the editors of the Wall Street Journal were as sly as foxes shedding crocodile tears by talking about public trust instead of talking about the criminality that is obvious in violating the tax laws of America to violate America's adherence to the international laws it helped formulate, and to which it is adhering.

Q departs the Earth still thinking that the human race is a hopeless one. And if you want to know my opinion, it's the fault of the Wall Street Journal and its Jewish editors.

The Argument That Secured The Liberation

When, in the decades of the Sixties and Seventies of the Twentieth Century, the women's liberation movement was in full swing, an abundance of images and arguments describing the lamentable state of women at the time were made and purveyed by the leaders of the movement.

These women had two main goals. The first was to motivate the women who sat on the sidelines waiting for their sisters to win the fight so that they may reap the benefits. The second goal was to motivate the men of goodwill who wanted to help but were bewildered by the whole thing, and did not know what to do. And so, the leaders of the movement worked to jounce those women and those men hard enough to see them shed their apathy and stand up in support of the movement. And they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.

I am of the opinion that the most powerful argument ever made was the one that got the least attention. It did not get the attention it deserved because it rested on a sexual metaphor at a time that was so prudish, sex was barely mentioned when the conversation was public, and discussed in whispers when the conversation was private. Oh yes, the sexual revolution was on, but the people who revolted had not figured what to do with the tools they were endowed with. And so, the argument that got less attention than it deserved was to the effect that men viewed women as rings they wore around their penises. The more rings a man wore during his lifetime, the more manly he felt, and the more his peers considered him to be so.

This image has slowly faded over the decades but not without leaving behind a gamete that is now developing into a freakish monster; a creature that is so horrible, it should give everyone the creeps. An example of this is Pete Hegseth who must have taken to heart the word of television pastors teaching him that the Jew is a God, someone he must worship as the equal of Jesus Christ. And so, while the women who still believe in their movement aim to add to their independence and expand it to full equality with men, many an American male – such as Pete Hegseth – seek to replace the women as rings around the penis of a Jewish male.

And what the Jewish leaders in America normally do with men who show a disposition to ring themselves, is that they give them a task to fulfill over a period of months or years, promising to reward them in accordance with their performance at the end of the period. Hegseth was given the task of recruiting veterans of American wars for the purpose of getting them to work as foot soldiers and as propaganda purveyors for the causes of World Jewry and Israel. He passed the test with flying colors, proving himself to be truly capable of operating like a ring master of the phallic kind. And so, they sent him on a junket to Israel so that he may describe from there the joy of being impregnated with the splendors of the local Jewish culture.

He wrote three articles for National Review Online that were published on May 24, 28 and 29, of the year 2013. To those of us familiar with the Jewish propaganda machine, they sound like run-of-the-mill talking points. You already see this when examining the titles and the subtitles. The first article comes under the title: “Israel's sense of purpose” and the subtitle: “In Israel, a sense of historical importance is palpable, and the U.S. can learn from it.” Well, be aware, my friend, that when someone utters words to the effect that America or anyone can learn from Israel or a Jew, you know that this ring has hugged the penis very tightly. After that display of his true colors, Hegseth went on to write: “Securing Israel Today” which also came under the subtitle: “It's hard to overstate the threat from fanatics who want to annihilate the country.” And finally: “Stopping Iran's Bomb” which also came under the subtitle: “The fallout from military action would be terrible – a nuclear-armed Iran would be worse.”

By now you will have gotten a sense of what these people want from America at this time. You are not surprised to see that they want America to send its boys and girls to die for their Jewish and Israeli causes yet again; this time in Iran. And so you go over the three articles once more to see how they tried to suck the readers into this frame of mind. You find that they got Hegseth to convince a number of US veterans to go to Israel with him. Once there, the group met an Israeli officer who did not waste time conflating the purposes of America and of Israel. He told the American veterans that when he visited America: “I felt like I was in Israel” to which Hegseth comments: “He was heartened to visit a country where patriotism and reverence for freedom's sacrifices were still demonstrated.” This is to say that freedom is both an American pie and a Jewish matzah bread.

Well, the English saying that applies to this situation goes like this: Flattery will get you everywhere. The French have another way of expressing this thought. It comes from a fable of Lafontaine “The Raven and the Fox” and goes like this: May you learn that every flatterer lives at the expense of the one listening to him. To add power to the conflated image, they got Hegseth to contrast the America/Israel conflation against what America could become if it goes alone: “That is in sharp contrast with his feelings about Europe, which he describes as a 'giant museum,' slowly fading into irrelevance.” But if America can avoid this fate, he goes on to say, it will be rewarded by becoming like Israel: “Two days into my trip to Israel I [get] insight into what makes Israel such a dynamic and special place.” The ring is really hugging it now. He keeps going like that throughout the first article to end with this: “Israel is living on the front lines of freedom, and Americans would do well to remember that we are too.”

But – and there is a but – Israel is in danger because it is surrounded by enemies, which is the theme of the second article. In the same way that they got Hegseth to paint an America that shines bright when compared to irrelevant Europe, they now get him to paint an Israel that shines bright when compared to the rest of the Middle East, a tough neighborhood where it finds itself. He ends the second article by saying that if this were not bad enough, there may be worse to come because those bad neighbors may acquire weapons of mass destruction. And that's how he prepares for the third article.

This one is about Iran's bomb and the question on how to stop it. Hegseth begins the article by tying Iran to the unflattering picture he painted of Israel's immediate neighbors. In addition, he repeats the lie that was made about an Iranian official threatening to wipe Israel off the map if Iran is attacked. And so, Hegseth asks: “Can Israel afford to hope they're bluffing?” And right away, he answers: “Israel cannot. And neither can we.” This is where you see how conflating America and Israel comes handy for the Israelis; they call on America to do the dirty work they cannot do themselves.

But to make a strong case, he must show that Iran is a danger not only to Israel but also to the neighborhood as bad as it is, to Europe as irrelevant as it is, and to an America that must never become like Europe. And this is why he ends the article and the series with a flattery. This time he quotes Winston Churchill who said: “Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all other possibilities.”

And so Hegseth repeats what the Israelis and their mouthpieces have been repeating for 15 years: “Time is running out.” And he calls on America “to do the right thing – for our sake, Israel's sake...” This is like praising rape for the sake of virginity except that Hegseth has lost his virginity already. Next time he goes to Israel maybe he should ask Eric Cantor to show him the way to the lake where he can strip naked and jump to cool his ass when done with.

It's Time for Full Speed in Reverse, America

Now that people as primitive and backward as the legislators who populate the American Congress are beginning to understand that a non-Jewish point of view may be as valid as a Jewish point of view, we can try to talk to them like we talk to adults. Given that the Jews are neither gods nor saints, and given that the rest of humanity is not made of evil beings determined to exterminate the Jews, we may offer the view that the issue of nuclear weapons in the Middle East ought to be handled on the basis of equal treatment for everyone.

This brings us to Dennis Ross and David Makovsky who, once again, have rehashed the same old arguments about the necessity to convince the Iranians that all options are on the table. They did not use these exact words this time, but used milder ones while signaling a mellower stance with regard to the demands they make on Iran. They now say that Iran can refine some uranium, and can keep some of it. They put it this way: “This new approach would involve defining an acceptable civil nuclear capability for Iran. It could mean accepting limited enrichment … Practically, there would need to be limits on the number and type of centrifuges, maximum level of enrichment and amount of enriched uranium that could remain in Iran.”

Ross and Makovsky presented their views in an article they wrote jointly. It came under the title: “Iran's nuclear games demand a tougher U.S. approach” and was published on May 27, 2013 in the Washington Post. The first few paragraphs establish that their concern matches that of Israel – it is their obsession with Iran. The early paragraphs also establish that the two authors want America to drop every concern it may have in the world, and concentrate on doing what is good for Israel. Here is how they put it: “Perhaps because the U.S. hesitancy on Syria, or our withdrawal from Iraq, or our transition out of Afghanistan, or talk of the U.S. 'pivot' to Asia, Iranian leaders seem not to believe that we will use force if diplomatic efforts fail.”

To reinforce that view, they warn: “The Iranian misreading of [our] determination could put us on a fast track to conflict.” To avoid this outcome, they demand that “the United States establish greater clarity about what we can and cannot live with regarding Iran's nuclear program.” And this is the point where you get the sense that even if we can talk with the American legislators as we do with adults, Ross, Makovsky and the Jewish lobby they represent will not allow them to grow up. The clue that something has gone wrong is signaled by their use of the word “clarity” for, this is the word they use to prepare for the muddled ambiguity of what they are brewing.

In fact, it was their demand for moral clarity on the part of the Americans that got the Americans involved in almost every deadly conflict since the Second Great War. And while they demand that America expresses with clarity what they can and cannot live with, they choose to remain ambiguous about Israel's nuclear program. Not only that; they have even managed – in the name of clarity – to make America torpedo every conference convened to discuss a nuclear free Middle East, the moment that the neighbors asked a question about Israel's own nuclear program – if it has one.

Consequently, if as it seemed for a while, America's legislators and other officials have matured enough to stop behaving like backward and primitive, and if it is possible to talk to them like we talk to adults, the message to convey to them is that the nuclear question in the Middle East can only be dealt with comprehensively, with everyone being treated the same.

That is, if Israel will not come clean with regard to its nuclear program, America will tell the world what it knows about that program. In the meantime, America should force Israel to come clean by taking the advice of Ross and Makovsky who said the following about Iran: “Coercive diplomacy succeeds when threats are believed and the game-playing and manipulation stop.”

To this end, America should offer Israel a credible endgame proposal that would convince it that time is running out – and that America is setting the stage for cutting off all forms of aid till Israel complies. America should give Israel a clear diplomatic way out – and the Israelis should understand the consequences if they don't take it.

When this is done, Iran will gladly do what is asked of it to show its good intention. In the meantime, America would do well to encourage Iran to continue full speed ahead with its program so that Israel be forced to come to its sense.

Coercive diplomacy succeeds, say Ross and Makovsky – put it to work, America, and let's see what happens.

Here Is Why They Can Never Be Helpful

When a list is drawn up recommending names to serve in the capacity of advisers to the president of the United States for national security, the list often contains Jewish names about whom it is said that they are well qualified to fill such posts for several reasons. These would be that the Jews are motivated, they are survivors of the Holocaust or are their children, and they live and breathe the lessons of the Second World War.

Well, I have reasons why these people are never qualified to serve in such posts. It is that they are motivated, they are survivors of the Holocaust or are their children, and they live and breathe the lessons of the Second World War. In short, they are psychos who should be kept away from these posts because what they present as being their good qualifications are precisely what disqualify them. The bitterest example of this for America would be the group that Dick Cheney assembled – the ones that saw a mushroom cloud in every sky, and a Hitler under every chair.

But the Holocaust is not the only handicap restraining the ability of Jews to serve in certain sensitive positions. Their history and culture play a large role as well. And this is clearly displayed in the latest column by Bret Stephens which came under the title: “The Retreat Doctrine” and the subtitle: “President Obama's speech last week at the National Defense University made clear the governing idea of his foreign policy.” It was published in the Wall Street Journal on May 28, 2013.

If you want a nutshell expression as to why these people lack the qualifications to occupy national security positions, it would be that everything they do is open ended. They never have a clear endgame, never have a plan B and never have an exist strategy. For example, if they occupy a land they know they cannot hold for an indefinite period, they do not quit till they are defeated and kicked out. It is what happened to Israel in the Sinai, Gaza, South Lebanon and Eastern Golan. Also, when they incite a “friend” to start a war, they want the friend to keep fighting till he scores total victory or suffers complete defeat.

This approach to life is the sort of Jewish philosophy they get with their mothers' milk. They keep getting it for as long they breathe. They believe that everything they or someone else does is preordained. They say that God will always play out his will. They will maintain this line even when something they do proves to be a mistake. They will not stop or retreat if you ask them because they believe that man must never try to reverse the will of God. He does the things we do not understand, they will say, because what does not work now will eventually work sometime in the future.

Bret Stephens gave his column the title: The Retreat Doctrine. Retreat is what he sees President Obama do, something he does not like because he wants an open ended commitment with no clear endgame, or a plan B, or an exist strategy. But you ask: An open commitment to what? What does he see America do now that President Obama will cease doing?

Instead of answering those questions, Stephens does some dazzling mental acrobatics that would qualify as being a good philosophical exercise. But it would be worthless when practical considerations are taken into account especially when the considerations involve the national security of a superpower and the fate of the world. What Stephens has done is begin with the assertion: “Nations in decline tend to be nations in retreat.” He then asks the flip question: “Is a nation in retreat also in decline?” And so he spends a great deal of energy answering this last question.

In fact, he takes a few paragraphs to do just that and – as a reader who is trying to empathize with what he says to better understand him – you try not to be critical of what he says. Things go smoothly for a few paragraphs and then POW, a fist comes out of the page and hits you in the eye. Take this, my friend: “Mr. Obama noted that the war had cost 'well over a trillion dollars … exploding our deficit and containing our ability to nation-build at home.' That sounds like a lot of money, until you consider that federal outlays since 2002 come to $31.3 trillion.”

This is the sort of violence these people do to you each and every time. Tell them a school lunch program to feed poor kids in a certain district will cost no more than a few thousands of dollars, and they will lament that a thousand here and a thousand there soon add up to millions of dollars we cannot afford. But when it comes to getting into a perpetual war, the lament quickly transforms into the joyful refrain: What's a trillion dollars when you compare it to 31.3 trillion? Hey Bret, how many kids can you feed with a trillion dollars?

And so he gets to the last paragraph in which he answers his own earlier question. He says this: “To retreat isn't to decline. But retreat can lead to decline … Britain had the US at its back when it ceased being a power to be reckoned with. Should that day come for us, who will have ours?”

You know what? I can answer this question. The world will have America's back; that's what will happen. Indeed, America had the World at its back when fighting for its independence not because America was a power to be reckoned with at the time but because it wanted Britain to get out and mind its own business.

Also, America did not lose the world when it signed the armistice with North Korea, or when it was defeated in Vietnam. You see, Bret, every war does come to an end, and the world does not end here.

You can expect America to always have the world at its back provided it leaves everyone alone and minds its own business.

Ending The Message That Fuels The Discord

What's the difference between someone consuming violent literature and emulating it by butchering people in a movie theater or a school, and someone who would butcher a policeman in a street full of people? The answer is that there is no difference. Both have cracked up under a pressure that was too great for them to handle.

Once again an incident such as that took place – this time in London, England – and once again the predictable sort of opinions were voiced by the usual suspects without contributing a scintilla of useful information that could lead to a solution for this growing problem. Make no mistake about it, this is a problem that is rooted in part in the fact that life is becoming more complex therefore more conducive to people cracking up under pressure in response to the slightest of provocation.

The problem of young men cracking up and going on a murderous rampage seems to be handled with an approach that has merit. In the United States of America, for example, a campaign to root out violence in the sports, and root out bullying in the schools has begun. This is a sensible thing to do; it is an approach that will certainly help. As to the sort of problems we saw examples of in Boston USA and London UK, the solution would not be very different except for the fact that it will require much more political courage than is displayed in Europe or America at this time.

Douglas Murray is associate director of the Henry Jackson Society, a so-called think tank based in London, England. He published an article on May 24, 2013 in the Wall Street Journal under the title: “The London Terror Was More Than 'Unforgivable'” and the subtitle: “Britain has been in denial about the Islamist threat. Time to face it down.” When you're about to read the article and you see this, you automatically think he is going to lay out a solution or at least suggest one – after all, he is a think tanker, is he not?

And so, after reading the first question that he asks: “How many ignored warnings does it take?” you keep reading and reading and reading as you keep asking: Where is the thinking? Where is the thinking? Where is the thinking? But you detect no thinking about a solution to the problem. This goes on and on and on till you hit the last sentence: “The only question should be what we do about it.” That's all the thinking he can do? And so you decide it is time to flush this tank down the drain and into the sewer where it belongs.

What is it that really happened in England over the past few years? What happened is that people of Pakistani origin, and now people of West African origin committed acts of horror. The first were labeled thugs, and the second were labeled barbarians. And the definition of these two words is exactly where you must begin the search. The English word “thug” has its origin on the Indian subcontinent. It refers to individuals who resort to violence when settling scores. As to the English word “barbarian” it has its origin in West Africa. It refers to a tribe that resorts to violent means when settling scores.

This says that the people who committed thuggish and barbaric acts in England acted more in the tradition of the old cultures from which they or their parents came rather than the religion to which they say they adhere – a religion they knew little or nothing about till they started reading about it recently. The Pakistanis must have felt insulted and discriminated against because of their origin, and so they went looking for a vehicle through which to get back at the society that marginalized them. They found that Islam was treated as badly as they were, and it was this combination of being denigrated both as a person and a member of a group that pushed them over the edge, and cracked them.

As to the West African, he was a Christian who converted to Islam because he felt he was treated as badly as the Muslims and wanted to feel like he belonged somewhere. He committed his dreadful act while shouting an expression he did not learn from studying Islam but from watching television in England. He shouted “Allahu akbar” which is the Arab equivalent of “my God,” an utterance that the Arabs vocalize when seeing something big happen such as a Muslim dissident blowing up the tank of his Muslim government. And there is nothing religious about Muslim on Muslim violence.

So what's the solution? Well, in the same way that bullying in the schools, and violence in the sports are being rooted out in America, cultural violence in the printed press, in the audio-visuals and in all forms of activities must be dealt with when it comes to the subtle and not-so-subtle messages which are deliberately planted in such activities. For example, don't just come out and condemn acts of violence committed against Israelis, come out and condemn acts of violence committed against Palestinians too.

Also, the Israeli leaders have developed the technique of communicating to the Arab and Muslim worlds the message that no matter what the leaders of the “Western” world say, the truth is that they have complete control of the West, and they have pitted it against Islam. The war on Islam is on.

How do they accomplish this? Well, they get themselves invited to visit Washington or London or Paris. Hours before they leave Israel, they send their American made jets to blow up unarmed Palestinian men, women and children minding their business in their homes. This tells the Arabs and the Muslims that the Western war on Islam is on, and it is commanded by the Jews and the Israelis.

And so, if you want to send a different message to the Arabs and the Muslims, you can do something next time this happens. Tell those Jewish and Israeli filthy animals to stay home, and not show their ugly and disgusting faces here – now or ever. This will be the solution that will work like a miracle.

It will require only a little bit of courage to do it, and we'll be watching.

The Cultural Skin That Needs A Remake

What does it mean when the Jewish propaganda machine plays two contradictory messages at the same time? It is doing so now by putting out messages that say on the one hand: Don't worry about Israel, folks, everything is going to be all right because everything is hunky-dory now, and the people who live in Israel live comfortably and have moved on to matters more important than the traditional Mideast preoccupations.

On the other hand, the same machine is yelling hysterically: Help us, America! Hurry and come here give us a helping hand because we're facing the most dangerous threat we've ever faced. The current situation is an existential one for us, and this means we could cease to exist if you do not get here at once. It can happen that we shall perish before anyone has had the time to realize what happened – which is why you must come and bring with you money, money, money as well as bombs, bombs, bombs.

Well, it is obvious that the Jewish propaganda machine is addressing two different audiences at the same time. On the one hand, it wants to encourage all Jews outside of Israel to go live there, reassuring them that life is good in the Zionist entity. On the other hand, it wants America to give Israel bombs, not because it has a need for them but to make it look like the concern is about the security of the joint. The idea is that it will be easier under the cover of this charade to siphon off taxpayer money from America and send it to Israel. This would be money that is desperately needed to feed a starving population. Some of the money will also be used to take in and settle the new comers if there will be any.

But really, what kind of culture is this Jewish concoction that behaves in such manner while maintaining a straight face? Well, it is a strange culture alright, but the behavior is essentially rooted in our biological make up. We all put up a facade to tell the world how we view ourselves, projecting an image that almost never coincides with the reality of who we are. And while we do this, we quietly tend to our personal needs and to those of the collective so as to insure our survival. This entails the engagement in activities that are dictated both by external circumstances and by responses which are encoded in our DNA. For example, when we feel hunger, the code instructs us to go gather food. If circumstances are such that we encounter an obstacle, the code tells us to fight and overcome it or flee and stay alive.

That sort of interplay between our genetic make-up and the external circumstances is what determines the scenario that unfolds at the personal level during the course of the day. As to the mores that we develop collectively when we live in a society, we call that a culture. And this culture has characteristics that resemble the living organism – which is why we can set up a metaphor by which to discuss culture in terms that apply to the organism. Doing it this way, we render the discussion visual and easy to understand, especially if we think of the cultural facade that we erect to project our image to the world as being the metaphoric equivalent of the skin.

So then, what does the skin of an organism or a culture do? Well, the skin exists to serve two purposes at the same time. For one thing, it protects the vital organs that keep the body alive. It also conveys to the outside world the current state of the body. Whether the skin is naked, covered with hair or with feathers, it communicates not in response to the command of its owner, but in response to the biological processes that trigger the appropriate reflexive responses. For example, we automatically turn pale when we are ill, and we blush when we are embarrassed.

However, in the same way that we can learn to control our emotions and put on a poker face, we can control our emotions to hide our mental state. We can, for example, train ourselves to suppress the blushing when faced with an embarrassing situation. But what we cannot do is disguise the symptoms of our biological processes when something goes wrong and we fall ill. If and when this happens, and the skin responds to the illness by changing color; changing texture or developing blemishes, we can hide these changes only by resorting to artificial means. For example, we use cosmetics to cover the symptoms or better yet, we take medication to cure the underlying illness.

What is it; therefore, that makes the Jewish culture different from the others? The answer is that the Jewish culture is covered with a skin that has developed and continues to develop differently from the others. Instead of having the dual function of protecting the internal organs, and projecting to the world an accurate image of the culture it represents, the skin of the Jewish culture does little or nothing to protect the organs of the body. And yet, it goes out of its way to project false images of itself so as to communicate false messages to the world, and thus deceive it for a reason or even no reason at all.

Sooner or later, the people of the world, wherever they may be, see through the deceptive methods of the Jews, and they lose trust in them. Little by little, the Jews pile up the reputation of being untrustworthy, and this makes them pick up enemies everywhere. It also renders them vulnerable, so much so that they need to be protected at all time by someone else – someone powerful like America, for example.

And this is why the Jews constantly need to send two contradictory messages simultaneously; one message that says they are doing just fine by themselves, and one message that says they will perish if America ceased to keep them afloat, or refused to rescue them should they get into trouble someday.

Well, America has paid a heavy price already, shouldering this burden for nearly half a century. It is time for ordinary Jews to push aside their leaders and start to live normal lives the same as everyone else. They need to learn how to live without help – American or otherwise.

This will allow them to enjoy tranquil lives, and will allow America to catch its breath before its citizens get mad enough to demand a change that may prove to be unpleasant if not deadly.

Regal Editors and Kafkaesque Civil Servants

On May 23, 2013, the American President Barack Obama gave a speech on national security in which he touched on many subjects including the relationship between the press and the security of the nation. He said the following:

“The Justice Department's investigation of national security leaks offers a recent example of the challenges involved in striking the right balance between our security and our open society. We must keep information secret by enforcing consequences for those who break the law. But a free press is also essential for our democracy. I am troubled by the possibility that leak investigations may chill investigative journalism. Journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs. Our focus must be on those who break the law.”

How can the proper balance be achieved? To answer the question, we must first understand how we got to where we are – and for this, we need to go back to the beginning. It is generally accepted that a government is made of three branches: the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial. With the passage of time, people began to understand that good government happens when the three branches check and balance each other; tasks that reduce the tendency to resort to corrupt practices by the individuals who run the government. For this reason, the three branches were made co-equal without any of them given dominance over the others.

Then, something that remained beyond the consciousness of people for a long time began to come to the level of their consciousness. It was the fact that the press (now called media) was protected by a provision in the constitution which made it as immune of government interference as the branches were of each other. In addition, the press put itself in charge of checking and balancing the branches of government as much as the branches were checking and balancing each other. The press achieved this status often by cooperating with the party in opposition – called minority in either chamber of the US Congress. Thus, having those two tasks as part of its job description, the press inevitably came to be viewed as the fourth branch of government.

Then little by little, the press – which does not submit to the electoral process – developed techniques that allowed it to dominate the Executive and Legislative branches that must submit to the process. This happened because corruption in government is normally done in secret, something that the press seeks to uncover and make public. At the same time, however, the press itself is able to engage in practices that may be corrupt but seem otherwise paradoxically because such practices are committed in the open. It is that they are mostly sins of omission motivated by malicious intent. For this reason, the public can neither see what is not there, nor can it see what malice dwells inside the head of an editor who would omit key elements of a story.

In time, much of these practices had become the norm, and the abuses were detected by the public. But while the abuses were deemed unethical, they were not illegal. For a reason that remains unexplained to this day, that approach to the trade was given the name yellow journalism. A notorious practitioner who appeared at the start of the Twentieth Century was William Randolph Hearst about whom Orson Wells made the film: Citizen Kane. It is a story that has an ordinary human plot-line but one that shows how the position of editor can accumulate imperial powers while the political and civil servants are reduced to the status of criminal suspects who remain neither charged with a crime nor tried for one. In this sense, they forever resemble the character Joseph K in Kafka's novel: The Trial.

In time, yellow journalism ebbed in America, especially since the start of the country's participation in the Second World War. This was a time when people came together, got busy contributing to the war effort, and let their patriotic fervor guide their behavior. But soon after the end of the War, there came the McCarthy era, and the time for mutual recrimination and finger pointing started again. Ever since that time, the Jews have been in the middle of it all because they tried to have it both ways. They yearned for the Socialism of the Soviet Union that would have brought the world to their feet, and they coveted the Capitalism of America that would have brought the riches of the world to their wallets. Simply put, they want to have the world and all it riches, and they never gave up that quest.

In the meantime, Israel was established as a country and recognized as such. The Jewish leaders in America saw that for it to remain afloat, it will have to be constantly served by an America that must be harnessed for the purpose. They reasoned that they had to turn their own country into a body-guard, financier and diplomatic protector in the service of what they called the Jewish state. To achieve all this, they needed to infiltrate the important American institutions and take them over, especially the press that was beginning to expand and put roots in all sorts of new media – television being the most prominent at the time.

Monopolizing the print and audio-visual media one outlet after the other, the Jewish leaders managed to isolate America from the rest of the world. Bit by bit, they forbade its political and civil servants from talking to or dealing with individuals, institutions and nations they did not like while at the same time rendering the American politicians and civil servants ever more reliant on Jewish and Israeli advice, ideas, suggestions and commands.

Forever the paranoid and fearful people that they are, the Jewish leaders dreaded the day when the American public would elect a President they cannot control. He will be someone who, instead of hopping into their pocket and serve them faithfully, would decide to establish a regime that would work for America and for its people. If this were to happen, they intended to pull all the stops, and work to destroy his ability to govern. To this end, they established a string of media outlets which they manned with a swarm of pseudo journalists that went about the business of openly playing the role of opposition to the regime. They did so not in the sense of loyal opposition as inherited from the British parliamentary system but in the sense of deadly enemies in the style of the cold war.

The Jewish leaders now have a fleet of media outlets under their command with a flagship that is composed of the print and audio-visual sisters: the Wall Street Journal and the Fox News Channel. Both are part of the empire owned by the notorious Rupert Murdoch whose conduct in Great Britain made his journalistic acumen synonymous with mud. When the foreign policy of President Obama clashed with the interests of Israel, the foot soldiers of the Murdoch empire sprang into action, treating Israel as the country to which they must pledge their loyalty, and treating the elected leaders of America as the mortal enemies who stood in the way.

They used their flagship and all the media under their control to demonize the American government while praising to high heaven everything Jewish and Israeli. They pursued this policy in the hope of pulling the American people to their side, away from their government – and where possible against it. In the process, they made everything fair game for them to use, being the press that is protected by the First Amendment. And they rendered the American government the Kafkaesque character that deserves to be punished by staying permanently in the purgatory of suspicion and being subjected to constant journalistic abuse.

When the national secrets of America came into play, a clash resulted between the Murdoch empire and the Obama Administration. Day in and day out during the weekdays and during the weekends, at intervals that lasted no more than three minutes, a fake “News Alert” was set off on the Fox News channel to the effect that something of utmost significance just came into the studio. And each and every time the item turned out to be not a news item but the repeat of an opinion that had been puked, re-eaten, excreted, re-devoured and re-puked by the same disgusting worm-like hosts who sat there pretending to be journalists.

While there are plenty of people in America with great stories to tell and worthwhile opinions to express, the Fox News producers invited only the kind of guests that helped them advance the causes of Israel, and those of the Jewish leaders. This is where the Obama administration – specifically the Department of Justice – must begin to make its case during the upcoming debate signaled by President Obama in the speech on National Security.

Footage of an Israeli official sitting in a foreign country, appearing on Fox news and warning President Obama before the election that Israel has a Fifth Column of Jews who will upset the election if he did not start a third war in the Middle East on behalf of Israel – must be shown to the public as often as the fake news alerts are set off on the Fox News channel.

The goals of the Israeli official and Fox were, of course, to put pressure on the American government to stop working for the American people and start working for the Israeli leaders. Thus, the comment accompanying that video footage must be to the effect that since the pressure on the President can only be achieved if Fox obtained the kind of secret leaks that would damage the security of the nation, the attempt to obtain such leaks must not be regarded as legitimate gathering of information for journalistic purposes.

That point made, it is then logical to suspect the motive of a pseudo journalist caught in the act of enticing or inciting a feeble minded civil servant to betray their country by giving him secret information. For the good of the country, those in charge of the Justice Department would have the duty to consider the Jewish operative a co-conspirator if and when caught in the act of pushing hard on the civil servant to betray his country.

Begin the debate here, and let it go where it will lead.

Useful Idiots Neutralizing Destructive Politicians

I used to work with a bunch I liked to hang out with after a day's work. One of them had the habit of saying: “They are ignorant and they have the PhDs to prove it.” The other used to badmouth the churches “of the deep South” for running universities and giving out PhDs in divinity or theology or some such subject. Even though the two guys had the same sort of basic ideas, they dickered all the time over the small differences that still existed between their positions.

That was a long time ago and oh, how I wish they were here now. If this were the case, we could have had such a good time discussing an article published in the Wall Street Journal on May 24, 2013 under the title: “Christian Martyrs to Islam, Past and Present” and the subtitle: “As in the 15th century, Christians are under attack in Muslim lands.” It was written by Ms. Charlotte Allen who is purported to have a PhD in medieval and Byzantine studies. I can imagine hearing one of my former coworker say: Here is a perfectly PhD-ed ignoramus. And I can imagine hearing the other say: She must have studied in a church basement down in the Deep South.

Given that the title says the article is about martyrs of the past and the present, the author begins it by mentioning Pope Francis who canonized 800 residents of an Italian port, martyred in 1480 by a Turkish Muslim fleet, she says. She then puzzles the reader by calling this moment: “something that historians gloss over.” And she immediately expresses the opinion that this is a “pattern of Islamic persecution of Christians that continues to this day in Muslim lands.”

This done, she mentions Pope Benedict XVI who quoted an unflattering remark about Islam made in the 14th century by a Byzantine emperor. She continues to puzzle the reader by admitting that a Catholic magazine “pronounced the pope's remarks 'ill-conceived'” after which he apologized, saying that the text did not “in any way” express his “personal thought.” But Charlotte Allen made sure to mention that the magazine was a liberal one, though she did not say whether the Pope was liberal too.

She continues to puzzle the readers by writing about the “secular historians” who have argued that the Italian victims mentioned earlier were not martyrs but political prisoners who mutinied against their superiors and were executed. She goes on to say that a similar incident happened centuries later in Spain also. But she says the secular historians were wrong, and offers a different point of view.

Still, she does not stop here in her drive to puzzle the readers. She goes on to mention the Cordoban emirate in Spain where lavish praise was heaped by modern historians on the Muslim rulers who created what can only be called “a model of tolerant coexistence, in which Muslims, Christians and Jews lived peacefully while the arts and letters flourished.” She refutes that too and offers that the historians who say this are wrong.

This is how that woman sees the past. According to her, anything good written about the Muslims can only be false. Perhaps history should be rewritten to accommodate her views which are to the effect that the Muslims were a bad people. But that's not all because the Muslims are as bad now as they were then.

In fact, there is a new book to this effect, she says. It was written by three authors other than herself who chronicle the contemporary brutal treatment of Christians in China, North Korea and the Islamic regimes. She mentions an incident that happened to a single person in each of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran. If these incidents happened as described, they would be regrettable but would amount to very little compared to what she says happened in the past. And they certainly would amount to nothing compared to the killing of several people, some of whom Egyptians, in Greece, Italy and Germany. These people were murdered because they were Muslim or because the killers mistook them for Muslims.

She also writes about the “wave of Coptic Christian church-burnings” in Egypt. Well, let me tell you something. I am from there, I am in touch with some members of my family who live there, and in touch with my Coptic community here in Canada. What I would say to all those who dream of seeing sectarian troubles erupt in Egypt by repeating the lie that the troubles already exist, is that their dreams are not coming true. Nothing is happening in Egypt the way that their self-delusion is telling them is happening.

You want to know why your dreams are not coming true, my dear idiots? It's because you're not only dear idiots; you're also useful idiots. You want me to explain this? Okay, I'll explain it to you: We have here in Canada some truly backward ministers. They run around saying things like: we may be backward in the eyes of the world but we're good in politics because we're getting the Jewish votes. Ha! Ha! Ha!

And yes, they did the things that used to encourage the feeble minds in our Coptic community to go to Egypt and try to spark sectarian incidents there. But the more that you, idiots, talk about troubles which may or may not exist in Egypt, the more that the backward ministers here and their feeble minded followers believe that they won the day. This contributes to the process of neutralizing them which, in turn, reduces their destructive activities. A good outcome, if you ask me.

Charlotte Allen ends her article like this: “Perhaps the brave men who gave up their lives will remind secular historians that the fanatics are the people who kill them.”

What I would add to this is that there should be one useful idiot to accompany every fanatic so as to neutralize their destructive activities – political or otherwise.

What The Wall Street Journal Is Missing

If you want to know what is wrong with the Wall Street Journal, the answer is simple – the Journal employs editors in America and Europe who do not think some of the time. They act mindlessly when it comes to advancing the causes they believe will serve the interests of Israel but they do the opposite of that each and every time.

They may advance some interest in the short run but that would be to boost the ego of the handful of leaders running the joint. In doing so, they hurt the common people of Israel as well as the Jews everywhere else in the world, including America.

Those editors are displaying the fruits of their latest folly in an editorial they published on May 23, 2013 in the European edition of the Journal, republished in the American edition under the title: “Palestinian Peace Message” and the subtitle: “A Palestinian leader makes a promise.”

What is foolish about this piece of work is that it prompts people everywhere in the world to respond today in the manner that they have responded throughout the ages: “and the Final Solution will be taken off the table only when the Jews and their cohorts stop this sort of nonsense.” But what is the nonsense? It is expressed in the last paragraph of the current editorial like this: “A two-state solution will be at hand when Palestinian leaders endorse it – consistently, in Arabic, to the Palestinian people and to the Arab world at large, in children's textbooks and at their summer camps.”

The formula of saying they will end an act considered to be unlawful or criminal only after someone else does something that is trivial, nonsensical, impossible or irrelevant is like computer hackers saying they will stop hacking the US Government computers only after the American politicians will stop saying one thing to one audience and another thing to another audience. Well, the habit of the Jews has always been to predicate their adoption of a normal sort of behavior on someone else doing something that is none of their business. And the response has always been: “See you at the entrance of the gas chamber.”

This time, the apparent rage expressed by the Wall Street Journal editors was prompted by this event: “The 'peace process' marches on, with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and U.K. Foreign Minister William Hague in the Holy Land again this week to give it another try.” In other words, they are saying the “peace process” which they place between quotation marks, should be shelved till something happens. And what is the thing they complain about? It is this: “so it goes with a Palestinian leadership bred by Yasser Arafat, who made an art of delivering different messages to different audiences in different languages.”

The editors do not seem to assign much weight to the message itself perhaps because it echos the one that was delivered by a former foreign minister of Israel when he said he wants to drop an atom bomb on the Aswan Dam in Egypt. In any case, I do not have the Arabic version of what the Journal says the “Palestinian politician said in Arabic [mainly] that, the resistance is still on the agenda … if we'd had a nuclear weapon, we would have used it this morning.” The editors do not say what happened that morning which forced the Palestinian to use that metaphor, but I know what happened that prompted the foreign minister of Israel to use his metaphor.

It is this: Do you remember when time after time after time, the Israelis and their cohorts in America begged President Obama to visit Israel because they said the move will contribute to their “feeling good” about themselves – so much so that they will sit with the Palestinians and sign a peace treaty? Well, they did the same thing with the former President of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak who did not accept their invitation. And this is why the foreign minister of Israel said he wished he could nuke the dam, flood Egypt and kill millions in the process. Would he have bombed the Hoover Dam in America, had President Obama not visited Israel lately?

By the way, what do the editors of the Journal say the Palestinian politician said in Hebrew? This is what they say he said: “a man who a few years ago recorded a Hebrew-language television ad assuring Israelis 'I am your partner.'” Well, that was a few years ago. It was an event that the editors of the Journal did not report or comment on. Had they done so then, instead of mentioning it only now, they could have contributed to making the partnership he was offering a reality. It could have brought the peace process they now reject to a fruitful conclusion. Perhaps. But they never tried because these people are never interested in peace with the Palestinians or anyone else in the world. Not now, not in the past, not ever.

They could not care less then, and they care enough now only to reject the peace process made elusive by the very character of their Jewishness. It is now apparent that these people will never have peace with the human race unless and until they reject their Jewishness.

This is my message to them: Don't ask someone to do something first, do what you have to do yourselves, and everything else will fall into its proper place.

The Human Instinct Will Make The Difference

Dennis Prager asks a question with regard to a subject about which I am agnostic. I never thought about it in the way that he presents it, and so I never formulated an opinion on it. From the looks of it, however, Prager must have given the subject a great deal of thought because the question he asks makes up the subtitle of his latest column. It is this: “What if the president used dead children to sell the death penalty?” As to the title of the column, it goes like this: “On Using Parents of Murdered Children.” It was published on May 21, 2013 in National Review Online.

Despite the fact that the subject as presented is new to me, I shall try to respond to the content of the column because aspects of it touch on moral issues that have preoccupied me for a long time. These issues come up near the end of the article because the author sets up the scene innocently enough at the start: “The president appeared at many rallies on behalf of gun-control laws with parents of murdered children.” He then says he has a question “for those who agree with the president's use of these suffering souls,” and then asks the question that comes up in the subtitle.

What Prager does after that is plant the seeds that will eventually demolish most of his arguments at the end. Was that done deliberately? We shall see. In the meantime, he prepares to do himself in by creating two pillars upon which those arguments will rest. The first pillar is the mention of “outside of strongly liberal locales, the majority of parents whose children were murdered support the death penalty.” The second pillar is that he recalls “a woman who called in to my radio show to say she was against capital punishment but changed her mind.”

And why did she change her mind? Because “my brother was recently murdered,” she replied. To this, Dennis Prager comments: “To have a loved one murdered adds intense anger to already intense grief.” He also tells of the view he expressed to the woman: “it was sad that it took the murder of her brother to realize the cosmic injustice of allowing murderers to live, and that capital punishment is a moral imperative.”

Thus, as we can see, the two pillars of his argument rest on the emotional response of people whose loved ones were murdered. And this is the point where he asks: “What if W. Bush had toured the country on behalf of capital punishment with this woman? How would supporters of Obama's appearances have reacted?” Prager then answers the question but does so not to attack Obama. He answers the question to attack Obama's supporters who include what he calls the Democratic politicians and the liberal locales.

To this end, he reveals: “I am not arguing that President Obama did something wrong, I am arguing two other things.” The first is to call the media and the Democratic party “intellectually and morally dishonest.” The second is to state that the support for more gun control is “neither morally nor intellectually persuasive. It is entirely emotional.” And this is what demolishes part of his own argument because it is itself entirely emotional.

And that is the reason why we must suspect that Prager decided early on to plant the seeds that would destroy part of his argument. And so we ask: What was his aim? And the answer is that he wanted to concentrate not on winning an argument against the President but on winning the gun-control debate. He saw that it would be easier to do so by attacking the people who advocate a point of view contrary to his – the Democratic politicians and the liberal locales; the people he calls intellectually and morally dishonest.

Still, however, he did not completely exonerate the president. He found a way to attack him on another front. It is this: “Where the president crossed over into demagoguery was in his implication that those opposing his gun-control proposals care less about the parents' pain and the murder of children.”

From here, Prager finds a way to attack the idea of more gun-control: “that would have in no way prevented Adam Lanza, a sick and evil man, from taking the children's lives … those of us who want as many good people as possible to own guns and want to execute most murderers, hold these positions because we weep for the parents of murdered children.” This sounds like an explosive argument, but it is also a very unstable one.

Will it work in favor of Dennis Prager? Well, he asked at the start how people would react to a president traveling with parents who oppose gun control. My view is that the approach would backfire because when the brain becomes saturated with arguments like he set them up, ordinary people will decide by relying not on the emotion alone or the force of the intellect alone but on the instinct – their human instinct. We call it instinct but, in my view, it is something closely related to common sense; a blend that is made of emotions and brain power mixed together in the correct amounts.

People will rely on their common sense because the options will come down to choosing one from between two opposing arguments. It would be: “I want to protect your children by arming everyone.” Or it would be: “I want to protect your children by disarming most everyone.” The common sense – the human instinct will leap forward and choose the second option.

Let someone from the Dennis Prager pool of whatever politicians and whatever locales try his idea say, during the next election cycle, and watch him or her shoot themselves in the foot every time they open their mouth. They will not only lose the argument; they will set the American society on the path of: Let's take away everybody's gun and join the civilized world.

A Case Of Sour Grapes And Spilled Milk

There is the saying about the truth coming out the mouth of a baby. And when it comes to the brain of a baby in the body of an adult, Ralph Peters is the perfect poster child. Catch him say something original or something mature, and you'll have caught an intellectual unicorn. The truth that came out of his mouth this time is so manifestly a case of sour grapes and so manifestly the amplified echo of what is murmured in private, you may (this one time) call him: the little brain that could.

He did it in an article he wrote under the title: “The Arab Collapse” and the subtitle: “Middle East a vulture's feast.” It was published in the New York Post on May 19, 2013. The murmur he amplified and brought to the attention of the public is one that has two parts. He expressed them both neatly by describing the current situation in the Middle East like this: “we don't understand it. But we can stay out of it” to which most Arabs would say: hallelujah, may this unicorn have it his way. But that's not the impression he wants you to form, so he tries to shed a different light on the situation.

He begins the discussion with a false premise to the effect that “The Arab Spring has unleashed the Arab Collapse.” This leads him to echo the sour grapes refrain which he begins like this: “Everybody still standing in the region is picking the flesh of the helpless.” He does not tell right away what the word “flesh” stands for metaphorically, but does so later on: “the Scramble for the Sand is on, with Iran, Turkey, treacherous Arab oil sheikdoms, all determined to dictate the future.” So then, where is the sour grapes part? Here it is: “Iraq was carved out for British interests, while Syria was France's consolation prize.” Too bad, he speaks of Iran and Turkey in the present tense but can speak of Britain and France only in the past tense.

Is this enough shedding of the tears over spilled milk to make the situation a case of sour grapes? Yes it is, especially if you consider the following: “When the US is in the Middle East, the Arabs want us out. When we're out, they want us in.” So now that the Americans are out, the presumption must be that the Arabs want them in. What should be the answer to that, Ralph Peters?

It is this: “our purported Arab and Turkish allies consistently agree that Uncle Sam should pay the party bill, while they take home all the presents.” It is clear he sees the “presents” going from the British and French to the Arabs and Turks with America footing the bill and getting nothing. Yes, indeed, the milk was spilled and the grapes are sour for America, and all is happening at a time when everyone but America is having a party.

No wonder Ralph Peters fails to understand the situation. But does he really? Well, he seems to believe he understands it well enough to describe it in great detail. Look what he says: “We're witnessing the crack-up of a civilization. Turkey cries crocodile tears while dreaming of rebuilding the Ottoman Empire. Our Saudi 'friends' wring their hands but won't intervene. Now the Saudis want Washington to spend blood and treasure to open the mosques of Damascus to their Wahhabi cult. This is an Arab struggle with Turkish and Iranian vultures overhead.”

Not only does he give the impression he understands the current situation, he seems to also argue that he understands the history that brought about the current situation: “Nine decades ago, the diplomats at Versailles ignored the region's fault lines as they carved up the Middle East, forcing enemies together and driving kin apart. Only brute force kept up the fiction that these were countries. Now the grim charade has reached its end.”

So then, it looks like he understands the situation, yet he ends the article by reiterating: “we need to back if for no other reason than a strategist's golden rule: If you don't understand what a fight's about, stay out.”

What's going on? Oh yes, there is the answer; it is in the paragraph before the last. Look at this passage: “A new American president handed Iraq to Iran. If W. Bush helped trigger the Arab Spring, Barack Obama made this Arab Winter inevitable.”

What he is saying is this: Let's wait till we elect a clone of the W, at which time we'll pretend to understand the situation and go back to make sure no mushroom clouds will come our way.

Cultural Genocide By False Headlines

For those who still believe in the absolute innocence of the Jewish leaders – past and contemporary, and still question the authenticity of such works as the Protocol of the Elders of Zion, there is a new case that should prove to them not only the correctness of the view that the Jewish approach is destructive, even genocidal toward the cultures that allow it to infiltrate them, but also show the recidivist character of the Jewish leaders as well as the people who follow them.

The case is actually an article that was published in the May 20, 2013 edition of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ). It was written by Arthur Herman, was given the title: “A Refuge for Charlatans” and the subtitle: “The median pay for public-college presidents is now $441,392, with four presidents being paid more than $1 million a year.” It is this title, this subtitle and the juxtaposition of the two that tell the story of the Jewish tendency to annihilate the cultures that welcome it in their midst.

Arthur Herman, the writer of the article had nothing to do with the choice of the title or the subtitle. And neither did William Bennett or David Wilezol who wrote the book that Arthur Herman is reviewing in his article. The choice of that title and that subtitle was made by the editors of the Wall Street Journal, and they are the ones responsible for the ongoing genocide of the American culture. Yes, the phrase that makes up that title; and yes, the sentence that makes up that subtitle came up both in the Herman article and the book he is reviewing but the two ideas were never juxtaposed. So then, what's the problem?

The problem is that when you read that title – which is a headline in bold characters, then read the subtitle just below it, you are led to believe that the author is saying college presidents use the colleges as refuge because they are overpaid charlatans. This is completely false. In fact, speaking of the students who go to college and have no business being there, the wording for the title came in the last paragraph of the article in this form: “the American university … has become a refuge for timeservers and charlatans.” As to the subtitle, it came before that, in the middle of the article, and came between parentheses like this (From 1993 to 2007, per-student administrative costs leapt more than 61% … the median pay for public-college presidents is now $441,392...)

If you do the math, my friend, you find that when something goes up by 61% in 14 years, it means that the thing has increased at an average rate of 3.46% a year – hardly an increase of charlatan dimensions. In fact, I would say show me a charlatan that is satisfied with this sort of increase and I'll show you a charlatan that's qualified to be an investment banker or even the editor of a so-called business newspaper.

So then, what could have motivated these people to do what they did? Well, you will find the answer to that question by looking at this incident and a few similar ones to see a pattern. You could, for example, look at an article I published on May 19, 2013 under the title: “The Lee Habeeb War On Common Sense” which itself mentions an article I published even before that, on May 9, 2013 under the title: “Where A False Title Becomes The Editorial”.

When you do that, you will clearly see the pattern of deception that the editors of the Journal employ to make the readers believe they are seeing something different from what the contributors intend to communicate. In fact, Fox News, which is the audio-visual sister publication of the Wall Street Journal, is engaged in the same sort of deception. That is, the hosts of every show are trained to do one thing only – to put words in the mouth of the contributors that these people generally do not intend to utter. 

Is this happening only to WSJ/Fox-News, or is it a practice that can also be detected in other publications? In fact, there is a history of twists and turns to this phenomenon that goes back several decades. It is that before any Jew had owned a publication, the rabbis, the other Jewish leaders and their organizations hammered at the existing print and audio-visual publications, demanding that they get off the annoying habit of presenting the facts as they were, and get on with the business of promoting the Jewish point of view while suppressing everything that did not toe the Jewish line.

While this was happening, and while the Jewish leaders were making progress in their endeavor, a second group of Jews were infiltrating the profession. They got to the point of becoming editors and publishers of some print publications as well as directors and producers of audio-visual publications. As well, a third group of Jews began to buy publications of both types. And they all played the good-cop, bad-cop game. That is, while the non-Jewish publications were made to express a harsh Jewish point of view, the Jewish publications remained moderate, even accommodated points of view that were critical to the Jewish line.

Whatever strategy was behind that approach must have failed because there arose a bunch of Jewish hot heads who became dissatisfied with the arrangement, and they tried to do something about it. I know of an example that unfolded here in Canada well enough to discuss it. As to the United States, I detect signs that something similar is unfolding there too because Jewish matters always replicate themselves across the continent.

The Canadian case started when a Jewish big wig in the Liberal party of Canada, named Israel (Izzy) Asper decided to buy what was then the Toronto based Global television station. He got all sorts of grants and loans from all sorts of places in government and in the private sector to conclude the deal, and to expand the empire by buying up other television stations as well as print publications throughout Canada. He was fair, even handed and accommodating to points of view that were opposed to the Jewish line.

This is when the hot heads infiltrated the Asper empire, and pushed it to carry extreme Jewish points of view while suppressing all opposite views. Not only did they control the editorial content of the publications, they also controlled the business side of it. Their motto went something like this: “Yesterday was Canada; why not the world today.” And so they borrowed like crazy to open shop in Australia. More importantly, they targeted that other place; the one that was so sweet to their hearts – all the more so because it is a Muslim country that was in love with Israel and in bed with it. That, of course, was the lovely and beautiful Turkey; the apple of their eye – their Turkey, their sweet Turkey, the love of their life.

Alas, before they were able to consummate all that love and all that desire, their finances cracked up, the old man died of a heart attack – certainly a broken heart – and the company went bankrupt. A Greek tragedy played in the Yiddish style. If that's not multi-culturalism, what is?

What I see play out in America at this time is a similar scenario in that the WSJ/Fox-News may be run by a bunch of hot heads against the wishes of Rupert Murdoch, and I see it play out in Bloomberg News against what I am sure would be the wishes of Michael Bloomberg because I know he is a fair and even-handed man.

May these two avoid the fate of Izzy Asper and his Global empire.

More Than Rearrange The Titanic Chairs

When things look bleak inside a big organization such as the government or a large corporation, a metaphor associated with the sinking of the Titanic, is usually employed to describe the situation. Someone would say, for example, that what the people at the top of the institution are doing to save it is akin to rearranging the chairs on the Titanic. This is to mean that what is being done is too little or too late or both; the ship is going to sink no matter how the chairs are rearranged on its deck.

Well, the reality is that much that is not encouraging is happening to the American ship of state these days. A list of the current troubles could, of course, be drawn up but there is really no need for that because no matter how much will go on that list, the troubles are so numerous, something will inevitably be left out either by chance or by design. And besides, a great deal is already out and well known to the public. Still, however, a number of people are doing all they can despite the difficulties to save the American ship of state, including the proverbial rearrangement of the chairs on the deck.

But that is not where the real story lives because many Titanics have sailed and sunk throughout the centuries, and many more have sailed and made it safely to port. What is happening this time in America is that some people – in fact many of them – are doing a lot more than rearrange the chairs on the deck; they are drilling holes in the hull of the ship for a very strange reason. You can see all that in the Julian Pecquet article that was published on May 18, 2013 in the Hill's Global Affairs online publication. The article comes under the title: “Congress defies White House with new round of Iran sanctions.”

The heart of the story is that compared to the other powers, America is no longer the super massive giant that can exist independently of everyone else the way that things used to be a generation or two ago. Thus, to flourish, interact usefully with the other nations, develop influences abroad and prosper internally, America must take into consideration the interests of the others so that they be inclined to take America's interests into consideration when they make their own decisions. But for half a century now, history has unfolded in such a way that the choice for America has come down to being with the rest of the world or being with Israel.

And that, my friend, would be the entity whose leaders are so disturbed mentally and emotionally, they have developed the conviction that their interests will be better served with a sunken America than with a floating America that is drifting away from them by virtue of moving closer to the rest of the world. For half a century, the leaders of Israel and their cohorts in America have used Svengali-like political sorcery to put the legislative branch of the American government into a kind of trance that has paralyzed it when it came to serving the American people, yet brought it to action when it came to serving Israel and the other Jewish causes.

Julian Pecquet begins the article by describing the ongoing tug of war between the American administration and the legislative branch of the government: “Congress is ramping up a new round of sanctions against Iran, ignoring the administration's request to let diplomacy run its course.” He then shows how much the Congress is taking the side of Israel against its own administration, and how dedicated to the Israeli causes it is: “lawmakers put the State and Treasury departments on notice that their patience is wearing thin – but the administration is warning against any moves that could undermine international support.”

The author goes on to describe in great detail the tug of war that is ongoing between the two branches of government. He also describes in depth the stubborn determination of the legislators to defy their own administration so as to fully implement the commands they receive from Israel and from the Jewish lobby working on its behalf inside America.

Then, speaking of Wendy Sherman who is Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs, he mentions her appearance before the Congress when “she warned against imposing sanctions that other countries that depend on trade with Iran aren't willing or able to endorse.” To show how risky it would be for America and for the world if the Congress ignored her warning, she went on to explain: “it will be critical not to take steps that would signal to Iran that it could and likely would exploit.”

But did the legislators heed that warning? Of course not. These people may call themselves American, having been elected by the American people, but they are American in mane only. Meanwhile their hearts beat for someone else; someone who is far away from America's shores. In fact, to be considered American regardless of what they do is a convenient thing for these legislators because they can do things in America that may not be of use to Americans but would be to far away Israelis.

Pecquet gives an example of that: “Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) introduced legislation that calls for drilling on federal U.S. lands in order to 'dry up' Iranian exports.” Thus, to play the Judeo-Israeli game of hating someone for the sake of hate, this senator would screw up the judicious management of the land and the resources of America so that Israel may be satisfied. This is more than scandalous; it is treasonous. And this senator is not alone when it comes to betraying his country; the author of the article also mentions Mark Kirk and Joe Manchin who followed suit with legislation of their own.

And so, while America's problems are piling up and the ship of state is slowly sinking, the legislators are not even trying to rearrange the chairs on the deck. On the contrary, they are drilling holes in the hull to bring about the state of extreme emergency that will force the administration to start another shooting war in the Middle East, one that will possibly – just possibly – result in a gain for Israel. And damn America, damn the lives of its young and damn the health of its economy.

If Israel gains something, however little it may be, they will consider their mission to have been worth it.