An Exercise in journalistic Futility

It takes someone like George Melloan – a former Wall Street Journal columnist who used to do what Bret Stephens is doing now – to show how cheap talk can be when the intent of someone is to spin a situation in such a way as to show it being the opposite of what it is. He wrote an article under the title: “Obama's Foreign-Policy Failures Go Far beyond Iraq” and the subtitle: “Retreat abroad and bigger government at home has made the U.S. weaker.” It was published on June 27, 2014 in the Wall Street Journal.

He begins by declaring that the U.S. (meaning the administration of Barack Obama) has, by a willful act, failed to exert a positive influence over world events. And the consequence of this has been the disintegration of Iraq and the new assertive attitude of Russia, he goes on to say. He adds that both of these outcomes – which he calls disasters – could have been avoided if the President had exercised a more muscular diplomacy abroad, and a better management of policy at home.

He does not elaborate right away on this declaration for a reason that becomes clear a little later on. This is when he tells what it is that was so willful about Mr. Obama's act. In his words: “President Obama has followed a deliberate policy of disengagement from the world's quarrels.” But before he got to this point, he would have asserted that the U.S.: “is still militarily powerful and has a world-wide apparatus of trained professionals executing its policies overt and covert.” The trouble is that to say the President was willfully disengaged, and then say he was able to maintain an apparatus of this size and this importance is beyond comprehension.

As to the economic prowess of the United States – something that directly influences the direction of domestic policy – Melloan says this: “It [America] has a preponderance of multinational corporations … it is still looked to for leadership in thwarting the designs of thugs like Russia's Vladimir Putin, Syria's Bashar Assad and Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei.” That's pretty healthy to say the least.

So you want to know what did the President do or fail to do that can be rebuked? And he says this: “Obama cites polls showing that Americans are war weary.” You recoil and promptly ask: Is it bad for a President to listen to his people? “Well,” says Melloan “probably what the polls really reflect is something else entirely.” Oh yeah! And what would that be, Mr. Know-it-all? And he says: “dismay at the wasted blood and treasure that resulted from Mr. Obama's unilateral declaration of defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan.” What? Say that again. Are you saying that American blood and treasure were wasted not because George W. Bush got America involved in two disastrous wars but because Obama ended the involvement? With all due respect, George Melloan, there is one word that people use to describe someone of your mentality; they call you an asshole.

Having established his credentials – perhaps with pride or perhaps not – the author of the article now lectures the President on the standard advice given by the Jewish lobby. He tells Mr. Obama he “should understand his historical role,” and goes on to elaborate: “An effective president would call a halt to U.S. disarmament.” This is Jewish euphemism which means that if your people are ready to tolerate war, it is your duty to listen to them. If they are not ready for war, it is your duty to indoctrinate them on the need to go to war and stay in it for ever or if not, as long as possible.

But that's not all that the author says because an important component of the Jewish pitch is the role that barking plays in world diplomacy. Melloan explains it this way: “an effective president would say to the world that the American politico-economic system still works.” But the world already knows it because they all saw Mr. Obama rescue America and the world from the economic collapse he inherited from George W. Bush. He has proven over a six year period that he can catch an economy in free fall and make it viable again. So why waste words describing something that speaks for itself? It would be useless barking; not more useful than the kind of futile journalism that some publications do practice.

And now Melloan does something that is truly revealing. Sensing that he defeated himself trying to pin on President Obama things which are patently false, he turns his attention toward someone else and throws his accusations at them. This is what he says: “The American image has been tarnished by the progressives who took control of the U.S. government in 2009.” He goes on to list a number of sins they are supposed to have committed but does not explain them, let alone elaborate on any of them.

Another futile exercise by a publication that lost its soul.

A Franco-European Lesson for North America

People are dying because so-called Jihadists do the things that take the lives of innocent people. And these jihadists are no longer restricted to the types that originate in the Orient; they are born and raised in Western countries where they often pull off their deadly operations; the reason why they are called homegrown. And so the question is asked: Who is responsible for the rise of this phenomenon?

You get a sense of how it all comes about when you read Sylvie Kauffmann's article: “France's Homegrown Jihadists,” published on June 28, 2014 in the New York Times. She describes what is happening in Europe, especially France, but there is a lesson for us here in North America if we can discern the differences that exist between the two continents, and we allow for the variations that come with those differences.

The article answers the question as to who may be responsible for the phenomenon, in two ways. It does it directly by naming some of the culprits, and does it indirectly by neglecting to name the obvious others. Talking about the jihadists, Kauffmann asks: “Who are these young men and women? What drives them?” And she answers by saying they are self-radicalized individuals, some of whom were in prison, and some of whom were brainwashed by video. They come from poor neighborhoods and from middle-class families. They come from good families and from broken ones. They are males disillusioned with life, and females disenchanted with the laws restricting the wearing of the burqa in public places.

And this is where you get a sense as to which of the culprits, the author has neglected to mention. You could say she neglected to mention society, and you would be correct. But this answer does not yield enough detail to help us understand the situation in depth, and certainly not to help us formulate a workable response. In turn, you ask the question: Who or what in society may have contributed to the rise of this phenomenon?

You begin with the wearing of the burqa. Certainly the banning to wear that thing alone would not cause someone to strap explosives around her body and blow herself up in a public place; especially that she was born and raised in the West to a modern family that counseled her it was backward-looking to wear the burqa. But something else; something undetected by the parents was simmering in the belly of this young lady, and grew so intense with time as to make her decide she had no alternative but to make her point in a most dramatic way. What could that thing be?

It was something she could see in the society where she was born and raised but the parents could not see being newcomers to that society. It was the constant hurtling of insidious expressions of hate she saw coming at her from every direction. Imagine what could grow inside a child who is first told she is of an inferior race because the women in the place from where her parents came wear the burqa. And she grows up watching a weekly television show on international affairs with a half minute intro where images from several countries are flashed in succession: there is the modern train in Japan, the scientific lab in Scandinavia, the athletes training in America and yes, there is also that wretched woman wearing the burqa in some Arab/Muslim country.

Week after week after week, she is slapped in the face with this intro and with others similar to it, having been told that the burqa was the symbol of her inferiority. And one day, she decides she has had enough, and further decides she must make her counterpoint in the most explosive way she can. She wears the burqa and the explosive belt and goes out to do just that.

And then, men and women whose parents did not come from that part of the world – seeing the unbearable injustice that their countrymen are inflicting on those who have no means to defend themselves – join the defenseless in their struggle against the tyranny of the cowardly men and women who fight them using an arsenal of hate with which to propagate insidious images of half-truths and outright lies. They are the new breed of jihadists who seek to right the wrong by making everyone, including the innocent, pay for the injustice.

As to North America where most people are conscious of their status as being immigrants in a land that was not theirs in the first place, the European phenomenon did not materialize at the same time. To make up for the difference in the two situations, the cowardly tyrants are adding new weapons to their arsenal of hate. They are pushing the idea that America is an exceptional country modeled after the chosen people of the Jewish faith.

In fact, the Americans are told they are so exceptionally superior, they have the duty to send an army infested with rapists of women and men to go rescue nations from leaders who lead them badly – perhaps as badly as the paralyzed American congress. To go rescue people from the mothers who circumcise their girls – as bad as being massacred in a school or a movie theater. To go teach people the democracy which says Israelis and Palestinians, and destroys your career if you say Palestinians and Israelis. To go teach people how to manage their finances by borrowing like there is no tomorrow. To go teach people how to give everyone at least one gun and have a hundred thousand murdered people a year. To go and show people how to jail two million of their own, and spend more on each prisoner than they would on an entire class of children. To go and show people how to let the Jewish lobby take over the country, and turn it into a laughable joke.

And having your moment of comic relief in the end, you realize it was all worth it.

The Need to know Culture and Language

Once again the editors of the Wall Street Journal wrote an editorial that demonstrates why it is important for a writer who wishes to write about another people, to know more of their culture and language than these editors know of the Arabs about whom they write all the time. Their latest attempt is a piece that came under the title: “The Caliphate Rises” and the subtitle: “Osama Bin Laden's political project begins to form in Iraq.” It was published on June 28, 2014 in the Journal.

They begin like this: “The jihadists of the Islamic State of Iraq and al Sham (ISIS)”. What they should have said was this: “The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).” And this is because they cannot mix English and Arabic to make the English acronym that suits them. If they wanted to use “al Sham” they should have written the whole thing in Arabic which would have sounded like this: “al dawla al islamiyah fi'l 3iraq wa'l sham.”

Now let me explain some of the weird things you see in that Arabic phrase. Those who know French will have no trouble understanding where the two words “fi'l” and “wa'l” come from. Actually, they represent “fi al” and “wa al” respectively. The thing, however, is that in Arabic as in French, having one word end with a vowel and the next start with a vowel is frowned upon. Thus, they drop the first vowel and replace it with the apostrophe. This is how “le amour” becomes “l'amour.” You got to love this, my English speaking friends.

Another thing worthy of note is that in the colloquial of some Arab groups, they prefer to replace the “l” by the consonant that begins the next word. For example, they would pronounce “al nahar” as “annahar”. Now, the character 3 you see in the word “3iraq” is an Arabic sound that does not exist in English. It is one that comes from the back of the throat, and it is correctly used by English speakers who know how to pronounce “Qaeda,” that should be written as “Qa3da”.

This lesson is important to know for the same reason that Secretary of State John Kerry used ISIL instead of ISIS when he was in Egypt not long ago. As it happens, Isis is a deity in the mythology of Ancient Egypt, and the people of that country would be offended if a made-up Anglo-Arab acronym was used to associate an ancient mythological figure with a modern group that is not winning the affection of many people. And given that the Greek and Roman mythologies were based on the Egyptian, it will not be long before the Greeks and the Italians would be up in arms at this transgression of the English.

Another lesson that must be learned has to do with the fact that the editors of the Wall Street Journal make it sound as if a caliphate is imminent if not already here. This is how they put it: “Welcome to the new Middle East caliphate.” If only these people knew where the word Sham came from, they would not have said this. To explain that, I must begin with another lesson regarding the Arab pronunciation of a word. Imagine getting a hiccup while pronouncing a word. So you begin with “sho,” you get a hiccup “^” and you finish with the sound of “mm”. The word would sound like: “sho^mm”. In Arabic it means pessimism or bad omen.

The word Sham (Arabic nickname used to mean the Levant) is derived from that word sho^mm. And this is because unlike Egypt that has been the land of optimism where people were so content they believed in life after death and prepared for it with mummification, the people of the Levant were a pessimist lot because they always raided each other, fought each other, and looted each other. Life was a happy one in Egypt; it was miserable in the Levant.

And if pessimism is the order of the day, those who wish to start their caliphate in that part of the world, better watch out because they don't know what will come down the pike of our modern world.

And if the editors of the Wall Street Journal had known about the realities of the Arabic language and culture, they would have written a different editorial.

They still do not get it

Victor Davis Hanson hollers: “Looking Back at Iraq” and asks the question: “So who lost Iraq?” then elaborates: “It is historically inaccurate to say the war was cooked up by Bush alone.” Actually, the hollering was most likely done by the editors of National Review Online who chose to make the phrase a title for the Hanson article which they published on June 26, 2014. As to the elaboration, it was lifted from the article itself where it appears in the last paragraph, and was used by the editors to serve as subtitle for the article.

Victor Hanson seems so resolute to keep the historical record straight, he succeeded in doing just that … well, sort of. It may be said he succeeded in the sense that he brought into the record a number of facts that other people neglected to mention. But in addition to that, he also peppered the article with a whole lot of spin to show that the war was worth it even if Iraq was lost. This is like the surgeon who said the operation was worth it despite the fact that the patient died.

Where the Hanson presentation is deficient in a serious way, however, is in the processing of the facts. These would be the facts that were brought up by himself, and those that were brought up by others. And in doing what he did the way he did it, he shed light on something that will help explain why it is futile and useless to debate anything in America these days.

Hanson's contribution to the debate rests on the fact that he mentions the names of just about everyone in America that had something to do with the George W. Bush decision to launch the war on Iraq in 2003. Thus, he brought to light the facts that (1) Bill Clinton signed into law the Iraq Liberation Act; (2) both houses of Congress authorized the removal of Saddam Hussein by force; (3) Senators Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Harry Reid argued on the Senate floor that Saddam should be removed; (4) Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller and House Representative Nancy Pelosi lectured about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction; (5) columnists from the Right and from the Left of the spectrum such as George Will, David Brooks, William F. Buckley, Fareed Zakaria, David Ignatius, and Thomas Friedman supported Saddam's removal by force; (6) 70 percent of Americans agreed with the war.

A neutral observer might ask: Does it mean that all these people were responsible for the war? And there will be some debaters who will say yes; and there will be some who will say no … and a bickering as to whether the war was a good thing or a bad thing will resume, and will lead nowhere yet again. And in the midst of all the bickering, a voice will rise to remind everyone that enough is enough. The voice will go on to say that the time had come to do a bit of self-examination.

To this end, the voice will ask: To the question “who lost Iraq?” what does it matter whether you people believe the war was a good thing or a bad thing? The truth is that Iraq was lost not because who among you felt what; it was lost because the people most affected by it – those that live in the region – did not ask for it, did not want it and did not like it. Iraq ... perhaps even the entire region was lost because the people there, like people you encounter everywhere else in the world, do not like being bombed by a foreign power.

And the fact that there was bipartisan agreement in America to launch the war in the first place, has signaled to these people that the war against them was not meant to serve American interest, but meant to serve Jewish and Israeli interests. This is what made the people resent what happened to them even more; it is what will make them more cautious in the future when it comes to American overtures. And that's because such overtures will be taken not as friendly gestures but as a threat to the peace and tranquility of which they have been robbed ever since the planting of Israel in their midst.

Unlike America that has been around for only five hundred years, the people in that region have been around for thousands of years. Despite what was done to them, they will survive, will rise again and build new layers of magnificent cultures. The same cannot be said about America, however, where the simple act of debating the issues of the day gets to be smothered with the spew of the handful of losers who never managed to develop a modus vivendi by which to coexist with other human beings.

It is futile and useless to debate anything in America these days because the spew is so prevalent, it comes at you from every direction.

Example of Policy making by Superstition

Those who are old enough to remember the bad old days when the Jewish propaganda machine in North America relied heavily on superstition to impress the public and make the Jews look like a breed apart – will not be surprised to see what Tom Friedman has imported from Israel. He talks about it in an article titled: “ISIS and SISI,” published on June 25, 2014 in the New York Times.

The fashion in those days was to base the analysis of current events, and the predictions of what will happen in the future on numerology; on astrological phenomena such as the apparition of comets, and on the coincidence of events such as something happening today that is the anniversary of something that happened long ago. When the Jews were heavily criticized for operating by this mentality, they quieted down in North America but apparently not in Israel where they still pursue a line of behavior that is even more bizarre.

Friedman tells that an Israeli analyst (influential enough to be written about in the New York Times) is basing his analysis of the past, and his predictions for the future on the coincidence of a falsified English acronym that is the mirror image of a falsified Egyptian proper name. The two words are ISIS and SISI. The first stands for Islamic State in Iraq and Syria according to the Israeli analyst. But the truth is that the acronym should read ISIL because those who came up with the idea of that state had the entire Levant in mind and not just Syria. As to SISI, the actual name in Arabic is Elsisi whereas the truncated word Sisi does not exist.

Armed with the two made-up words, the influential Israeli analyst did what every self-described Jewish historian (more like mutilator of history) has done before him. He created an entirely false narrative to encompass the fabricated coincidence of a falsified name and a falsified acronym that have nothing in common between them. This done, he built around the double falsifications a vision as to what the future holds; a vision he sold to Tom Friedman and the eventual suckers of the New York Times who will take him serious.

But the reality is that history is not a game of words that can be played like a crossword puzzle. It cannot be tackled by a superficial mind either because historical events are made of several layers of undercurrents that act on each other simultaneously, and affect the course of one another continually. Thus, a prerequisite to becoming a historian is to be endowed with the ability to see things in depth, discern the layers of undercurrents, and find out how they act on each other. For this reason, it is doubtful that even an intelligent kid raised in the Jewish culture can grow up and become a good historian because Judaism is based on dogma that forbids inquiry outside the established line of thought.

And so, when you have a Middle East that is made of 23 Arab speaking countries: (5 North African, 6 in the sub-Sahara/Indian Ocean, 7 on the Arabian Peninsula/Persian Gulf, 5 in the Levant,) and when you have several other countries associated with the Arabs in culture and religion – all of whom have layers of separate and intertwined histories that go as far back as 7,500 years, you have depth that cannot be explained with the ISIS-SISI model even if the made-up acronym and the fake name had not been fabricated for the occasion.

Indeed, what history will remember about our era is that Egypt stood at the North Eastern corner of Africa like the colossus that protected both the North African and the sub-Saharan/Indian Ocean countries from too much foreign interference, while Saudi Arabia stood like the colossus that protected the Arabian Peninsula/Persian Gulf countries from too much foreign interference.

And this is why those countries survived almost intact at a time when the Levant was being dismembered by a century of outside interference. That interference first came about when the colonial powers acted to further their own interests; then came about again when Jewish America played an international role driven by the likes of Friedman and those in Israel who fed him superstitious beliefs. But the real purpose of that role is so incoherent; it shall remain a puzzle till the end of time.

The only thing that future historians will be able to derive from our era is that mentalities such as those of Tom Friedman and the Israeli analysts he quoted over time must have played a major role in formulating the murky decisions that turned the superpower that was America into the super-joke that became the laughing stock of the world.

Israeli Style Voodoo Democracy

Did you ever try to imagine what it would feel like to sit with a witch doctor in the rain forest of a warm continent and listen to him or her deliver a lecture on modern brain surgery? Well, it might be impossible to imagine something as far fetched as that but there is something you can do to come close to experiencing the feel of it. What you can do is read Tzipi Livni's article in which she delivers to the world a lecture on democracy.

Livni is Israel's minister of justice and chief Israeli negotiator in the talks with the Palestinians. Her article comes under the title: “Three Boys, One Terrorist Group and a Message for Democracies” and also comes under the subtitle: “A kidnapping in Israel is a wake-up call about the perils of giving antidemocratic groups access to elections.” It was published in the Wall Street Journal on June 26, 2014.

The article begins with the story of three Israeli boys who went to a place where they were not supposed to go, and disappeared without leaving a trace. No one knows what happened to them given that the terrain where they went is considered unsafe. But this is not what Livni has assumed because she came right out and accused a Palestinian group called Hamas of kidnapping the boys even though no one made a claim to this effect.

What is astonishing about this story is that Livni is the minister of justice of an entity that wants the world to believe it is civilized. The woman makes an accusation of that kind having not one iota of proof to back her claim, and then writes an article addressed to the world in which she links her unsubstantiated accusation with the larger concept of democratic governance which, of course, encompasses the rule of law.

What is important to remember is that there is an outstanding warrant for the arrest of Livni if she steps on British soil, having been accused of war crimes for which ample prima facie evidence was provided. Thus, for her to lecture the world on democracy and the rule of law is like a witch doctor that never left the jungle, lecturing the world on modern brain surgery.

From the moment that you start reading the article, you get the feeling that if the witch doctor has no clue what modern brain surgery entails, she has the power of the sorcerer, and the ability to whisk you to a nearby shooting range where you feel like you've been ambushed. Each word, each sentence and each paragraph comes at you like a bullet which, upon examination, turns out to be a reality that applies to the Israelis.

But here they are – verbal bullets expressed in such a way as to sound like it is Hamas and not the Jews who want an endless religious war. That it is Hamas and not the Jews who rain bombs on the innocent. That it is Hamas and not the Jews who commit gruesome acts of terror from the air, the sea and the land … and so on, and so on, and so on.

And here she is the direct descendent of the original terrorist group that came to the land of peace, quiet, serenity and beauty with a machine gun in one hand and a grenade in the other to establish a nation of collective communes, now telling the world that some people do not deserve having the right the vote because they are not peaceful enough, and because they intend to misuse the democracy that is so loved in Israel, everybody worships it. Here is how Livni expressed that piece of shameless Jewish crap:

“In 2006 Hamas was allowed to participate in elections and surprised many by its victory in Gaza, Then as now,

the international community hoped that participation would have a moderating effect. Then, as now, I argued that democracy was not just about voting … By now we all should be wiser. The experience with Hamas … has demonstrated that [some] groups do not generally participate in elections to moderate their agenda. They participate to launder that agenda.”

By the time you are finished reading the article, you'll need a pill to alleviate the headache you have acquired. You may even need a brain surgeon to remove the swelling of the brain that the article has caused you.

The Lesson they never learn

The editors of National Review Online (NRO) say: “the world’s organized hostility to Israel would be funny if…” Well, the funny thing is that these editors believe the world can organize around one issue. Maybe they could tell us when such thing began to happen, and how to maintain it if that's possible. Furthermore, the word funny used in this context means that it is ridiculous of the editors to hold such belief.

Another thing that is ridiculous in what the editors are saying is the implication that Israel is so above reproach, it is correct in everything it does, while all of humanity is at fault for not appreciating this absolute truth. And you can see how the editors endeavor to articulate those points in the piece they wrote under the title: “A Wicked Act,” published on June 24, 2014 in NRO.

Those who have some understanding of history know that the people who think of themselves in such terms prove to be wrong every time. And the consequences are such that these people end up paying a heavy price for their folly. In fact, this principle is so unbreakable, no amount of spin can violate it and yet, spinning the readers is what the editors try to do in the piece they wrote.

The spin is based on three legs: the dictatorship and terror of others, and the democracy of Israel. Well, slowly but surely, the world began to understand that the countries which take in immigrants can only have a system that looks like a democracy, or no one will come settle in them. Thus, voting is adopted in those countries to give them the aura of being democracies, but what happens after that varies from country to country. In Israel, for example, the newcomers have the right to vote but not the indigenous population. And what they vote on concerns the question of how to deal with the indigenous people they maintain under occupation, so as to convince the world their system is not apartheid but an acceptable form of democracy.

All that aside, people everywhere on the planet judge a nation not by its adherence to one system or another but by the culture which makes its people tick. And the trait considered to be a heavyweight in the passing of judgment on someone, is what they think of themselves. In this regard, the thing that most people in the world find revolting is the tendency of someone to think of themselves as being different and above everyone else. This being the trait that identifies the Jews as a group, and that group being what Israel is made of, Israel has become a pariah in the eyes of the world.

This being the case, the belief of the Israelis and their supporters that Israel is correct one hundred percent, and that the world is at fault one hundred percent, adds to the sense of hostility that the world feels towards Israel. Thus, the organizers of the hostile sentiment are not the world – as implied by the editors of NRO – but the Israelis themselves and those who support them unconditionally. And the more that these people labor to embellish the image of Israel, the more they accentuate the very things that revolt the world about Israel.

And one of those things is the relationship that Israel maintains not only with the indigenous population of Palestine but also the neighboring Arab states. Long before the world had recognized the nature of the Jewish-Israeli character, the neighbors had sensed the nature of those who were parachuted in their midst. It was, therefore, inevitable that they be the first to develop resentment if not hostility towards the invaders. The response of the Israelis was not to express humility, and to seek accommodation with the Palestinians and the neighboring Arab states, but to call on the foreign powers to come and “humiliate” everyone in the region so that the Jews may “defend” themselves and avoid annihilation.

Furthermore, being fixated on the notion that the best defense is an offense, the Israelis never stopped carrying out offensive acts against the people of Palestine whose lands and properties they looted, and against the Arab neighbors whose water and other resources they coveted. They began by launching terror attacks against the British forces in Palestine, and they never stopped terrorizing the local population as well as the surrounding states, reaching as far away as Iraq. And now that they cannot reach Iran, they put in motion the machinery they spent half a century building inside America to get that country to do the work for them in Iran.

They did manage to mobilize America under George W. Bush to do that same sort of work in Iraq but they are having a hard time duplicating the success with regard to Iran. And the world that was convinced at the time that Israel and America represented the worst danger to the world is today convinced that Israel remains the number one terrorist state. And the more that the Jewish propaganda machine tries to label others as being terrorists, the more that the world becomes convinced that the Jews are required by religious dogma to be a terrorist bunch dedicated to the implementation of a terrorist agenda called Armageddon.

And this is why institution by institution from every corner of the world is coming around to joining the act that stands out as a banner to democracy. They vote with their pocketbook to boycott, divest from, and sanction Israel so as to send a message to the people and the leaders over there that they must change.

But true democracy being anathema to the Jewish character, these people and those leaders are fighting it by faulting the whole world which, by definition, puts them above the world.

Here we go again because it is the lesson they never learn.

Little League Eunuchs running a Bordello

If being powerless relative to other people makes the male of the human species feel castrated, the editors of the New York Times would be a perfect example of that. Like little league eunuchs, they built themselves a journalistic bordello to compensate for the vanishing symbol of their prowess. Their latest foray into this murky world has been the editorial they published on June 24, 2014 under the title: “More Egyptian Injustice” and the subtitle: “Alarming Convictions of Al Jazeera Journalists in Egypt.”

In the country of America where they snatch people from half way around the globe and imprison them without trial for ten years or even indefinitely – nearly 13 years after a terrorist incident they call 9/11, the eunuchs of the New York Times wave their fictitious erection at a country like Egypt for trying and convicting people they caught during a revolutionary time doing what amounts to inciting people to commit acts of violence against symbols of the government. Mind you, the Egyptians did not send drones to kill their own citizens in a foreign country; they only gave those they caught a stiff sentence subject to appeal.

Imagine if on September 11, 2001 – while the twin towers of the Trade Center were coming down – the 19 hijackers were not alone but had al-Qaeda collaborators dispersed throughout the country, letting people out of jail and inciting them to set ablaze every government installation they see. Imagine if some of those doing the inciting were people wearing the hat of journalists, working for a television network owned by a Taliban government that repeatedly chided the U.S. for not implementing the strict religious laws demanded of it. Imagine America being bombarded 24 hours a day with propaganda material being produced by al-Qaeda and broadcast on the Taliban network.

Well, Egypt was going through a situation similar to that, not during an incident that lasted one day but an incident that lasted 2 years. Another difference is that the network laboring against the interests of Egypt was not owned by the Taliban; it was Aljazeera which is owned by the government of Qatar. It is the very network that was banned from obtaining a license to broadcast in America; the network that regularly obtains al-Qaeda material which the Bush Administration told the U.S. broadcasters not to put on the air – precisely because they amount to incitement.

Egypt caught three journalists from Aljazeera, which had set-up an illegal operation in the country, doing what amounts to aiding and abating the efforts of the country's number one enemy: the religious extremists. These have been the ones to commit acts of terror that caught the attention of the world, inflicting maximum pain on the country by drying up the inflow of tourists and foreign investments. They killed tourists in cold blood, and they set ablaze many of the country's churches, acts they knew will be rewarded with sickly and glowing coverage in the Tweedledum and Tweedledee of the American media: the New York Times and Fox News.

What's wrong with these two? Well, the New York Times is one of the oldest publications in the country; one that was so respected, it wielded enormous powers. As to Fox News, it is one of the newest, but not necessarily a baby. This is because it was born a giant with lots of money behind it. But given that the means to gather and purvey information has proliferated enormously, neither of them has the power to influence events the way things used to be in the old days. And so, the people who run these outlets go out of their way to compensate for their powerlessness.

They do it with something like this: “The United States would soon resume most of its annual $1.3 billion in military aid that was suspended … The United States has interests in maintaining a relationship with Egypt. But Egypt benefits from ties with America too.” It is a subtle way to grab the scepter of power from the hand of its legitimate wielder, and wave it in the face of Egypt.

Repeated performances such as that have turned American journalism into a bordello run by the little eunuchs who wish to feel they can still get big and stiff.

R.I.P. Ajami, expect double Duty for Zakaria

Perhaps they will start working hard on Fareed Zakaria in a desperate attempt to turn him into another Fouad Ajami, but my instinct tells me they will fail for several reasons, one of them being that these are different times. Ajami grew in his profession at a time when there was no “political correctness,” and the non-stop barrage of venom pouring over the heads of Arabs day and night made it clear that you either adapt and live well, or stay put and lead a life of constant struggle with no promise that you'll get anywhere anytime. Like a friend who was an editor at the Globe and Mail put it to me once: “How long do you plan to stay a Don Quixote?”

I do not fault Ajami for choosing the path that he did; I only criticized him two or three times for things he wrote which I deemed to be too damaging to the causes that were dear to me. And when I thought of him, I associated him with advice that another friend gave me: “Why don't you write what they ask of you? And after you gain fame and fortune, you turn around and write what you want.” Perhaps Fouad Ajami had something like that in mind, but then got too comfortable being what they made of him, and never bothered writing what he truly felt about the events of the day. In fact, I sensed at times that he did not believe in the echo he was repeating, and I said so in black and white on one occasion. In any case, may he rest in peace.

Although I believe that Fareed Zakaria must have gone through a period during which he was pressured to write and say things he believed were false or misleading, the pressure on him could not have come close to what Ajami and I experienced two or three decades earlier. Another reason why I believe Zakaria will not easily succumb to the pressure that will seek to turn him into a carbon copy of Ajami is that Zakaria is a more accomplished scholar; one that is endowed with a rigorous intellect … above that of Ajami.

But the man works for CNN which is a clone of Fox News when it comes to Jewish and Israeli matters, with the difference that one of the clones is right-handed while the other is left-handed. Now that Ajami, who also used to work for CNN, is no longer with us, I fear that the network will put enormous pressure on Zakaria to fill the shoes of the departed.

I have visions of someone like Wolf Blitzer, who strikes me as being a fanatic Jew, surrounding himself in the studio – or rather, the situation room – with half a dozen Jews to discuss Arab matters they haven't a clue what they are about. Blitzer or the producer of the show calls Zakaria for an interview and pulls on him a Fox News specialty which is to begin a question with a 200 word preamble laying out the talking points pertaining to the subject, and then asking: Don't you think so?

A nightmare scenario would be to the effect that after a few interviews like that one, Zakaria will realize he was made to agree with things he never meant to. But he cannot deny them because they are on video that can be played back at him. So now, having the choice of agreeing that this was his opinion at the time, or protesting that he was ambushed, he will choose to agree with what's in the video. And to prove the sincerity of his newly acquired disposition, he will double down on its premise, thus follow in the footsteps of Ajami.

This is the routine they developed at Fox News to get around the restrictions that were placed on everyone by the phenomenon of political correctness. The host answers the question by asking it, leaving no room for the interviewee to disagree or offer an alternative point of view.

At Fox News, and increasingly at the other audio-visual networks, they have managed to turn everyone they call a contributor into a wall against which they bounce their talking points, thus make every situation look like people do agree with them – whether they sit on the left or they sit on the right.

Fake Arguments leading to false Conclusions

Why is it that America repeatedly finds itself up to its eyeballs in a toxic swamp of its making? Because America has become a dictatorship in which a vocal minority rises in time to scream its demands and bark its commands, thus manages to silence the majority. It does so using the existing tools of governance to defeat the safeguards that were devised precisely to protect those tools and to maintain the democratic rule of the country. But once the safeguards are defeated, the minority walks into the joint, takes over and rules by dictatorial decrees.

                     

You can see how this works when you analyze the article written by Joseph Lieberman and Vance Serchuk under the title: “Obama repeats his Iraq mistake in Afghanistan,” published on June 20, 2014 in the Washington Post. The point the two authors are making is an old one; it is the need for America to remain in a state of perpetual war against the Christian Arabs and the Muslims of every race. But the point of my presentation is not to discuss the merit or demerit of that posture; it is to show how the Jews who are behind it, turn the levers of the system against itself and defeat it.

Having silenced every potential opposition with the claim that to oppose them was to advocate their annihilation, they took exclusive command of the field known as the square of public debate where they played the debating game with themselves. Unconcerned about a push-back against what they might litigate, they went ahead and argued their agenda which has always been that America must be milked to the last drop to help realize the glory of Israel, and facilitate the Jewish domination of the world.

Looking at the Lieberman and Serchuk article, you see at the start what they ask for with regard to the situation in Afghanistan: “There is a need to reassess [the] pledge that the U.S. troops will be withdrawn.” To articulate this point they put forth fake arguments, and then draw false conclusions from them. The main argument is one they use all the time; it consists of drawing false parallels between a situation that has not materialized with one they would have totally misrepresented. In the current situation, they say that the proposed withdrawal from Afghanistan will repeat the mistake that America made when it withdrew from Iraq – having misrepresented what happened in Iraq.

The truth about Iraq is not that foreign forces were ready to invade the country but did not for fear of the American presence there; they invaded Iraq after completing their campaign in the part of Syria they coveted. The truth is also that the invaders made the gains they did, not because the Iraqi military lacked the equipment or the training to stop them, but because the political system that America imposed on the country did not work for a segment of the population. And it was this segment that decided to “melt away” or to side with the invaders.

Consequently, the conclusion that must be drawn is not that Iraq may be lost because the Americans withdrew; it is because the Americans got in there in the first place. And to go back as demanded by Lieberman and his co-author, is to compound the problem … which is what they want anyway because it would take the world a step closer to Armageddon, and to the fulfillment of the Jewish dream for salvation.

In view of these realities, the question to ask is this: How can it be that Joseph Lieberman would write an article like that when he came as close as the width of a hair to being vice president of America; a position that would have put him a heartbeat away from being president? Well, this is the man who turned against his own party and his president to campaign for the nominee of the opposition party during the last presidential campaign. He did all that because the said nominee displayed a willingness to let the Jews milk America, realize the glory of Israel and facilitate the Jewish domination of the world ... all that to be done at the expense of the lives and treasures of the American people.

It is no surprise, therefore, that even after President Obama forgave Lieberman his indiscretion, and appointed him to chair a committee, the man has no qualms sticking a knife in the back of the President, accusing him of making a mistake in Iraq, and ready to repeat the mistake in Afghanistan. It is also no surprise to see that Lieberman is working to realize the Jewish agenda … a cause that has been his passion all along. The man has treason written in his DNA.

This is how, my friend, America gets to its eyeballs in a toxic swamp of its own making.

Nanotechnology may upend History

I am not a futurist, I do not wish to be one and I do not want to be mistaken for one. But Steven Rattner has written an article that touches on many subjects I always wanted to write about, and I could not pass up the opportunity to add my two-cent worth to the debate he started. So here I am. The article by Rattner came under the title: “Fear Not the Coming of the Robots” and was published in the New York Times on June 22, 2014. He wrote it from an economics point of view; what I like to do is look at the related subjects from a different angle.

At first, the energy that human beings used to create the wealth that was necessary to feed them and protect them from the elements was the energy produced by their muscles. For example, a grown human being in good health produces about 100 watts of power, and can work as much as 6 hours a day going “full steam.” This comes to a total of 600 watt/hours a day. When he domesticated animals such as the donkeys, horses, oxen and elephants, he added to the store of energy he could now put to use. And this helped him produce a great deal more than before considering, for example, that the horsepower is by convention taken to equal 756 watts.

As technology developed with the passage of time, man built the windmill and the waterwheel which he exploited to add to the store of energy he used. This allowed him to increase the production of goods and services needed to maintain a style of life that was now different from the one he led in an earlier era. But the massive quantum leap in the amount of energy he used and the corresponding wealth he was able to create did not come about till he invented the steam engine, and followed that with the internal combustion engine, the turbine, the electric motor and all the peripherals that came with them. It was the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

All that was made possible when man discovered the many ways by which to convert the chemical energy that nature had stored in the hydrocarbons: coal, petroleum and natural gas, into the kind of work that produces the goods and services he needs. For example, the average modern industrial man consumes about 24,000 watt/hours of energy a day, a far cry from the 600 watt/hours consumed by our ancestors. This is a ratio of 40 to 1 which tempts us to say we live 40 times better than our ancestors. But this would be a distorted view of reality because what our ancestors did with the wealth they created, and what we do with ours are two different things.

The reality is that our ancestors consumed all the wealth they created whereas we consume only a portion of what we create because a great deal of what we produce goes into maintaining the modern line of production. For example, the ancestor may have spent 60 watt/hours catching the chicken which he ate on the spot. In contrast, we might spend as much as a 1,200 watt/hours raising the chicken on a farm that is equipped with machines; on taking the chicken to the processing plant where it is killed, packed and shipped to the supermarket where we buy it, cook it, eat some of it and refrigerate the rest. And a big part of the remaining 24,000 watt/hours allotted to each of us goes to service what we call commercial and industrial concerns.

Seen from that perspective, Rattner's observation: “Call it automation, call it robots, or call it technology; it all comes down to the concept of producing more with fewer workers,” takes on a different meaning. To begin with, saying that more is produced with fewer workers – although technically correct – can be misleading. It would have been better to say more is produced with the same number of workers. And contrary to the belief of those who fear that the machine puts people out of work, the fact remains that more workers are needed with the advent of every new machine because a whole lot more has to be produced to keep the machine based system running. This is true since all that is made in an industrial economy is not end products consumed by the general public. A great deal of it goes into the fabrication and maintenance of the line of production that ends up making the products we identify as being consumer goods and services.

Even if we cannot determine precisely how much energy goes into producing the goods and services we need to sustain life in a modern industrial economy, we cannot escape the conclusion that our consumption has grown in a straight line over the ages, whereas our use of energy has grown exponentially … and this means that the need for more workers has also grown exponentially. Expressed differently, it says that to double the standard of living in real terms, we may need to multiply the number of workers by 4 or 5.

And this brings us to the subject of efficiency, especially in what concerns the use of energy. The hydrocarbons and uranium being finite quantities produced by nature over millions of years, something was done to prepare for the day when there will not be enough of them to sustain a modern economy. It is that many on Earth got engaged in exploring the subjects of renewable sources of energy, more efficient machines and conservation.

What this has entailed during the past few decades was the design of energy efficient buildings, of machines and of consumer products. It was a move that helped to improve the ratio of energy usage versus the amount of products and services delivered. But the rule of thumb being that a better design calls for less workers, the result has been that the production of goods and services has increased, the economy has grown and yet, less workers were hired during that period of time. But this trend is about to reverse in my view.

Several factors conspire to create a new reality. One, the non-renewable energy resources are dwindling. Two, a limit has been reached to making the products we use today more efficiently. Three, the making of future products by the method of three dimensional printing will use nanotechnology that requires a great deal of energy. And all of that will launch a new industrial revolution that will rival the old in its impact. A consequence of this will be the need for more workers.

There is something else that may happen. Many of the new workers will go into the business of researching the renewable resources and the business of producing them. Since fusion power proved to be a disappointment, the old idea of cold fusion will be revived. This time, however, nanotechnology will play a major role in the research, and may achieve a breakthrough.

If this happens, we're in for a century of rapid changes.

Perpetual Wheel of Misfortune keeps rolling

The war that George W. Bush launched on Iraq destroyed the country, caused hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead, thousands of American dead, a trillion dollars in direct cost to the American taxpayers as well as an estimated three trillion dollars in indirect cost such as the loss of opportunities to the American economy. A civil war is now raging in Iraq that may engulf the whole region with consequences that cannot be imagined at this time. How did it all happen?

It happened because W. Bush gave a series of speeches in which he spoke of gathering storms, of mushroom clouds and of Saddam Hussein being a new Hitler. But from where did the W. get these ideas? He got them from the pile of works done by thousands of Jews and their non-Jewish running dogs who put out article after article and report after report, all of which fakes but all of which pointing to money being transferred illegally from one point to another, aluminum tubes being bought here and there, dual use technology being smuggled to Iraq, yellow cake being transferred in a clandestine manner and so on and so forth.

The result was a horror story which is still in the making, but one that has already turned the American superpower into a sick joke which the world is looking at – not with the respect that the American brand used to command – but the despair of seeing an old friend sink further into the abyss at a time when there is nothing you can do to help it come out its mode of self-destruction. And that horror continues today because in the same way that America was drawn into the suicidal mode, it is being pulled towards it yet again by the same kind of people who put it on that path once before.

The latest example of this is an article that came under the title: “Iran could Outsource Its Nuclear-Weapons Program to North Korea” and the subtitle: “Pyongyang helped Syria build a secret reactor. What's to stop it from assisting Tehran?” It was written by Claudia Rosett (who is with an outfit calling itself by the laughable name of Foundation for Defense of democracies) and published on June 21, 2014 in the Wall Street Journal.

Rosett begins with something that is typical of her mentality, but one that is contradicted throughout the article. She says this: “As the Iran nuclear talks grind toward a July 20 deadline, U.S. negotiators and their partners seem oblivious to a loophole that could render any agreement meaningless.” She explains that Iran “could” outsource the completion of a bomb to North Korea. But how does she know of this possibility? She knows – not because her outfit discovered something that the American negotiators or anyone else is “oblivious” of – but because she got the information from published sources, and from the people she interviewed at the Pentagon and elsewhere.

Why then write and publish a piece like this? Because it is part of the pile that serves to influence the American leaders such as those in the Congress and everywhere else. The aim is to make them jump on the bandwagon, not thinking for a moment as to the consequences of their actions, and cry out: Bomb them. Bomb them. And hope that there is someone in the White House with the feeble mind of a W. Bush who will not be able to resist the temptation of picking up the speeches written for him by people like Rosett, and read them to the congress and the nation before making the fatal mistake of ordering the bombing of yet another country despised by the Jews in Israel, in America and elsewhere.

So then, what happened after the bombing of Iraq? No weapons of mass destruction were found. And the same is expected of Iran if worse comes to worse and another kook gets elected to the White House who will listen to the likes of Rosett and the outfit to which she belongs. Get this now – while no bombs were found in Iraq, you'll find one that demolishes the Rosett argument in her own article.

As it is the habit of Jews to try having it both ways, she ends with this: “Were Iranian officials present at North Korea's tests? Perhaps. But that may not be the relevant question. According to the IAEA, all they'd need is the resulting data on a thumb drive.”

In other words, she admits – oblivious of what she just did – that what she has presented is not relevant to the question she set out to discuss. It was all Jewish hogwash.

A Vacuum is not a Void

Charles Krauthammer is one smart Jew who gets confused once in a while, so you have to straighten him out when he strays too far. And the lesson he needs to learn today is that “a vacuum is not a void, and a wannabe filler is almost always toxic.” Krauthammer is showing a gap in his knowledge with the article he wrote under the title: “A Disaster of His Own Making” and the subtitle: “Obama, not Bush, is responsible for the return of the Islamist insurgency in Iraq.” It was published on June 19, 2014 in national Review Online.

One of the many things that fascinates me about the mental development of children is that they reach a certain age – different for every child – at which point they find it difficult to believe something existed before they came to be. They feel comfortable thinking, even if they know they are wrong, that everything they see around them happened the day they were born or after that. You see an analogue of this among the cultures that believe they are so advanced, they fill a vacuum everywhere they go. This is why the Europeans feel they “discovered” the Americas and Australia. It is also why the Americans feel that a void exists where they have not been.

It is that mentality which tells Charles Krauthammer there is a vacuum in Iraq that America should fill. Starting with this premise, he jumps into the ongoing debate concerning the point: Who is more at fault – Bush or Obama – when it comes to the current situation in Iraq? It is that the Jihadist offshoot of al-Qaeda has scored big filling what must look like a vacuum to those debaters.

The reality, however, is that whichever way they define vacuum, it does not mean there is a void somewhere; it only means there is not the sort of thing they believe is necessary to have in there. Whereas the people who live in Iraq want to see peace and quiet more than anything else, Krauthammer and those like him want to see military power above everything else.

To make this point clear, the author of the article must show that Obama made a mistake when he failed to “conclude a status-of-forces agreement” with Iraq. Regardless as to why this agreement was not concluded or who was at fault for the fact that it was not, what Krauthammer says after that is what demonstrates that a gap exists between the reality of this situation and all such situations, and between what people fantasize when they believe there is a void where they see a vacuum they think was created by their absence.

And what he says as do all those who argue like him is that America should have insisted on leaving at least 20,000 troops in Iraq because it is the strategy that worked in South Korea where 28,500 American troops were left at the end of the Korean war, and worked in Japan where 38,000 troops were left at the end of WW II.

What these people fail to grasp is that troops left in South Korea and Japan to act as a tripwire that would serve to mobilize the entire American military and prepare it to fight a conventional war, played the role of deterrent effectively. This is because if worse came to worse, they would have been pitted against a conventional army, be it a reconstituted Japanese military, a Chinese army that had returned to North Korea or the (old) Soviet army that had decided to take on the American Pacific force. Also, if the tripwire was tripped, bombs of all sorts would have been sent to demolish high value targets that the governments of North Korea, China, Japan and the Soviet Union were not prepared to sacrifice for whatever reason.

In contrast, the Jihadists and those they call terrorists see no high value targets they worry about. In fact, if anything, they want the Americans to destroy what is there because it is a surefire way for them to get the masses of the people in the bombed out countries to come to their side. Thus, the problem in Iraq was not that Obama failed to negotiate leaving behind a residual force; the problem was that the charade they call democracy is what allowed Maliki to alienate the Sunnis who then voided the deal they had worked out with General David Petraeus to keep the terrorists out.

The conclusion we must draw is that the fault was not Obama's failure to scare those who commit suicide defending their cause; the fault was the faulty democracy that Bush tried to shove down the throat of people who developed an allergy to it, having tried it and discovered that it was a form of Jewish domination in disguise; one that was toxic to their system.

A fake Democracy Agenda started all this

In the world of opera you know you're coming near the end of the play when you see the fat lady prepare to sing. In the world of punditry, you know you're coming near the end of the current episode when you see the fat liars accuse the honest guys who come to clean up of feinting. This happens because throughout the play, the liars will have proposed one fake strategy after another to reach one fake goal or another ... but all the strategies fail, and not one goal is ever reached.

                         

It all ends with the advent of the cleaners because the real aim of the liars would have been to implement an agenda they kept hidden from the public while feinting a lofty goal such as the rule of law and democracy when in reality the only rule they were seeking to implement was their peculiar brand of autocracy disguised as democracy. When nothing they called for ever worked, and when all things got messier by the day, the public called on the cleaners to come and clean up which they did, but the liars continue to stand in the way, accusing the cleaners of feinting a false strategy.

This is what is happening at this time in America with regard to the Iraq episode where the fat liars of the Wall Street Journal are accusing the Obama cleaners of maneuvering to do something that is insignificant in its own right while the liars push for the implementation of the same old agenda which is to involve America in a never ending war against the Arabs; against the Muslim world behind them or against the whole wide world behind the Muslims if it will come to that.

All of that is expressed in the editorial of the Wall Street journal that came under the title: “Obama's Iraq Feint” and the subtitle: “Public maneuvering to dump Maliki is likely to backfire.” It was published on June 20, 2014 in the Journal. Like it says in the subtitle, the pretense here is that they oppose the dumping of Maliki, but there is very little of this in their 850-word presentation. What you find instead is an articulation of their old agenda, encapsulated in this: “...the battlefield defeat of ISIS. We would support that goal if the Administration were serious about committing the resources and time to achieve it.” They made sure to mention the resources, which means heavy military involvement; and mention time because what they have in mind is perpetual war.

In pushing that same old agenda, they seize on President Obama's announcement to the effect that he has embarked on what they call an “exquisite policy calibration” about which they ask the question: “What does the President intend to accomplish – other than to offer the appearance of action and Strategy?” No, it is not the appearance of something; it is the reality of cleaning up the mess that was started when the so-called children of Holocaust survivors decided to unleash their hate on humanity by plotting for and igniting the war on the people of Iraq based on a big fat lie they fabricated with the help of their cohorts worldwide.

Having accused Obama and his team of cleaners of harboring intent they do not have, and having made the point they would support a heavy and perpetual military operation in the Middle East, they go on to build a case for that operation by invoking the same old fears – that America will face an existential threat if it did not adopt their war plan right away.

Gone are the fake arguments to the effect that what the Middle East needs is a democracy agenda as articulated by George W. Bush, and gone is the sickly contention to the effect that: “Zey know nossing about za damacracy of za Shamir,” all of which are now replaced with this: “The creation of an al-Qaedastan stretching across central Syria and Iraq and commanding sizable military and economic resources represents a direct threat to the U.S., irrespective of domestic Iraqi or regional considerations.”

In other words, the Jewish and Israeli masters who dragged America into the swamp of Jewish horror based on the idea of a fake democracy and the rule of law, turned out to be a ruse that committed America to a course of action they now say will represent a mortal danger if America did not continue on the same path that got it to this point in the first place.

These people never stop until they are put out of action violently. Someone should save them from themselves.

A classic Case of willful Audience Deception

Victor Davis Hanson calls himself a classicist which, to most people, means he studied the old classics such as the Greek and Roman eras, and he teaches them. But there is something else associated with the word classic that blends nicely with what Hanson is doing. It is that he is a classic case of someone that cannot communicate with his readers without deceiving them – something he does deliberately.

He has done it again with an article he wrote under the title: “America's Middle East Dilemma” and the subtitle: “Toppling tyrants is ineffective in the long term without years of unpopular occupation.” It was published on June 19, 2014 in National Review Online. In addition to being a classic case of deception, this article shows how an American classic – never discussed before – conspires to confuse the American public to a level so serious, it rivals the damage caused by the consumption of drugs in that country.

So let me begin with that American classic before I take up the Hanson classic. Look at these two sentences: “Obama partisans are blaming the Bush administration for going into Iraq in the first place. But critics counter that Obama wanted out of Iraq before the 2012 election at all costs.” Most Americans do not realize how much dynamite is packed in these two sentences. But let me tell you, there is enough destructive power in them to send an Iraqi or someone neutral into orbit.

Look here. When America goes into Iraq, the engagement is between the Americans and the Iraqis who are the two main players. Thus, any discussion about the matter should involve them both and no one else. But this is not what often happens with matters that involve America and someone because the discussion always degenerates into a couple of American factions (usually one Left-wing and one Right-wing) bickering about who was right and who was wrong. To paraphrase Hillary Clinton: What does it matter if a couple of Americans decided to bicker about which of them was more responsible for the destruction of Iraq and the killing of its people? The fact is that the country was destroyed and its people killed by the hundreds of thousands based on a false accusation.

Now the Hanson Classic. Here is another mouthful that can send someone into orbit. It may not be as high an orbit as the first, but it will be one nevertheless: “The result is that we have thrown away the work that broke the back of both al-Qaeda and Iranian-backed Shiite[s].” What the author should have done here which he neglected to do because it is his habit to truncate history to advance his point of view, is to explain that al-Qaeda was originally created, nurtured and financed by the American President Ronald Reagan, and that the hostility of the Iranians toward America came about because the Iranians elected a prime minister that the American CIA toppled because he did not suit their taste. Had the Americans kept their noses out of that region, none of what happened would have happened.

Of course, many other things did happen after that which contributed to the development of the current situation, a reality that should have told a historian like Victor Hanson he can only blame the current situation on the main actors such as Reagan and the CIA who were originally responsible for what happened, and not on the supporting actors such as Hussein, Maliki and Qaddafi who were engendered by the situation. To paraphrase an old saying: Had Napoleon not been born, he would have been invented – and so would have been Hussein, Maliki and Qaddafi.

But really, did Victor Hanson not know all this? Of course, he knew it. But he worked out an agenda he has been pushing insidiously with almost every article he wrote. You can smell it if not see it in this passage: “The administration can create mythologies about Islamic history, as in Obama's unfortunate Cairo speech...” This passage goes on and on for several paragraphs like the recital of a litany of cultural horrors ... to end with this part: “Middle Eastern violence and instability result from a complex brew of tribalism, religious fundamentalism and intolerance, sexual apartheid, anti-Semitism, authoritarianism, and statism.”

He loves to insult the Arabs and the Muslims, you see. If I were a student in his class, I would ask for a refund and find another professor who would teach history and not his political agenda.

Eternal Damnation by Dogma fueled with Hate

Everywhere on the planet and throughout time, people have hated each other, fought and then reconciled to later become friends, even countrymen and family. This has been the history of Europe, certainly that of the races that migrated to the new worlds such as the US, Canada, Central and South America as well as Australia.

It also happened in Asia and Africa where great cosmopolitan cities were built in ancient and modern times to receive and accommodate the people that came from many places around the world, and that settled in those cities to start a new life.

But there is one group of people with whom hate has always taken a form so different from the norm, it does not erase by the normal interactions, in the way that things happen everywhere else with the human family. These are the Jews whose initial move into a community may be an occasion for celebration but always ends with a horror story that adds another chapter to the sorry state of the Jewish condition. Why is that?

Well, an editorial in the Jewish dominated Wall Street Journal helps us understand this phenomenon because it demonstrates that when hate is elevated to the level of religious dogma, it opens the door for its adherents to enter the realm of a contorted sort of existence; an eternal damnation from which there is no escape. The title of the editorial is “Our Friends the Mullahs” and the subtitle is: “Tehran and the U.S. don't have a shared interest in the Mideast.” It was published on June 17, 2014 in the Journal.

The normal approach to take when you discuss a subject is to lay out the background of the story, and then make the analysis and the commentary that will lead you to the conclusions supporting your position. But when your conclusions are already made, and when they are etched in stone as solidly as a religious dogma, you tend to begin the discussion with them however negative you may sound to the reader whom you know will probably be turned off right at the start.

And this is how the Wall Street Journal begins that infamous editorial: “Such is America's strategic disarray in Iraq that the Obama Administration has come up with a new version of an old idea – court Iran as an ally.” The editors have determined this may come to pass from an interview that Secretary of State John Kerry gave recently in which he said: “Let's see what Iran might be willing to do … we are open to any constructive process that could minimize the violence, hold Iraq together and eliminate the presence of forces ripping it apart.”

These are lofty goals, of course, but in the eyes of the Journal editors, they are offset by things they cannot stomach. Here they are: “The mullahs must be astonished at their good fortune. A year ago they were isolated and scrambling to save Assad of Syria. Then Obama agreed to spare Assad's airfields from bombing in return for giv[ing] up his chemical arms … Now the sanctions on Iran have been eased as part of the nuclear talks, and the U.S. is negotiating to be the air force for Iran's Quds Force.”

Well, any normal human being would say there is nothing wrong with that. True, this is what a normal human being would say … unless they are powered by hate fueled with a dogma that has the force of religion. And this is what the editors of the Wall Street Journal have demonstrated. They went on to spew their venom against the Quds force which fought against America as much as America fought against it.

That said, the editors admit “America does have an interest in defeating ISIS that has captured much of Sunni Iraq,” and they quickly follow this with a but. Here it is: “But that doesn't mean the U.S. has shared interest with Iran in the region.” What? They just made the point that both sides share the interest of seeing ISIS defeated. It seems that fanatic dogma has a way of preventing you from seeing your own creation.

And based on this contorted logic, the editors of the Journal go on to ramble a few more points that make no more sense than what they made so far. And they end like they started: “This outreach to Iran smacks mostly of strategic desperation. It is what an Administration does when it realizes its policy has failed and the damage to U.S. interests is becoming too obvious to hide from the American public.” This is deadly venom wrapped in eternal hate from which there is no escape.

Now you know why all sorts of human beings build cosmopolitan cities that house all sorts of races, but the Jews only look forward to concentration camps, gas chambers and crematoria.

It is Time to even up the playing Field

As far as World Jewry, Israel and the American Jewish lobby are concerned, the most hated enemy of the day is Iran. This is why at anytime, and from whatever angle one of them or a surrogate of theirs says or writes something, they end up focusing on Iran, a nation against which they spew their hatred like a river that never stops flowing.

John Bolton sits at the leading edge of this movement which is why he has once again written something to this effect. His article this time has the title: “US focus must be on Iran as Iraq falls apart” published on June 16, 2014 on the website FoxNews.com. He says basically that the readers should not worry about how much blame George W. Bush or Barack Obama must shoulder in what is currently unfolding in Iraq because like “Henry Kissinger once quipped that he hoped both sides would lose.” This was said during the war between Iraq and Iran, something that was repeated by many a Jew with regard to the civil war in Syria.

Thus, when something happens in the Arab or Muslim worlds at which time the children die, a Jew in America rejoices and invites everyone to share the joy. John Bolton has done it again, and went on with the rest of the ritual which is to ask for more of the same. Here is that request: “we must increase (more accurately, renew) our efforts to overthrow the ayatollahs in Teheran.” This is a stunning admission that such efforts were attempted before but what he does not say in this piece is what the efforts consisted of.

Well, a review of the archives of punditry will reveal that the most potent weapon used by the American and British surrogates of the Jewish organizations had been to plant the seeds of division among the religious groups in the Middle East and Asia, and among the various tribes in Africa. This was the way that the old colonial powers used to gain the upper hand under the principle of divide and conquer. But when those powers got tired of themselves living off the flesh and blood of the weak, the Jews came along and recruited the soldiers of fortune who would continue the tradition for a share of the profit.

Thus, Jews like John Bolton, have now become the armchair generals who sit in the back and plot both the tactics and the strategies to keep the misery going so that Jews may live in comfort. As explained by him, the tactics consist of starting the hostilities and then “step aside, hoping the conflict damages all the combatants.” As to the long term strategy, it consists of seeking to change the regimes that provide stability for the region so that chaos may triumph and the killings become wholesale.

Right now, Bolton sees that “Iran is clearly the strongest power in the conflict.” And because the strategy dictates “that we should not aid our stronger adversary against our weaker adversary” he suggests if not dictates that “our objective should be to remove the main foe, Tehran's ayatollahs, by encouraging the opposition, within and outside Iran, to take matters in their own hands.”

And how to do this? He says how to do it in black and white, and in full detail. Here it is: “We should provide them [the opposition] intelligence and material assistance, and help them subsume the political differences that separate them.” The word “political” in this instance covers for “sectarian” or “tribal” in other cases. Hey, but wait a minute. Not only the Americans or the Brits are reading these words, so are the people that the Jews are targeting by the strategy.

So then, what do you think these people will do? It is only reasonable to see that they will want to do to America and the West what the Jews of America and the West are doing to them. They will, of course, recruit “opposition” from these places, train them in the very hell that America and the West have unleashed on them, and then send these people back to where they came from where they will return the favor. What will that be? Another 9/11?

Conscious of all this, Bolton asks that “a major national debate be launched about America's proper place in the world. Let it begin now.”

Well, I am not an American national but a concerned citizen of the world. And I have something to say in this regard: It is never a good thing to tell someone to shut up. But the Jews have pretended to be a breed apart with the power to shut everyone up. Well, the time has come to tell these people to just shut up and let the debate proceed without them. It is only fair that they sit on the sidelines for half a century, having shut everybody up for half a century.