They must really change not just pretend to

There are Orthodox Jews and there are those who call themselves Reform Jews. Yes, the Jews do need to change if they don't want to continue being the eternal losers they have always been. But what is needed is not the kind of change that the reformers have been devising up to now. In fact, it can even be said that the newest of the reformers have changed things not for the better but for the worse.

The reality is that the change which these people brought to the Jews of North America is nothing more than the latest tweaking of a religion that has changed its shape to suit the local conditions whenever it moved; to whatever place it moved. In fact, all religions do this sort of thing to attract new converts, and Judaism has not been different in this sense. But what the Jews carry with them everywhere they go – that is different from the other religions – is that they seek new converts not to grow a religion but grow an ideology.

Long before there were political parties as we know them today, let alone parties with an international outlook, the Jews had organized themselves into a kind of political party that has at its core an outlook which is both local and international. What makes the Jews more political than religious is that they think of human beings not as lambs in need of a shepherd to gather them and take them to a safe place, but think of them as evil opponents that must be conquered and subjugated … or risk being annihilated at their hands.

This is why there is never a true relationship between a Jew and a non-Jew based on equality. You see this reality on the international stage where you have Jewish masters commanding their American, Canadian and Australian possessions, or you see Jews forever conspiring to mobilize their possessions, and get them ready to go after their opponents … most everyone else in the world. However, you may at times see what appears to be a relationship of equals between a Jew and a non-Jew. Do not be fooled. You must realize that this is an optical illusion because the truth can only be that the Jew is in the process of drafting the non-Jew into the ideology of political Judaism. He is all smiles now; he'll be cracking the whip sooner or later.

You can see evidence of all this in two articles published at about the same time near the end of November, 2014. The first was written by Reuel Marc Gerecht under the title: “Extending Extensions” and the subtitle: “The 'complex' negotiations with Iran.” It was posted on the website of the Weekly Standard, and published in the print edition of the magazine. The second was written by Josh Gelernter under the title: “Obama & Genocide” and the subtitle: “He spoke blandly of Tibet's 'unique identity,' but said nothing about Falun Gong.” It was published in National Review Online.

Both articles do the very Jewish thing of trying to gain credit for their side by discrediting the other side. For example, Gerecht disparages Iran and chides the Obama administration for not doing what needs to be done to confront the Iranians whom he considers to be evil. Why evil? It is because in his imagination, Iran represents an existential threat to Israel. A threat to Israel? If so, where is the evidence to this effect when, in fact, it was America's ally, Iraq that attacked Iran without provocation in previous years; and it is America's ally Israel that constantly threatens to attack Iran today?

There is no evidence that would hold in a respected court of law, or hold in a kangaroo court or hold in the court of public opinion. All that Reuel Marc Gerecht is offering in his article is speculation, delusions, self-deception and outright lies. But that's what political Judaism is all about. If these people wish to change their miserable destiny, they will have to change not their cosmetic religiosity but their fundamental ideology.

As to Josh Gelernter, he attacks and disparages China, and also chides President Obama for not doing what needs to be done to confront China on the subject of Tibet, and what flows from that in terms of violations to human rights. Because this is a subject with which you're not familiar, you do two things. One, you look for real evidence – not speculation or hearsay – in the article as to the accusations that are leveled against China, and two, you compare what you find, with the hard evidence that comes out of Israel and the occupied land of Palestine on a regular basis; almost on a daily basis.

And you conclude from what you see that if China is a scratch that is healing, Israel and the Jews are the flesh eating disease that is consuming the entire body. There is no comparison between the two.

A useful Lesson that the World is learning

Never before have a Jew and a half-Jew done so much to signal to the World that everything which humanity did in the past with regard to the way that it treated the Jews, was justified then and would be today.

Michael Makovsky and William Kristol spilled their guts out, telling the world what they want for Israel, telling the Congress what to do, and telling the American President off. They did all that in an article they wrote under the title: “No Deal” which appeared on November 28, 2014 on the website of the Weekly Standard, and the December 8, 2014 edition of the magazine's print version.

After a short introduction as to the subject matter they are about to discuss, and after making the observation that: “Maybe it's time to learn the lessons … and adopt a new Iran strategy,” Makovsky and Kristol start the core of their argument. And so they do the very thing which, for half a century, has been turning the brain of American legislators into an Ebola-like liquid; they inject their Jewish venom into that brain.

They do so by projecting into someone they hate the toxicity that Jewish ideology is made of. This is the hate, only the hate and nothing but the hate which they harbor for all of humanity, having adapted it to sound like this: “Leader Ali Khamenei['s] hostility to the Great Satan is central to his regime's raison d’être.” But the fact is that no one in Iran needs to hate something or someone to survive, whereas the self-appointed Jewish leaders need to hate and be hated to maintain the loyalty and obedience of a Jewish rank and file they keep in a permanent state of anxiety, and sometimes outright terror. And so, the two authors give Khamenei the lead role in the fictional stage play they unfold throughout the rest of the article.

Having described the evil nature of the lead character, Makovsky and Kristol  start developing a narrative that will allow them to make specific demands. Thus, they tell that in the beginning: “The United States had a strong hand to play.” In fact, even Obama – who takes on the role of supporting character – seemed to be on board when he pledged readiness to use American power to prevent Iran from developing.” Alas, that same Obama had a character flaw, they point out … in that he believed he could resolve differences with the Iranians by allaying their suspicions. He thus undermined what leverage the United States had with Iran, turning a strong American hand into a weak one.

And that flaw has manifested itself too often, they say, most notably when (1) Obama failed to support the antiregime demonstrators in Iran, (2) by sending letters to Khamenei and (3) by failing to confront Iran's allies in the region. At the same time as those events were unfolding, Makovsky and Kristol reveal that Obama distanced himself from Israel and from America's traditional Arab allies. Well, what they are really saying is that Obama was bad in their eyes because he did the right thing.

You see, the Jews were the ones to introduce to America the idea that every time someone demonstrates against their government anywhere in the world, the American president should be there barking slogans in harmony with the demonstrators. The Jews could not care less if this would motivate the leaders of other nations to start supporting demonstrations taking place in America. But Obama did care, and he wisely chose to stay out of other people's business. But the Jews who poke their noses in everyone's business all the time, and would love to make America do likewise, hated Obama for not playing the self-defeating game.

This is why the two authors conclude that the Obama administration does not seem serious enough to prevent Iran from developing its nuclear infrastructure. And this is why they turn their attention to the Congress where they plead their case. They begin the talk by reminding the legislators that they were the ones to impose tough sanctions on Iran that nevertheless “have failed in their main purpose: stopping the nuclear program.” And they suggest that this has been the case because: “the main element missing from the strategy has been a credible military option.” And so they list the things that Congress can and must do. They begin by trashing the President: “Obama hasn't learned from his mistakes, so Congress will have to take the lead.”

The reader must understand that whenever Makovsky and Kristol say Congress from this point on, they mean to say “we the Jews” because they know – as does the rest of the world – that the American Congress is an assembly of traitors who sold their souls for a smile, a song and a Jewish pat on the back.

The two authors proceed like this: “Congress could pass stronger sanctions legislation … Congress could pass an Authorization for the Use of Military Force against Iran … Congress could augment Israel's capacity to strike Iran by passing legislation that would sell it bunker-buster bombs and B-52s.” And they explain that this would “send a strong signal of support for Israel” which is the idea behind this whole exercise. They want Iran to understand what the rest of the world already knows which is that the American Congress would bankrupt America and kill its young to promote the glory of Israel.

This takes us to the last sentence in the article which can be rewritten to read the way it is meant to read: “It is time for Congress [us Jews] to take the lead in this matter crucial to our [Israel's] national interest. It is time for us Jews to speak, and to act for Israeli occupied America.”

And so, the lesson that the rest of the world is learning from this tragic American saga is that when you treat the Jews like any other people, you commit national suicide. It is as pure and simple as that.

Walking a Mile in Palestinian Shoes

There is this English proverb: “You can't understand a man unless you walk a mile in his shoes.” You see the meaning of this proverb come to life every time that a jury comes down with a decision that is “for” or that is “against” the defendant. This is when the family of the victim – one that may have been severely injured or murdered – weeps with disappointment at the decision, or celebrates the fact that justice was done.

Sure, as spectators we do sympathize with these people, but to understand them fully will necessitate that we walk a mile in their shoes. Since we do not want to see something bad happen to a loved one to understand what these people go through, we can approximate the feel of walking in their shoes by going over a situation in which we were treated unfairly – perhaps by the system of justice itself doing nothing less than obstructing justice.

Well, I witnessed instances when the system of justice delivered injustice to people I knew and to people I did not know. And it happened to me when I had experiences from which I pick the one that comes close to what the people of Palestine must be experiencing. Bad things happen to these people all the time when they see the self-designated democracies of America, Canada and Australia behave not like jurisdictions where the rule of law reigns supreme, but jurisdictions where the law that reigns supreme is that the Jewish serial murderer must be shielded and given help to continue murdering Palestinians and looting their properties.

Something happened to me when I was suing a publication for participating in the act of blacklisting me. I am not going to discuss the trial itself but the motions that are done before the trial begins in order to prepare for it. Having made the point in my statement of complaint that the editors of the publication in question interfered with my effort to get published by other organizations, those editors denied they even knew who I was, having never heard of me. Well, luckily I had enough evidence in writing to prove otherwise, and the trial judge did eventually believe me, having rejected the silly stuff mouthed off by the lawyer for the editors.

However, not knowing that this will happen at the trial, I presented the court with a motion – one among several – in which another judge ruled against me. What I had done was to subpoena a representative of the telephone company to testify to the fact that long distance calls were made from the office of the editors in Toronto to my residence in Montreal. This would have proved they were lying, and I believed that this will be enough to guarantee that I shall win at the trial.

Surprise, surprise, the judge denied my motion – and guess why. The lawyer for the publication I was suing said that I was on a fishing expedition, which would violate the confidentiality of his client. Since I was conducting my own case, I told the judge I am only going to ask the witness if calls were made to me not to someone else. Still, the lawyer protested that this would constitute a fishing expedition, and the judge agreed. He denied the motion, and left me with the feeling that the system of justice had impeded justice. This, in my opinion, would have been a crime if committed by someone else, which led me to the idea that it is not enough to have the right to appeal bad judgments, it must be that judges are held liable for outrageous rulings they make and cannot justify.

And this is where I begin to feel like I'm walking in the shoes of the Palestinians. Time after time, these people have tried to take their case before a judicial or a quasi-judicial body so as to “have their day in court” but time after time, America, Canada and Australia obstructed that process, knowing that their doing will give the Jewish serial murderers a license to continue murdering and looting their Palestinian victims, who are kept disarmed and helpless to facilitate their victimization.

This time, Switzerland is trying to convene a Geneva Convention conference to look into the Israeli occupation of Palestine where crimes against humanity are committed continually, and a determination needs to be made one way or the other so as to move the process forward and put an end to this stain against civilized human behavior. But who would stand against this and do all that they can to obstruct justice? None other than those who call themselves democratic systems that abide by the rule of law. They are America, Canada and Australia.

What a bunch of fakes! What an insult to civilized human behavior! These are not humans; they are animals.

When Adults were in charge of Country

Here is something you didn't see when adults – rednecks or otherwise – were in charge of running the country which goes by the name United States of America: “the three Rs have neutered OPEC.” Adults do not neuter their business partners because if they do, they neuter themselves in the process. But if it so happens that they do it deliberately or inadvertently, they don't talk about it, and certainly don't brag about it.

Yet, this is what you see the mental dwarfs of post modern America do, having been “educated” by Jewish so-called teachers on how to behave like obnoxious social skunks of the kind that people everywhere avoid being with or being seen with. You can see the work of one such lost soul, Robert Bryce, who wrote an article under the title: “OPEC KO'd by the Three Rs” and the subtitle: “American oil and natural-gas production have shot ahead in the last decade.” It was published on November 26, 2014 in National Review Online.

For more than a century, the big oil and natural-gas companies have been managing the world resources in the same way that the managers of a metal mine or a hydrocarbon field run their business. Upon discovery of the resource they look for, they do a feasibility study to delineate what they have underground, how much of it there is, and how it is spread throughout the property. This done, they work out a production plan that allows them to maintain a steady level of output during the life of the mine or the field. They do this by mixing the production from areas where the concentration of resources is a high with the production from areas where the concentration is low.

They change the plan if and when they discover more resources; if and when another company makes a discovery in an adjacent claim; if and when the conditions for the industry or the economy as a whole change. And it is in this spirit that the big oil companies used to run the world resources – a time during which they owned most of what was there. It is also in this spirit that they have continued to cooperate with the countries that nationalized the resources under their jurisdictions. Yes, there may now be an ongoing rivalry between OPEC and the international companies, but the one thing neither will do is try to neuter the other. They are still colleagues, and they cooperate as if they were partners because it is vital to both.

As to the activities happening in the American oil patch at this time, they are not happening because something new was discovered all of a sudden. The shale oil and shale gas deposits were known to be there for decades, and the engineers had developed the technology by which to extract them long ago. It was the top managers of the companies that decided the time had not come to start extracting. And this condition was maintained for as long as the world economy was not ready for more oil or natural gas.

Well, the time has now arrived with a world economy that is showing promise of an explosive growth looming just ahead. It is happening because large parts of the world are about to develop at a breakneck speed. The promise is also there that the growth will remain with us for a long time to come. And so, the need for and the use of energy will gallop like a horse on steroids.

If anything, the world energy nations and the big energy companies will cooperate ever more closely with each other to satisfy the needs of everyone on the planet because they will want the world economy to stay healthy, something that can only happen when every economy in it remains healthy.

Instead of highlighting all of the above, the Robert Bryce article follows the Jewish self-delusion and the self-defeating narrative of identifying real and imagined weakness for every country in the OPEC group with the exception of Saudi Arabia. And he made it sound like each of those countries suffers from all the weaknesses. This led him to the conclusion that the war between the big oil companies and OPEC is on, and that OPEC is being neutered if it hasn't already been castrated.

The readers can now apply this lesson to the rotten advice which America has received from what used to be respectable think tanks, but have been turned into cesspools of ignorance, having been taken over a while ago by Jewish interests.

And the readers will know how and why America has sunk into the Jewish cesspool of mediocrity.

There is an Answer to everything

The editors of the New York Times have given their readers a big and pleasant surprise on this day, November 27, 2014 which happens to be the day that the Americans celebrate to give Thanks for what they have. Here in Canada, we celebrate this day 5 weeks earlier.

At long last, the New York Times has published: “Subcontracting Repression in the West Bank and Gaza,” an article written by Sabrien Amrov and Alaa Tartir which presents the Palestinian side of the story. This came after something like 10,000 articles published in the Times over the decades, representing the Jewish side only. What the editors do not seem to realize, however, is that they opened the window not only on the question of repression in Palestine but also the larger question of Jewish ideology.

To understand the significance of this article when looked at it through the lens of that larger question, we need to stop for a moment and reflect on the subject of “ideology.” This word refers to an intellectual construct that is meant to use as a guide when proceeding with the implementation of what we're doing, or we're about to do. For example, the constitution of a country is one such construct, usually consulted when legislators wish to know what they must do and what they must avoid as they make new laws.

Sadly though, the intellectual gap between the people who put together an ideological construct, and some of the people who later use it, can be so wide as to yield two vastly different images. On the one hand, you have the image of a group that is building the ship of state; on the other hand, you have the image of a group that is sinking the ship of state. For example, the Fathers of the American Republic built the ship while forging their Constitution while some people today (not all) destroy the ship in the name of that same Constitution.

Most of the time, those who do the destruction do not realize what it is they are doing. Because these people lack a minimum of innate intelligence, they latch-on to a construct that was put together by someone else, and stick to it with the fervor of a religious fanatic. That is, they take every word as if it were a dogma they cannot interpret or change even when it is shown that the fathers of the document would have changed it given that the circumstances have changed. These people simply lack the intelligence to make the leap.

In America, for example, Ted Cruz and a few others like him are the brainless idiots who cannot open the mouth without dropping the word “constitution” as often as a street wino drops the “f” bomb once with every two words he pronounces. Cruz and the others are not going to rebuild the American Republic; they are going to give it the coup de grace. But you don't have to be a legislator to be a Ted Cruz sort of fanatic; you can be an editor working for a major publication and be just as idiotic in your field.

And there are a number of those on the editorial board of the New York Times. One of the fanatic ideas they are wedded to is the relationship between what they think represents non-democratic forces, and what they think represents repression. What counts to these people is not what is being done for what purpose or for how long; it is who is doing what to whom. For example, in the eyes of the editorial Ted Cruzes of the New York Times, it is a perfectly lovely thing that Jews who come from abroad are slaughtering Palestinians by the thousands and taking their possessions. On the other hand, it is a horrifyingly bad thing that thirty million Egyptians have marched in the streets of the cities and towns demanding that their military restore law and order so that ninety million civilians may again live a normal life.

The larger question of Jewish ideology begins to be defined when you look at the difference between the spontaneity with which the events have developed in Egypt (whatever the resulting negative side effects may have been) and the permanence that is reflected in what comes out the Amrov and Tartir article. There can be no doubt in the mind of anyone sane that despite the ups and downs, the people and government of Egypt will continue to enjoy, and continue to develop the magnificent civilization they started seven thousand years ago and kept renewing with the passage of time.

But the question is this: What will happen to the Jews who have been gassed and incinerated everywhere they went for all the time that they have existed on this planet? Well, the Amrov and Tartir article yields the answer to that question. In the same way that the fanatics of the New York Times have latched on to the idea that whatever the Jew does is absolutely perfect, the Jewish leaders – no matter when or why they converted to Judaism – have latched on to the idea that the way to take over the world is to subcontract repression to others. It is that the Jews had trained these people to do the dirty work for them while they collected the benefits.

The article tells the story of what is unfolding in a Palestine that is fully occupied, on a Capitol Hill that is fully occupied, and in a Europe that is partially occupied. What the article describes both implicitly and explicitly are the ways by which the Jews infiltrate the institutions they wish to take over, how they work inside them insidiously and stealthily, and for how long they do so to pit people against people till they succeed at dividing them and ruling over them.

What is not mentioned in the article is how it all ends; in fact, it does not even ask the question. But the fact remains that even though the Ted Cruzes of this world – be they political or editorial – do not have the brains to ask the question, the question has been answered hundreds of time throughout history. When the leaders of a people are taken over by the Jews, and the latter have begun to sell out their country to please their masters, the masses of people punish their own leaders together with the Jews who led them astray.

And that's because there is an answer to everything, no matter how long it takes it to come to the fore.

Dragging a Spanish Pinocchio by the Nose

This one is the real liar whose pants were consumed by the fire together with his political shirt when he lied to his own people on a matter that's as serious as the terrorist attack which took the lives of dozens of their fellow citizens. He is Jose Maria Aznar, former president of Spain, now a pitiful mouthpiece for the Jewish propaganda machine, and a willing carrier for Netanyahu’s water as well as his suitcase.

He wrote: “Failed to Cut a Deal With Iran? Better Than Making a Bad One,” an article that also came under the astounding subtitle: “Tehran has been cheating for years. Do we think the regime will suddenly embrace nuclear transparency?” It was published on November 26, 2014 in the Wall Street Journal. Anyone that knows who this man is must be jumping to their feet yelling: Look who's talking about transparency!

In fact, he was president of Spain in the middle of an election campaign in which he ran to be re-elected. He was doing badly in the polls due to his association with the W. president of America and the IQ challenged Israeli refusenick of the old Soviet Union – when al-Qaeda hit Spain for its involvement in Afghanistan. Sending troops to fight in that country was Aznar's idea, a decision he took despite the opposition of his people.

And so, when al-Qaeda hit Spain and he knew who it was, he lied to his people, telling them that a local terrorist group did it. He lied because he knew that to tell the truth would have assured him a complete rout come election day. Well, that day came and he lost anyway. Eventually the truth came out to the effect that al-Qaeda did it as it promised it would if Aznar did not pull his troops out of Afghanistan.

So then, this is the man who now speaks in the name of the Jewish propaganda machine, and for Netanyahu of Israel, trying to convince the world – especially the congressional two-timers of America – that the Iranians are cheats who will never embrace transparency. And for this reason, he is advising the Americans to heed Netanyahu, and to realize that “this is not the time to make more concessions, but the time to put more pressure on the ayatollahs.”

He is not saying it out loud, but what is making him unhappy is what is known to make Israel's Netanyahu unhappy. True or false, they both firmly believe that Iran is “a revolutionary power intent on transforming the world order.” And the proof of this is that Iran “is now present and influential in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and Iraq.” Of course, far from being an Iranian dream, the will to transform the world is something that the Jews repeatedly said was their goal, as they have vowed they will not rest till they transform the world into a place that will be safe for Jews to live in.

And to them who claim to be the authentic descendants of the ancient Hebrew tribes despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary – it is now as it has always been, mainly that there is a place at the top for only one. If it is going to be the Iranians, it will not be the Jews. This prospect being something that is killing them, they want the Americans to start killing the Iranians right now, and without delay.

But that would be a difficult thing to sell to the Americans. What to do to fool them and get them to tackle the Iranians in the belief that they are doing it for a good cause? The Jews have a surefire idea. They will get a Spaniard to tell the Americans that a rapprochement with Iran will empower the Iranian Revolutionary Guard which, in turn, will keep the Iranian people under an oppressive regime. Brilliant! Raise their IQ a notch.

And this is how and why they got Aznar to say this much to the Americans, then add the following: “That is not a moral proposition easy to swallow for any democrat.” Wow! What gall! This is like a convicted rapist speculating out loud that neighbor “A” may someday be tempted to rape neighbor “B,” which to him, will not be a moral proposition easy to swallow. And speculating like they always do, is what he did in the name of the Jews ... which is why we must lower their IQ a notch.

The moral of this story is that having found someone endowed with the moral fiber of a Chihuahua, all that the Jewish propaganda machine had to do to make full use of him was to drag him by the nose to where it wanted him to be. This gave him a Pinocchio nose which suited him well, as he learned to make a cottage industry out of lying for his Jewish masters.

The neutralized Venom of a disguised Viper

If there is one thing for the world to be thankful for when it comes to the ongoing negotiations between Iran and the P5+1, it is that the Jewish trick of whispering slanderous stories about decent people in the ears of the emotionally abused officials in the so-called democracies, has been almost fully neutralized.

It used to be that any moron calling himself a Jew could approach any politicians in the “West,” and discharge a load of calumnies in his or her ear about someone decent – individual, organization or nation – and force the Western official to set in motion the criminal machine of interfering with the normal pursuits of that individual, organization or nation. Not anymore; at least not as easily as before. And that's because the Jewish moron has been exposed as a viper disguised as a prophet whose words are not saintly pronouncements of wisdom but venom that goes directly to the brain of the listener, and turn it into liquid like would a moral Ebola.

What the vipers are forced to do now is spew their venom in public, a development that allows ordinary decent people to take them on, and push back against their corrosive discharges. Not only that, but the vipers find it necessary now to also attack the officials whose ears they had the habit of abusing, but are no longer allowed to do so; at least not as easily as before. And when they attack the very people they seek to impress, the vipers expose more of their own true nature, revealing themselves as the horrible creatures of the deep which they are.

An example of this can be studied in the column that was written by Bret Stephens under the title: “Iran Cheats, Obama Whitewashes” and the subtitle: “The administration thinks a nuclear Iran is inevitable – but lacks the courage to say it.” It was published on November 25, 2014, in the Wall Street Journal. Stephens spews his venom without a minimum of equivocation in the first paragraph: “Iran came to the table cheating ... It continued to cheat ... And will cheat on any undertakings it signs.”

Reading those words, you would think that Stephens is talking about Israel that has fooled America for two decades, making its morally “ebola-ed” legislators believe that the Jews are negotiating for a peace settlement with the Palestinians when in fact – as they are now admitting – have been buying time to steal more and more of Palestinian lands and properties.

Stephens goes on to grab bits of information, and pieces of opinions from here and there, especially from the IAEA and the UN which he has been disparaging for years – and he assembles those bits and pieces into a narrative which he says proves his point. It is that “the [Obama] administration has a record of arms-control dissembling,” hiding the truth from Congress and lying about it to the public; and then repeating a similar sort of scenario with Iran.

And so, he explains this much: “The real problem is cowardice. As a matter of politics it [Obama administration] cannot acknowledge what, privately, it believes: that a nuclear Iran is undesirable but probably inevitable and hardly catastrophic.” Well, my friend, let me tell you with certainty that only a demonic Jew who truly believes he is divine would say with certainty what someone else privately believes in. Yes, I am now doing what Stephens has done, but at least I have something to go by: what he wrote. What did he go by to assert what the Obama administration “privately believes” in?

And Bret Stephens has a motive for saying what he says. It is this: “[the administration] refuses to commit to the only realistic course of action that could eliminate Iran's nuclear capabilities by a combination of sanctions and military strikes.” Since he does not believe this will happen, he spews another load of venom: “because the administration lacks the political courage of its convictions – we are wedded to this sham process of negotiations.” Here again, he fails to reveal he is attributing to Iran the sins that Israel has been committing for two decades or longer.

And what is his purpose? To use American power and prestige to destroy Israel's neighbors in the hope of creating the kind of toxic sea that the Jewish fish can live in, having failed for three and a half millenniums to get along with decent people in Europe, and now their Middle Eastern neighbors, including the Iranians.

The Jews were created to be a pain in the rear end of mankind, and they seem to take their calling seriously.

Labor Productivity shall remain ephemeral

Professor Alan S. Blinder has an intriguing article in the Wall Street Journal written under the title: “The Unsettling Mystery of Productivity” and the subtitle: “Since 2010 U.S. productivity has grown at a miserable rate. And no one, not even the Fed, seems to understand why.” The article was published on November 25, 2014 in the Wall Street Journal. Mr. Blinder explains the mystery in detail, and ends the article with this thought: “Maybe some attention should be deployed to studying productivity growth.” That's a tall order, professor, and there is a good reason why.

When you come down to it, an economy is measured in two ways, one tangible and one intangible. The tangible is that to which you can assign a hard number such as a million tons of iron, or a million tons of wheat, or a million cars or a million housing units. The intangible is that to which you assign a value based on an impression as to its aesthetic features or its perceived qualities. This can vary from saying something like “this car looks better than that one” to saying “the CAT scan has detected the tumor that the X-ray machine missed.”

When measuring the value of an economy, you take a snapshot of all the goods and services it produces at a given time, assign an applicable tangible or intangible number to each – maybe even convert all that into a dollar value – thus obtain what is called the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). To measure the growth of the economy, you take another snapshot later on, and compare it with the previous. The difference between the two numbers indicates the growth for the period, be it positive or negative.

Another number that some economists like to make use of is labor productivity. The trouble is that this number can be tangible or it can be intangible. For example, if an iron mine produced 1,000,000 tons of ore last year while employing 100 workers; and produced 1,100,000 tons this year employing the same number of workers, it will be said that labor productivity went up 10 percent for this mine. These have been hard numbers and easy to work with.

Where difficulty creeps into the attempt to measure labor productivity is where the products – be they goods or services – have evolved from one period to the next. For example, what number do you assign to a CAT scan that has detected a tumor the X-ray machine failed to detect? Likewise, how much “better” is a color TV set than a black and white set? Or this one: How much better are the bedside manners of one doctor over those of another doctor? Can that reflect on the entire hospital? And so on and so forth.

The way that things are done now is to rely on the marketplace assigning a dollar value to every activity, yielding hard numbers to work with even though such numbers can be purely subjective. This happens often when bubbles are formed around a single product, such as a tulip, for example; or when they form around a sector of the economy, such as housing or high tech. The problem in these cases is having to differentiate between what is productivity and what is inflation.

All that aside, if we assume that formulas and indexes can be devised to measure those intangibles with a degree of accuracy, there is something else that will be near impossible to measure; this would be human psychology. Having worked in several companies over the decades where the products made and/or the employees have changed periodically, I can report that the mood in a company can change overnight from extreme optimism to extreme pessimism or the other way around.

That can happen for a trivial reason or a serious one, and it is no exaggeration to say that the productivity of the employees can vary by as much as 30 percent with a change in mood. The reason for the change can be specific to a department, to the entire company or to a shift in the trend of the economy as reported in the news or an action taken by the government.

When this happens to a number of large companies at the same time, they affect the overall productivity of the economy. And the effect can last for as long as the same group of employees remains in the company. But if there is a mass layoff, things can change with the next group of hires depending on what happens at the level of management. It can get better or it can get worse still.

For these reasons, labor productivity shall remain ephemeral in my view.

Proof that Israel and Terror are the same

William Kristol is a funny man – maybe not a pantomime kind of clown – but a funny man nevertheless. The trick he likes to play to make people laugh is a form of Russian roulette that goes something like this: He points the gun at his head and pulls the trigger several times … and nothing happens. He now tells the audience he will prove there is at least one bullet in the gun. He points it at his foot and shoots, putting a hole in the foot.

William Kristol shot himself in the foot once again writing an article that came under the title: “With Israel, Against Terror” published in the online edition of the Weekly Standard on November 24, 2014 and the December 1, 2014 issue of the print magazine. He says he is pleased that the New York Times did not do this time what it never did as a matter of fact. And that is that the Times did not blame Israel for the retaliatory acts mounted by individual Palestinians in response to Israel's continued terror attacks against them and their families.

Sidestepping the fact that it wasn't the Palestinians who went looking for Jews to terrorize, kill and rob them of their land, and sidestepping the fact that it was the Jews who went looking for Palestinians to terrorize, kill and rob them of their land, Kristol cherry picks a handful of incidents from among the millions that have unfolded over the decades, to build a case against the Palestinians. And he calls that – get this now – all. In fact, he doesn't even say it in English; he says it in French: “tout”.

But that's not all, because to give credence to what he said about the New York Times, he quotes a French saying, and modifies it to suit his purpose. Instead of “To understand all is to forgive all,” he turned it into: “To understand all is to condemn all.” This done, he launches an attack on what he calls the corruption of modern liberalism for being unable to condemn. He then asserts that the American people comprehend, condemn and wonder why we can't also act.

What he does not do is say what it is that the American people said they comprehend, what it is that they said they condemn, and what action they indicated they want to see taken. And he does not say where or when they made these sentiments known to him. To fill the gap in his argument, he fills-in for the American people, expressing his own opinions as if they were those of the American people – excluding those corrupted modern liberals, of course.

That kind of talk leads William Kristol to propose a solution. It comes in three parts this time around. First, move America's embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Second, suspend funding the Palestinian Authority. Third, don't lift any of the sanctions now imposed on Iran. He does not say how that will solve the problem but that does not matter because, in fact, this is where the Russian roulette part of his number ends. And this is where the process of shooting himself in the foot begins.

Having sidestepped – up to now – the reality that there would not be a Palestinian-Jewish clash today were it not for the fact that the Jews came looking for trouble where the Palestinians have been living since the beginning of time, Kristol reignites and amplifies the Jewish crime against humanity that is at the root of the problem. He does that by turning the facts on their head, asking two questions based on false premises. The first turning of the facts comes in the form of accusing the administration of adding fuel to the fire by denouncing Israel for continuing to steal Palestinian land. The second turning of the facts comes in the form of accusing the State Department of inciting violence when it calls on Israel to respect the law instead of provoking the world and most American institutions into delegitimizing it by boycotting it.

Here is where he points the gun at his foot: “building in a neighborhood everyone agrees would be part of Israel if there were to be a peace agreement.” And here is where he pulls the trigger: “Congress can tell the administration to stop making things worse with the 'peace process.'” Bang! “If there is a peace agreement but quick, kill the peace process.” The Jewish terrorists continue to have terror – and not peace – on their mind.

The ongoing trick is to provoke Palestinian kids who were born under occupation and lived under it all their lives into responding the only way they can against organized and well armed Jewish terrorism. When this happens, Jewish money from gambling moguls pours into the occupied territories to accommodate more Jewish settlers on Palestinian looted lands. And the cycle is repeated over and over again.

Thank you funny man, Bill Kristol for showing the world how the Jewish criminal scenario unfolds over and over.

They still don't get it, will they ever?

The editors of the Wall Street Journal still don't get it. Apparently they don't get it when they are talked to like adults; so maybe we should try talking to them like children. Here is their problem, expressed in their own words: “On taxes, [the claim is] that the rich don't pay their fair share, yet the most affluent one-fifth of taxpayers supplied 68.7% of the federal revenue for 2011.”

That's what they wrote in an editorial that came under the title: “More Redistribution, Less Income” and the subtitle: “Obama has spread the wealth, but the poor and middle class haven't benefited.” It was published in the Journal on November 24, 2014. They later buttressed their point with this: “The Middle class were households with market income between $49, 800 and $83,300 on average. In 2011, they paid about $7,400 in taxes and received $16,500 in transfers, for an average after-tax income of $59,000. That implies an effective tax rate of minus -13.7%.”

This means that the highest earners who contributed as much as positive +18.9% of their income to the federal revenue, saw their tax dollars transferred to the poor and the middle class. In the eyes of the Journal editors, the rich gave and the poor took. Therefore, there should be no problem. It should be case closed if not mission accomplished.

No. Not really. To put things in simple terms such that a child can understand, let's say that a family making on average $68,366 in market income and transfers would rather earn a million dollars a year and pay $189,000 in taxes, which would leave it with $811,000 to spend. This will be more desirable than having to live on a measly $59,000 no matter the sources of the revenue.

That example demonstrates the absurdity of discussing the share of taxes in terms of percentages because the approach hides the reality that the rich pay a higher percentage only because they have the wherewithal. On the other hand, someone earning $59,000 could not possibly pay $189,000 even though he would love to because it would imply he earned a million dollars. And the flip side of this is that someone paying $189,000 would not want to receive $16,500 in transfers because it would imply he will have to live on a measly $59,000.

This being the premise upon which the editors of the Journal have based their argument, they'll have to trash the whole idea and start from scratch. The trouble however, is that instead of doing just that, they tried to build on their shaky premise by adding two other layers of absurdity on top of it. First, to argue that the poor have not benefited from what they call the redistribution of wealth, they say that after-tax income fell by 1.9% without pointing to a single evidence that the redistribution is the cause, and that the fall of income is the effect.

Second, they report on a footnote that was made by the CBO to the effect that a change in market income causes people to change their behavior. Gee! what an insight that most people miss. Quick, tell it to those who hope to win the lottery. Tell them that if they win, they’ll be tempted to change their behavior. Too bad “the CBO did not attempt to model these behavioral effects,” they say but still, they point out that such effects “can't be good for upward mobility.” Again, they don't say how or why they reached this conclusion.

They end the article by enunciating a conclusion in a roundabout way, having failed once again to point to the nexus that is supposed to tie the cause and the effect. This is what they wrote: “The main lesson … is a verdict on Obamanomics. Presidents who put reducing inequality above increasing prosperity end up with less growth and more inequality.” How does it happen? Why does it happen? When does it happen? No response.

Having convinced themselves they contributed valuable insight to the debate, they feel confident enough to give advice to someone they believe will run for the presidency of the United States two years from now. They tell her to avoid Obamanomics, especially if it is going to be on steroids … in the European style.

And they say why this would be a bad idea by making a guess that is both rare and brilliant in its implications. Brace yourself for, here it comes: “Our guess is that most Americans would prefer to earn more income.”

Wow! Someone will have to award these people a prize in economics – perhaps in behavioral economics.

Morbid Jewish Dictates to Congress of Traitors

If there is a culture that is truly a culture of death, it can only be the Jewish culture. That's because it is the only parasitic construct that was put together in such a way as to live off other cultures; staying with them till they wilt, shrivel and die by the sucking force of its insatiable appetite.

Gathering together in the Land of Palestine, the Jews (who occupied by force of arms what used to be the peaceful Garden of Eden) set out to implement a comprehensive program to destabilize the region. This is an absolute necessity for them because a parasite feeds better on a surrounding that is weakened by an infestation of some kind … any kind. However, unable to do the work alone, they conned former colonial powers into joining them, promising that they who know the region well, will help the fallen powers recapture what they lost, thus regain their old glory.

To this end, they invited two former colonial powers to join them in the ill-fated adventure against Egypt which nevertheless signaled to the nations of the region and the world that the new parasite on the block means business – deadly business. Knowing that the best way to weaken a nation is to destroy the progress it makes in science and technology, the Jewish parasites began to sabotage all such installations by sending to them letterbombs; by paying saboteurs to do the work, by surprise-bombing civilian nuclear installations when no one expected such a cowardly act, and by cyber-hacking advanced installations with the help of the Americans.

And they got the Americans to (1) interfere with the financing of big infrastructure projects in countries that needed them; (2) bombing by cruise-missiles factories that made baby formula in countries that were struggling to get on their feet; and (3) convincing superpower America that the world will be facing an existential threat unless America invaded countries and toppled regimes that did not have weapons of mass destruction but the Jews insisted they had them.

All the while, the Jews worked diligently on infiltrating the strategic institutions of superpower America, especially its Congress. They slowly and deftly turned those institutions into instruments of control by which they managed to dominate all aspects of political, economic and military power in the nation. When done, they put all those powers at the disposal of the Jewish and Israeli leaders who use them like a private property in the work to implement their deadly agendas in the region and throughout the world.

For the plan to run smoothly and run without fail, the Jews had to secure the control of Congress as tightly as a despotic dictator would control his assembly of rubber-stamp puppets. To achieve this, they gathered information on individual legislators and their families – information they use when necessary to bribe or blackmail the legislators into toeing the Jewish/Israeli line slavishly, blindly and without questioning any part of it.

With all this under their belt, the Jews are now at a point where they can use the media – most of which is also under their control – to make their demands known. If they don't make them by whisper to members of the Congress, they make them in print and on the air in full view of a population that can no longer move a brain-dead Congress of traitors that is animated like zombies by a remote control that is firmly in the hands of the Jewish leaders in New York, and the foreign leaders in occupied Tel Aviv.

You can see the effect of all this in two articles published on November 21, 2014 in National Review Online. One was written by Jim Bridenstine under the title: “We Can't Trust the IAEA on Iran” and the subtitle: “Their capabilities are disturbingly limited – Congress has to keep this in mind.” The other article was written by Fred Fleitz under the title: “Are we Already Conceding the Bomb to Iran?” and the subtitle: “American policy must be to stop or slow, and not just contain, an Iranian nuclear weapon.”

Jim Bridenstine who is a member of the Congress begins with this: “It's imperative that the United States prevent Iran from getting … capability.” He repeats the discredited Jewish talking points, and then asks the question: “What should Congress do?” To answer, he relays the Tel Aviv dictates: “congressional committees should direct the director of national intelligence to promptly...” But why is this necessary? Because ignoring those dictates would “enable this president's preference and could prove fatal for Israel.” You see, it's all about Israel, only Israel and no one but Israel. Let America go bankrupt and send its children to die for the glory of Israel.

As to Fred Fleitz, he begins by relaying this fact: “anger is growing on Capitol Hill over the deal that the president is determined to implement [with Iran].” He goes on: “many members of Congress from both sides of the aisle believe that any agreement with Iran will do little or nothing to stop Iran from pursuing [modern science].”

Like Jim Bridenstine, Fred Fleitz asks a question – this one a very Jewish question about intent: “Why would the Obama administration agree to such a deal?” and he answers: “In their desperation, they hope to bolster the legacy of Obama.” And if that's not enough, they add this offensive defaming accusation: “Obama has in effect decided to concede the bomb to Tehran.”

And like Bridenstine, Fleitz tells what is imperative: “It is therefore imperative that Congress on a bipartisan basis demand that the president...” He is here talking about the congress of zombies who remain brain-dead when it comes to doing the business of America, but come to life and work “on a bipartisan basis” like busy bees to implement that which leads to the glory of Israel, only Israel and no one but Israel. It's all about Israel, you see!

And there are two more commands from occupied Tel Aviv to the District of Columbia. There is this: “An extension should also be rejected by Congress.” And there is this: “Congress must insist on a fundamental change in the U.S. approach, and make it clear that American policy must be to stop Iranian [scientific and technological progress].”

Only in America, eh!

An Ideology Mankind wants to see end

Imagine having a daughter, wife or sister that is raped by a low life, filthy animal they call human being. The police catch the thing, and before they have the time to deal with him to the full extent of the law, he finds a lawyer who launches a suit against you, stating that your loved one wasn't the first woman to be raped, yet she fails to do what the others have done, which is to adapt to her new circumstances and move on.

The thing that looks like a human does not stop here but goes on to say the following: Your loved one having made up her mind to refuse dropping the charges against him, you must be held responsible for practicing this cynical and self-interested policy ... without explaining what that is or how it works. Still, in consequence of all that, he wants to be compensated for the undue anguish he is made to suffer by this turn of the events.

Well, my friend, if you believe that the thing deserves to be gassed and incinerated, you're not alone. Judging by the manner with which the world has been responding to this sort of mentality, the indications are that billions of people would agree with you. In fact, this mentality is the kind that the Jewish propaganda machine has been spreading around the world for a time now, and humanity has responded by saying enough is enough. It has recommended that those responsible should suffer consequences which must be familiar to them by now.

And you can see how the Jewish propaganda machine has been spreading its message when you review the article that was written by Andrew Roberts under the title: “From an Era of Refugee Millions, Only Palestinians remain” and the subtitle: “The 1940s and '50s saw huge forced moves of population groups – people who put down roots and started over.” It was published in the Wall Street Journal on November 22, 2014.

What Roberts does in the article is list the instances that created refugees during the 1940s and 1950s, stressing that the ensuing problems were resolved by resettling the refugees – at times far away from where they used to live. These people moved on with their lives, he says, and became very successful in their adopted homelands. The idea he is trying to highlight is that those who might have been responsible for the problem in the first place were relieved of all responsibilities … which is what he suggests should happen in the case of the Palestinian refugee problem; the one that was caused when Israel was created.

But a talk like this has always led people to ask the question: Why is it that such a solution has not worked with the Palestinians? Aware of this reality, Roberts has answered the question by giving two reasons. The first is that the Arab states have practiced a policy of cynicism and self-interested policy, he says. The second is that the Palestinians hate Israel and the Jews more than they love Palestine.

The thing he has not done is explain how the Arab states were cynical and self-interested. The reason is that the explanation was given once before, and the Jewish propaganda machine was clobbered for it. Here is how that went: The machine put out the notion that the Arab states could have absorbed the Palestinian refugees but did not because they wanted to embarrass the Israelis. The reality turned out to be that many Palestinians did settle in all sorts of countries around the world, including the Arab countries, and became very successful.

Some Palestinians stayed close to their stolen homeland, however, and have agitated to keep their cause alive. They dreamed of the “right to return” and wanted the world, including the Arab states, to help them realize that dream. They received financial and political help from a Palestinian Diaspora that learned a great deal from the worldwide Jewish activities aimed at fulfilling a Jewish dream they labeled “right to return” to what they said was their ancestral homeland. Yes, it is an irony, and a big one at that.

In fact, confrontations took place at times between members of the Palestinian Diaspora and the Arab countries when the Palestinians went too far agitating for their cause. Such confrontations were muted in the big Arab countries where the Palestinians were outmatched. But the clash became cause célèbre when it took place in the smaller countries of Lebanon and Jordan.

No longer able to use the fabrication of an Arab “cynicism and self-interest,” by which to hold the Arab states responsible for the failure of the Jews to live up to their own responsibilities, Andrew Roberts (the unrepentant moral rapist that he is) fell on the old trick of blaming the Jewish misfortunes on a human species that suffers from a genetic defect called antisemitism. Thus, he came up with the idea that the Palestinians have not accepted the rape of their homeland because they hate the Jews and Israel.

And this is the sort of talk that has prompted mankind to seek an end to the tragedy plaguing the planet for three and a half millenniums already. People everywhere are demanding to see an end to the plague, and they have indicated that they want to see the end come once and for all. They are prepared to see it come no matter how ugly the process may look.

Andrew Roberts closes his article with this thought: “The lessons of history are rarely enunciated more clearly.” Indeed they are because the lessons have been in the making for a long time, and the people who fail to learn from them are the ones that end up paying the price.

The thing, however, is that people the world over are tired of seeing the Jews go through the same cycle time after time, and they want to see the cycle end one final time … this time for good and forever.

'Despair' is less obscene than 'self-Defense'

What can be more pornographic than to call “glib” the occupation of a people by bloodthirsty religious fanatics who came from abroad? Nothing is more pornographic, of course, which is why only the Jerusalem Post would make such an assertion. Not only that, but the Jerusalem rag went as far as to belittle the level of despair to which an individual can sink before committing suicide. It’s done for the heck of it as far as they are concerned.

The editors of the Post said all that and more in the piece they wrote under the title: “Unjustifiable Horror” and the subtitle: “The obscenity of what transpired in [the] synagogue cannot be explained away by glib terms like 'despair' or 'occupation.'” It was published on November 20, 2014. Bear in mind that most of the people who write for and edit the Jerusalem Post are American Jews; the kind that run around braying to their non-Jewish colleagues and to the American political class they must not “compaaaare” Israel with anyone because Israel is pure, and no one else comes close to that.

However, knowing the Jewish ideology, the first thing that you do when you hear them bray is start comparing the reality you see on the ground with what they try to hide. You invariably find that whereas the Palestinians may occasionally kill 2 or 4 Israelis in a hand-to-hand, eye-to-eye combat during which time they themselves get killed, the Israelis routinely kill Palestinians by the thousands – not by looking at them in the face but looking at them through instruments of war, sitting inside the cockpit of a warplane, a helicopter gunship, a naval vessel, a tank or an armored carrier … all made in America and given to them free of charge.

Yes indeed, you cannot compare the act of a desperate Palestinian who would rather die than live under a murderous Jewish tyranny … comparing that with the act of “love” that professional Jewish killers say they bestow on their victims. The first do what they do because they are antisemitic haters of Jews, say the Jews. The second do what they do because it's their way to kiss their Palestinian victims with bullets, hug them with tanks and shower them with the loving fragments of a hand grenade or a cluster bomb, say the Jews. This is why they catch their victims in their bedrooms at night when mothers tuck their babies, singing to them a lullaby. Yes, say it again, saintly Jewboy: What a way to go! There is nothing more humane than this Jewish practice.

And this is where you clearly see the difference between the two cultures. It is why the Palestinians who represent an existential threat to the Israelis compel the latter to continually claim that “Israel has the right to defend itself.” On the other hand, the Jews are so good to the Palestinians; they continually remind the surrounding Arab leaders of their obligation to do two things. First, they tell the Arabs they must thank Israel for stealing Palestine. Second, they tell them they must condemn the obscenity of desperate individual Palestinians who breakdown and take the enemy with them as they end their own lives.

Having gone through the old Jewish habit of making their demands, they now continue with the old Jewish habit of voicing their meandering talking points. And so, they say this: “Palestinian organizations hardly need a pretext for killing Jews” which they neuter with this: “Ever since Israel's founding, the pretext for killing Jews is Jewish sovereignty on land deemed to belong to Muslims.” But the editors sense that this too needs to be neutered, so they come up with this: “Even assassins from Christian Palestinian [groups] now shout Allahu Akbar so that no mistake can be made about the source of their inspiration.”

As can be seen, the editors went from no pretext to killing Jews … to killing them motivated by the pretext that Jews steal Muslim lands. This is meandering alright, but they felt uneasy about the reference to Muslims, so they admitted that Christians too are motivated by the right of Palestine to defend itself. And this is why the Christians retaliate against Jewish crimes while shouting Allahu Akbar, they went on to say.

Ah, but wait a minute! There is the reality that the occupation causes “millions of Muslims and Christians between the Mediterranean and the Jordan, to fall into despair.” The fact that they don't all commit suicide means that the one or two who breakdown and kill themselves, are heinous individuals who conjure up the centuries of violent antisemitism that took place throughout the planet.

For this reason, the time has come once again to call the peace process dead; why the occupation can continue without the promise to ever end. It is why Palestinian homes must be demolished and new Jewish settlements built on stolen land. And why this regime shall continue unabated till there is no more a Palestine to loot.

Income Fairness dictated by Math, not Envy

Coincidence made it so that an article written by John H. Cochrane saw its central thesis demolished by another article; this one written by Charles R. Schwab. Both articles were published on the same day, November 20, 2014 in the Wall Street Journal independently of each other.

John Cochrane wrote: “What the 'Inequality' Warriors Really Want,” a piece that also came under the subtitle: “Confiscating wealth is ultimately about political power. Koch brothers, no. Public-employee unions, yes.” Charles Schwab wrote: “Raise Interest Rates, Make Grandma Smile,” a piece that also came under the subtitle: “With the Fed's near-zero policy, households headed by someone 75 or older have lost $2,700 annually in interest income.”

The central thesis of John Cochrane rests on the idea that you either increase the wealth in which case most people will get wealthy while some will get wealthier, or you redistribute the wealth and see everyone get poorer. The way to increase the wealth is to adopt a system where market forces determine the economy's performance with minimum interference from the government. The way to render everyone poorer is to allow the government to “confiscate” from the rich and give to the poor.

And so, Cochrane takes the arguments that were put forward by what he calls the “inequality warriors” in support of the idea that inequality is bad for the economy, and ridicules them one by one. What he does not do is put forward an argument to show how or why inequality helps to increase wealth. All he says in this regard is that there can be bad inequality (such as that produced by crony capitalism, for example,) but there is also good inequality where entrepreneurs start something new and get rich in the process. In fact, he asserts that most inequalities are of the good sort.

This approach to understanding how an economy works is so superficial, it can easily lead to the conclusion that the quest for fairness in the distribution of wealth is based on envy. This point made, someone like Cochrane can then push the philosophy further, and posit that the envy goes further than the desire to lead an upscale lifestyle; it goes to the desire to secure more political clout.

What he avoids discussing is what defines a market and by extension what defines an economy. Here is that definition: A market – therefore an economy – is said to exist when someone makes a product that someone else exchanges for his labor or for a product he owns. With this picture in mind, we can see that the level of wealth a system is said to have attained, is determined by the ability of such system to produce as much as possible, therefore consume as much as possible. This says that if you are an economy which produces more than its consumers have the ability to consume, you are not a wealthy economy. Also, if you consume more than the producers can produce, you are not a wealthy economy either.

This leads to a philosophical certainty that is as precise as mathematics. It is this: If the level of production is equal to 100, therefore the level of consumption must also be 100 to reach 100% efficiency. If you tilt the economy one way or the other, you have less efficiency than that, therefore have a poorer economy that will affect everyone negatively. We must, therefore, conclude that equality is not only a philosophical concept; it is a mathematical precision.

How this works in real life is clearly demonstrated in the Charles Schwab article. He tells what happened to 44 million senior citizens who are nothing more to the economy than consuming units living off the savings they have accumulated when they were working. It happened that the central bank – which is independent of the government – made a market decision and adopted a near-zero interest rate policy. This resulted in the seniors losing thousands of dollars in interest income every year.

When the Charles Schwab Corp. did the math, they discovered that 58 billion dollars in annual interest income were lost to seniors. Factoring the multiplier effect into that, the result has shown a loss of 115 billion dollars to the economy, something like 0.7 % cost to the growth of the GDP. And this could have generated an additional three quarter of a million jobs.

John Cochrane can have all the fun he wants ridiculing what he calls the inequality warriors, but math is math, and he cannot laugh at that.

Stick in the Mud wants to be green Shoot

Not long ago, the joke circulating in North America went something like this: What's the difference between a Paki and a stick in the mud? The correct answer was: there is no difference. That was a racist joke meant to put down people of the East Asian ethnic groups. It may have started among right wing red necks living in the South, or maybe among the left wing white liberals living in the North.

The scourge of racism has been on this planet for a long time, and one of its most virulent expressions manifested itself during the Nazi era when the regime classified the races into groups that ranged from the highest Aryan race to which it belonged, down to the lowest race to which the Jews belonged. In fact, the Nazis had so much contempt for the Jews they slaughtered them and processed their carcasses like animals. For example, they made lamp shades of their skins, glue of their bones and fertilizer with their internal organs.

One can only imagine what would have happened if the Nazis had not been interrupted by the war they started, and in which they were defeated. The trouble is that the ills that took form during their era did not disappear when the regime was defeated. Much of what the Nazis came to be known for has remained, and has even flourished among other groups. One of these being the Jews who should know better but do not seem to. They labored hard and labored incessantly to show that, far from being the inferior race the Nazis made them to be, they are the superior race that God chose to be the leaders of the world if not its owners.

The approach they adopted to help God help them is an old trick they have been practicing since the beginning of time. It has been to infiltrate the leading nation of the epoch in which they lived, take over the nation by staging a slow motion coup, then go after anyone who might stand in their way. Unfortunately for them, they lost every encounter they initiated, and were dealt with harshly by the people whose leaders they recruited to do the dirty work they could not do themselves.

The Jews have their sights set on America at this time because it is the leading nation of the epoch in which we live. They demonstrate how the trick of infiltrating and taking over the country in slow motion is done every four years during the presidential election campaigns. They did it the last time when they paid a million dollars to one, Mitt Romney who went to Israel and proclaimed that in his opinion the Jewish race is superior to the Palestinian race. And now that the mid-term elections are over, the campaign for the next presidential election has started.

One of the hopefuls to run for President of the United States in the 2016 cycle is Bobby Jindal who is currently governor of the State of Louisiana which happens to be a Southern State. And he happens to be of East Asian descent, the very thing they used to call a stick in the mud. And what do you think the joke will be when he runs? It might go something like this: What does a brown stick in the mud aspire to become? He will want to become a green shoot, of course. And how does he do that? By using fertilizer of the kind that the Nazis made with the internal organs of Jews.

Well, Bobby Jindal has not gone to Israel yet to proclaim that the Palestinians are inferior to the Jews. He may yet do that as we approach the day when the campaign will be in full swing. For now, however, he has demonstrated how much more forceful than Mitt Romney he can be. He said that the Palestinians must be exterminated. Not even the Nazis went as far as to say the Jews deserved to be exterminated … which is what they did discretely but denied doing it out of shame.

You can see the context in which the shameless Jindal said it. You'll find out by reading the short article that was published on November 18, 2014 in the Weekly standard. It was written by Daniel Harper under the title: “Jindal Responds to Terror Attack in Israel: They must be Exterminated”.

This is what happens when ambition grows faster than intellect or instinctive maturity. This guy needs a lot of preparation before he'll be ready for prime time.

Stop amplifying the Madness of Charlatans

What's happening to the world? Has everyone gone mad? Or is it that the madness we see erupt everywhere is due to one and the same source?

Two articles, both published on November 19, 2014 help us answer these questions. One was written by Yossi Klein Halevi under the title: “The War on the Israeli Home Front” and the subtitle: “Tuesday's massacre and other recent Palestinian attacks in Jerusalem have been intimate, the terrorism of neighbors.” It was published in the Wall Street Journal. The other article is a column written by Tom Friedman under the title: “Did Dubai Do it?” and was published in the New York Times.

The Halevi article ends like this: “That terrible image has reinforced the prevailing sense that the war against Israel is only the latest phase of an old war against the Jews.” In fact, Halevi goes through an entire article without once hinting that Israel or the Jews need to do something – anything at all – to contribute to the solution. No, he doesn't do that because in his view (which is that of all Jews, according to him,) the entire bloody human race has been after the Jews, not because of what they do, but because they are the good things that no human has ever appreciated since the beginning of time.

But what have the Jews been doing throughout time that brought the wrath of humanity on them, resulting in the repetition of the image that Halevi is describing? Tom Friedman tells what it is but does not tell why it is. His objective being that the experiment must go on till success is achieved, he describes what is being done now that is not succeeding. In reality, he is talking about something that is known to the human race as the Jewish dream to social engineer the planet, and thus make it safe for Jews to live in it.

Here, in a condensed form is what he thinks:

“We tried decapitation; it failed. We tried abdication; it failed. We tried democratization; it failed. We tried occupation, abdications and now re-intervention … only a fool would be optimistic. Maybe the beginning of wisdom is admitting we don't know what we're doing out here and, we don't have the will to invest to reshape any of these places – and even if we did, it is not clear it would work.”

So you believe that the guy who stood in Israel in front of an American camera to advise the W. President of America at the rime – that his father lost re-election because he did not march all the way to Baghdad, and warning that if the son did not go looking for the WMDs that do not exist in Iraq, he will suffer the same fate as his father – would now shut up and go hide somewhere. No, he doesn't do that. Instead, being the Jew that he is, he does this: “So if the Middle East is a region we can't fix, I'm for containment and amplification.”

To explain how this will work, he begins by classifying the nations of the region into different categories, and prescribes a remedy for each category. These are remedies that range from collaborating with regional forces to “giv[ing] them as much money as they ask for.” And to make it sound like he knows what he's talking about this time, he tells of discussions he had with a couple of people who enlightened him as to what motivates the more than 300 million Arabs whose lives he now believes he can engineer using American power, American prestige and “all the money they ask for.” He undoubtedly believes that this will make the world safe for Jews to live in it.

And while Tom Friedman proposes these remedies, Yossi Halevi asserts that: “In an era of moral madness, in which much of the world judges Israel more harshly than it judges Hamas, this must be said: Nothing Israel does or doesn't do is responsible for provoking young Palestinians.” He is talking about young Palestinians who were born under Jewish occupation … and so did their parents … and so did their grandparents.

This man, Halevi, wants the world to believe that someone is responsible for the way that these youngsters are growing up. It is not Israel, or the occupation, or the wealthy Jews of the world who finance the ongoing crime against humanity, or America that is duped into serving like a banker and a mercenary army for those wealthy Jews, or the American congress of prostitutes who sell their souls and their honor to anyone for as little as a pat on the back or a public handshake.

No, according to this man Halevi, Palestinian kids grow up dissatisfied with their lot because the human race hates the Jews for who they are, not for what they do or fail to do.