The Fred Habachi Report

Romney Says Will Sting Iran And America

2012-03-07T08:57:00.000-05:00

Romney won big last night and the time has come to examine him closely. No, you got it all wrong, dear reader. It is not that Mitt Romney promises to sting Iran like a gadfly would sting or that he promises to sting that country as a bumble bee would sting. It is that he says he will do what Ronald Reagan did. The trouble is that there is the historical fact as to what Reagan did, and there is the Romney understanding as to what Reagan did.

The historical fact is that Reagan worked with Israel to supply Iran with shoulder-fired anti-aircraft Stinger missiles in return for freeing the American hostages. Given the circumstances at the time, this may well have been the best course to take. History has not yet passed a final judgment on this. As to what the Romney understanding of that historical fact may be however -- well, that's something else.

Romney expressed his views on this subject in an article he wrote under the title: “How I would check Iran's nuclear ambition” published in the Washington Post on March 5, 2012. Since he has never been President of the United States and since he has never dealt with Iran before, we can begin to formulate an idea as to how he will proceed to fulfill his promise only by analyzing his words and by studying his performance in another field of endeavor. This would be his understanding as to how an economy works. I'll come to that in a moment.

Before we embark on that study, let us look at the promise he made to deal with Iran as he explained it himself in the article. He writes that while US diplomats were held hostage “America's feckless president, Jimmy Carter, fretted in the White House.” The truth is that President Carter ordered the military to mount a rescue operation. An attempt was made but the operation ran into difficulties and was aborted. To say that the American President was feckless and that he fretted in the White House is to be fickle like only a flip-flopping Romney can be. And this alone casts doubt as to whether or not he is fit to occupy that White House. But there is more.

Romney goes on to say: “...Reagan made it crystal clear that the Iranians would pay a very stiff price.” But the fact is that they never complained about receiving the Stinger missiles or about letting the hostages go. So where is the stiff price, Mitty boy? The truth is that in return for bribing the Iranians with Stinger missiles, the Reagan negotiators had asked for a reciprocal gift which they fretted when it came to calling it a bribe. They asked that the hostages be let go on January 20. It's okay with us, said the Iran negotiators but out of curiosity, why January 20? Ron's birthday? asked the Iranians. No, inauguration day, said the Americans. Oh, that little thing you call democracy, remarked the Iranians. Yes, yes. And they all exploded in laughter. The American negotiators drank whiskey and the Iranians drank orange juice. I made up this last part.

Having understood history in his little screwy manner and in the big swaggering manner that his Jewish advisers have explained it to him, Romney continues like this: “...Reagan was serious about turning words into action.” Indeed he did; he chose life over death by thinking of the hostages and their families, and by doing the best that he could for them rather than display his phony manhood the way that they do in the Yiddish culture. In the end, Reagan got the Americans home from a foreign land and into the arms of their loved ones. In the end, Romney will send American boys and girls to die in foreign lands so as to please the Jewish donors of his electoral campaign.

Having engaged in this display of intellectual pornography, Romney advises the reader of this: “America and the world face a strikingly similar situation today; only even more is at stake.” You think for a moment that he is going to admit America is held hostage by the Jewish lobby at every electoral cycle, and that he will do what he can to break from this demonic tradition thus end it once and for all. But this is not what he promises. Instead, he says that feckless Barack Obama “has declared such an outcome unacceptable, but his rhetoric has not been matched by an effective policy. While Obama frets … the Iranians are making progress...”

To elaborate on this, he takes a few paragraphs to froth at the mouth the filth that is usually leveled against Iran, the Middle Eastern types and Islam. He then promises that as President, he would move America in a direction where its “...foreign policy will be the same as Ronald Reagan's.” At this point you wonder if he will offer to give the Iranians more Stinger missiles but then, you come to think that the Israelis will probably not cooperate this time around, and that the Iranians might not want such as deal given that they now make their own missiles. Luckily and to your relief, that's not what Romney promises. What he does is promise to say and do exactly what President Obama is now doing with one exception: “I will demonstrate our commitment to the world by making Jerusalem the destination of my first foreign trip.”

This puzzles you because it is recognized both in international law and in American law that Jerusalem is Palestinian territory. Does he intend to visit Palestine to demonstrate commitment to Israel? Or is he advocating a one state solution? Or is he advocating the ethnic cleansing of the West Bank of the Jordan to facilitate the annexation of that territory by Israel? It looks like Romney has flipped on this question. It will be interesting to see if he will flop as well.

This being a good question, he does not leave you without an answer. But he waits till the end to give it to you. Here is the last sentence in his article: “Either the ayatollahs will get the message, or they will learn some very painful lessons about the meaning of American resolve.” This is the manner he employs to pretend that his resolve is American resolve which, as we may expect, is to flop every time he flips. No, Romney is not a gadfly or a bumble bee, but he is a bumbler, alright. What he will do is not supply Iran with Stinger missiles but sting America and its people with the sharp tongue of the language of insults that is inculcated in him by his Jewish handlers. This is the Yiddish language and the culture that sprung up around it.

All of this point to a mental deficiency which you also see at work in the way that he understands economics. What should be emphasized here is that builders of nation know that an economy is made of two parts. There is the first part which consists of producing wealth like tangible goods and useful services. And there is the second part which consists of speculating and gambling, a game by which someone can accumulate the wealth created by other people. It is necessary to have these two parts in a capitalist system because risk taking is an important component of it. An economy that flies on these two wings is a dynamic economy that usually does very well.

The thing is that you can have an economy that flies on the wing of the first part only. It will be a stagnant economy but it will fly, however sluggishly as it has for thousands of years on Planet Earth. What you cannot have is an economy that flies on the second wing alone. Indeed, what happens to economies that start out well then fall off is that they lose the wing of the first part and try to rely only on speculation and gambling. It never works.

Yet, this is what Romney promises to bring to America. He never created wealth; he only accumulated what others have created. This is economics according to the Yiddish mentality. This is what is now breaking the back of America. To let Romney take over is to call on the executioner to deliver the coup de grace to America. It will be the sting of death.

The ayatollahs will survive the Romney sting, America may not. Watch out, people of America, someone is trying to gamble with your lives and with your livelihood to please his Jewish bank-rollers and his Jewish advisers.

He Says Believe Me That I Lie To You

2012-03-06T04:53:00.000-05:00

I hate to make the sort of prediction that either becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy or that gets in the way of the unfolding of a natural phenomenon thereby deny its fulfillment. But this case has the potential to yield so much insight for just discussing it that I am willing to take a chance and discuss it here and now. What I see as being in the realm of probability in the future is that the Wall Street Journal columnist, Bret Stephens, will experience a reversal in his views with regard to the Middle Eastern issues. It may not be a total reversal but it should be significant enough to bring the man close to seeing the light in the way that many good people have done before him.

You can see signs of this in his latest column: “The 'Jewish' President” which also bears the subtitle: “Don't believe Obama when he says he has Israel's back,” published in the Journal on March 6, 2012. Both the title and the subtitle are somewhat misleading in the sense that the article is not really about Obama but about Peter Beinart who is one of the good people that saw the light and understood that the salvation of Jews will come not by the sword of biblical fantasies but by the acceptance of Jews that they are normal people who must learn to behave normally because they live in a normal world.

Stephens uses as jumping pad a happening that had President Obama address AIPAC a couple of days earlier at which time he discussed the standoff between an Iran that has embarked on a nuclear program and an Israel that feels threatened by it. It was then that the President assured his audience: “I have Israel's back”. Stephens asks if the President should be believed and he answers with a resounding no. To explain that answer, he takes a paragraph in which he lists four examples that involve the President, his defense secretary and his top national security adviser, all of which demonstrate that the President does not mean what he says according to the columnist.

He also cites a fifth example -- this one outside the realm of the standoff between Iran and Israel -- to commit what looks like an elaborate Freudian slip. He tells of the secretary of state who was visiting Tunisia recently and had a meeting with a number of students there. When asked a question on the subject of the American politicians who court the Zionist lobbies, she replied that “a lot of things are said in political campaigns that should not bear a lot of attention,” to which he comments: “It seems it didn't occur to her to challenge the premise of the question.”

Whoa! several times over. What we have here is something so flabbergasting, it rivals the Zeno paradox which asks if you would believe someone that says he is a liar. Here is a guy -- apparently an intelligent one – who says you should not believe a President who makes promises during an election campaign, now chiding the secretary of state for saying don't believe politicians who make promises during election campaigns, then suggesting that she should have lied by challenging the very premise of the question. Would you now believe this guy saying that you must not believe the President?

Having so betrayed himself, the author now advises that Peter Beinart would be a source you can look at to find evidence that Mr. Obama is disingenuous. He tells us that Beinart used to advocate the war against Iraq but that he reinvented himself as a scourge of Israel and the Jewish causes. He has a book coming out soon under the title: “The Crisis of Zionism” whose chapter five, which is titled: “The Jewish President”, discusses President Obama's education on matters related to the Middle East.

Stephens discusses a few passages from that chapter to show that contrary to the common wisdom which has it that Obama was educated on such matters at the hands of his friends Rashid Khalidi and pastor Jeremiah Wright, it was a coterie of Chicago Jews who bred in the future President a vision of Israel and of American Jewry.

He goes on to say that in Beinart's point of view, this intellectual journey of Mr. Obama is evidence that he is in tune with the authentic views of ordinary Jews but not their leaders. He then surprises you by giving his own opinion. Get this now; Stephens says “maybe” to that same point of view. He has one small reservation though, which is this: “Still, one wonders why organizations more in tune with those 'real' views rarely seem to find much of a base.”

Frankly, I am puzzled as to why he would say this in the face of polls conducted in America and in Israel showing that the base is there, that it is growing and that it is supporting a peaceful resolution of all the problems relating to Israel and to its neighbors. As to why the columnist brought up this point, it could be that he is revealing a deep seated desire to start an organization that will rally a base around these ideas. I would say he will do a good job leading a movement like this. Go for it, Bret.

In the meantime though, he still is who he is, and so he writes the following to end his column: “...the important question ... [is] about the president's honesty … On the evidence … Mr. Obama's speech at Aipac was one long exercise in political cynicism.”

I just hope that these words will not so affect Bret Stephens as to prompt him to do things differently from what he would have done ordinarily. If he was about to reinvent himself, he should continue on that path at his own pace. If he were not, he will spend the rest of his life trying to explain how he can tell people to trust what he says at the same time as he tells them not to trust the people who say what he says.

A Litany To Commit High Treason

2012-03-05T08:53:00.001-05:00

First, let me try something on you, then we'll see where we should go from here. It is that I suspect I have a problem with my girlfriend because she says she likes me, yet she does the things that tell me she does not. And I have a whole host of reasons which I call infractions to prove my suspicion. For example, she has ten pairs of shoes, nine of which are black and one brown. And believe it or not, last Wednesday she wore a black pair instead of the brown even though she knows I like her better when she wears brown shoes on Wednesday. Also, when we sit in a restaurant, instead of looking at me or the food all the time, she would take a few glances – if only for a fraction of a second – away from me or the food; and this, in the span of one hour or two. You get the idea and so I do not need to give you the whole list of infractions.

So now I ask you this: What do you think of me? A jerk you say? I agree. But the thing is, I'm not like that. You want to know who is? The Jewish lobbyists. When they wish to own something as they do America at this time, they want it for themselves in whole and in part, lock stock and barrel, from head to toe, from dawn to dusk, for better or for worse, in good times and in bad, for ever and ever till infinity and past it to the next infinity and beyond that. One of those who specialize in keeping track of the American infractions towards Israel and the Jewish causes, is Dan Senor. When he writes something, he always gives you a litany of the little things that the American President does which, in his view, constitute serious infractions -- as serious as neglecting to wear brown shoes on a Wednesday, for example.

He did it again. On March 5, 2012 (today) the Wall Street Journal published his latest list under the title: “Why Israel Has Doubts About Obama” and the subtitle: “Even Democrats have publicly questioned U.S. statements and policies toward America's most important Mideast ally.” What flares up your bile as you read the stuff is that it goes down your throat like a chutzpah brew that is served in a glass of hubris. He begins by calling President Obama immodest for saying that his “administration has done more in terms of the security of … Israel than any previous administration.”

Senor takes this as being the presidential equivalent of “I love you Israel and I have your back” to which he replies in the name of Israel: “You love me, my ass. If you did, you would wear brown shoes on Wednesday.” In fact, he dismisses Obama's assertion by attributing America's largess to someone else: “...there has been increased U.S. funding for Israeli defense … the bulk of which comes from … a 10-year commitment made by … W. Bush … in 2007.”

So then, what else would satisfy these people if not just the security of Israel? you ask. And they tell you without shame, fear or reluctance that they expect nothing less than presidential high treason of country in return for a bribe. And Senor is so certain that the lobby is already getting this much from American presidents, he does not ask for it anymore. On the contrary, he explains why Obama is attributing to himself Bush's largess toward Israel by offering this analysis: “Monday he [Obama] meets with … Netanyahu … know[ing] that he lost a portion of the Jewish vote … With the election nine months away, he's scrambling to win back Jewish voters and donors.” In other words, he says matter-of-factly that in the style of the most primitive of Third World traditions, American presidents of both parties betray their country for money and foreign political support.

Now he tells you what really bugs him and what he really, really wants: “...a key element of Israel's security is deterrence [which] rests on … the perception … that Israel will defend itself, and that … America will stand by Israel.” This would be like me telling my girlfriend she cannot glance away from me because people in the restaurant will perceive such act as being a sign there is daylight between us; and perception is what counts. To avoid that dreaded possibility, she must remain visually fixated only on me or her plate at all time.

Now comes the litany of the things that Senor believes the Obama administration did to upset that order. The first came in October of 2011 when Leon Panetta raised questions about Israel -- questions that Senor characterizes as being provocative. Here is that moment: “Is it enough to maintain a military edge if you're isolating yourself in the diplomatic arena?” This would be like the girlfriend telling me to find a few more friends and have a real life with them, not just depend on her attention, her love and the fact that she is so rich and powerful, I fully depend on her in everything that sustains me. It is scandalous that she would think in these terms. What kind of relationship she wants with me? An open marriage?

Senor now sheds a tear or two: “The president's stern lectures to Israel's leaders were delivered repeatedly and very publicly at the United Nations, in Egypt and Turkey, all the while he did not make a single visit to Israel to express solidarity.” And speaking of Turkey, Israel's past lover, he says this: “Indeed, almost every time the Obama administration has scolded Israel, the charges have been repeated by Turkish officials.” Like a tender moment in a noon time soap opera, you feel like sopping at Israel's heartbreak. A moment of silence please: sop, sop, sop. Or is it whine, whine, whine?

Senor goes on to discuss a few more such incidents which took place in November and December of 2011, as well as in January and February of 2012. But having loaded the readers with a heavy dose of emotional content, he now provides the comic relief. Like me saying to the girlfriend: “I'm not the only one saying this about you, even your mother is saying it,” Senor reveals this tidbit of truth: “...Obama dismissed critics … as 'actors who want to … drive a wedge … between [him] and the [Jews].' But … these criticisms have been leveled by Democrats.”

To show how, he gives you another litany, this time of democrats such as Sen. Robert Menendez who lambasted administration officials. There were also the leading democrats, Sen. Harry Reid and Rep. Steny Hoyer who felt compelled to speak out. There was Sen. Charles Schumer who used even stronger language to respond to things terrible he heard, and finally there was the turncoat Senator Joe Lieberman who said of Obama: “...he's handled the relationship with Israel in a way that has … unsettled the Israelis.”

He ends by voicing concern that if re-elected, Obama will be even more one sided in his approach toward Israel. But he promises him a pat on the back if “...he will stand by Israel...” Senor then says that Obama came close to promising this much in his speech to the AIPAC crowd (yesterday), and he hopes that “this is the beginning of a policy change and not just election year rhetoric.”

In the meantime, Dan Senor is now advising the presidential campaign of Mitt Romney. I wonder how he is telling them to commit acts of high treason for the benefit of Israel and hope to get away with it.

So strange a democracy America has become; let's cross our fingers and hope for the best or at least avoid the worst.

A Division Of Labor Trumped Up In Hell

2012-03-03T18:26:00.000-05:00

President Obama will be talking to AIPAC and to Netanyahu over the next couple of days, and he will most certainly remember a few things. Here, for your benefit my dear reader, are some of the things.

When there is a project and there is a number of individuals executing it, you can be certain that someone will take the lead at some point and that the others will follow -- if not willingly then reluctantly. Eventually, they will all form a team and their effort will constitute a division of labor in the sense that each individual will be assigned the task they are best suited for. There may be a tension between two or more individuals competing to occupy the Alpha position but if the project is to progress, they will all come to some understanding and will get along one way or the other.

In time, a well defined hierarchy will emerge whose stability will depend on how well suited each individual will be to doing the job that was assigned to them. If the individual that has the most to offer occupies the top position, and if below him or her will line up in descending order the individuals that have less and less to offer, the formation will remain stable. And of course, the opposite will hold true in the sense that the more out of whack the line up is, the less stable the formation will be. This sort of scenario plays itself out all the time when people are brought together on an ad hoc basis to go on a mission -- be it a military operation, one of rescue, one of scouting or what have you.

The most ad hoc situation we have on Planet Earth is the line up that is represented by about two hundred sovereign nations where a few among them seek to extend their influence beyond their borders, and where all vie to remain independent. A kind of rough hierarchy has formed among them where each nation occupies a place that is supposed to be determined by the strength of its economy, the power of its military, the soundness of its system of governance and the promise of its future. But the planet is not without oddities or paradoxical situations -- the most odd being the relationship that exists between America and Israel.

The history of America began to unfold as a result of a world that went mad several times over during the past half millennium or so. It was an old world that had managed to create the waves of tired and huddled masses who sought a new world to which they could go and leave behind everything that hurts. But the reality was that for every ten thousand who suffered in the old world, only one special individual dared to pick the meager possession they had and go look for a new life in America. There, the frontier spirit of these individuals combined with the fact that they had to build everything anew – not build it on something they inherited but build it from scratch on a barren land in a desolate place. And so they rolled up their sleeves and they worked by the sweat of their foreheads to produce what sustained them. This is what made America the industrious nation that it became, a place where millions still pursue their dream as they live on the fat of a land they continually toil.

As to the history of Israel, what you see is a people of every skin color and every race converting so conveniently to the Jewish religion and claiming to have descended from the Hebrew tribes, a status they insist entitles them to a promise that God made to their ancestors eons ago. And what their religion says is that God took the Hebrews out of a land of plenty to lead them into the desert where they spent 40 years feeding on manna from the sky, a daily free lunch for which they did not have to roll up their sleeves or toil to produce by the sweat of their foreheads. Thus, to have a free lunch for life became an entitlement that the Jews have always believed was owed to them by virtue of being Jewish. To justify this insanity to a world that remains incredulous, they came up with the idea that they are the chosen children of God – and this is where the discussion ends because you cannot argue with God. How so very convenient!

Powered by a mentality like this, most of those who converted to Judaism had a hard time getting along with the rest of humanity. As a group, they roamed the Earth looking for a place to call their own but no one that came to know them closely tolerated them for any length of time because ordinary people saw them as human parasites who sought to live on the toil of others; live by the sweat of their foreheads if not by their blood and the blood of their children. The Jews were chased out of every place they occupied; they were beaten up, humiliated, gassed and even incinerated for the tricks they pulled every time they tried to get the free lunch they thought was made available to them by divine will.

And then it happened that the Jewish parasite dropped in on America where the fat of the land was so plentiful, the free lunch it was seeking for a long time was seen as being easy to have. Happy days were here again but instead of being satisfied with the embrace of their new encounter with luck, the Jewish leaders became greedy once again and went for more. They pulled every trick they learned during the millennia trying to occupy the Alpha position at the top of American institutions. And because appetite comes with eating, as the saying goes, the Jewish leaders developed an eating disorder that made them want to devour the whole world. Having the power and prestige of America at their finger tip, they made use of that to go after that world.

They scored a few successes with some countries in Eastern Europe because what they sought there was not so tangible as to affect the population directly. What they asked for was to have better relations between those governments and Israel to give the latter the semblance of legitimacy at a time when it was losing it with every act of terror it committed against the unarmed people of Palestine whose land it robbed and was robbing still. As to the rest of the Middle East, what the Jewish leaders wanted were tangible things such as more land and more water to steal from the neighbors of Israel. And because the victims had the potential to someday confront them and say enough is enough, the Jewish leaders wanted to see these countries crippled so badly as to be incapable of standing on their feet and challenge Israel.

To accomplish all this, the Jewish organizations needed the support of someone powerful with whom to divide the labor. They saw a division of labor where they would lead and the powerful would follow. As absurd as this may sound, they pulled it off because they planned the takeover as true professionals. What they did was first to take control of the American media. This done, they used the media to paint their neighbors as bad people who lived in a tough neighborhood. They argued that the neighbors deserved to be destroyed for the good of humanity, the reason why they were pleading with America: “Give us the tools and we'll do the job.” This request seemed so legitimate that America decided to become the new God who would supply Israel not only with manna to feed on, but also the hardware with which to maintain the image of a power to be reckoned with. This may have damaged Israel's neighbors somewhat but the greatest damage was done to America.

This is evident in the manner by which the Jewish organizations have managed to take control of most American institutions while exerting the minimum of effort. Because they were tolerated when they said they were better than their neighbors, it was easy for them to convince the American audiences that they were superior to them Americans. This encouraged the Jews to then claim that they were the most qualified people to occupy the Alpha position in all those American institutions. When asked to prove their claim, they gave advice in a language that was clear in its form, ambiguous in its content and having the same effect on the listener as the gibberish that is used by the writers of horoscopes. But despite the fact that every prediction they made never materialized and every advice they gave turned out to be a disaster, they got away with it in the way that the fortune tellers get away with it: people forget. But you cannot blame the Jews for what they do as much as you would the gullible Americans who let themselves be fooled so many times, you feel like giving up on them.

The Jewish motto has always been this: “Don't be afraid to act like a parasite while relying on the humanity of your American host because the chances are that he will keep supplying you with money, with his blood and the blood of his children.” The Americans have been doing this for several decades now, so much so that the new generation of American boys and girls is growing up in the belief that the Jew is a God that must be worshiped. And because to obey the law is something that is binding as much as a heavenly command, it was thought that to pass specific laws in America that serve Israel or the Jewish causes would strengthen the image of Israel and that of the Jews as being the official Gods of America. The Jewish organizations liked this idea so much that they made it a habit to call on every new crop of recently elected young legislators to pass decrees that sound like religious dogmas aimed at serving Israel and the Jews at the expense of America if need be.

The net result has been that America, which is the most worthy nation on the Planet, has been subordinated to Israel, the least worthy entity on the Planet. Instead of being asked: “Give us the tools and we'll do the job,” America is now being told: “get on with the job I told you to do or else.” There is not even the mention of a division of labor like it used to be. And this is because the Israelis and the Jewish leaders now wish to remain behind the scene bosses while true American boys and girls do the work for them as did the coolies of past centuries, then die and be gotten rid of in landfills like disposable toy soldiers now called trash.

Thus, Mr. Obama will remember and will keep in mind at all time the fact that when you get into an adventure like he is asked to get into, and when you do the cost/benefit analysis, you do not take into account only what it will cost right now to bomb a place like Iran but what it will cost your children and their children in the decades to come. He will think, for example, of the cost that America is now paying for the blunders that the American leaders committed in Iran and in South America several generations ago.

Thus, instead of appeasing the dogs at AIPAC by promising them what they will most certainly turn into a religious dogma, and instead of welcoming with open arms the rug pissing dog that never tires of making demands, Mr. Obama will keep in mind the story of a former Minister of Transport in Canada who treated the Israelis that tried to pee on his rug like the dogs that they were. What happened was that they wanted to stir up hysteria throughout the land the way that they do now in the English speaking world. To this end, they said they had information to the effect that an EL AL plane that was coming to land in Toronto was going to be hit by a missile. Without permission, the pilot landed the plane in the nearby city of Hamilton instead. The Minister did not like the idea at all because there was not a shred of evidence as to a threat made against El Al or any other airline in Canada; and he communicated this message to the pilot of the Israeli plane.

The plane proceeded on its route but on its way back landed in Hamilton once again instead of Toronto. This made the Minister of Transport so furious that he did not dither, did not play games and did not play politics with the Israelis. Instead, he put it to them officially that one more act of this sort and El Al will never again land anywhere in Canada. The Israelis got the message and they never again pulled a stunt like this.

If you want to know why the Jewish organizations and their leaders keep saying that the Arabs and the Muslims understand only the language of threat, it is because the truth is that the Arabs and the Muslims never cower at a threat or the show of force. Going about their daily lives, they only do what they have the right to do, and this makes it so that they stiffen their backs and become more resolute in the face of a threat. On the other hand, the Jews who always try to get something for nothing are the ones who respond to threats and to the show of force because this is the only language they understand; the only language they speak. Treat them the way that they ask you to treat the Arabs and the Muslims, and this will be the sure way to secure peace where you want it.

Mr. Obama will do well to tell AIPAC and Netanyahu to take a hike. This will have a better outcome for America, for the world and for all the innocent Jews out there who deserve better than the dogs of AIPAC and the pissing dog from Israel.

A Lost Opportunity To Win Respect

2012-03-02T04:54:00.000-05:00

There are pyromaniacs who become firefighters to give themselves ample opportunities to set fire to property and avoid suspicion. There are pedophiles who would coach a sports little league to have access to children, abuse them and remain safe. And there are psychotic devils who become public thinkers to have a platform from which to create mayhem and get paid for pushing an illegitimate agenda. Two characters who fall in the last category are Frederick W. Kagan and Maseh Zarif, both of whom are members of what they call the Critical Threats Project at the American Enterprise Institute. They wrote: “America's Iranian Self-Deception”, an article that was published in the Wall Street Journal on February 27, 2012 and given the subtitle: “Let's admit the facts about its nuclear program and then have an honest debate about what to do.”

When you read the subtitle and you see in it the words: fact and honest, you get the impression that the authors have decided to honestly play the role of unbiased observers and give you the facts only. You expect them to present a true assessment of the situation on the ground thereby let you and let everyone else make your own judgment. And you expect that when the debates will begin, the debaters among you will have the chance to make your own points without being nudged to take one position or another. Thus, the initial image you create in your mind of the two authors is that of someone who stands as righteous as a firefighter, a coach or a public thinker dedicated to serve you and the public. But when you start to read the article, you realize that you are looking at a pyromaniac, a pedophile or a psychotic devil out to do a job on you and the public.

You do not even have to read the whole article to reach that conclusion. The moment that you finish reading the first sentence, the conclusion is slammed in your face like a baseball bat that has slipped the hands of its thrower. This is how that sentence reads: “Americans are being played for fools – and fooling themselves.” You see right away that this is not the way that people begin an argument when they intend to give an unbiased assessment of a situation; it is what people do when they intend to peddle a laundry list of points that support one side of the story while ignoring all the points at the other side.

Two more sentences follow by which the authors continue to deny there is another side to the story. Here they are back to back: “There is no case to be made that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapons capability. There is no evidence that Iran's decision-makers are willing to stop the nuclear program in exchange for lifting sanctions or anything else.” Furthermore, to buttress their argument and to avoid the total collapse of their presentation, the authors name-drop and use as a crutch both the International Atomic Energy Agency and the UN Security Council resolutions.

Because they and others like them were the ones responsible for involving America in the disastrous adventure that came to be known as Iraq -- an adventure that may yet prove to be the straw that broke the back of the American camel -- Kagan and Zarif thought of a cheap trick to get around the difficulty of convincing the superpower to take on a similar adventure. It is that the adventure they have been promoting up to now was seen to have the potential to be more disastrous than Iraq by several orders of magnitude given the new strategic realities in the Middle East. And so, to get around the difficulty, the two authors employed the trick of attacking Dennis Ross, what they call anonymous administration officials and the media for what they say has been confused policy discussion. They also accuse all those people of “conflating intelligence assessment with policy recommendation.”

And they go on to say this: “The prospect of war with Iran is so distasteful that people are desperate to persuade themselves that the problem is not serious.” But to show how serious it is in their view, they make a laundry list of what the IAEA has said about the matter lately. However, nothing of what came on that list turned out to be new because all of it was aired before and dismissed at one time or another by the experts in the field who called it undeserving of a skirmish, let alone a full scale war. And this is because the war that will be unleashed will be of the sort that will result not only in immediate casualties too horrifying to contemplate but also lead to the continued generation of consequences now unpredictable but that will be nefarious to the extreme for decades to come as this has been the pattern with the empires that rose by design or by accident to then conquer, expand and die ignominiously.

Being realistic enough to know that this part of their presentation was too weak to sway the reader, the two authors now approach the subject from another angle; that of challenging the motivation of the Iranian leaders. To this end, they draw up another laundry list; this one containing the difficulties that Iran and its people are suffering because of the sanctions that were slapped on them by the international community. This done, the authors ask this question: “What peaceful purpose could be served by accepting such damage to pursue an illegal nuclear program?”

Having started a new discussion, they participate in it with this: “The international community has … offered Iran … uranium … to produce both electricity and medical isotopes – and Iran has refused.” This is false in the sense that the offer was neither simple nor devoid of the sort of conditions that the Iranians see as unacceptable. Also, the Iranian refusal was not categorical but left the door open for more discussion. The trouble was that the American component of the negotiating team (five plus one as it was called) made the offer “a take it or leave” it proposition. This being a version of the “my way or the highway” approach that the Americans know from their experience at home is a sure killer of negotiations, we can only conclude that America deliberately made an offer that can only be refused. But having conveniently turned reality upside down, the two authors conclude that: “Iran's behavior makes sense only if its leadership is determined to … develop and field atomic weapons.”

To cement this view in the mind of the readers, Kagan and Zarif do something I am personally familiar with. So let me tell you about it first; then I'll tell you what they did. I know from experience that the act of blacklisting someone works because it is essentially the rule of a mob out of control. You participate in the act of bullying someone because everyone else is doing it -- and this is enough of a peer pressure to make you forget every principle of rightness you grew up with. You do the most horrible thing to someone you know is innocent because if you don't, you fear it will be done to you. It is cowardice of the lowest kind.

Throughout my forty years ordeal with being on the blacklist, I was offered a way out if I betrayed my principles and went along. I was told repeatedly that this was something everyone did to enjoy the fruits of their talent in this meritocracy -- which I was supposed to believe was the most glorious thing to happen to the Universe since the Big Bang. But I knew something that even the well-meaning among these people didn't know. I thought of telling them about it but refrained because I thought it will be a waste of time given how removed they were from my state of mind. But then something happened that I thought had the potential to tell them what I would have. It was the people of Egypt who rose up to take back the dignity they felt they were losing. The thing is that to some of us, dignity is a far more precious commodity than anything your talent can procure for you however much you merit to have it. I could not explain all this to even my closest friends, and so I hoped that the Egyptian Revolution would.

At first, some people over here got the message of the Revolution over there but then lost it. I tried to find out why, and found to my dismay that the Yiddish inspired bumper sticker culture in which we live on this Continent cannot go deeper than the material on which the message is printed. To these people, dignity was a word that fit nicely on a bumper sticker so they took it, savored it and swallowed it. But when the people of Egypt put dignity into practice by telling the IMF, the World Bank, Europe and America to take their money and shove it if they will want to impose conditions, the bumper sticker crowd became disoriented. What happened was that they looked at the depth which dignity was generating and they got the vertigo. No way, they said to themselves, no way I'm going to overload myself with this.

Like a scavenger smelling the blood of a freshly killed prey, those of the Kagan ilk sensed an opportunity here they could not pass up. It happened that Ms. Naga -- the Iron Lady of Egypt as someone called her -- was heard telling some people off, and so they labeled her a holdover from the previous regime. The professional haters latched on to the word “holdover” and threw it at the crowd to make it feel oriented again -- which it did because the word easily fit on a bumper sticker. It was a nice replacement to the word dignity that went out the window to cede its place to the new word.

In the meantime, the haters were creating the image of a woman imposing her will on 80 million people who were otherwise itching to take orders from abroad. The trick worked because the made-up image of Ms. Naga was not that of a dignified woman enjoying enough depth to give a thousand American editors the vertigo, but an image so simple and so superficial, it became bumperesque enough to be repeated over and over. And from that time on, holdover was the word that purveyed a very thin message. The old American values had gone out the window and the new Yiddish culture had taken their place.

Knowing what works in this dirty game, Kagan and Zarif are using the same trick on the Iranian leaders. Given that the people of Iran are enduring hardship because they see their fight as being one of dignity, Kagan and his pal are having a field day creating images that fit on a bumper sticker. By way of example, there is an infamous paragraph -- quoted here in its entirety -- showing the potential for six bumper sticker quotations: “Iran is, however, (1) preparing rhetorically for war with the West. Iran's military (2) has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, (3) attack American naval ships passing through it, and (4) pre-empt what it perceives to be preparations for an attack on Iran. The Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other political figures (5) have seconded these threats, and no Iranian leader (6) has denounced them.”

Now, my friend, imagine that to put things in perspective and to be honest like they promised at the start they will be, Kagan and Zarif had written the following explanation just before that infamous paragraph: In response to the constant drumbeat in Tel Aviv and New York about all options being on the table, and despite the fact that emissaries from those two places are now running around the world to lobby whom they can and get them to join the mob that is out to cripple the Iranian economy, the leaders of Iran have warned America and Israel of the following, should they be foolish enough to escalate their ill-advised adventure into a hot war such as they hint they plan to do.

Had the authors of the article done this, they would have added so much depth to the subject matter, it could not be expressed on a bumper sticker. However, they would have been intellectually honest and would have achieved the purpose that their article was supposed to achieve. And the ending as they have it now: “...the debate must take place on the basis of a reality … Those who oppose military action against Iran under any circumstances must say so ... Those who advocate military action must ... accept and consider the consequences ... neither American nor Israeli nor any Western interest is served by lying to ourselves...” would have commanded the respect of the readers.

But I'm afraid, Frederick Kagan and Maseh Zarif, have failed miserably to win any level of respect with this article.

Buzzing Like A Swarm Of Parasites

2012-02-28T03:31:00.000-05:00

Soon the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu will get to this Continent intending to peddle his style of thinking among his friends such as the AIPAC crowd, peddle it among those who pretend to be his friends such as the hordes in the American Congress, and peddle it among those who cannot stand him such as everyone else that is enlightened in America. Baring a last minute surprise he may come up with, we already know what he wants and what he will say to get it because he has mouthpieces over here who track him to constantly echo his thinking and spread it among the populace. What they do is sense where the action is going at any given moment and head in that direction like a swarm of bugs eager to fulfill the duty they were programed in advance to carry out.

One of Netanyahu's mouthpieces and perhaps the most consequential of all is the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal whose members made sure to publish articles on Iran's nuclear program, a subject that is Netanyahu's current obsession. The articles were written by the editors themselves, by the Journal columnists and by outside contributors. Without exception, they all carried and supported the Netanyahu line of thinking as well as his logic -- however twisted it may have been. Thus, on February 21, 2012 the Journal published a piece under the title: “Containing Israel on Iran” and the subtitle: “General Dempsey sends a message of U.S. weakness to Teheran.” And on February 27, 2012 they published another editorial under the title: “Wishing Upon Iran” and the subtitle: “U.S. spies hold out hope the mullahs won't build a bomb.”

As indicated by the title, the subject discussed in the February 21 editorial is America's stance on the tension that exists between Iran and Israel. There is no doubt that a few things could be said in this regard and were said. But more importantly, a wealth of information was yielded in the process about a philosophy of international relations that turned out to be so strange, it could only be attributed to an out-of-control mob. In fact, the mob is a swarm of individuals and institutions that act collectively as a mouthpiece for Netanyahu. Theirs is a philosophy that is being injected into America's foreign policy -- stealthily at times and aggressively at other times -- and there is an example of it right here. You will find it encapsulated in one sentence in the middle of the article: “If the U.S. really wanted its diplomacy to work in lieu of force, it would say and do whatever it can to increase Iran's fear of an attack.” Here it is as clear as crystal, the Netanyahu people are inciting America to adopt a foreign policy that is based on spreading fear and terror.

In addition, the swarm is promoting the idea of superpower America establishing a worldwide Pax Americana that will rule the world by pressuring the nations that refuse to toe the line in every way possible. As to the system of governance by which the superpower itself is being managed and will continue to be; it is done by decrees drawn up in the form of opinions put out by institutions like the Journal editorial board and the AIPAC/Likud axis which extends from New York to Tel Aviv. Together, these institutions and the individuals associated with them will continue to be the sources outside the control of the American voters that effectively govern America. Their primary preoccupation is to ascertain that Israel will continue to live comfortably at the expense of the American taxpayers. And this is what makes the swarm look like one of parasites not one of ordinary bugs. It is a swarm endowed with an appetite so insatiable; it has turned Israel into a bottomless pit for American treasure and American blood.

What prompted the Journal to write that editorial was the statement made earlier by General Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff. This is how they reported what he said: “[He] sent … the wrong message … He said the U.S. is urging Israel not to attack Iran – because Iran hasn't decided to build the bomb … and because it would invite retaliation and be 'destabilizing' throughout the Middle East.” The editors then pushed back against those ideas in this way: “General Dempsey managed to tell the Iranians they can breathe easier because Israel's main ally is opposed to an attack on Iran … the US fears Iran's retaliation … [thus ratifying] Iran's rhetoric that the regime is a fearsome global military threat.”

You cannot fail to see here that the editors envisage the global game of the future as being a never ending struggle between America and someone else. This is not what America's founding fathers had in mind, not what any President has wanted for his country and not what the military wants now or has ever wanted in the past. It is a demonic vision that was brewed entirely inside the collective head of the swarm, portions of which were tried already and proven to be so disastrous for America, it is amazing that the people who still advocate it have the temerity to ask that it be continued, even enlarged.

Looking now at the February 27, 2012 editorial, the writers begin the piece with a question and their answer to it: “What will it take to persuade the US … that Teheran's … intentions aren't … peaceful? … An explosion.” To make it sound like they have something new to add to the discussion, they cite a report that was published a day or two earlier by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Unfortunately for them, the report contains nothing new and so, they abandon it to rehash their old worn out views and those of Netanyahu.

In fact, they say that “America's spooks [which include General Dempsey] see a silver lining: Teheran … has yet to decide to assemble … an explosive [nuclear] device.” There is also this: “Some … sources go even further … they still believe … that Iran put its nuclear weapons-work on the shelf in 2003.” But what the editors of the Journal do not like is that America's spooks “... are drawing a narrow distinction between having the ability to build a nuke and actually building one … the model here is Japan.” And it is at this point that the editors of the Journal start to push back against America's intelligence community, something they do with this opening salvo: “There's a problem with this logic: Japan is not Iran.”

How so? you ask. And you get this answer: “Democratic Tokyo threatens nobody. Theocratic Teheran never ceases making threats.” But remembering the threats that the editors made on behalf of Netanyahu in the February 21 editorial, you realize that they are turning the truth upside down. Still, you resolve not to get excited but try to understand the mentality that powers these characters. To this end, you continue to read what they wrote: “...if the mullahs can readily acquire nuclear weapons, they will instantly change calculations in the Middle East and beyond.” And you begin to see this as a game they enjoy playing. To counter it, you find a way to put their version of the truth right side up again.

You do this by transposing the two words Iran and Israel. Thus, you write down the description of the current situation like this: “Iran threatens nobody. Israel never ceases making threats. Having deliberately adopted a policy of ambiguity, Israel may or may not possess nuclear weapons but it has changed calculations in the Middle East and beyond. This has broadened its strategic and tactical options while complicating those for everyone else, including the United States. And this is why the Middle East remains a powder keg to this day.” Having done this, you feel good about yourself because you know that this view is real and can be verified by inspecting the situation on the ground. By contrast, their view is speculation that cannot be verified unless they provoke it by unleashing terror on the world -- which is what they have been doing up to now and intend to continue doing from all indications.

So this is what the struggle is all about. It was never about an existential threat to Israel since to attack Israel has always meant to attack America, a reality that was proven during the 1973 war when America rescued Israel from being humiliated, not even from being annihilated. And what this means is that Israel shall live as long as America lives. The truth, therefore, is that the artificial tension created in the Middle East has to do with the manhood of adolescents who were yesterday's mamma's boys but are not sure what they are today. They believe they look like studs and are the only studs on the block. They want to keep it that way except that they sense a challenge coming from Iran. They fear they will be unmasked as eunuchs who pretend to be hardened men. Thus, to keep their image intact, they are willing to endanger America's security. But if America were to get hurt, this will endanger Israel's security as well. Thus, it is irrational for them to want something like this and yet, it is what they are aiming for. Go figure.

But having turned reality upside down, they now set out to exploit what they have wrought. Realizing that America cannot maintain the position they advocate without a legal argument to back it, they make one up using the upside down reality they fabricated. Self-defense being the best argument you can make to explain why you want to go after someone, this is what they rely on to build a case in the February 21 editorial: “[The US should] ... say and do whatever it can to increase Iran's fear of an attack. It would say publicly that Israel must be able to protect itself.” As you can see, they say in the same breath that they should terrorize Iran and call that self-defense by Israel. This is crazy but all we can do is shake our heads and ask: How does the world look to you when you stand on your heads, folks? We may also suggest this to them: Try to see things in the right side up position; you might like it better.

But that's not all they do that is irrational. They say that if Iran responds to an Israeli attack -- which would be legitimate self-defense on the part of Iran “...the US would have no choice but to intervene on behalf of its ally.” They go on to admit that to say so is coercion which is an illegal act. So you ask: why would they want America to commit an illegal act? And believe it or not, this is the reason they give: “...to make an adversary understand that the costs of bad behavior will be very, very high.” Whose bad behavior? you ask; the scenario that they imagined themselves is that of Israel attacking, Iran defending itself and America intervening to help Israel. And they call Iran's behavior bad? How can this be viewed by the rest of us except that it is the work of raving lunatics? Like my Jewish friend used to say when he encountered this kind of logic: Light up the oven!

You begin to understand that this is a world you cannot describe metaphorically as being a world of psychopaths because it is a world of authentic psychopaths. What makes these people so dangerous is that they still have the presence of mind to formulate arguments by which to go after the sane people who thankfully have the power to act in these matters. Look what these characters write: “The General [Dempsey] is not a free-lancer, so his message was … guided by the White House.” You ask: What's wrong with that? And they tell you what they believe is wrong: “...Dempsey's comments will … mak[e] war more likely, not less. They will increase Israel's anxiety … if Mr. Obama is re-elected … this may drive Israel … to strike sooner.” Whose fault is that? you ask. They don't tell you in this editorial but they do in the February 27 one.

And what better way is there to get to the bottom of a subject than to go to the neocons and ask them for their opinion? This is how they bring these guys into the debate: “...what about those … spooks whispering that the conclusions of the 2007 NIE are still good? We wonder if they've talked to the famous neocons...” But who are the neocons? you ask. They are the reason why the spooks are reluctant to say what the Netanyahu parasites want to hear. Why the reluctance? Because the neocons admittedly made serious mistakes in the past: “Part of it may be the lingering damage from the WMD mistakes over Iraq.” So then, why would you ask these same people for their opinion? Because “President Obama has misjudged Iran at every turn … Wishful intelligence thinking won't deter Israeli leaders from defending their interests any more than it will stop Iran from obtaining weapons of mass destruction.” That's WMD, by the way as in Iraq's WMD about which the neocons were so wrong.

This is how and why the editors of the Wall Street Journal and their co-parasites conclude that the American government and its military were at fault yesterday, are at fault today and how they continue to make a big mistake. They rebuke the leaders of America for refusing to start a war they must know by now will finish off the superpower the same way that the mighty British empire was terminated by the ill-advised Suez adventure. Still, these parasitic entities want America to go to this length just to make Netanyahu feel he is no longer a mamma's boy but a Middle Eastern stud that can stiff anyone at will then run to hide behind the testicles of Uncle Sam.

Don't play ball with them, Mr. President. Kick them in the ass instead and certainly, keep them away from your rug.

Go And Do What To Himself?

2012-02-26T01:40:00.000-05:00

There have been two incidents in my life that took me nearly fifty years each to resolve. The first incident happened around the year 1950 or 1951. We were in Djibouti at the time, a place at the Horn of Africa that was then inhabited by only 25,000 people. We had everything that was considered modern at the time in that place, including electricity. But there was very little of that compared to what you might see today, for example in a big metropolitan center. I was not ten years old and one thing I liked to do in the evening was to sit outside the house and gaze at the Milky Way which I could see as vividly as a glass of milk you spill on a black table.

One night, after everyone else had gone inside the house and I was sitting alone, I heard a thunderous cracking even though the sky was without a speck of cloud. Something strange then followed: the Milky Way started to fade from the sky till it disappeared completely. It took it two or three seconds to turn itself out after which another phenomenon happened, the color of the sky slowly turned from pitch black to reddish. For several decades, I could not figure out what happened that night and I never talked to anyone about it.

Then, one evening in the year 1996 or 1997, I was standing on the balcony of my apartment in Montreal, looking not at a sky that cannot be seen due to the abundance of artificial light coming from below, but looking at the various sources of that light: blinking signs, car headlights and buildings that are illuminated with an outside source shining on them as if to compete with the light that is coming from the inside through glass windows. And then I heard a thunderous cracking that sounded almost the same as the one I heard in Djibouti nearly half a century earlier though I did not make the connection between the two incidents. I did not look to the sky to see if the Milky Way was there turning itself off or if the sky was turning reddish in color.

By way of explanation as to the source of the sound I just heard, well I thought to myself that Montreal is a big city, I live close to the downtown area where all sorts of sounds are made even though this one was different from what I am used to hearing. But the building is not exactly a quiet sort of residency, and a neighbor could have done something different from the norm. I left it at that for a few hours then sat down to watch the news. This is when I learned that a meteor had fallen near Montreal generating a sonic boom that was heard all over the city and beyond. And this was the moment I finally resolved the mystery of Djibouti. What happened then was that a meteor had entered the atmosphere and made the sound I heard. It must have broken up into tiny particles of dust that saturated the atmosphere and masked the Milky Way from my view. And it was this layer of dust that reflected the little light coming from below to give the sky the reddish color that so puzzled me as a child and so intrigued me well into my adult years.

The other incident I was able to resolve lately is something that happened either in 1964 or 1965, having been in the country only a few weeks at the time. It remained a source of puzzlement to me ever since, as I am sure it must be to every newcomer to this Continent. The thing is that I could never figure out how someone can do what someone else was telling him to do which was: “Go f...k yourself.” Well, thanks to the Wall Street Journal and to a guy called Elhanan Miller, I know now how it can be done. It is that Miller does it to himself in an article titled: “Bibi Said What?” which the Journal published on February 24, 2012 and gave it the subtitle: “Newsflash: The Israeli prime minister did not declare on Facebook that he wishes death to 355 million civilians.”

To me, Elhanan Miller is not a name that rings the bell, which is a good thing because it gives me the opportunity to judge his article on its merit and not by any idea I might have formed about the writer from previous exposure to his work. The Journal says he is the Arab affairs reporter for the Times of Israel and a research fellow at the International Center for the Study of Radicalization and Political Violence at King's College in London. And this is where begins the lesson which, in my mind, shows how someone can do it to himself. You read the article and you understand that he wants to say the Arabs have been radicalized but in fact, he only manages to demonstrate how radical Judaism tried to contaminate the Arab mind but failed miserably. And you realize how someone can do it to himself as this one does royally at King's College.

The newsflash mentioned in the subtitle is about a road accident in which a number of Palestinian children died and many more injured when an Israeli truck slammed into their school bus. This is how Miller tells us about it: “...Netanyahu expressed condolences to the victims' families on his official Facebook page. 'I've expressed sorrow at the death[s]...' he wrote in Hebrew … hours after the accident.” What? Miller is saying that Netanyahu expressed condolences to the victims' families who are Arabs by addressing them in the third person on his Facebook page; doing it in Hebrew and doing it several hours after the accident?

Then as a result of the accident and of Netanyahu's posting, says Miller: “An incredible chain of events … played out in the Middle East...” But before telling you what triggered those incredible events, he expresses an opinion about them by editorializing on the subject like this: “...demonstrating the lengths to which opinion-shapers and politicians in the Arab world will go to demonize Israel.” Oh, those bad Arabs. What did they do now? you ask. Well, are you ready for the bombshell, my dear reader? Brace yourself for, here it comes: “...a number of Israelis responded to his post expressing relief at news that the victims were not Jewish or Israeli. Some were even happy that innocent Palestinians were harmed. One commenter went so far as to ask: 'Can we send another truck?” Now, my friend, you see how good the Jews are, how bad the Arabs are and how Miller just f...ked himself by editorializing before telling you what he is editorializing about. So very Jewish, so very Jewish.

Having done this, he now wants to build on it to show how the Arabs go about demonizing Israel and, more importantly, why they do it. Here is how he goes about completing this task: “The vile comments were … removed from Netanyahu's page and the … incident … criticized in Israeli media.” Notice that Netanyahu did not criticize and that Miller does not give a sense of the criticism that was leveled by the media. Despite this, he wants you to know that: “...none of this prevented a … Jordanian daily … from misattributing the Facebook comments to Netanyahu himself … Citing an article in Israeli daily Haaretz, which reported that 'racist comments appeared on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Facebook Page.'” Miller goes on to say: “The story was picked up by news agencies in Jordan and across the Arab world, who rushed to condemn the prime minister...” Ah, those bad Arabs! If only they would bother to learn how the media conduct themselves say, in Britain and in America, they could have a press that is always accurate, never sensationalistic and staying away from citing the likes of Haaretz.

But you don't get a sense that Miller wishes to blame the Arab media themselves as much as he wants to blame other institutions and individuals. That tendency is shown in this passage: “One may have expected the media brouhaha to die down within a day or two, as it has in the past.” But something else happened, he says, which seems to bother him: “...the Arab League … convened … to lambaste Netanyahu…” That's bad enough if you're one of those who admire Netanyahu. But notice that the Arab League did not say it was about to take measures where all options would be on the table. Still, the absence of a threat did not satisfy Miller who went on to complain that: “In comments, … league official Mohammad Subeih declared that '...Netanyahu posted these remarks on his facebook page then tried to deny them.” Well, given all that happened – most of which being the fault of Netanyahu and the Israeli media – you cannot blame a minor official to feel the way that he did. Maybe so, but that's not the only thing, says Miller, because the same Arab League official looked at the “vile” comments that were posted by members of the Israeli public, and he expressed the opinion that: “showed how grave the Israeli racism against the Palestinian people was.” That does it in the eyes of Miller because it is one thing for a Jew to call those comments vile; it is another thing for an Arab to opine that they prove racism. Look how bad the Arabs are, how good the Jews are and how easily a Miller can do it to himself.

There is a trail here, says the author, and it “illustrates how prone senior opinion-shapers in the Arab world are to believe the most implausible stories about Israel.” He laments loudly about that, doing it in the form of a question he poses: “Did they … think ...that Netanyahu … would post … racist comments on a website?” Wait a minute mister, wait a minute -- wait, wait, wait. The Arabs lambasted Netanyahu but they only characterized as racist the comments that were made by the people who responded to the post like those who expressed happiness at the fact that Palestinian children were killed, and the one that suggested Israel should send another truck. Still, having posed a question, Miller answers it in the affirmative. He then goes on to do something so Jewish, you may classify it as intellectual syphilism of the kind that only a Jew can ejaculate. What he does is stand on what he believes is the brilliant victory he just scored to fight battles that were killed and buried in the past by the people who pushed against them. To this end, he loads the dead arguments onto the coattail of a victory that never was in the hope that the corpses will come back to life and reenter the debate. He'll have to do it alone because I am not participating.

But this is not the only syphilitic ejaculation you see Miller do. As always, when these people convince themselves they just gave a good argument, they don't stop here and let you digest it but ask for a payment right away. Miller shows he is no exception, not only in immediately asking for a payment but in asking for it by insulting someone. What can be more Jewish than that!

Here is how he does it. He writes: “Many Arabs' capacity to think the worst of Israel is … the product of … deep ignorance. Even [with] … Egypt and Jordan … relations have been [at] arms-length at best. While … Israelis have … acquaintance with Muslim culture, their counterparts in Cairo and Amman, to say nothing of Riyadh, have no firsthand knowledge of practicing Jews and … no access to Israel art, music and literature.”

What he is saying here is that the Arabs are so ignorant, they need to do something to remedy the situation. To this end, they should visit Israel as tourists and start buying Israeli arts, music and books. Where Miller is doing it to himself is in demonstrating how little he knows of what he is talking about. He based his presentation on what a Jordanian newspaper wrote, and what an official at the Arab League in Cairo said. These are the two countries that have relations with Israel. By contrast, nothing came from Saudi Arabia whose capital is Riyadh. This says the more you know about the Israeli, the worse you think of them. Yet, he makes it sound that things are worse with Saudi Arabia by using the expression: “to say nothing of Riyadh.” So you ask why does he do it? Good question; easy answer. Egypt benefits greatly from Arab tourism, and the Saudis are the biggest spenders of all. He wants a piece of the action which he believes he can get by insulting the people he is inviting. What can be more Jewish than that! What can be more syphilitic morally than that.

He ends the article like this: “The result is that to … Arabs, [the] Israelis are foreign … in their actions and motivations … [where] even the wildest proposition … sounds reasonable. Until Arabs … attempt to understand Israelis … demonization, conspiracy theories and ignorance will continue to thrive.” Oh, the poor idiot! He has just shown that when it comes to the Israelis and the Jews, ignorance about them is bliss. This is why Amman and Cairo spoke up, and why Riyadh remained mum. And when you look at it on the larger scale of history, this is why the Jews were pogrommed and holocausted by the Europeans who knew them, not the Chinese or the Japanese who still know very little about them.

Like the saying goes: be careful what you wish for because you may get it. What Miller and those like him are aiming for is a star that will shine bright in the firmament of nations. What they will get, instead, if they stay on the present trajectory is a meteor on a collision course whose end will be to burn out and turn into dust perhaps for the last time.

Thomas Friedman Says He Is Sad

2012-02-24T06:58:00.000-05:00

He says it in a column he begins like this: “Sadly, the transitional government in Egypt today appears determined to shoot itself in both feet.” The column came under the title: “Egypt's Step Backward” and was published in the New York Times on February 21, 2012. Friedman pours his heart out as well as his tears about an Egyptian Revolution that is apparently not living up to his ideals. You look again at his opening sentence to see what it is that is saddening him, and your eyes are caught by a little something that has to do with shooting oneself in both feet. For a moment you wonder if he meant it as a political metaphor to say that Egypt chose a course that treats the left and the right equally. But you also entertain the possibility that the expression may just be another one of those exaggerations he is famous for. It could well be that since the actual expression goes: “shooting oneself in the foot,” he decided to generate twice the impact by involving both feet. Whatever.

He goes on to gripe about this: “On Sunday, [Egypt] will put on trial 43 people … for allegedly bringing unregistered funds into Egypt to promote democracy without a license.” What's wrong with that? you ask. The correct procedure -- as it is followed everywhere in the world -- is to allege a wrongdoing then take the matter to trial; and this is what the Egyptians did. Oh no, there is nothing wrong with that, says Friedman, and he even goes on to explain: “Egypt has every right to control international organizations operating within its borders.” Well, is there a but? you ask. Oh yes there is a but, and it is a big “but” at that because it is followed by “the truth”. Here is that passage in full: “But the truth is that when these democracy groups filed their registration papers years ago under the autocracy of Hosni Mubarak, they were informed that the papers were in order and that approval was pending.” The approval was pending but not given, you see. So the groups acted as if the approval was given. What can be more law abiding than that? Friedman sees nothing wrong with it. The New York Times sees nothing wrong with it. Only the Egyptian government sees something wrong with it. This is two against one and the two win. See? It is democracy at work. Get it? Two win against one.

You stop for a moment to scratch your head and figure out if he is trying to say something more profound than this but nothing clicks. So you resume reading the article: “The fact that now – after Mubarak has been deposed by a revolution – these groups are being threatened with jail terms for promoting democracy without a license is a very disturbing sign.” Oh, look at the poor thing, he says he is disturbed. Well, I know a few people who do not need his confession to be convinced of same -- but that's another subject altogether. Anyway, you hope that Friedman will tell what it is that is bothering him thus get it off his chest and feel better. And this is what he does, in fact: “It tells you how incomplete the 'revolution' in Egypt has been and how vigorously the counter-revolutionary forces are fighting back.” Wow, you begin to sense that he is promising something big. You sense that you're in for a delicious treat, a presentation deserving of such admiration, it could go under the title: The Friedman Critique of Egypt's Version of the Federalist Papers.

Aren't you excited, my friend? Think about it, this is the guy who associated himself with every new invention that has appeared on the scene during the last two decades or so. From the personal computer to the latest gadget in the social media, he tried to own the trend by painting himself as being the foremost authority on the subject. To this end, he interviewed all the people he thought were worth interviewing, and he reported on their views by blending them with his own. In so doing, he made himself look like a veritable guru on the subject, something he may or may not be. If he is, imagine how impressive he will sound comparing our times with those of America's founding fathers. Imagine also how the meaning of freedom and democracy will be defined in the context of the new age of social media. Aren't you excited? I'm getting goosebumps already.

So here we go with the anticipated presentation. He begins it like this: “This sordid business makes one weep and wonder how Egypt will ever turn the corner.” Okay, Tom, we know all about your tears (crocodile or not) but get on with the presentation. We don't expect to see a scholarly critique of the first order but we need to see something meaty. Where is the meat, Tom? Alas, instead of real meant, he gives us this substitute: “Egypt is running out of foreign reserves, its currency is falling, inflation is rising and unemployment is rampant.” What? you scream. This is how he critiques events associated with the quest for freedom and democracy as they unfold in the age of social media? We need to weep alright; we need to weep at the sordid business that brought American journalism down to the level of the gutter. And we do not need to wonder how it all happened because we realize we are looking at one of the foremost culprits.

Still, he goes on to say this: “Yet the priority of a few retrograde Mubarak holdovers is to put on trial staffers from the National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute, which are allied with the two main U.S. political parties...” He goes on to ask: “What is this really about?” And he answers his own question by attacking the minister of international cooperation, Fayza Abul Naga, Egypt's iron lady whom he calls an old Mubarak crony. He says she personifies a tendency that helps to explain why Egypt has fallen far behind its peers: South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Brazil, India and China.

Being the forgiving person that you are, you say okay to yourself; maybe he has chosen to talk about economics instead of sharing his opinions pertaining to the subject of democracy in the age of social media. If this is his wish, you say goodbye to Egypt's “Federalist Papers” but you still expect him to deliver something that would be deserving of such level of admiration, it could go under a title that may sound like this: “The Wealth of Emerging Nations Operating in the Shadow of a Developed World.” Thus, you read the column in its entirety several times over while looking for something that may resemble economics but all you find is this: “Egypt today has only two predators: poverty and illiteracy … 33 percent of men and 56 percent of women in Egypt still can't read or write.”

At this point you stop asking anymore questions because you know he has no good answer to any of them. Instead, you take it upon yourself to educate the guy. You do so because there is joy in educating people and because you want to make the world a better place. You look around and see the many ignoramuses who hold prestigious positions from which they exert an enormous influence on a population that believes they know something -- and you want to change that. To this end, the first thing you tell the guy is to go back 10 or 15 years, and look at the statistics of say, South Korea since it is a nation he cited as being one of Egypt's peers. He will find in some publications that the literacy rate was listed as being 95%. A page or two later in the same publication, he will find that the number of people who never attended school was listed as being at the 40% level. This means that one third of the population became literate without ever going to school. How can that be?

An exhaustive research on the subject will show that when the rapid industrialization of South Korea began, nearly half the population had never attended school. Because the country needed a large number of people to do manual work such as material handling and assembly, the factories started their own classes to teach the new hires the few basic symbols that would allow them to follow simple instructions. The moment that these people were able to get through the day without making too many mistakes, they were called literate, and their numbers went into the statistical tables as such. By contrast, the Arab countries – Egypt among them – do not consider someone to be literate unless they hold a primary school certificate that shows they had at least six years of formal education. Thus, the first lesson that Friedman and the editors at the New York Times need to learn is that different cultures compile statistics differently. If you are going to compare things, you start by establishing what it is that you are comparing, or you will look like idiots.

The way things stand today in Egypt is that the truancy rate among young boys and girls is less than 2% which means that the country is on its way to having a literacy rate that is close to 100%. In the meantime, there are about 7 million “mature” people in the country who do not hold a certificate that says they had at least six years of formal education. When you add this number to the kids who are under the age of 13 and have not yet earned that certificate, you register an illiteracy rate of something like 20 or 25% which you see in some publications but is meaningless as well as misleading. As to the percentages quoted by Friedman, they are to be found nowhere except his imagination. In any case, the government of Egypt has instituted programs to eliminate illiteracy by tutoring the older folks who never had the chance to go to school. But from the looks of it, the program will not do well because most of the people who are eligible to enroll in it, do not need to be literate to survive. They are mostly retired people or they are stay-at-home mothers busy raising kids or looking after grand kids. I say, let them be, and let them rest in peace when nature will have run its course.

I live on a continent that claims to have a near 100% literacy rate but I know from experience -- being a retired teacher -- that a quarter of the population or more is so functionally illiterate, it would be classified as totally illiterate by Arab standards. A question that was often asked half a century ago, even splashed on the front page of magazines was this: “Why Johnny can't read?” Unfortunately, no one has come up with a good answer, and no formula was found to remedy the situation. It looks now like Johnny has grown into adulthood while remaining as illiterate as ever. But he found his way to the boardrooms of the nation, to the helm of sport teams and to a few other prestigious positions. What is going on?

Well, even though the question referred to the reading skills of Johnny, it meant to encompass the three Rs which cover the skills that deal with reading, writing and arithmetic. There is much that can be said about this vast subject but it will have to remain one for another time and another place. What is relevant now is to lay on this background the fact that we started to read the New York Times piece with great expectations only to be disappointed by the time we had fully exposed ourselves to its content. And this forces us to ask the question: Who is the author and what does he want?

To find the answer to these questions, we go back and read the old columns and the books that were written by Tom Friedman. He talked about technology, culture, economics, geopolitics and what have you. He teemed up with some people and he quoted other people. Some of these were in foreign countries but most were in America. Of this last group, you will have to check for yourself and see that 99% were Jewish. It is as if America was populated only by Jews. Thus, he wrote about the ways that America should remake itself to meet the challenges of tomorrow, yet all he did was to tell how America must conduct itself to be of use to Israel and only Israel. Journalism today is not about reflecting reality; it is about advocating new realities. You do not need arithmetic for this, and you do not need to understand what you read. You only need to acquire the skill to echo-repeat what you will be programmed to propagate. This alone can make you succeed in America.

And so it is with everyone in this sordid place they call Jewish America. It includes the US Congress whose only purpose is to serve Israel whether it is dealing with internal or external matters. And this is what the iron lady of Egypt saw when she looked at the activities of the National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute, both of which are allied to the American political parties now running America as if it were a Jewish banana plantation in the service of Israel and the Jews worldwide.

Not only that but the setup is now geared to turn the whole world into one giant banana kingdom, and bring it under the reign of a modern King David as a Pax Americana that would be more like a Pax Judaica. Not us, said Fayza Abul Naga, not us. This may sadden Thomas Friedman and the editors of the New York Times but if -- in response -- Ms. Naga is too polite to do it, I'll do it myself: You have my middle finger, you Tom, you Times. Go to hell and stay there.

A Space Fantasy By Edward Luttwak

2012-02-22T05:01:00.001-05:00

Imagine a race of extraterrestrial beings doing something to collect information about us and our planet to send back to their world. To this end, they plant censors we cannot detect in places all over the Earth and in the outer space near it. Among the tasks that the gadgets are capable of performing is to read the brain signals of individuals as they go about their daily lives doing what they normally do. The sensors send the information to a Coordinated Overseeing Super Intelligence (COSI) which is capable of learning on its own but that is also programmed to scan our media, learn from them as to who is who on the Planet (such as political figures, military leaders, opinion makers and the like) then look for these people in their natural habitat, lock in on their brain signals and read their thinking.

Having once locked on the signal of Edward Luttwak, having followed him for a while and having dismissed him as inconsequential, the interest of COSI in that man was rekindled when the prestigious Wall Street Journal printed an article of his on February 17, 2012. The article was published under the title “The President Has Been Given a False Choice on Iran” and the subtitle: “The Joint Chiefs have said a massive, sustained air campaign would be needed to set back the nuclear program. Not so.” Seeing this, the COSI reopened the file it had on Luttwak to reanalyze the old information it had on him and compare it with what is now being revealed about him.

The reason why Luttwak was dismissed the first time was that he appeared to discuss matters at a superficial level despite the fact that he managed to make his presentations sound profound. To be sure, there were occasions when he arrayed a subject the way he saw it but most of the time, he constructed the presentation in such a way as to serve the purpose of a third party – something that he and a few others did for one of many reasons. But because he had acquired a reputation of being a respected analyst, it was difficult for his peers to catch him doing something under pressure, do it under duress or do it out of deference to someone he values or someone that pays him. The consequence has been that very few of his peers dared to argue against him. But the censors of COSI picked up telltale signs that told it the man was less authentic than he appeared to be, and thus judged him to be so inconsequential as to dismiss him.

Having followed the debate regarding Iran and having noted both the huge quantity and the low quality of the incitement that is being generated to have someone attack that country, COSI came to the conclusion that the mouthpieces of Israel doing the incitement were failing to impress an America that remains reluctant to risk life or treasure doing a dirty work that need not be done. But what puzzled COSI and what prompted it to reopen the Luttwak file was that he did not try to sound profound this time around in his Wall Street Journal presentation. On the contrary, he seemed to deliberately tread on the light side of the discussion as if to insert in the article telltale signs that say: “Don't take me too seriously; I'm only having fun going along to get along.”

COSI started to pick up such signs when it read this sentence: “The magnitude and intensity of an attack is a matter of choice, and it needs to be on the table.” He came to this suggestion having made the false assertion that: “everyone ... assume[s] the attack is … a take-it-or-leave-it proposition.” But the fact is that the Americans had said and have repeated all along that everything was on the table which is a lot more than a single take-it-or-leave-it proposition. So then, how did Luttwak come to make that assertion? Well, this is how he did it: “That, by all accounts, is exactly how the issue was framed … in the last years of the … W. Bush administration.” What the author admits here is that he has relied on accounts of something about which he had no first hand knowledge; something that happened at least four years previous under a president that is no longer presiding.

Thus, COSI detected signs that Luttwak was making a point based on a fake reconstruction of old events he did not even attend – if they happened at all – while ignoring everything that has been said from that time to the present, and while negating all that was done during the same time frame. What a joke! And to say that this is done by someone who was supposed to be respected for his professional conduct! Yes, the man is having fun at being frivolous but the tragedy is that he is talking war and peace where people may die, properties destroyed and where unmitigated horror could be unleashed on a world that never asked for it.

He gets to the core of his presentation by comparing what he wants to see done versus the strategy that is said to have been prepared by the Joint Chiefs and presented to a previous president years ago. Theirs was a full scale air war, says Luttwak, one that would have gone on for a long time, resulted in a large number of casualties and been financially draining to the Pentagon budget. By contrast, his strategy consists of a surgical operation that will be: “inaudible and invisible, start and end in one night, and kill very few on the ground.” What a lovely little war, you might say. Don't you wish all wars were this sweet?

Before you respond to that rhetorical question, ask yourself what would be the purpose of a war like that. If you have no idea, here is a clue: “The resulting humiliation of the regime might be worthwhile in itself...” Hey, look at that, my friend. We are playing war games – little ones mind you, where only a few people are sure to die. But in return, we shall be rewarded with the knowledge that we have humiliated people we do not like. And the best part is that these people will be humiliated in the eyes of their own population not just ours. Ain't that great? Iranian leaders humiliated in the eyes of the Iranian population. Wow, what a neat idea! Let's go out in the street and dance the steps of jubilation in anticipation of the upcoming dainty little war.

Luttwak then argues the justification for adopting his strategy by first admitting: “That option was flatly ruled out as science fiction [and] … dismissed as political fiction.” But, he goes on to say this: “Yet this kind of attack was carried out … when the Israeli air force invisibly and inaudibly attacked the nuclear reactor [in] Syria.” Well, this is not the first time during this debate that someone has point to the Syrian example. The fact is that using the pretext of living under an existential threat, the Israelis and their cohorts in the American Congress have made sure that Israel always gets to be equipped with the appropriate mugging tool for every occasion to “invisibly and inaudibly” come behind a neighbor who is minding his own business and mug him like would do a common hooligan bent on terrorizing his neighborhood.

This happens while America which is playing the role of the self-appointed policeman of the region, protects the Jewish mugger from the wrath of a world that wants to see the Middle East go back to being the Garden of Eden it was before the advent of the hooligan. And if it happens that the mugger cannot complete an operation and get out of there unscathed, the policeman sheds his uniform, puts on the mugger's garb and joins the fray to do the job himself. He usually does not get in to finish off the victim but to save the mugger from humiliation, and maybe humiliate the victim just a little while he is at it.

A notable example in this vein was the moment during the 1973 crossing of the Suez Canal by the Egyptian army that America found it necessary to come to the direct aid of the Israelis. Even though the Egyptians had smashed through the Bar Lev line like a hot knife through butter, the Israelis were not at peril of being crushed because the Egyptians only wanted to retake the Eastern side of the Canal to reopen the waterway, get the revenues back on stream and shore up their economy. They so advised the Americans who then asked for a ceasefire that the two warring sides accepted. The thing, however, was that Israel would have been humiliated under these circumstances. Thus, to counter this possibility, the Americans flew their own planes and brought supplies to the Israelis at the front line. It happened during the 6 to 12 hours that followed the acceptance of the ceasefire and in violation of it. The rules of engagement were to the effect that the American pilots could shoot at the Egyptians if the latter intercepted them, something that happened on a few occasions.

The result has been that Israel was able to put a few soldiers at the outskirts of the city of Suez, a place that had been vacated since the 1967 war, six years earlier. And it was this little piece of theatrics that the Israelis have been using to claim that they counterattacked the Egyptian army and won another war. Nobody in the world believes this claim except the Americans who get their information from a Jewish media that never explained why the Israelis are out of the Sinai and the Egyptians are in. Still, the consequence of an illusion to the effect that Israel is invincible is that when the time comes and Israel needs someone to bankroll it and/or die for it, the Americans agree to pay through the nose to enrich both domestic and foreign Jews, and go to foreign lands where they die to please those same characters.

COSI uncovered all that information and correlated it with another piece of information it deemed startling even to an artificial intelligence. It is that Edward Luttwak had once asserted that Barack Obama who was running to be President at the time was actually a Muslim who will be considered an apostate if he won the election. And the author predicted that Obama will most probably be assassinated by a fanatic.

Well, Obama won the election; he has been President for more than three years, was never called an apostate and no one has tried to assassinate him. Thus, COSI has concluded it must be that Luttwak was not writing an actual opinion piece in the WSJ but was outlining a script for a Hollywood movie that will combine the intrigue of someone attempting to assassinate a president with the action of a lovely little war. How sweet can life get on Planet Earth!

This is the message that COSI has sent to its home planet about life on Planet Earth.

They Hate Us Therefore We Are

2012-02-19T04:32:00.001-05:00

Whether or not we are conscious of it all the time, we all have something that makes us tick. It may not rise to the level of the Descartes expression “I think therefore I am”, but the thing is here, and it gives us the impetus to soldier on amid the burden of daily living. To some people, the thing serves as a yardstick by which to compare themselves with someone else and thus measure their progress in life. To most other people, however, the thing is a belief they quietly keep to themselves. This is especially true with the people who expect that their thinking will alter as it evolves and goes through the different experiences to then fashion a new outlook on life.

It also happens that an organized group of people would at times formulate a shibboleth they inculcate in the people they seek to turn into followers. This is what a number of Jewish organizations do as they operate under the motto: We, the Jews are hated therefore we are. And when you begin with this idea, it leads to the argument that goes this way: We, the Jews have the right to be, to be protected by the state, by every state on the planet where there is a Jewish minority. Consequently, the policeman of the world that is America must commit the resources it has to impose that edict on all the nations of the world by force of arms if need be.

To develop these ideas into a solid and exhaustive presentation would require countless hours of research to look for and identify the moments, the speeches and the expressions that encapsulate the meaning of what should go into the presentation. Sometimes, however, out of the blue comes a miracle that dumps under your nose a treasure trove not of gold or precious stones but of manna that will satisfy a hungry mind craving solid material to work with. This is what happened to me the other day when I read an article in the National Review under the title “Arab like Me” signed by Lee Habeeb and published on February 15, 2012.

The article has the subtitle: “Maybe, just maybe, Arabs can break out of their self-destructive hatred and envy.” It told me right away that I shall find in this piece plenty of solid food for the mind to chew on. And sure enough, I discovered to my delight that “plenty” actually meant the near totality of the Jewish talking points I would have wanted to assemble in one place for the purpose of discussion. All the points were here as if the gods had probed my head, detected my secret wish, decided to be good to me for God knows what reason, and give me what I was looking for on one silver platter. I found in the Habeeb article not only the points that can demonstrate the nature and the aim of the Jewish shibboleth that makes the Jews tick but also how it all fits within the grand theory I have been developing in my head for some time.

What I see as grand theory is that every organism alternates between being in one of two possible states. It can be in the passive state or it can be in the active one depending on the environment in which it finds itself. If and when the natural order of things is maintained, the organism remains in a passive state to quietly enjoy what nature has to offer. If and when the natural order is disrupted, the organism goes into an active mode and works to restore the lost order. There is, in fact, a concise saying in the American vernacular that encapsulates this idea. It goes this way: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And this, of course, also means that when something breaks, you must roll up your sleeves and work to fix it.

From the most primitive organism up to and including the higher primates, the natural order of things is represented by nature itself and by the laws that make it work. But when it comes to the human species, the natural order of things can be represented by something we were born with, or something we have acquired through experience, or something that was inculcated in us by an outside agent. And each organism in its own way will move from the passive state to the active one to restore its order if and when it is disrupted. For example, the fruit-fly will always seek food, the bird will almost always repair its damaged nest, the monkey will prefer a banana over a book of poetry, and the human will sue to get back the supervisory position from which he was fired with cause or without one.

What this says about human beings is that they are prone to being taught to imagine an order of things that may or may not have existed in reality. But this order would be so real to some people that they can be motivated to sacrifice everything they possess, including their own life and that of others to recreate the order of their imagination and see it materialize. Such people will work diligently, even work fanatically as if they were restoring something that existed and was lost, or something that should have existed but was neglected by divine oversight. This is the sort of belief I see the Jewish organizations inculcate in the people they entice to follow them; the people they put to work on the pet project of the moment. This is what makes them so restless, always imagining a disorder in someone else's backyard they must fix with or without his consent.

At this moment in time, you find that the project on which the Jewish organizations are working, consists of strengthening a world of make-believe they have created to suit their purpose. Operating under the notion that they are hated therefore are facing a mortal danger, their current project is to get other people to join them in a crusade to bring more of them into the fold. The aim is to take to the world a gospel that speaks of an Israel which is battling a hateful humanity that is hell bent on annihilating Israel and all the Jews.

Thus, we see that Lee Habeeb finds it absolutely necessary to reveal a big secret to the world, particularly to the Obama administration, especially at this pivotal moment in history -- the start of the second year of the Arab Spring. Want to know what the secret is, my friend? Brace yourself because here it is: “There are two kinds of Arabs in this world … Those who hate Jews, and those who don't.” Get it? If not, here is the explanation: No people but the Arabs are split in their sentiments toward the Jews. As my friend – a survivor of the Holocaust with a tattooed number prominently shown on his arm -- used to say about the guards at the concentration camp: “If only they did not all look like blue eyed blonde Aryans, I might have thought of them as human beings doing a job they hate to do but forced to do it. But they were Aryans and they enjoyed making us suffer.” I wonder if Habeeb realizes that the Nazis hated the Jews and that the Jews returned the favor. Could it also be that there are Jews who hate Arabs? Any one Jew out there who may hate the Arabs? Is there one out there? Just one? Please speak up!

To make his point, Habeeb recounts an early experience he had when: “I wrote my first pro-Israel column for my college paper as a young student journalist.” There was a backlash that stunned him, he says, as a result of which: “I even thought ... of writing something negative about Israel … to balance things out...” Well, he didn't write something negative about Israel, and I do not know what would have happened if he did. But I had what you might call a mirror image kind of experience, and I know what happened. I had been in Canada about 3 years when the 1967 war broke in the Middle East. At a time when there was no such thing as political correctness, I would see in the media only one-sided articles describing the Arabs as being mad dogs, wounded animals, bloodthirsty savages and what have you.

I didn't think these guys loved us much but I did not bellyache. Instead, I wrote a very innocuous letter to the editor of the Toronto Star, and it was published sometime in 1968 under the inoffensive title: “Don't listen to propaganda, Egypt is a civilized country.” Surprise, surprise, I got a call from the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJG) who informed me that someone will come and talk to me. Having been baptized both a Copt and a Catholic, I called the Coptic priest of my parish to tell him what happened. He said he would be there at my house to see for himself what these people are up to. On the designated day, the man from the CJG came before the priest and so I said very little but listened a lot. He said I must be careful what I write because I could hurt myself going against what the Jews are trying to accomplish which is to foster understanding between them and the rest of society. The priest then came, and very little was said after that.

Unlike Lee Habeeb who contemplated writing something to balance things out, I did not entertain such thought because what was needed was not that I balance myself out but that I balance the tens of thousands of characters -- Jews and non-Jews alike -- who popped up all over the print and audio-visual media to compete against each other as they poured the rivers of anti-Arab venom held inside of them. And that was no ordinary venom because it was fueled by the molten lava of a volcano installed inside the belly of surrogate mothers, each vying to give birth to the most monstrous anti-Arab expression you could imagine. It was a horror show that lasted more than a decade. They didn't love us, these awful characters, even though they didn't know a thing about us and didn't know what they were supposed to hate. They just hated because the Jews instructed them to hate, lit the fires in bellies of some and erupted the volcanoes in the bellies of others.

And guess what happened when I refused to balance myself out? I was blacklisted but was advised that I would get what I merit if and only if I came to my senses and lent my name to an article that would sound very much like the one signed by Lee Habeeb. I told these people to go to hell, I sued them for thinking that I could be bribed and I gave them my finger, something I have been doing for nearly half a century now. And guess what, Lee Habeeb my dear “Arab” friend, you'll never know what a satisfying thing this is until you've tried it. In case you decide to make a move that will redeem you, let me assure you that you will feel as if you had come out of a Jewish sewer and dove into a sea made of cleansing soap and luxurious shampoo. You will feel clean, you will feel pure and you will feel good about yourself. It will be like going from a hell made of filth into a heaven made of freshness.

Will it be too difficult for Habeeb – or any other person for that matter -- to redeem themselves having gone to such extremes expressing an apparent hatred toward the Arabs and a fake love toward the Jews? Yes it should be difficult because these people have been inculcated with a multitude of subjects that were turned upside down. Much time will be consumed and much energy will be required to go over each item and turn it right side up. But luckily for us, there is an element of commonality here that we can use to make matters easy. It is that everything was turned upside down, and this makes it so that one simple rule can fix the problem. Because all that is good about the Arabs was attributed to the Jews; and all that is bad about the Jews was attributed to the Arabs, you may reverse everything that was shoved down your throat absent a push back, and you will find that everything has fixed itself.

For example, when you read in the Habeeb article something like this: “Arabs … are often pushed into a kind of groupthink, a kind of self-censorship...” you look around to see for yourself but hardly find someone representing the Arab side of the story, let alone a group of Arabs doing it. And so you wonder where this idea of groupthink came from. You then look to see who is representing the Jewish side of the story, and it is like stepping into an echo chamber with a million voices all barking the same thing over and over again, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year … year after year after year, decade after decade after decade. And you conclude that Lee Habeeb has lied to you because he was programmed to lie about these things. Well, he can do the same thing and look around to see for himself. He will realize that those who programmed him to lie are liars themselves, and perhaps conclude that the lies must now be reversed thus turned into truths.

You keep reading the Habeeb article and you meet this: “Say those words and … the subject turns to Israel. Always, it seems, it turns to Israel.” The truth is that the Jews in general, and the Israelis in particular adhere to the shibboleth: “We know we exist because they talk about us; and they talk about us because they hate us.” But the truth is that the last thing the Arabs want to do is waste time talking about the Jews or Israel. They usually don't but if provoked, they will. I have had to put up with this sort of absurdity myself since I started this website. People have accused me of devoting too much time writing about the Jews and Israel. When this happens, I respond like this: guess what I'm doing. I am only responding to articles that were written about Israel or the Jews. When no one provokes my ire with lies that are too pro-Israel or too anti-Arab, I write about other things. But rest assured, there are many out there who like to be provocative and thus, it looks like I'll be writing about the Jews and Israel for a long time to come. Not my fault; I'm innocent.

Here is another example where the truth has been turned on its head: “It is all about Arab self-doubt … a deep-seated fear that … Arabs won't be very good at the self-governance thing.” The fact is that for thousands of years, the Arabs have governed themselves and they did it very well. And for hundreds of years, they ruled over other cultures in Asia, Africa and Europe where they came to be accepted and appreciated as benevolent and kind and civilized rulers. By contrast, the Jews apparently governed themselves for less than a generation in ancient times after which they were kicked out of the place where they ruled. They were brought back to it later by Britain at which time they conducted themselves like ruffians again -- so much so that they lent credence to the saying: Jews can never govern themselves. This point was repeated many times throughout the centuries by people who realized that when your religion says you are the favorite child of god, you do not want to work or be told what to do. Consequently, you seek to live like a parasite at the expense of those who tolerate your sucking of their blood. This is why they cannot settle somewhere to prosper and multiply. And this is why there are so few of them even though they have been around longer than any other religion.

At some point in the middle of the article, Habeeb starts a paragraph like this: “To the dismay of Arabs … Jewish people turned an ancient piece of real estate ... into a thriving oasis...” The truth is that on a per capita basis, the money that was poured into Israel over the decades has exceeded (literally and I mean it, literally) by several orders of magnitude the money that went to develop say, Singapore or Dubai. Yet, if the American people were to force their government to stop pouring the money it borrows in their name and the name of their children into the black hole they call Israel, that distressing place will go into such a steep decline so fast, it will look worse than Sierra Leon in less than a year. The fact is that the people who call themselves Jews do not create wealth; they only accumulate and keep the wealth that someone else creates. To this day, Israel still receives what is called compensation but the money does not even go to the survivors of the Holocaust who live in abject poverty; it is looted by the people who are supposed to administer the program because they too would starve without it. Israel is an oasis of never ending pathetic poignancy, nothing else.

But you ask yourself why is it that Lee Habeeb brought up that point? And you find the reason a few paragraphs below: “This … friend … focuses on border disputes … I ask him why he is obsessed with the 1967 border dispute...” Habeeb makes this statement then goes into a one sided debate to explain why the world should allow the continued looting of Palestinian land by Israel. He then ties the idea of the borders with the subject of antisemitism, and he accuses the Arabs of being antisemitic. He does this despite the fact that it is the Jews who never cease to remind the Europeans and the Americans that modern Jews are no longer Middle Easterners but Europeans who settle in the Middle East to keep under check the real Middle Easterners who look non-white and have the ambition to invade Europe with the aim of changing its character -- something they will succeed in doing if Israel were to vanish. Believe it or not, my dear reader, all this and more is hidden in that one sided debate Habeeb was having with himself.

To be allowed to loot Palestinian land is an important issue in the roster of talking points that these people maintain. And they often tie the subject with something they like to say about Netanyahu since he is the foremost champion of the idea to expand Jewish settlements. This is what Habeeb does in his article, and here is how he does it: “Benjamin Netanyahu once gave a speech in which he pointed at a map of the Middle East. He rattled off many of the countries in the region 'Big countries,' he said. 'But small accomplishments.' He then went on to describe Israel … 'Little country,' he concluded. 'But big accomplishments.'” You get a sense of the subtle point that Netanyahu and Habeeb are trying to make if you are old enough to remember how and why the size of Israel entered the discussion in the late Sixties.

The Israelis and their mouth pieces in America used to say they want more land to use as a buffer zone between themselves and the Palestinian freedom fighters. They argued that the land must be wider than the range of the guns used by the Palestinians. But then came all sorts of new weapons (such as rockets, for example) that made this argument a moot one. This is when the Israelis and the mouthpieces changed their tune and started to talk about the Arabs having 22 countries while the Jews had only one. But this made it sound like they were envious of the Arabs, and so they quickly abandoned it. They changed their tune again to make it sound like it was the Arabs who were envious of the Jews. This is how and why they came up with the spin of the little country that has accomplished a lot versus the big countries that have accomplished little. They say this with one side of the mouth while the other side cries out: “Help us, America or we die of hunger. Compensate us, Germany or we starve to death.”

Now they have something new they can use to make the old argument and tell the world that it must let Israel loot more of the Palestinian lands. It is the Arab Spring which they use in this manner: “Today … The 'Arab Spring' is an opportunity like none the region has ever seen … But it is up to them to … make their own lives better that they will have little time left to burnish old grievances.”

What you see in that paragraph translates into this: Let bygone be bygone because: “Countries [are] built … on love, trust, shared sacrifice, and hard work.” But if you do this, you set a precedent on which they will pounce. They will grab it and use it to argue that because you have accepted to let them loot once, you must let them loot again – something they intend to do till they swallow all of Palestine.

Nothing can be more Jewish and more syphilitic morally than this. Lee Habeeb can claim all he wants that he may or may not be an Arab but those who call themselves reformed Jews say that you are a Jew if you feel you are one. Because Habeeb feels more Jewish than any Jew you will ever meet, he must be a reformed Jew of the first order and not an Arab if he ever was one.

End that crap, Lee. You have been unmasked.

Behold Not The Dogs Of War But The Dogs

2012-02-17T06:16:00.001-05:00

If you ever doubted that the time had come to throw away the old relationship between Egypt and the United States, and either relaunch that relationship on a new path or part ways for good, a reading of an article written by Daniel Calingaert will convince you. The article comes under the title: “From Bad to Worse in Egypt” and was published on February 17, 2012 in the Wall Street Journal.

Calingaert is vice president of a Washington based outfit calling itself Freedom House that is no more free than the house of ill repute -- sometimes called the US Congress -- which is so thoroughly under the tyranny of Jewish rule, people the world over think of it as the private washroom of the Israeli leaders who make use of it when they visit the American capital. They use it the way that Netanyahu uses the rug at the White House, the one he transforms into a private urinal when he is not fighting over a turf with the dog of the first family.

The point of the Calingaert article is summed up in a subtitle that goes this way: “The repression of civil society is far worse than anything seen under Hosni Mubarak.” Bearing in mind that Freedom House is supposed to be some kind of a civil society, you wonder if the author is making a distinction between Egyptian civil society and the foreign groups that operate in the country. You go over the article and discover that he makes no distinction between the two except that – in his mind's eyes -- the Egyptian society is supposed to be subordinated to the foreign groups.

And the reason why Calingaert was prompted to write those words is that: “Egypt's military rulers have spent the last several months provoking U.S. and European ire with their crackdown on civil-society groups,” says the man. He later says that the “...assault on civil society [is] led by Ms. Naga and other holdovers of Hosni Mubarak's regime.” This part came just before he asserted that things were better under Hosni Mubarak, the notion that was echoed in the subtitle. Well, it looks to me that someone needs a lesson in coherent writing, in logic or in both.

But that is not the worst part because there is something even worse than that. Here it is: “Following a politically motivated investigation, 43 people … are about to face criminal charges for their work supporting a democratic transition in Egypt.” Look what a primitive mentality we have here. When you accuse someone of being politically motivated, you mean to say that someone apolitical going about their business was interfered with by someone having politics on their mind. But this is not the case, says the author, in that he asserts that the 43 people were working to support what he calls a democratic transition. This means that they were engaged in a political act which makes it that the response of the Egyptian government was entirely appropriate. Thus, to say otherwise is to be absurd, and this makes you wonder why the Egyptians need to keep in their midst a breed of men and women as inferior as these people who still believe they can tell them what to do?

The fact is that the Egyptian people don't want these foreign characters on their soil doing what they do. Their opposition to America's meddling in their affairs has existed for decades, and has not abated one iota since the Revolution. In fact, they overwhelmingly support the effort of the government to clean up the old mess as it is being done by Ms, Naga who is determined to put an end to the madness of foreign interference in the politics of Egypt. Furthermore, the just elected members of the new parliament have warned the government and all those in it not to interfere with the judicial process that is overseeing this matter. They want to see justice take its course because they want Egypt to remain a nation of laws in reality and not in name only as is the case when it comes to America's respect for international law.

You feel satisfied having dismissed these characters as an inferior breed of men and women who are wallowing in a pool of ignorance. But then you get hit in the face with a cry that says: “Why be so generous?” You get back to reading the article and find this passage: “What is all the more stunning is that the SCAF ... receives $1.3 billion in U.S. aid annually ... Egypt also needs U.S. and European support to secure a $3.2 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund to stem its downward economic spiral since the revolution.” Having falsely described their activity as being apolitical, these low life characters now threaten to stop contributing the 1.3 billion dollars they were making toward the maintenance of peace in the region. Hallelujah would say the Egyptian people because they sensed they were getting the short end of the stick by this deal and they wanted out.

But the matter does not stop here because when it comes to cowardly behavior, a bigger threat always follows a smaller one. This time, the barking dogs have threatened to repeat the performance of their ancestors when the latter pressured the World Bank to refuse loaning Egypt the money to build the Aswan hydroelectric station. Six decades later, the grandchildren of those dogs threaten that their government will work on the IMF to repeat the performance that changed the history of the Middle East, set their country on a course similar to what ended the British empire, and see to it that America is dragged into a Middle Eastern political quagmire that will be no less destructive than the military quagmire which was Vietnam. It must be that when you are as primitive and backward as these people, you never learn from your mistakes but keep repeating them over and over till you find yourself flat on your face. How much farther down will you go, America?

The people of Egypt have seen enough by now to know that it is America which needs to be liberated not them. They know what freedom is and know how to get it back when it slips their finger as it happened countless times over the thousands of years that they have existed as a nation. By contrast, the Americans who have been around for scarcely a few centuries have already lost their freedom to a degree that would have made a dog start a rebellion to free itself. And yet, the Americans don't seem to even realize they are serving their Jewish masters as would a nation of psychologically subjugated slaves.

When you come right down to it, you find that to interfere with the business of someone else used to go against the grain of the old American ideal. What has changed is that America's new masters want to be masters of the world and so, they use their newly subjugated slaves to go out and try to subjugate everyone else so as to bring everyone into the fold under the dominance of their Jewish masters. What this means is that the stance of the people of Egypt is one that will not only maintain their freedom but also free the Americans from the yoke of Jewish tyranny. In fact, it will be good for the whole world. Go Egypt go!

Christmas In February With Tricks And No Treat

2012-02-15T11:05:00.000-05:00

On the twelfth day of February, the New York Times gave us the editorial: “Egypt's Unwise Course”. On the thirteenth day of February, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) gave us Alan Dershowitz. On the fifteenth day of February, the same WSJ gave us Daniel Schwammenthal. Yes, this is the year 2012 but no, it is not Christmas in February though it may feel like it for a moment when you consider the gifts that came wrapped in those three pieces of writing. Look at the title of the Dershowitz article: “Warning Iran Against Hitting 'Soft' American targets.” The fact is that America does not need to warn someone against attacking it; everyone knows that if attacked, America will hit back, and hit back hard.

So then, what was the purpose of that article to begin with? Obviously, it was written for the mysterious gift it carries inside it. Now consider its subtitle: “The Obama administration should deem an attack on a synagogue or embassy as tantamount to a military attack on the U.S.” The mystery deepens, does it not? Now look at the title of the Schwammenthal article: “Containment Won't Work Against Iran” and the subtitle: “Mutually assured destruction might be more of an incentive than a deterrent for Ahmadinejad and those around him.” How is that you ask? As a possible response to your question, you find the following assertion buried deep inside the article: “Iran lacks second-strike capability and Israel is too small to absorb a nuclear attack.” What? Is this guy saying that Israel must now prove to the world it has no nuclear weapons, and thus save itself from a nuclear holocaust lest Iran decide to do short work with it using a one and only strike against it? We are intrigued as to what gift this guy is about to give us?

But the real gift is that the three pieces employ arguments by authors who known they are so absurd, they fail to make a point (any point at all) that is serious. This tells the reader he or she should overlook the superficial meaning of the arguments and seek instead to turn up the hidden messages in them. Look at this vacuous logic in the Times editorial: “In Egypt [no] group receives more money from foreign sources than the military … Yet, the generals … have [gone] against civil society groups that … get far less...” Believe it or not, this was written in one of the oldest and most prestigious publications in America where at least two former Presidents in recent memory – Nixon and Clinton – came close to being crucified for accepting gifts from foreigners they failed to declare.

As to the Dershowitz article, it is so uncharacteristically rambling, it is hard to make heads or tails reading it, but like the essay of a kid who spends the night at the arcade then sits down in the wee hours of the morning to do his homework, you can still get the essence of what a tired mind is trying to communicate. Let us, therefore, do just that by first looking at the absurd and unnecessary part: “An attack on an American synagogue is no different than an attack on the World Trade Center or on American aviation. We correctly regarded those attacks as acts of war … and we responded militarily. All American citizens, regardless of their religious affiliations, are equally entitled to the protection of the American military.” Well, the fact is that America does not need to be reminded how it responded to the events of 9/11. So then, what was the purpose of having this unnecessary passage in the first place?

We get a sense of the purpose of that passage when we go back to the start of the article and, once again, navigate our way through the atrocious ramblings we encountered in several paragraphs early on, while trying this time to figure out what the author is trying to build up to. Doing this, we find a pathetic attempt to put together an argument that will satisfy both the American laws and the international laws with the view that if Iran responds to an Israeli terrorist attack against it, America must automatically and reflexively respond to the Iranian response by attacking Iran's nuclear installations. Oh yes, we see it now, it is the return of that same old Israeli obsession which is reflected in that same old incitement, the one that has always been propagated by the Jewish lobby in America. The difference this time, is that the incitement is gift-wrapped inside a new package.

What is common to the three pieces of writing is that they carry inside them, and they propound a philosophy around them that is far removed from what the American government, from what its institutions and from what its people want now or have ever wanted throughout the history of their republic. In fact, what America wants now and has always wanted is a peaceful world in which everyone is entitled to have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The stance is called isolationism by some people, and called non-interventionism by other people but it is what it is. On the other hand, what the authors of those three articles seek to achieve is a world that is dominated by an America which is itself dominated by them – whoever they are, whatever they are and wherever they live.

But how do they do what they do? you ask. Looking for an answer to this question, you find that the New York Times has found a novel way to spread its gibberish hokum among its readers. But in reality, is it that much of a gibberish? and is it that much of a hokum? Look what's happening here, the NY Times begins by asking a question in the name of the readers: “Their [rulers of Egypt] paranoid argument?” It then responds like this: “That the groups – which do voter and poll-worker training among other things – are 'foreign hands' out to destroy Egypt … The generals portray themselves as defenders of the country's sovereignty.” Wow! Look at that! What a hidden grand message in them words! What a supreme gift to us!

You see, my friend, to suggest that Egypt's current rulers are not the defenders of Egypt's sovereignty but that the foreign hands who came into the country to do things behind their backs are, is to advocate the replacement of those rulers by the foreign hands. And this is to advocate a regime change – not of an Egyptian you dislike by another Egyptian you may like – but of an Egyptian you dislike by a foreigner that is imported into the country from abroad. You bolt, saying to yourself this is it, and you decide that you have seen enough of what comes out the brain, the soul (or is it the rear end of the Times editors?); and because you deem that what you just witnessed is worth less than what comes out the rear end of a dog suffering from diarrhea, you end your analysis of the Times editorial here and now, thus save yourself from having to continue smelling a stink you can no longer bear. And down the toilet where it belongs goes the NY Times. And to think that you were so hopeful as to believe for a moment there was a valuable gift wrapped in this package; it is amazing.

But realizing that regime change is what these people have just advocated for Egypt, it hits you that regime change is what they advocated for Iran on previous occasions except that the change never came. So then, what do they advocate for Iran at this time? You find the answer to this question at the very end of the Dershowitz article. Here is how he put it: “As George Washington … counseled … 'To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.'” But the world knows that America is not only prepared for war, it is in a permanent state of war with somebody at any given time. Dershowitz understands this but you find him saying just before he gave his last counsel that: “...for deterrence to succeed … the threat of military action must be credible.” But here too, the world knows that America has “all options on the table.” What more does this man, and all those like him want from America?

You find the answer to that question in this passage: “The U.S. government should deem any Iranian attack against Israeli or Jewish ... targets … to be an armed military attack on the U.S. – to which the U.S. will retaliate militarily … Washington should not treat such an attack as the Argentine authorities did, merely a criminal act.” So that's what it's all about; and the way it will work is this: Israel will steal or forge Canadian and New Zealand passports which it will give to agents who will use them to travel and do something criminal in the name of Israel, something that will provoke Iran. When the latter will retaliate by committing an act that will be similar in nature and proportional to the provocation, America will call it an act of war and pounce on Iran, unleashing a massive and disproportionate attack on its nuclear facilities. What can be more Jewish and more syphilitic morally than to ask for something like this?

But to pull it off and hope to fool the world, you need to justify it, especially if you are a lawyer urging your suggestion on a superpower that pretends to be a nation of laws. In fact, this is the spot in which Dershowitz found himself and for which he tried to do fancy footwork that unfortunately did not work for him. He put it this way: “...the legal justification for such an attack would be … predominantly pre-emptive or preventive, though it would have reactive elements as well, since Iran has armed our enemies in Iraq and caused the death of many American soldiers.” Come again, Alan baby! You are counseling America to respond to a criminal act by launching a massive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities under the pretext that years previous, the Iranians helped the fighters of a neighboring country defend themselves when America invaded them under the false pretense that they had developed weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons? Whoa! There is no doubt that the world will dismiss this idiocy because it will see it as a moral syphilis of the most Jewish kind, the kind that only a Dershowitz can formulate and still maintain a straight face.

As to that guy Schwammenthal, you look for the gift inside his package and discover this: “But will any country rely on Western promises to protect them from a nuclear Iran after the same promises failed to curtail a conventionally armed Iran?” And you ask yourself is this a trick or a treat? And you decide after a moment of deep reflection that it is a trick because these are the people who continually tell the Americans not to worry about what the world thinks of them, and add this: “Just go ahead and do what you need to do because then, everything will fall into place as they should, and the world will come to love you, respect you and most importantly, fear you.”

However, when these people have a shaky argument they wish to present, and when they know not how to convince America to send its children to fight and die for them, they tell the superpower that if it did not do what they ask, it will lose what valuable credibility it may have in the eyes of the world. What chutzpah! What hubris! What gall!

And then you come to the sad conclusion that this is not Christmas in February; it feels more like a spooky Halloween moment full of tricks.

Jewish Mammas Producing Eunuchs

2012-02-13T03:31:00.001-05:00

The current generation and the one before it have not known a time when the Jewish male was thought to be the sissy who went nowhere without his mamma. In fact, obeying mamma's directives to the letter used to be the norm for the Jewish male who was seen to be permanently clutching to her skirt, even after he had grown and become an adult. This was true even though the Jewish family was supposed to be a patriarchal one according to the scriptures it followed. In these scriptures, the male of a group is said to have a pecking order higher than that of the females no matter how young he is and how old they are. Also, his opinion supersedes that of any of them including his own mother.

But a reversal hit the Jewish family because of something that happened in Europe during the Middle Ages. It was then that the tenets of the Jewish religion, as described in the scriptures, were turned upside down; and the principles of male supremacy maintained in name only. In real life, the Jewish male was made into the weak element inside his own family by a society at large that did not trust him. It happened that shortly after the arrival of the Jews into Europe, a perception was formed about the males of the group as being a breed of conniving and treacherous operators. Anticipating that the male will be disruptive, and fearing his method of operation, the native Europeans shunned him personally and prohibited him from holding any job that would give him a path to a higher income, to power or to influence.

Unable to provide adequately for his family, the influence of the Jew weakened considerably inside it, and the power shifted to the matriarch whose job was to make ends meet on the patriarch's meager income. And when the Europeans “discovered” the new world -- America among them -- they settled down to forge a life that came as close as possible to what they had in Europe. This called for the maintenance of the relationships they had with each other in the old world, including the ethnic and sectarian prejudices they held there as well as the rules they had for the Jews. Consequently, there was a time in America when the Jew was forbidden from holding a job in banking, teaching, government and the rest. Eventually, discrimination was made illegal in that country, and the Jews started to enjoy the same rights as everyone else. This opened the door for the Jewish male to be his old self again with consequences that are still in the making but promise already to be anything but cheerful.

In fact, what transpired during the last half of the Twentieth Century was that the Jewish male was given the opportunity to re-reverse the trend and to reclaim the alpha ranking he used to enjoy before he settled in Europe. If he did not entirely succeed in regaining his old status inside the family, he did manage to upgrade his image a notch or two in the eyes of society at large. More accurately, he succeeded in that endeavor in only a few places around the world, among them the English speaking nations. This development allowed him to curb the Rodney Dangerfield lament: “I don't get no respect,” and replace it with the boast: “Look at me, I can engineer the dissing of a former President.” And this is where the idea of the Jew being the conniving and treacherous operator began to germinate again; this time in America. As you can see, old habits die hard, the reason why what goes around comes around no matter how long it takes, no matter how far it goes.

Moreover, when you look closely at what the generic Jewish male has achieved so far, you find that he has only managed to regain a precarious sort of respect; one that appears for a short period of time to vanish again as if in a cycle. It happens when a Jewish individual does something extraordinary for which he is honored and allowed to take the Jewish brand on his coattail to give it a free ride. But when the celebration ends so does society's high esteem for the Jew. And there is an irony here worth mentioning. It is that the generic Jewish male tends to gain respect not as a result of efforts he made but efforts that were made by the acknowledged Jewish mamma of all time: Golda Meir of Israel. This was the woman they referred to as the only man in the cabinet; a nickname she kept till she became Prime Minister and had the opportunity to build up the reputation of being one tough cookie in her own right.

But there is more because if this is an irony, it pales when compared with the greater irony of the respect that was not heaped on the Israeli soldiers who fought the wars under Golda Meir or someone else, but heaped on the Jewish American males who remained in America and talked glowingly about those wars from afar. Indeed, what kept happening in war after war was that the armchair warriors of America associated themselves with the Israeli soldiers so completely that they blurred the two images and made themselves look like heroes of wars they never fought. Worse, the fake scenario of Jewish heroism was being told in America at a time when the authentic Israeli soldiers were busy at home and elsewhere repudiating the wars in which they just fought, making it clear that these were horrible events, no one should describe in glowing terms.

But to go from having the status of a castrated Rodney who lacks respect to being so potent as to diss an American President, the Jewish American male had to convince the American people that Israel won all the wars – ancient and modern -- thus give credence to a new gospel which says that the Jews are superior beings who deserve to be worshiped like gods. Indeed, the Jewish male was able to accomplish all this by attracting surrogates who gladly surrounded him for reasons of their own, absorbed the ideas of the new gospel and metastasized them by taking them to the rest of society where they spread like an infection.

This done, the Jewish male put down a number of principles by which he plotted to take control of the American superpower, make it his exclusive dominion and use it as a vehicle by which to establish a worldwide Pax Americana that would in reality be a Pax Judaica. Thus, what the Europeans of the Middles Ages had erroneously thought was the hidden agenda of all the Jewish people was now being implemented in the open not by all Jews but by a leadership that appointed itself to realize the old dream. And these leaders are now so confident of what they do, they no longer charge it is antisemitic to say the Jews control this or that, but say it in your face: Yes, we do control this and we do control that; so what!

How do they do it? Well, the Jewish leaders have adopted a number of principles, one of which they use often and use with some success. It is to think of something they want to do, anticipate the response it will solicit and prepare a counter response that will deal not only with the situation at hand but deal automatically with all similar situations when they occur in the future without the need for further intervention by them. For example, in order to tightly monopolize America, these people needed to prevent the government officials and others from talking to the Palestinians. Thus, instead of having to make a presentation each time that a meeting is about to take place between the Americans and the Palestinians, the Jewish leaders thought of a way to make the abstinence from talking to the Palestinians a dogma that has the force of a religious belief; one that must never be violated or even questioned.

To accomplish this, they took advantage of the feeble minds that occupied the White House at the time, and they argued that because the Americans were battling the armed al-Qaeda fighters who attacked America out of Afghanistan, it would serve moral clarity if the Israeli invaders were allowed to ravage and loot the native Palestinians with impunity. The Jewish leaders went on to stuff the empty skulls at the White House with the notion that the Israeli invaders had the right to expect being welcomed with flowers and kisses, not met with the terrorist act of stones being thrown at them by women and children as they peacefully rode their assault tanks into the walls of the homes occupied by those godawful women and children. How is that for superior moral clarity of the Jewish kind! And how is that for primitive and inferior thinking on the part of the Americans!

And guess what happened after that. The imbeciles at the White House of the time said amen to all that, and they initiated a procedure to make it so that to talk to the Palestinians or to deal with them in any way became an offense akin to violating a religious dogma. And the prescribed punishment was so severe, it was meant to be like spending time in hell listening to a W talk about moral clarity of the Jewish kind. And so I ask you this, my friend, who now dares to doubt that the freedom guaranteed by the American Constitution can produce thinking of such brilliance, no one else on this planet may come close to it? It is no wonder, therefore, that the European leaders saw fit to emulate America and enact similar legislation with regard to the Palestinians who dare to defend themselves. The saving grace here is that despite their leaders, the ordinary people of Europe are beginning to see that their ancestors were justified to fear the Jews among them. The developments they see materialize in America and around them prove to them that the Jew must be isolated in order to protect themselves and their country from his destructive methods. It is that the Jewish leaders brought it on themselves and their people; no one else was ever responsible for any of that.

Another principle that the Jewish leaders in America have managed to enforce was that no matter what happens, they will always be able to make the world believe they own the American Congress so completely, and they operate it so tightly as to obtain a bipartisan and unanimous vote favorable to Israel each and every time. To do this, they manipulate the existing setup and they create the theatrics that give the world the illusion of bipartisanship and unanimity. What they do is pervert the quorum rule in such a way as to assemble a handful of clowns with at least one of them being from each party (preferably the chairman of a committee), then vote to adopt resolutions that tell the world the US Congress is a urinal inside a whorehouse where a Jewish leader can go to empty his bladder and get a massage on his way out. I wonder if this act of pornography will spill over to the European parliament and turn that institution into a Jewish urinal like the American Congress. Please don't, the world stinks like hell already; a duplicate congress will only serve to flush humanity down the toilet of infamy.

Another principle that the Jewish leaders were able to create and to enforce was the perversion of the judicial system, though they did not always succeed brilliantly in this department. In fact, they once attempted to do something terrible here in Canada. They tried to use an executive tribunal to create a precedent that would have forced the courts of law to make judgments favoring the Jewish point of view each and every time. This would have been the outcome not because the judges saw merit in the cases they handled but because they would have been guided by the precedents that the Jews artificially engineered beforehand. Had the Jewish organizations succeeded in this project, they would have turned the administration of justice on its head, and brought a new holocaust on the head of all Jews – so said a prominent Jewish lawyer I knew well.

Where the Jewish leaders succeeded in having it their way for a while was the time when they used the power of the associations that group the lawyers and the judges to publicly denounce the lawyers who took cases that the Jewish organizations deemed must be denied legal representation. Their aim was to intimidated the lawyers and to force them to walk away from their clients. But this was a stance so contrary to the principles of justice -- ranging from being equal under the law to being innocent till proven guilty – that the Jewish project had only a temporary effect and was abandoned. But something else had a more permanent effect, especially in the United States of America. It was the use of the media as a vehicle to intimidate the lawyers who represent foreign governments that the Jewish lobby dislikes.

A case in point is that of three lawyers, each of which was paid a thousand dollars a day by the Egyptian government to represent its interests in America. When the opportune time came, the Jewish media went to interview these lawyers -- a standard Jewish method to start a public campaign of intimidation – and thus put pressure on the lawyers to confuse the issue and mess up the professional service they were supposed to provide to their client. The reflexive response of one lawyer to a stupid question posed to him was that the lawyers only represent their clients but do not necessarily condone their actions.

Whether or not the Egyptians knew that something like this was routinely taking place in America, is not clear. But this was enough for them to realize that the Jewish moral syphilis had infected the American judicial system as it did the other branches of government as well as the media, that fourth estate. And so they immediately canceled the contracts they had with those lawyers, which is the best thing they did for themselves and for their budget.

Even a cursory look at the activities of the Jewish leaders would indicate that they do what they do only because they can do it, in the same way that people would climb a mountain because it is there. Unlike most other people, however, the Jews never think of the consequences of what they do because they believe that if something will go wrong, God will be there to bail them out and fix everything like He always promised He will do. But history shows that God never prevented a pogrom or a holocaust from being inflicted on the Jews.

Hell, He never even bothered to prevent their castration into mamma's little boys.

Seeds Of Fortuitous Consequences

2012-02-08T06:48:00.001-05:00

You read the article and you say to yourself: What on Earth are they trying to do now? The article in question was published in the Wall Street Journal on February 8, 2012 under the title: “Bolstering the Military Option on Iran” and the subtitle: “Providing Israel with advanced bunker-busting munitions and refueling tankers to extend the range of its jets would help convince the Iranians to pursue a diplomatic solution.” The article is signed by Charles Robb who was a Senator, and Charles Wald who was a retired general. These two characters now co-chair what they referred to as a bipartisan policy center on Iran.

When you get over your original question, you go back and read the first sentence in the article. It says this: “In his recent State of the Union address, President Obama declared...” And this, my friend, tells you that the authors mean to send a message to the President of the United States concerning what is currently Israel's most pressing demand, the blowing up of another country which happens to be Middle Eastern, Muslim and has the potential to become very successful if left alone. Thus begins a train of thoughts which you try to arrange in your head, and set out to write in the form of an essay that you hope will be coherent enough for others to enjoy reading and to benefit from. Here it is.

When you befriend the Jews, as I have for most of my life, and when you know that someone wants what is good for you as much as they do for themselves, you welcome hearing them say that you cannot go wrong doing this or that. It is that the Yiddish culture they have forged in the harsh environment through which they lived in the Middle Ages of Europe, has taught them to classify any decision they may take as being risky or not so risky. Thus, when they feel that the risk of doing something is small, they say you cannot go wrong doing it. And if you are at the receiving end of this kind of advice, you feel encouraged to go ahead and do the thing.

With time, however, you formulate in your head two major realities. The first is that nothing in life is so clear that you can be absolutely certain of the outcome of a situation no matter who says what about it. The second is that it is not always wise to put blind faith in the advice of someone, even a well meaning Jew. And this is because the Jew can go wrong at times as would any human being; and it is also because the Jew may decide to abuse the trust you have in him and betray you behind your back if not stab you there.

As you observe and study the Jews who are close to you and those who are not, you learn a few lessons you never want to forget. You learn that when individual Jews are left to themselves, they behave like any other people in that they combine a similar blend of strengths and weaknesses, foibles and mundane qualities. But they differ from most other people in one important way. It is that they are inclined to listen to someone – usually a member of some self-styled Jewish organization -- who would tell them they are different because their religion says so. Because of this – goes the argument -- they are liable to being singled out for harsh treatment, even exterminated. Thus -- they are told -- they need the protection of the organization that is addressing them. And this is how the Jews are taken into the fold and bonded for life.

When this happens, it becomes difficult for the Jews to break away from the pack and be their individual selves again. Slowly but surely, they become absorbed into the “body” where they are taught to act not in their self interest but the interest of the Jewish causes. What this means is that they will begin a period of training on how to act in the interest of the self-styled organizations and their self-appointed leaders. In this respect, the thing you notice about your Jewish friends that tells you they are undergoing a transformation, is the display of a fire in the belly. You see this when you see them take up the Jewish causes, especially the needs of Israel, and defend them with passion.

Then something happens which sets off alarm bells in your head. One day, a Jewish friend asks you to do something that goes against your grain. When you express reservation about the matter, you are told not to worry because you cannot go wrong doing it. But the more you probe into it, the more you see that you are asked to do something bad, yet the Jewish friend insists that you cannot go wrong doing it. An example of this is the time (in the mid to late Nineties) when I was writing about the occupation by Israel of Palestine and Southern Lebanon. One of my closest Jewish friends told me bad things about the American Senator Patrick Leahy, and he advised me to attack him in my column. I researched the matter and discovered that far from doing a bad thing, the Senator had stood up for the rights of the Palestinian people. I confronted my friend with this discovery, and we had an awkward moment after which he never again attempted to fool me with something like that.

Obviously, what my friend was trying to do was install in my belly the fire that the Jewish organizations install in the belly of their own people -- then through them, install in the belly of what they eventually call friends of Israel. But as it happens nowadays, the fires in some bellies get to be so fiery as to look and feel like a pot of molten lead in the belly, even a volcano of molten lava in the belly. Thus, it is not surprising that in a country like Canada which has but a thin culture – also happens to be the soft underbelly of America – you have politicians who accuse each other of not being slavish enough to their Jewish masters, then go to America and tell the people there they are not slavish enough to the demands of Israel. What is at once flabbergasting, comical and sickening is that these same people develop enough gumption to go to China and scream at the people there: You know nossing about za damacracy of za Shamir and za free-doom of za Netanyahu. Wanna buy our oil? The Yanks are playing hard to get, eh!

More seriously, you must always remember to never again believe the Jewish organizations or the friends of Israel when they say that you cannot go wrong doing something they tell you to do. Look what happened when they bombed a civilian nuclear power station in Iraq that was never meant to produce weapons. Saddam got the message that he lives in a world where he can commit any crime he wants and get the protection of America if he declared himself to be a friend of the Americans. To do this, he attacked Iran -- and sure enough -- the Americans loved him and protected him even when he gassed his enemies.

Emboldened, Saddam then invaded Kuwait, and the Americans closed an eye till the other Arab nations said this cannot be. They rented the US military for something like 30 billion dollars and got Saddam out of Kuwait. This operation set off a chain reaction of events, all of which were exploited by the Jewish organizations to drag the Americans back into Iraq to “finish off” Saddam. However, neither the Israelis nor their friends – Jewish and non-Jewish -- paid for the encore because they were able to get the American suckers who were at the helm of the ship of state to do the work for free. It was the American taxpayers who ended up covering for the cost of the war with a trillion dollars in direct disbursements, not to mention the few billions more in indirect payments and hidden costs.

But the matter did not end here. The consequence has been that Iran rose from its ashes and is now looming larger in the region than anyone had wanted to predict then, even though all the signs were there to the effect that something like this was going to happen. And so you ask: What are the Jewish organizations doing now? And the answer is: A repeat of the same old game. They are telling the Americans they cannot go wrong doing it (get this now) because nothing happened when they bombed the civilian station way back then. Where the hell have these people been in the last thirty years?

In fact, they are now calling on all the American nincompoops to rally to the cause of Israel, and do to themselves and their country ten times as much direct damage as did the Iraq war. Of course, they know that there will be consequences here too but they also know that they will take advantage of these circumstances and make them work for Israel. These people are deliberately sowing the seeds of fortuitous circumstances they hope to harvest in the future while America burns. And this is more demonic than even Satan and a team of his devils could have arranged for.

I remain confident that even in Canada, you could not find someone nincompoopish enough to say amen to that. And so I cautiously predict that the Americans will not do it to themselves this time around. Will they?

Dazed Mule Hit With A Two By Four

2012-02-06T07:46:00.000-05:00

If you want to know what a mule looks like and what it does when hit with a two by four, read the February 6 editorial in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) published under the title “Egypt Spirals Down” and the subtitle: “The military government trumps up a criminal case against foreigners, including American citizens.” This being one of the weirdest pieces ever to claim the status of editorial, you will quickly learn that when hit with a two by four, the mule will huff and puff; foam at the mouth and look dazed and disoriented. This is both a comical and a sad spectacle to behold.

The writers of the editorial explain that those foreigners are “...groups that receive U.S. funds to promote civil society and freedom in countries around the world.” They describe them as being: “...people trying to encourage a free press, freedom to worship and political tolerance...” Thus, the WSJ editors editorialize that “...the [Egyptian] government can't ... understand its own interest in allowing the development of political voices other than the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafists.” Hmm, really!

That was the huffing part of the mule's reaction which clearly admits that there has been foreign interference in Egyptian politics. Now comes the puffing part where the interference is vehemently denied. To do so, the mule ascribes a motive to the Egyptian government by opining that it is: “...trying to court public support by trumping up a case against 'foreign influence.'” And the mule goes on to call that move: “...the oldest ruse in authoritarian politics.” Clearly then, this mule is not an ordinary mule; it is a full blown jackass.

The WSJ editors go on to warn: “If it stays on this path, the military leadership will lose U.S. money and support and find itself weaker against the rise of political Islam.” Thus, they counsel that to deal with the delusion of being interfered with, one must openly and cheerfully accept being interfered with. Clearly then, this jackass is not only a full blown jackass; it is full of something that is about to blow up and hit the proverbial fan. The editors reinforce this view by saying the following: “The Muslim Brothers could even do their reputation some good by defending the NGOs.” The problem is that they don't explain in whose eyes the Brothers will do their reputation some good. But who cares anyway because after that comes the obligatory threat that is always disguised as a friendly advice. Here it is: “...[the government] seems to have learned nothing from Hosni Mubarak's fall.” Clearly then, this mule is braying like only a jackass can bray. Is it the real McCoy or is it a braying duck?

But enough with having fun and let's get serious because the subject we are dealing with is a solemn matter that can have profound consequences, most of them unintended. In doing this, the first thing that comes to mind is that there is here a problem of perception. Not only do different people – editors of the WSJ and the Egyptian government -- see things differently but the same people (WSJ editors) can be looking at one and the same thing, look at it through different lenses and see contradictory things at the same time without realizing that something is seriously flawed with the approach they have taken. And so, we probe into the how and the where the problems of perception begin to materialize. In doing this, we are drawn to the analogy which exists between real life and the courtroom trial.

Modern court procedures are full of examples where expert witnesses are brought to the trial by the parties to the litigation to voice what is called expert opinions. In reality, however, these witnesses are not neutral observers invited to shed light on matters they normally deal with at arm's length but individuals who are called for the specific purpose of supporting the version of the side that is paying them. To do this efficiently, they are coached by the lawyers as to what is at stake in the upcoming trial, and prepared by them as to the questions that they will be asked both by the prosecutors and the defense lawyers. If the case being litigated is so big as to involve huge sums of money – whether it is a civil case or a criminal one – the upcoming court procedure would be rehearsed by the lawyers to train the witnesses to respond to each question exactly right.

Understandably, some people find this situation to be lamentable because it gives an edge to the side that has the money to hire the largest number of witnesses as well as the best among them. Thus begins a debate in which a counter argument is triggered. It would be to the effect that there is usually a “jury of the peers” in these trials; one that will level the playing field by nullifying or at least attenuating the effect of the witnesses whose testimony may sound powerful and elegant but not feel real or probable. The debate then shifts emphasis and probes the effect that the power, reputation and sharpness of the lawyers may have on the outcome of the trial. This is especially important in the cases where one side may have a so-called dream team but not the other. Thus, it can be seen that there will be no resolution to satisfy everyone in this debate any time soon.

If now, we regard a courtroom trial as being a metaphor representing life, we encounter a few parallels that disconcert us. In fact, an argument can be made to show that a courtroom trial is but a microcosm of what happens in real life where we constantly pass judgment on what we see or what we look at -- and where in turn, we are judged by those who see us or look at us. The good thing, however, is that with time, we tend to mature as individuals and develop a personal approach that helps us to cope with being both the observer of life and the observed by the living. And as we age, we find ourselves passing less judgment on what we see around us as well as worry less as to how the others may see us, especially if we do our utmost to lead an exemplary life.

But there is more to life than the personal conduct of people on which to pass judgment. In fact, what we do all day long is that we assess every situation in which we find ourselves without being too conscious of what we do, and without appreciating the fact that to assess a situation is to pass judgment on it. At the end of the day, the assessments that we make and the cumulative effect of the decisions that we take as a result of these assessments will have an effect on the outcome of the situations with which we deal. This, in turn, affects our lives and the lives of others but lucky for us, everyday situations are so ordinary in their reach that the decisions we take about them will usually have little or no consequence. At other times, however, the situations we tackle turn out to be so extraordinary that the decisions we take about them can lead to profound consequences.

But where do people begin when they start the process of assessing a situation? Like it or not, most people rely on the opinion makers who establish a sort of “common wisdom” that the common and not so common people use as the basis upon which to assess the situations they encounter in life, and thus shape their daily decisions. This says that the opinion makers who are in the business of publicly pontificating on the various subjects, play the role of real-life expert witnesses, thus help shape the events which are of interest to the public. In turn, that same public plays the role of jury and hammers out -- not exactly a legally binding verdict – but a generally accepted stance to which everyone more or less consents to live by day in and day out.

Now comes the big question: How good are the opinions of the opinion makers? In trying to answer this question, we realize that we cannot give a simple answer because real life is somewhat different from the courtroom trial after all. The main difference is that the cases which go to court deal usually with past events that are frozen in time and thus stand as being static situations. The testimony of the expert witnesses, therefore, seeks to explain something that is not changing. By contrast, real-life events have narratives which are still in evolution. Not only that, they would have come to the forefront and would be dealt with as controversies because they are currently subjected to forces that seek to alter them. Therefore, the testimony of the expert witnesses here would be to do something that is different from the courtroom setting.

When we understand this, we accept that the opinion of a real-life expert is by its nature based on the prediction that he or she will make with regard to the future development of the subject being discussed. This being the case, we see that the quality of the opinions expressed will depend not only on the strength of the expertise that the experts bring to the subject but also their prowess to look into the future and see how the subject will develop. For example, a car designer may have impressive expertise in the related applied sciences and in product design; and yet, he may judge the marketplace so badly as to produce a car that the public will reject during the year in which it is produced. But the project could then be revived ten years later and become a great popular success. If this were the case, the car designer would have shown to be not so good at predicting the development of public taste either in the near future or in the far future.

Undoubtedly, that designer will suffer as would the car company that employs him. But what happens when the public opinion makers shape a “common wisdom” that is so fundamentally flawed, an entire society is made to stray away from what is reasonable, and do damage to itself and to others. To begin with, we ask if something like this can really happen, and the short answer is yes, it can. To wit, we had great movements in history that led to such systems as Nazism, Fascism and the like. These systems came in response to the common wisdom of the time; wisdom that was thought to be good for the society that spawned it if not for the whole of mankind. In fact, something like this happens all the time except that it does not always lead to a movement so powerful as to change the course of history for good or for ill.

And when you consider that we now live in the age of the mass media and the social media, you realize that such thing can happen as easily as starting a fad, a fashion, a style, the flavor of the month or what have you. What is common to all these situations is that you have behind them someone who is determined to bring about an idea and make it stick long enough to effectuate an agenda that may or may not remain hidden till it gains enough traction and becomes common wisdom.

Where then do the editors of the WSJ fit into this presentation? You get a hint as to the answer when you read an article that was dispatched from Cairo by David Kirkpatrick and published in the New York Times on the same day. It is titled: “Egypt defies U.S. by Setting Trial for 19 Americans on Criminal Charges”. You find this contention in it: “Western diplomats have often observed that previous Egyptian governments ... have found it expedient to rally support by stoking feuds with Washington...” which, if you'll remember, echoes the contention in the WSJ to the effect that this is: “...the oldest ruse in authoritarian politics.” But this frothing at the mouth was shown to be nothing more than the braying of a jackass.

The fact of the matter is that interference in the internal affairs of another country happens all the time even among friends; and we know this very well here in Canada. In fact, the latest row concerns the American NGOs who come to this country with gobs of money and agitate against many things, among them the oil sand projects which happen to be a vital component of our economy.

Nobody rejects that such things happen all the time except when it comes to Egypt. This is when an accusation is automatically leveled against the government there. Luckily, something else happens at the same time which tells you how it all begins. It says that because the accusation is echoed over and over by the jackasses in the media, it can only mean that it is the work of the Jewish propaganda machine because that is the only demonic contraption capable of organizing a coordinated campaign of this magnitude.

When you come right down to it, you find that the situation does not affect the Egyptian people or their government in any way, shape or form. What it does is affect us here in the English speaking world because to have to hear this all the time is to have Jewish syphilis injected in our ears all the time.

It is a disgusting situation to which we must all say in unison: enough is enough.

Sex Therapist Leon Tends To The Eunuch

2012-02-03T07:04:00.000-05:00

Here we go again; the eunuch of Zion feels impotent yet again and he asks Uncle Sam for help to be manly once more, but the uncle can do very little to help, except to put together some theatrics. All he can do, in fact, is make the eunuch believe he appears to be potent again in the eyes of the world; the reality being that the eunuch is too far gone down the hill of impotence to ever again climb the mountain top of virility.

What happened when the request came was that the uncle dispatched Leon the sex therapist to look for a way to stroke the ego of the eunuch; to make him believe he is stiff again and make him feel ripe to rape his intended victims again and again. In turn, the therapist called on someone to assist him at doing the job. He called on someone new this time because the previous assistant who went by the name of Sanger of the Times had lost the aura and was believable no more. It is that these people very quickly lose credibility, the reason why they are often replaced by a new assistant. Thus, Leon the therapist called on Ignatius -- who happens to enjoy a good reputation at the moment -- to assist him at completing this new task before he too will have lost credibility and faded into the night.

Thus, on the third day of February in the year 2012 of the new era, David Ignatius who has a sterling reputation, published an article in the Washington Post under the title: “Is Israel preparing to attack Iran?” When you read the article, you realize that it was written to impress someone of something. But who did it intend to impress and of what did it intend to impress? Well, you know enough about the history pertaining to this game to understand that the Iranians will not shake in their boots as a result of this fantasy, and neither will any of the neighbors. Who then will take notice and be impressed?

You rake your brains looking for an answer and find a number of points that you put together and construct the following scenario. Netanyahu can no longer continue to steal Palestinian land or maintain the status quo in the hope that something will happen which will give Israel the chance to resume the looting of Palestine. What is left for him to do is end the occupation and get out of there. He knows that if and when he does that, Israel will see come to the positive side of its ledger a shower of Arab gestures of goodwill because this is what they promised and he knows that their word is their bond. But he reckons that this will not be sufficient to immediately offset what will have gone to the negative side of the ledger. And it was this assessment that prompted him to ask for Leon's help at producing the piece of theatrics we now see unfold.

How will it all work out? Well, it was known for decades that peace could not come to Palestine as long as Israel was financed by wealthy Jews from around the world – especially America -- and maintained as a base out of which to conduct the most horrible of criminal transactions you can imagine such as the worldwide traffic in weapons, in body parts, in child prostitution, in terrorist activities and the like. These people were the ones who insisted on stealing Palestinian lands and the ones who made the maintenance of the policy a condition for their continued assistance.

Knowing that peace will end all this nonsense, Netanyahu reasoned that while cooperating with the Arab neighbors will in the long run more than offset the loss from those sources, Israel will need to find a way to bridge the gap between now and then. But get help from where? It used to be -- in the old days -- that the Israelis would promise to temporarily stop butchering unarmed Palestinians in return for a few billion dollars from America, and they would get the money after which they would resume the butchery and asked for more money. But this practice came to an end when America was depleted of its capacity to show unlimited largess.

Thus, the new strategy by Netanyahu and Company will have to aim at soliciting financial donations from Jews and non-Jews worldwide who may be sympathetic to Israel and to the other Jewish causes. The strategy will also have to aim at keeping the Israelis from emigrating out of the country as well as encouraging the Jews who live everywhere else in the world to immigrate into Israel and to bring money with them if they have any. Therefore, it is safe to say that these are the people whom Netanyahu is trying to impress, and this is the message he is trying to impress them with.

The way to accomplish all this is to tell them that Zion is not the eunuch he appears to be but the potent rapist that he can be whenever he wants to be. It is just that Uncle Sam has requested that he tucks his tool in his pants for now and wait for another time before going on a new rampage against the innocent and the defenseless.

Netanyahu may believe in this scenario but no one else outside his entourage will. Too bad, however, that someone as good as David Ignatius will stand to lose his credibility just because he tried to help the eunuch of Zion feel potent again.

Tiny Bubble Head Senator From Hawaii

2012-02-01T04:45:00.000-05:00

The time has come for those in America who care about their country to begin thinking seriously about embarking on a strategy that will go a long way toward curing their country of the ailment plaguing it at this time. They need to adopt the strategy which says that the best way to fight fire is to fight it with fire. To this end, the people of America must fashion an appropriate litmus test, arm themselves with it, make it their weapon of choice and use it to head off the destructive elements that lurk in their midst.

Given that America is on its way to an assured hell -- getting there in a hand held basket, the people must accept the reality that they have reached this stage because someone used a litmus test of their own at an earlier time to exploit and to abuse the power and the prestige of America so as to foster the fortune and the glory of a foreign entity. It was the Jewish Establishment that instituted a litmus test in the first place, applying it to every applicant who sought a political office or a high position in the media of the nation. The Jewish organizations ferreted out those who promised to toe the Jewish-Israeli line, took them in and promoted them while ditching all those who showed reluctance to submit to their will.

The antidote to that weapon from hell can only be fashioned from the same hellish elements of which it is made. Thus, the antidote will have to be another litmus test; one that will ferret out the people who promise to oppose the pampering of the Jewish-Israeli causes. These people will be voted into office or promoted to a higher position in the media while those who show inclination to maintaining the status quo will be ditched. This approach will level the playing field between the two opposing teams, giving the one that is working to promote the causes of America the opportunity to challenge on equal terms the team that is assembled to promote the Jewish-Israeli causes.

To see why it is necessary to do something like that at this time, we only need to look at the case of Daniel Inouye who is the Senator from Hawaii. What is noteworthy about this case is that the Senator started to do things in a manner that is somewhat different from the way he used to do them for decades. To see this and to appreciate what is involved, I begin with a true story that happened in the late Sixties or early Seventies of the Twentieth Century when he was already a Senator and had been for some time. I may miss on a few details here or there but the essence of the story is true and most likely still verifiable.

What happened then was that a newspaper reported what was termed the scandalous activities of Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii. Apparently, the paper had discovered that for a period of time the Senator was using his position as chairman of some committee to appropriate monies for Jewish and Israeli so-called charitable institutions, and that he worked tirelessly to do more for Israel and all the Jewish organizations that went to him with a request for financial assistance. And yet, as it was shown by the investigation, these outfits had nothing about them that made them eligible for notice, let alone for largess by the legislature of a sovereign country – even less by the Congress of superpower America.

It was said that the scandal went on for a while as most people closed their eyes expecting him to put an end to the practice on his own and without fanfare. Instead of doing this, however, he did the opposite which is the typical sort of escalation you get sucked into when you become ensnared by a trap of the Jewish organizations. Then one day, the camel's back was broken and the straw that broke it became the delicious scandal on which the media and the gossip mongers chewed to their endless delight. What happened here was the discovery that Senator Daniel Inouye had appropriated money for what was described as a school in the South of France whose mission was to take in Jewish girls from Morocco and prepare them linguistically, culturally and psychologically to settle in and to blend in their new environment.

The trouble, it turned out, was that no such school ever existed in the South of France or anywhere else. All that the Jewish organizations were able to produce to prove their claim and demonstrate their “dire need for assistance” was a Moroccan girl who was recently taken in by a French family. But get this now; the girl's proficiency in the French language, her perfect Parisian accent and her knowledge of French culture – all of which were acquired in Morocco – were of such quality that they put to shame the French family that took her in. The thing is that these people had a southern accent which made them sound more like Italians trying to speak French rather than French men and women speaking their own language. Thus, it came to light, that the Moroccan girl did not need help to blend in the French culture; she had the wherewithal to assist the people who took her in and teach them how to speak like the people from Paris they envied.

And this was the incident that compelled some people to dig into the past of Senator Inouye to find out what motivated him to do what he was doing. Luckily, this was an easy thing to do because the Jewish organizations had done it already -- they had the goods on him, my friend, they had the big goods. The story that came out was to the effect that the man was wounded during the war as a result of his clumsiness and his cowardice; two traits that endangered the lives of his comrades and may have caused the death of a number of them – so said the record that existed when he left the service. He tried to change the record but no one listened to his pleas for, he had no credible evidence to prove the version of the stories he was telling.

He responded to that attitude by running for Senator, intent on using his influence when he gets there to sanitize his war record. He won the election, changed the record and, in the process, made some people so angry that a number of his old comrades made a parallel record in which they recounted their version of the facts. This record was dug up by the Jewish organizations that used it to blackmail the Senator and force him to work for their causes. He did just that during the decades that followed and never relented. He did it the only way it can be done; by robbing America to give to Israel and to the Jews anywhere they happen to be. Thus, it can be seen that while he remains as clumsy and cowardly as ever, Daniel Inouye has graduated to a level where he can now endanger the entire American nation while showing no more remorse than he did when he caused the needless death of his comrades by clumsiness and by cowardice.

But this is not all that happened to the Senator because he is going through a big transformation at this time. Instead of being content to just transfer money and other aid to Israel and the Jewish organizations, he is working to bring about the sort of change that will hurt America more than ever before. In fact, he is working to usurp and to swallow the powers relating to the conduct of foreign policy that were placed by the Constitution in the hands of the executive branch. In doing so, he seeks to transfer those powers to the Congress where they will be placed in the hands of the traitors who have already turned the place into a sanctuary for the rug pisser from Israel. His aim is to have America run by an Israeli pissing dog rather than be run by an American human being who will be elected by the American people like says the Constitution.

And every time he delivers a verbal blow to the President of the United States, the traitors in the assembly of moronic bubble heads will give the pisser a standing ovation then fall over each other while running to their master to congratulate him for the excellent speech he just gave.

In consequence of these realities, the people of America must now adopt the method of coming right out and asking the candidates who run for office whether they will work for America or work for Israel. If they don't say it clearly and without a hint of equivocation that they will work for America and only America, these people should be trounced by the voters and yes, even blacklisted for life.

Dancing In Circles To Hide The Elephant

2012-01-29T15:51:00.002-05:00

It is the God-given right of every leader to serenade the achievements of his country, and this is what Barack Obama, President of the United States of America and Commander-in-Chief of its armed forces, did on January 24, 2012 in his State of the Union Address to the Congress and the nation. He spoke of his country's glorious past and no one would argue with that; he identified the country's current difficulties and most people would say he was correct in that too; but when it came to painting a picture of the future, his performance was questionable. In fact, he said the following to buttress the points he was making: “...anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned, doesn't know what they're talking about.” And he went on to sing the praises of America, but a little of that sounded like playing Amazing Grace with a bagpipe that has a gaping hole at its side.

Actually, the basic notes of the serenade were tested early in the speech when he asserted that: “We gather tonight knowing that … the United States ... [is] more respected around the world.” What he tried here was heroic; what he achieved was little, and the reason is that he ignored a few realities of the times. Yes, he was correct when he described some achievements as “...a testament to the courage, selflessness and teamwork of America's Armed Forces.” And yes, he was imaginative when he used this reality to try and motivate members of the useless Congress to do likewise and work as a team for the good of the nation. But he failed when he did not take into account the reality that a common denominator exists which links the ineffectiveness of the Congress in domestic affairs with the foreign wars into which America was dragged. Disregarding this reality made it impossible for him to explain why America was disrespected in the world despite the sometimes exemplary performance of its soldiers. And this is what obligated him to assert a situation that does not exist in real life; one that is contrary to what the rest of the world knows.

Starting at this point, it became increasingly more difficult to see how America will be able to duplicate the achievements it made right after the Second World War; or how it will develop what he described as: “An economy built to last, where hard work pays off and responsibility is rewarded.” In fact, the more inspirational he became while describing what can be achieved in the America of the future, the more urgent became the question: But what about the elephant in the room? Unfortunately, he did not answer this question -- which he should have because it would have allowed him to describe a sound foundation upon which the future of his dream can be erected. Instead of doing this, however, he chose to remind the audience as to “how we got here”. He then went on to describe the symptoms of what ails America today rather than identify the underlying disease -- that proverbial elephant in the room.

Thus, it happened to him what happens to a reporter that tries to report on the reality of an issue while trying to avoid the core of that issue; he goes round and round in circles but sheds no light on the matter. And so, using the metaphor of the house of cards that collapsed in 2008, the President accurately stated that: “Long before the recession, jobs and manufacturing began leaving our shores.” But right after this sentence, he went on to say this: “Technology made business more efficient, but also made some jobs obsolete.” Whoa! Wait a minute, wait a minute. Explain this Mr. President: How is it that technology made some jobs so obsolete that they left America to go to distant shores where the same products were made and shipped back to America? Enough dancing around the truth and talk to us about the elephant in the room.

And as you think about all this, dear reader, you get hit with the next question: Without a job to earn the money, how did the Americans pay for the imported goods? But you did not have to go too far to find the answer for, here it is in the President's own address: “...mortgages had been sold to people who couldn't afford or understand them. Banks had made huge bets and bonuses with other people's money.” And what was the result of all this? you ask. Here is the answer in the President's own words: “Folks at the top saw their incomes rise … but also hardworking Americans struggled with … personal debt that kept piling up.” This is it, you say. It was debt where the money came from – debt from local sources and debt from foreign sources.

But you conclude that this is not the invisible elephant in the room because the empirical observations reported in the speech were but the symptoms of what has afflicted America since “long before the recession,” as he put it. This, in turn, motivates you to try and identify the ailment underlying those symptoms. But did the President try to do so? you ask. And the answer is no, he did not. What he did, however, was to prescribe a few cures that hint at the fact someone knows something about the nature of the ailment plaguing America but they are not fleshing it. Here is one thing the President said in this regard: “And we've put in place new rules to hold Wall Street accountable...” Here is another thing he said: “...I will work with anyone in this chamber [the Congress] to build … but I intend to fight obstruction with action, and I will oppose … return to the … policies that brought on this economic crisis...” Thus, we see that someone has identified both the Congress and Wall Street as two of the culprits that caused the ailment debilitating the Union today.

The President went on to say something that also proves he understands it is a canard to blame the loss of manufacturing jobs on the progress made by technology. Here is what he said in this regard: “No, we will not go back to an economy weakened by outsourcing … I want to … lay out a blueprint for an economy that's built … on American manufacturing … and a renewal of American values.” Look at that, dear reader; he cited the renewal of American values as a measure he intends to take to help solve America's problems. And this can only mean he has realized that the loss of those values was a contributing factor to the flight of American industries and American jobs to other jurisdictions.

Thus, we have all the relevant factors now; they are the three legs of the disease that ails America today. These are the Congress, Wall Street and a culture that is killing American values. So then, what did the President promise to do to turn things around? Well, the Congress being a coequal branch of government, he could only promise to cajole it, which he did. As to the finances of the nation, here is his answer: “...start with our tax code … companies [now] get tax breaks for moving … profits overseas … It makes no sense, and everyone knows it.” As to the culture, he said this: “Teachers matter. So instead of bashing them … let's ,,, reward the best ones.” And there is this: “When kids do graduate, the most daunting challenge can be the cost of college … Of course, it's not enough for us to increase student aid … Higher education [is] an economic imperative...” Thus, he sees education as being a component of American culture as well as a carrier of its values. And he must have concluded in his mind that when you influence education the wrong way, you affect the culture and hurt the nation.

This says that the problems of America can now be seen to having been generated by the congressmen and women who work for themselves and for special interest instead of working for the nation; by the Wall Street characters who work for themselves and their cronies at the expense of the national economy; and by the people who meddle with the culture of America, something they do by disrupting the educational setup for reasons of their own. And these would be the three horsemen of America's modern apocalypse.

But how do people meddle with the culture or disrupt the educational setup? They do it by pretending to “educate” the public as to their “sensitivities” when in fact, they would be working to ensnare the ruling classes, paralyze them and render them ineffective. This is an ancient game that some people have learned to play efficiently and play it ruthlessly. They play it gently at first as would a lamb grazing peacefully in a pasture; they do so till they gather the level of power that will allow them to commit murder and get away with it. When this happens, they quickly shed the sheep's clothing they have been wearing all along, and they switch to the beastly characteristics that have them murder all those who refuse to bow to their wishes. This is something they do by character assassination and by every method that would be available to them at the time of execution.

If this sounds like the sort of people we find at the helm of the Jewish organizations, it is because they are precisely these people. Their agenda has become the invisible elephant in the room; a reality that is danced around in the English speaking world but never confronted head on. As to how these people operate; well, there is the known history of their sabotaging the home front, something they did to cause America's defeat in Vietnam. They managed to accomplish this feat by using America's own media outlets and the other vehicles of popular culture. The trick they used was to accuse all potential rivals of being antisemitic; thus assassinated their character and banished them from the scene altogether. This done, they forced America to turn its attention away from Asia and toward the Middle East where it was forced to provide a protective umbrella to an Israel that was preparing to go on a rampage. Protected by America at all levels and supplied with food, fuel, finances and weapons, the Israelis put into effect what they had in mind. It was to infest a Middle East that was the image of the Garden of Eden and to spray it with their stink as would a family of skunks that had decided to desecrate a hallowed ground. And they succeeded beyond the widest dream of the forefathers who cooked up that demonic scheme.

This history was not without serious consequences. Seeing that the American military industrial complex had come under the control of world Jewry and of Israel; and realizing that their oil was fueling this complex, the Arabs instituted a temporary embargo on selling petroleum to America, an act that caused the rise in fuel prices and the switching to the use of smaller cars. Since America was not producing small cars, the Japanese and German manufacturers gained a huge share of the American market almost overnight. And since the car was the symbol of American industry, the loss of market share was the blow that broke the back of America's industrial might. Furthermore, it opened the way for America to be challenged not only by the Japanese and the Germans, and not only by car manufacturers but challenged by other jurisdictions as well, all of which raced to manufacture products they sold in America and elsewhere.

To give an ironic twist to this whole matter, those were the products that heretofore were made in America and sold to the other jurisdictions. The net result was a reversal made possible by Zion's hand meddling in the culture of America, and by the reeducation of its people. No, this was not a case of real teachers showing the people how to make things that will compete successfully in the new world that is shaping up; it was something else, something that will blow your mind. Get this now; the people were taught how to worship the Jew and ask no question in lessons that were blared to them electronically by pastors who wore the habit of Satan himself and who treated their congregations like sheep and silent lambs.

Despite all this, things started to get back to normal after a while, but sensing that they were conned and railroaded by the hijackers of their culture, the American people had their moment of sweet revenge when they reverted to the use of gas guzzling vehicles that came in all sorts of models and filled all sorts of needs. This new trend so alarmed the Jewish organizations that they fell back on their specialty to solve what they saw as a threat to their agenda. Thus, they invented another one of those “existential” menace which they said was threatening not only the Jews but all of humanity. The solution – about which they educated the public -- would require the participation of everyone on Earth, they said. And they argued for the institution of a strict program of Jewish style autocratic measures to banish from the scene all the “deniers” who will refuse to toe the line. This time, the line was to the effect that the planet was cooking because of the carbon dioxide emissions that come with the use of petroleum and the other hydrocarbons. Their recommendation was to stop using these products -- not to hurt the Arabs which they vehemently denied was their intention -- but to heal the Planet.

Then the myth exploded and was proven to be yet another Jewish quackery that was meant to put a distance between America and the Arab world. The result of this discovery was the taking of measures described by the President in these words: “...we've opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration … I'm directing my Administration to open more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources.” Once again, things are getting back to normal in America but there is still the matter of the nation being in the can because its housing market is still under water. What to do here? The President had an answer: “I'm sending this Congress a plan that gives every responsible homeowner the chance to save … by refinancing at historically low interest rates … Americans who work hard … deserve a Government and a financial system that do the same … No bailouts, no handouts, and no copouts.” There is here the promise that the Congress, the finances of the nation and the culture – the three dreaded horsemen -- are being dealt with to save America from a potential Apocalypse.

But will the Congress listen to their President when the Jewish organizations will have gone ahead of him to begin a campaign of threats, bribes and blackmail among the spineless characters in that assembly of good-for-nothing treasonous clowns? After all, the President said it clearly that he wants: “A return to American values of fair play and shared responsibility [that] will help us protect our people and our economy.” Where does he think he is? they ask. Does he really believe this is a free country? No, it's not. This is America, Mr. President; it is a Jewish colony that exists to protect Israel and support the fake economy installed there. The fear, you see, is that to do what the President wants will mean to reject the Israeli-Yiddish values because they and the American values are mutually exclusive. You can have one or you can have the other but you cannot have them both at the same time.

In fact, what we saw happen during the past few decades was the rise of a trend to replace the American values by the Israeli-Yiddish values. The most obvious example was the time when the Jewish organizations had argued that Israel was so advanced in everything, it was not living by the generosity of the American taxpayers but by the ingenuity of its people who invented all that is in existence, developed all that is worthy and improved on everything. The claim was to the effect that the Jews did all this in an Israel where there is no agriculture to speak of, no industry to rely on and no experimentation to matter even one iota. It was further explained that the people there simply thought things out, designed them in the mind, prototyped them in the imagination and produced them out of thin air. After all, Israel is the land of miracles, you see!

Thus – it was concluded -- America can strive to become a carbon copy of Israel by shedding its industries so as to produce wealth that will knock everyone's socks off. Unfortunately this sort of talk was bought by enough idiots whose common sense had been knocked off by a mysterious disease of unknown origin. And these people contributed mightily to the industrial decline of the superpower. As if this were not enough, something else happened; the Jewish organizations that instigated the whole goofy trend came up with another idea, that of profiling people in America the way they do in Israel. And the whole world is now waiting to see if enough clowns will be drawn to this new idea. You never know -- this is America, after all.

What is certain, however, is that the President's plan will be viewed by the Jewish organizations as another one of those existential threats; and they will want to fight it tooth and nail – there is no doubt about that. Thus, they will work to defeat the effort because they cannot imagine an American system of governance that works for America and the American people but not for Israel and the Jewish people. It would be like imagining a North Korea that is suddenly transformed into a Singapore; a nation that looks after its own people rather than leave them to wilt in the wilderness of a political and cultural wasteland.

So then, what is there to do? Well, if you are serious about solving America's problems, you begin with the recognition that the uselessness of the Congress is linked to the wars in which America was dragged and by which it was ruined. The two are connected because they were authored by the same Jewish leaders. What these people did was to start a cultural battle in America. They did so first by assaulting and paralyzing a Congress that used to be the command and control center of the existing culture. Second, they planted the boots of their own people in every cultural outlet in the nation. Third, they augmented these boots by recruiting local foot soldiers and giving them the task of doing the dirty work their people would not do. Fourth, they mobilized the assets of America and started foreign wars to force the acceptance of Israel – their newly anointed home country – by a world that was not eager to accept in its midst a little fart known for its obnoxious behavior.

Thus, the solution to America's problems is to stop dancing around the truth, to describe the elephant in the room for what it is, to tell of the role it has played in the degradation of America, and to explain how it will be neutralized. In other words, it is time for the commander-in-chief to put on the hat of teacher-in-chief and take over from the disciples of Satan who have up to now “educated” the American public to the ultimate ruin of their country.

Through The Wrong End Of The Telescope

2012-01-26T08:42:00.000-05:00

Ed Husain says this about himself: “I am not an American, but I firmly believe that, on balance, American power is a force for good in the world.” Husain is a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and he wrote these words in an article that was published in the Wall Street Journal today, January 26, 2012 under the title: “Egypt's Revolt and the American Model”. The piece has a subtitle: “The Arab revolutionaries didn't look to China or Russia as examples of good government” which is a quote lifted from the article itself.

What makes this article by this writer at this time a seminal work is that it brings into focus what has been up to now a difficult point on which to focus the debate. The reason has been that the views we always discussed were looked at from the wrong end of the telescope. But lest I mislead you, dear reader, Husain did not turn the telescope around to help us see reality as it is. On the contrary, he exaggerated the distortion to a point where we got the sense that something was absurd. And it was this realization that prepared us to entertain the possibility of another way to look at things. Husain then did something inadvertently by which he made us conclude that looking through the wrong end of the telescope was an idea we ought to reject.

Let us begin at the beginning the way he did, by looking at the right end of the telescope. He starts the article like this: “Upon landing at Cairo … I see a billboard that quotes … Obama ... Across Egypt I find … books on how to pass entrance tests for American universities. It's a jarring contrast, then, to return to JFK airport and see … the fashionable tendency … to talk down American standing in the Middle East.” So far so good, at least as far as his effort goes to introduce us to empirical observations he made during the voyage. But where he goes wrong is when he neglects to look at the details of what he just observed, a stance he takes in favor of doing something else. What he does is look at a mirror in which he sees himself behind the telescope looking at the mirror. Here is this part: “Granted, it is necessary to analyze America's influence .. but … another matter to ... campaign for a less powerful America...”

This is where you realize that Ed Husain got caught in the same circular debate that will end up making his argument look like a dog chasing its tail. In fact, he goes on to rehash the worn out arguments that were formulated by the Jewish leaders and articulated by the neocons. To this end, he quotes Tony Blair who exalted America by comparison to Russia and China. And he chides what he calls American conventional wisdom concerning the weakening of American leverage in the Middle East which he says will become a self-fulfilling prophecy unless the US government stops leading from behind and finds its backbone.

And surprise, surprise, he finds the spot in the article where he can insert the obligatory bashing of Egypt's military. He does so and then relates an incident during which he stood up not to that military but to the American Embassy in Cairo that did not swagger in its face when it should have. It all happened via Twitter, he says, and his contribution as a British born citizen of Bangladeshi descent now living in America, was to challenge the American Embassy with the tweeted question: “Then what?” which presumably meant: And what are you going to do about it, suckers?

Lacking confidence in themselves, Embassy officials asked him what should be done, he says, and he replied that the US government should ask its military allies to return to their barracks, or else there is that small matter of 1.3 billion dollars annually. To bolster his argument, he quotes Joseph Nye of Harvard who defined soft power. But then Husain does something that ends up halting the dog from chasing its tail, at least for a short while. He begins by saying that the US government must believe in itself and project confidence. Okay, you say, this goes with what the Jewish leaders have BS(ed) about for ages, and what he himself has been saying up to now in the article. And then, he begins the process of tripping himself, an act that will eventually stop the circular argument in its tracks. This is what he writes in this regard: “[the US government must] realize that America remains hugely attractive across the Middle East.”

Is he going to trip himself now? He will but not yet. For a while longer, he resists making the next logical step which would have been to free himself of the circular argument and to start looking at the reality that the telescope could be showing him. Instead of doing this, he forces himself once again to take up the Tony Blair comparison of America versus China or Russia, and thus returns to the habit of looking at himself in the mirror once again. And he uses this situation as a springboard to assert that the American system of government is so perfect, even the Islamist love it while the rest of the population loves Hollywood films, McDonald's, Starbucks, jeans, baseball caps, Facebook and Twitter. That must be it; the trip wire that will unravel the whole phony argument. Are we there yet?

Yes. Finally, he did what he should to have done at the start instead of going through the verbal trash he inflicted on us. Here is what he said in this regard: “...this generation of Arabs won't recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Trying to force them to do so will not only fail but risks compromising American influence. It is wiser to … help Palestinians realize their dream of a dignified, free state.” Had he started with this and had he coupled it with the reality that the Arabs have no animosity toward the Americans, he would have dispelled the decades worth of Jewish propaganda which “educated” the American public and political classes to the stupid notion that the Arabs hate America because the first hate freedom and the latter loves it.

Husain would have shown that the half-century's worth of one-sided Jewish talk on the Middle East absent of an Arab push back must now be flushed down the toilet where it belongs. Instead of that, he realized that he came close to committing a sacrilegious act, and quickly did something to appease the Jewish leaders who will be reading the article. He saluted Anatoli Sharansky whom, he says, predicted the rise of democratic forces in the Arab countries. Good he stopped short of saying that Sharansky, the Russian-Israeli Jew, caused the Arab Revolution and led it to a triumphant resolution like only a Jew could do it.

And he ends the article with this: “As Egypt and other Arab nations experiment with democracy, the U.S. cannot be seen to be weak, nor craving for yesteryear, but instead must support the people's cries of freedom.”

The poor thing, he still does not realize that the Arabs understand freedom and know how to go about obtaining it if and when it slips through their fingers. It is not they who cry in vain for freedom, wondering how to reclaim their country and their culture; it is the people who live under Jewish tyranny in the English speaking world. Maybe Ed Husain will someday prove that he understands this message by writing honestly of what he knows without having to appease his Jewish masters.

High School International On The Campaign Trail

2012-01-23T07:12:00.000-05:00

If you are a teacher, you're probably aware of a situation in your school where the schoolyard culture is unfolding in a manner that annoys you but you decide to do nothing about it because you're haunted by the thought that your interference may end up making matters worse. An example would be that of a dominant student who is surrounded by 2 or 3 sycophants, all working together to push a weak student into doing the things they would not do themselves. These could be things that range in seriousness from the setting of a harmless prank to the commission a criminal act. But if you are not a teacher, you probably remember something like it from your high school days.

Although this situation looks like a classic high school culture, you will be surprised to know that it is not restricted to the schoolyard. Similar situations happen in real life, albeit in a modified form, at all levels of our culture where people are brought together and made to interact with one another. You see it happen at the office, in the club or the association where a dominant person would surround himself or herself with a handful of sycophants and pick on someone weak to incite them to do something that will hurt a third party for a reason you may never comprehend.

And believe it or not, this culture is also prevalent at the international level where nations and powerful institutions approach other nations or institutions to incite them to do the things they would not do themselves or could not do alone. We have a perfect example of this in the activities of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) that relentlessly incites the American ruling class and the related institutions to commit acts around the world that range from the annoying pranks to the war crimes of the most heinous kind. The latest incitement has come in the form of an article published in the Wall Street Journal today, January 23, 2012.

The article comes under the title: “How the U.S. Should Handle the Islamist Rise in Egypt”. It is signed by Robert Satloff and Eric Trager of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, itself a creation of AIPAC to which it serves as the propaganda machine every day of the week, and serves as the incitement arm every week of the year. When you begin to read the article, the first two sentences tell you that you are about to embark on a voyage into a world that is so distorted, your mind will be made to feel contorted like a pretzel while you try to navigate through the article.

Here are the two sentences: “From an America perspective, the situation in Egypt is a nightmare. One year after Tahrir Square triumphantly toppled a tyrant, Islamists are poised to profit from Egyptian 'people power.'” First of all, these people are not expressing an American perspective. They view themselves as Jews who have acquired automatic citizenship of Israel whether or not they applied for it. Their cause is the promotion of World Jewry to which they owe their loyalty and have dedicated their lives. Second of all, the situation in Egypt reflects the ancient Jewish dream that still remains a nightmare because the Nile refuses to turn into a river of blood; the event that wacko Jews have been praying for since the days of Moses. Third of all, the people they call Islamists are not readying themselves to profit from Egyptian people power; they are the Egyptian people power. If they will profit from something, it will be from being who they are. And that is worth a lot.

Because you realize that you are embarking on a devilish voyage that will take you to a hellish destination, you decide to take a peek at that destination before going through the torture of having to read an AIPAC article. Thus, you look for and find the following commands: “Washington's message … should be that U.S. support … is conditional on their cooperation in maintaining peace with Israel and preserving political pluralism and religious and minority rights … America should determine its relationship based on what Egypt's new rulers actually do...” Yes, it is what you expected all along; these people are working for Israel and World Jewry no more and no less. Everything else you encounter in the article is but the special effect that means to distract the readers when they go through the process of navigating the harrowing course of the writers toward the deceptive conclusions of AIPAC.

Knowing this, you read on to see how evil incarnate operates to bring the games and techniques of the schoolyard to the world stage. And so, it happens early on that you hit on his passage: “American leaders cannot ignore the fact that the security partnership Washington had with Cairo for more than 30 years is in serious jeopardy.” And you raise an eyebrow because they spoke earlier of the triumphant toppling of a tyrant but now they lament that the security arrangement which existed under the tyranny is in jeopardy. And so you ask: Whose side are they on? The tyranny that made Israel feel secure or the triumph of the people whose political pluralism and religious and minority rights they now champion?

They answer their own question but do so indirectly. What they do is argue that the experience in other countries – Turkey, the model du jour being among them – suggests that governance by the will of the people is bad for Israel when the people are Arab or Muslim. So then, you ask: What are these people inciting America to do? Are they telling it to work to bring back tyranny to these places or telling it to warn Cairo that it is expected to preserve the principles of democracy? The answer is that the leaders of AIPAC are doing both at the same time. Why? you ask. Because they don't care one iota about any one of the two situations. What they work for and care about are Israel and world jury; what they work on are America and its gullible leaders. They will say what sounds good at any point in the article even if they contradict themselves from one paragraph to the other. It is in their Jewish DNA to be like that.

But is this not what they accuse the Egyptians of doing? Here is that passage: “America should determine its relationship based on what Egypt's new rulers actually do … not the cooing sounds that their English-language spokesmen offer visiting journalists, diplomats and politicians.” So you ask: What is going on? Well, what is going on is that all of a sudden, things have been simplified and have become easy to understand. It is this: Every morning the Jewish leaders look in the mirror and identify the ugly spots they see have grown on their faces. This done, they rush to their computers and attribute to the Arabs and the Muslims the ugliness they just saw in themselves. And this is what they always coo about sometime softly and sometimes loudly.

This is how and why, my friend, you see an election campaign in America where candidates to the highest office in the land get on the podium one after the other -- and with very few exceptions -- sing the AIPAC hymn of hate and threats, thus making America feel hated and threatened everywhere in the world like it never was before.

Hidden Pathologies Afflicting Cerebral Jews

2012-01-21T08:35:00.000-05:00

All indications are to the effect that the American Administration and its military brass are preoccupied with the situation in the Persian Gulf which is what you would expect of them given the times in which we live. The situation in that part of the world is a complicated one and much has been written about it; mostly by the side that advocates the start of a war against Iran. I expressed my pacifist view on the subject previously, and I do not have more to add to it but I am revisiting the subject at this time for a different reason. It is that a new article inciting war has brought to light a point I consider too important to ignore.

The article in question was written by Mark Helprin under the title: “The Mortal Threat From Iran” and was published in the Wall Street Journal on January 8, 2012. What distinguishes this article from the others is that its author is not known to be a frivolous, trigger happy warmonger who will shoot first and ask questions later. Rather, he seems to be a thoughtful individual that wrestles with the ideas before expressing them. Thus, when you set aside the possibility that frivolity is behind what he is expressing now, you are left to wonder what it is that brought about views which closely match those of the warmongering extremists.

The essence of the article is summed up in the subtitle that was chosen for it: “Iran can sea-launch from off our coasts. Germany planned this in World War II. If cocaine can be smuggled into the U.S. without interdiction, we cannot dismiss the possibility of an Iranian nuke ending up in Manhattan.” The idea here is to reinforce the point expressed in the title which is that America is facing an existential threat therefore must act preemptively and destroy Iran to remove the threat before it becomes a reality. And the question for which I seek an answer is this: “What could have gone on inside the heart, mind or soul of Mark Helprin to make him develop such views?”

In fact, it did not take me long to be hit with this question; it happened before I had the time to finish reading the first paragraph of the article. The reason why it happened is that Helprin begins the presentation by calling the Iranians “primitive religious fanatics” and describing them as being incapable of performing “cost-benefit analyses...” after which he tells us not to assume they will not close the Strait of Hormuz. But you ask: What got him to think this way? And you are surprised to discover what motivation was lurking behind it all. Look at this piece of wishful thinking: “If Iran does close the strait, we will fight an air and naval war derivative of and yet peripheral to the Iranian nuclear program...” In other words, he does not believe what he says; he only wishes that Iran close the Strait of Hormuz and thus trigger the war he craves.

But why would the Iranians contemplate closing the Strait of Hormuz in his calculation? Is it because they are not capable of doing cost-benefit analyses? Not so, he now says, ascribing to them a reason that is actually a reasonable thing, believe it or not. A reason? What kind of a reason could primitive religious fanatics have? Well, Helprin offers one that is so rational it would cause any nation to do what he believes the Iranians might do. Look what he says in that same first paragraph: “...especially if the oil that is their life's blood is threatened.” And that's not all because when he gets to the second paragraph, he lists nine (count them nine) other reasons why Iran would want to have a nuclear program in the first place. Looking at the way he discusses the matter, you realize that the reasons he describes are so rational and legitimate, he -- as an observer -- has deduced that the Iranians must have embarked on a program to arm themselves with nuclear weapons because they were duty bound to do so, therefore inevitable that it happened.

This is so confusing, what on Earth is going on? The answer to this question is to be found in the subtitle of the article. Let me reprint here for convenience: “Iran can sea-launch from off our coasts. Germany planned this in World War II. If cocaine can be smuggled into the U.S. without interdiction, we cannot dismiss the possibility of an Iranian nuke ending up in Manhattan.” Where -- in the not too distant past -- Mark Helprin used to project the image of a thoughtful individual who wrestled with the ideas before expressing them, he now betrays himself by showing his insane side. As you can see from that passage, he is fearful that an Iranian nuke will end up in Manhattan because of three impressions that gnaw at him. First, he feels that the Iranians have the capability to sea-launch from off America's coasts. Second, he remembers from history that the Germans planned something similar during the War. Third, he assumes that if cocaine can be smuggled into the U.S., so can a nuclear bomb. In fact, he later lists a few more impressions but let's not worry about them.

What is important at this juncture is to understand Helprin's insanity because it is a sample of the fuel that powers the Jewish think tanks which drive America's foreign policy today. The fact is that you can think up hundreds of scenarios, and you can make hundreds of movies about weapons of mass destruction being smuggled into America to blow up Manhattan or Pennsylvania Avenue. But nobody who is sane will recommend that America go around the world and blow up everyone who might develop the capability to do so. And this leads to the question: How then do Helprin and those like him convince themselves of the notion that the Iranians must be singled out and destroyed before they take the initiative and be the first to act?

Well, Helprin and the people of the think tanks have convinced themselves of such notion by questioning the ability of the Iranians to be rational human beings. Here is the passage that tells you this: “[Iran's] conceptions of nuclear strategy are ... looser … than those of Russia, China and … our own. And yet Eisenhower and Churchill weighed a nuclear option in Korea, Kennedy a first strike upon the U.S.S.R., and Westmoreland upon North Vietnam.” This says that he and those of the tanks believe in the evil nature of human beings because one Englishman and three Americans came close to committing an evil act. Thus, he and they would argue that the Iranians -- who are worse than the English and the Americans -- should not be trusted to restrain themselves but that they will go ahead and commit the evil act.

And why are the Iranians worse? Because they make absurd claims with which “we” prefer to dance, says Mark Helprin. To illustrate his point, he asks: “...why spend $1,000-$2,000 per kilowatt to build nuclear plants instead of $400-$800 for gas, when you possess the second largest gas reserves in the world?” He does not answer the question but the answer is that like everyone else, the Iranians are in the process of diversifying their sources of energy. In addition to oil and natural gas, they have uranium ore which they extract and put to use for the betterment of their society. It is their right to do so as a sovereign nation; it is the duty of their leaders to do it for the nation.

You then encounter an argument that is meaningless but one that is frequently used by people who know little about the subject of reserves in the natural resources yet use the numbers to bolster their argument. Helprin writes this: “In 2005, Iran consumed 3.6 trillion cubic feet of its 974 trillion cubic feet of proven reserves which are enough to last 270 years.” This is a long time, therefore a very impressive number to use in an argument. But what is 3.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in terms of barrels of oil equivalent (boe)? To find out, you divide by 6,000 to obtain 600 million barrels a year which you divide by the 365 days of the year to find that it only amounts to 1.64 million barrels of oil equivalent a day.

To appreciate the meaning of this result, you need to put it in perspective both in terms of the passage of time and in terms of the development envisaged for the nation. The population of Iran is now close to 80 million people and growing at the rate of 2.5% a year. If this rate is maintained for two generations, the population will double in 28 years and double again in another 28 years to reach 320 million people, the same as that of America today. Judging by the rate of development in the emerging nations, the standard of living in those countries will equal if not surpass that of today's America in less than two generations. Thus, Iran will by then consume energy at least at the same rate as America consumes today both on a per capita basis and in absolute terms.

So we ask: How much energy does America consume today? And the answer is a little more than 92 quadrillion BTUs a year which (I spare you the math) comes to about 42 million boe a day. Thus, if America were to convert all its use of energy into only natural gas, it would consume all of Iran's reserves not in 270 years but in 10 years and 7 months only. Wow! That's not even half a generation! And this is without counting what Iran will need to export in order to pay for the development it has envisaged for itself. Now you know why these people need to have a nuclear program that will contribute to their demand in energy.

Having overlooked these facts deliberately or by ignorance, Helprin now relies on his fantasy to come up with the semblance of a mathematical argument which he hopes will sound scholarly and compelling. In fact, there is no math in what he does because plucking a number out of thin air and calling it probability is not math at all. Here is what he does. He randomly chooses a 1-in-20 probability of something happening and applies it to 3 possible scenarios: breaking a leg; or one person dying; or half a million people dying. And he argues that: “Cost drastically changes the nature of risk, although we persist in ignoring this.” Whatever that means, there is something worth noting here. It is the use of the word persist because it is the most assertive way in which you can make a point. And what is he asserting? He is asserting a probability he plucked out of thin air, nothing more than that. And this is a sleight of hand that only the insane would use to con a gullible audience.

He then uses the following sentence to begin the buildup toward a finale: “Assuming that we are a people worthy of defending ourselves, what can be done?” And he answers his own question by playing the role of military commander, laying out a war plan that is supposed to show how Iran can be destroyed. I must admit I have no idea if the plan will work but I know math, and I tell you if this guy is as backward in military matters as he is in math, God help those who will take up his suggestion and try to implement it.

With Iran destroyed in his mind's eye, there remains the question of the consequences. He sees them materializing in two areas which he quickly dismisses as minimal. The first consequence he cites is the loss of oil production from Iran which, he argues, can easily be offset by Saudi Arabia. The second is that Iranian proxies, as he calls them, “would attempt to exact a price in terror … we would brace for the reprisals … they would then subside.” What is wrong with this approach is the myopic nature of the argument. The way I see it, you can be so efficient at committing an evil act, there can be little or no consequence in the immediate aftermath but there will be plenty to worry about in the future. To wit, no one today cares much about the efficiency with which the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor or the efficiency of the Nazis as they embarked on a project to exterminate the Jews. But look what history is now saying about these two events. By the same token, will the American people want to brew the cup of shame today from which their children will be forced to drink tomorrow? I doubt it.

Mark Helprin then does something that reduces him in a single instant from the thoughtful individual who was thought to wrestle with ideas before expressing them, into something that is even worse than a frivolous, trigger happy warmonger who shoots first and asks questions later. To paraphrase an Iranian saying, he is reduced to a mucus secretion fit only to be blown into a handkerchief. As to what he did to deserve this designation, he wrote this: “Any president of the United States fit for the office should … say … that … Iran … must be deprived...” Let be known that an insane little snort such as Helprin is never in a position to judge the fitness of a president elected by the American people to hold office. What should be said to a character like this is the following: Go play with yourself somewhere else, kid, war is a serious business to be dealt with by grownups.

He lets out one last bark that is not worth discussing.

Zion's Hate And Incitement Machine

2012-01-19T04:38:00.000-05:00

If you want to know how a hate and incitement machine works, there is an easy way to do it now. All you have to do is look at the January 8, 2012 editorial page of the Boston Herald and the January 15, 2012 editorial page of the Washington Post. The first has a piece with a title that says: “End Egypt arms aid”; the second has a piece that says: “Harassment in Egypt”. You will find that both editorials discuss a subject at such a low level of comprehension, it would make a 16 year old high school dropout wonder if she should apply for a job writing editorials for a Jewish dominated American publication. She knows she can write at this level if not better even though her teacher once said to her parents she has a learning disability that requires professional help. She may need help, she thinks to herself, but if those characters can have a position like this where they get paid handsomely, so can she. And she delights in the thought that if she did get such a position, it will be a lesson that her teacher will never forget.

The two editorials in question were written in reaction to the Egyptian government raiding the offices of a number of outfits calling themselves names such as: International Republican Institute (IRI), National Democratic Institute (NDI), Freedom House and the like. The Boston Herald describes their activities as: “...inoffensive U.S. democracy coaching organizations” and calls the reason why the Egyptians moved against them: “...a bogus claim of foreign 'interference' in Egyptian politics.” A little later on, the editors of the Herald enforce their argument by saying this: “[The outfits] have offered evidence that they complied with Egyptian law.” By contrast, the Washington Post says this: “Egyptian authorities are insisting that the NGOs register under laws passed but never enforced … which would allow the government to control funding.” A little later on, the editors of the Post say the following to further their argument: “...the aid is vital … to counter the huge flow of money from Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states to Islamist groups.”

So then, what role were the outfits playing? Were they inoffensive organizations that complied with Egyptian law, or outfits that operated in contravention of the laws that were there all along but were not enforced until now? And what is this idea about countering the inflow of money from Gulf states to Islamist groups? Did the Americans decide to turn Egypt into a battleground on which to fight for influence against the Arab states? Amazing gall for a people whose house is in such a disorder, they need someone to show them how to fix it! But if you are tickled by this and you wonder how the new form of cold war is being waged in the Middle East, the following quote from the Boston Herald may tell you something: “An end to military aid, coupled with the new U.S. talks with the Muslim Brotherhood, would show Egypt's generals where they really stand.” Now I ask this: Are the mentally challenged editors of America's Jewish dominated publications calling on their country to fight the Muslims with one hand and extend the other hand to them just to bug Egypt's generals? What kind of low IQ high school adolescents are these who are in charge of America's cultural life? No wonder the nation is going down the tube as fast as you can flush a toilet.

As you may have guessed, my friend, the International Republican Institute is an arm of the Republican Party of the beltway in the District of Columbia, while the National Democratic Institute is an arm of the Democratic Party, also headquartered at that same address. And this is how the Boston Herald describes the whole matter: “The raids on the offices of the … congressionally financed affiliates of the major U.S. parties, was an insult meant to show that the military is determined to dominate whatever civilian government emerges from … the parliamentary voting [in Egypt].” Well well, what have we here? The first thing that comes to mind is the question: How in hell can someone insult a congress that is made of parties which are themselves filled with nothing but (PPMGs) pimps and prostitutes, madams and gigolos? Is this not, by itself, the worst insult you can hurl at the idea of national governance? You cannot insult the insult, idiots!

The second thing that comes to mind is that there is here an implicit recognition of the fact that the battle being waged by foreigners in Egypt is a battle to “dominate whatever civilian government emerges...” Get it now? The PPMGs of America are borrowing money and using it to transform the nations of the world, Egypt among them, into PPMGs just like themselves. And why is that, you ask? Why, to serve Israel and world Jewry, of course. Just think about it, the aim here is to establish the long sought after Jewish dream of a world made exclusively of pimps and prostitutes, madams and gigolos like the Congress of good old USA -- all serving the one and only master race. Neat eh!

But you wouldn't know that from reading the Washington Post which says this: “Egyptian security forces … launched a … raid on 17 offices of American and U.S.-funded civil-society groups, including stalwarts of democracy promotion such as the National Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute and Freedom House.” So you are prompted to look for a description as to how the outfits go about doing their “stalwart” work but find none in the editorial of the Post. Luckily, however, you find the description in the Boston Herald which says this: “Around the world the two U.S. institutes offer training in techniques needed by political parties ... how to register voters, how to organize campaigns, how to monitor polling places and so forth. They do not advocate particular policies. They have offered evidence that they complied with Egyptian law.”

The part regarding abstinence from advocating particular policies and the part regarding compliance with Egyptian law were shown to be lies and so we dismiss them as noise. As to the training that the editors say the outfits give to people around the world, I ask this question: How long does it take to train someone to register voters, organize campaigns and monitor polling stations? And how much does it cost to do that? Well, the answer according to the Washington Post is that it takes 40 million dollars a year for an indefinite period of time in Egypt alone. To put this in perspective, given that Egypt amounts to one percent the population of the world, it will take 4 billion dollars a year for an indefinite period of time to teach the world how to look for and recognize a Florida style chad that may not have been properly punctured by a voter. What a sick joke cooked up by the mentally challenged to impress the mentally challenged! But will the Chinese give the Americans this much aid to implement a project that is as dumb as this? Wake up taxpayers of America, someone is eating your lunch and it isn't the Chinese who are lending you the lunch money which your children will be asked to pay back.

Now get this from the editorial of the Washington Post: “Egyptian officials seeded local media with stories that portrayed the nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) as part of an international conspiracy to interfere in the country's politics.” Okay, my friend, go ahead and have the bellyful of laughs you are itching to have, then read the following. I realize that you're laughing because the two editorials are by themselves proof enough that somebody is trying to interfere with the politics of Egypt. This aside, what is puzzling is that they called the thing international conspiracy. The fact is -- and the world has known the thing to be -- a Jewish American conspiratorial farce that deserves to be referred to with the word “seeded” as did the editors of the Post. And this is because to grow something, you need seeds as well as the fertilizer on which they feed. Looking at the outfits that were created by the US Congress and financed with taxpayer money, we find them to be nothing more than seeds of evil planted in the countries that tolerate them. And these seeds do not come alone because with them comes the fertilizer on which they feed. And this is why this enterprise -- like all congressional enterprises -- stinks a malodor akin to the toilet of a Jewish American bordello. The world prays that the American voters will find a detergent strong enough to clean up this disgusting mess.

Here is something that will shed more light on the matter. It is often said in politics that if you want to know where the corruption begins and ends, follow the money. Similarly, it can be said that if you want to know where the conspiratorial farce begins and ends, follow the Jewish American stink. And here is one trail that comes courtesy of the Boston Herald: “Egypt's military rulers deserve more than the finger-wagging...” Further down the editorial, you meet this: “Timidity in the face of insults just encourages further truculence.” As to the Washington Post, you have this trail: “The State Department publicly condemned the raids.” Later on you meet this one: “But in public, the administration's rhetoric has been softening.” And this one too: “In short, the Egyptian government is openly flouting the administration's demand...”

What should this say to you? It says that the propaganda arm of the hate and incitement machine which stands tall in America reflecting the will of World Jewry is beginning to panic. These characters are panicking not because they are losing; they always do in the end and they know it. They are panicking because this time the loss is happening in full view of the public. And what this means to them is that they will never be able to spin the thing and make it look like another Jewish triumph of biblical dimension. Here is how it worked for them this time around. Knowing that having America in their pocket and knowing that Egypt was close to America, they thought they had Egypt too in their pocket. But then came the rude awakening when they discovered that Egypt can never be in someone's pocket because the people of that ancient nation know how to be friendly without knuckling under or falling into a state of subordination like do the Americans when someone whispers a sweet word in their ear. This is why the Jewish organizations panicked and why they sent a call to the media under their control to train their guns at Egypt's display of independence and fire all the stink bombs they can.

What else do these people dream about? Here is one thing from the Washington Post: “The significance of this dispute is difficult to overstate … At a minimum, any Egyptian government that follows [such] policies ought to be denied military aid.” The fact is that Egypt is not getting military aid from America. It is partnering with it in the defense of the region where America's contribution is the made-in-America equipment that costs about 1.3 billion dollars a year. When you compare this to the 2 billion dollars that America spends – not every year but each and every week -- and do so in Afghanistan alone not the entire region where that nation is located, you begin to appreciate how small is the contribution that the Egyptians are getting from America to do the big job they are doing. You can also see why they should tell the US Congress to take this deal and shove it right up their collective asshole then go to hell.

In fact, the Washington Post goes on to say something that shows you how stupid its editors are and what a bunch of assholes the Congress is made of. Here is the revealing passage: “That's why it is fortunate that Congress, over the administration's objections, conditioned the 2012 funding for Egypt on a certification that the government was carrying out a democratic transition.” The fact is that the intervention by Congress came before the Egyptian government had decided to enforce the law of the land, and started kicking asses like many in Egypt were urging it to do. In fact, this point was brought to light repeatedly since the eruption of the incident, and the argument was made to the effect that the Egyptians were finally telling the American Congress of PPMGs what to do with themselves. The editors of the Post must have known about this and yet, here they are making it sound like the cause was the effect, and the effect was the cause. Listen to me guys; get yourselves a 16 year old high school dropout who will show you how to write editorials that make sense.

This is an election year in America and the people there are about to vote for the executive branch as well as two thirds of the legislative branch. They can make it clear to those they choose before they choose them that they want a government of men and women who will represent them and work for them. What they do not want is a bunch of pimps and prostitutes, madams and gigolos who will rule over them in response to hate and incitement commands they receive from the Jewish propaganda machine.

It is time for the assholes everywhere in the American government to retire and let someone else save the country from the Judeo-Israeli scourge that has possessed it for too long already and has pushed it to ruin in every sense of the word.

The Struggle To Keep America Viable

2012-01-15T10:27:00.001-05:00

Can America be saved? This is the question that the world is asking now because the consequences of success or failure loom large when you consider the value of that country in the world today. Yes, it is a novel thing to ask if America can be saved but the question was asked many times before in connection with other places because history never stood still. Instead, history saw and has recorded the rise of nations and empires that later fell to make way for someone else. Yet, despite the predictability that a nation or an empire will rise and fall, there is nothing inevitable about the duration of its stay or the manner of its fall. And this is why the world is anxiously contemplating the fate of America today.

We ask that and the other questions because big questions have preoccupied our species since the time in our evolution when we began to think. And we see this preoccupation repeat itself every time that a child reaches the age at which it begins to think for itself and to reason things out. In fact, as children we ask our parents where we came from and expect a simple answer that may or may not come depending on the disposition of the parents. Then as adults, we ask each other why we exist at all, not expecting a direct answer but hoping to have a discussion at the end of which will emerge an explanation as to the role we are meant to play in life. All in all, we go through life wanting to know where we came from and why we are here posing direct questions and many other related ones.

Whether or not we hit on an explanation that will help us pursue a destiny we understand and fully appreciate, we go through life in one of two states or any of the shades between them. Either we are a well defined figure known by name and a personal history having some control over what happens to us; or we remain a nameless cog that labors anonymously in the collective that is the human species having no control over what happens to us. Whatever the case, we feel at the end of it all that there was never a definitive answer to the questions we posed concerning our purpose in the Universe. A lifelong experience teaches us that we are because we are – and this is all there is to it. And we realize that we lived this long because each day, we found a reason to ask a new question and seek an answer that never came.

Whatever path we take in life, however, we still face the reality that we are genetically programmed to preserve the self and the species, something we do at the expense of everything; and when necessary the expense of everyone else. Whether or not we like it, our instinct delivers the urge that compels us to do what is required to be safe and thus remain alive. We are also programmed to forage for nourishment so as to remain strong and healthy. And we are programmed to reproduce ourselves so as to preserve the clan and the species. In fact, we share most of these instincts with the primates and the lower organisms that have evolved to become us. We even share with the higher species a few cultural attributes such as working with the clan to protect the young, and share the trait of hunting with the group by participating in a strategy that is determined and led by the alpha of the pack.

Thus, when we do not think of the big questions that concern the subject of existence, we think of the more mundane ways by which we may fulfill our needs and those of the clan; be it the family, the tribe or the nation. And this sort of thinking is the source from which have emerged the various philosophies of life since the beginning of recorded history. In the end, the ideas that go into the construction of these philosophies may or may not be as large as the question of existence but they are large enough to command nearly one hundred percent of the time and the energies that we devote to the preservation of the self, the clan and the species.

It can be argued that there are as many philosophies of life as there are human beings on the planet and have been since the beginning of time. But anyway you look at it, you will find that even the big philosophers who left a mark on the history of human thought were not so original as to claim they were isolated from the world and from each other. The truth is that any idea can be shown to have roots in the environment that surrounded its creator or the thinking of the people who nurtured him or her. It is that no idea can be plucked solely from the thin air of abstract thought divorced from any empirical base. For this reasons, you will find a remarkable overlap in the philosophies that are adhered to and propounded by different people, including the thinkers who oppose each other.

This allows us to group the philosophical trends that seem to come around, swirl for a while then disappear to be replaced by other trends. But the beauty of it all is that there is nothing new under the sun. However fresh a new trend may look, it turns out on close inspection to be nothing more than a variation on an old theme, one that was remodeled to suit the times. And nothing is more trendy these days than to talk about the systems of governance which the various clans of our species live by. The talk is usually led by political entities claiming to have found the trend that will best respond to the needs of those who will adopt it. But who are the entities that make such claims? The answer is that there are many of them, and they are as diverse as the candidates who aspire to a higher office, the political parties that seek a mandate to govern, the nation that minds its own business and leads by example or the one that is messy at home yet tries to mess with everyone else's business.

The United States of America is a nation where the debate is now raging with regard to the subject of governance. The question that the debaters try to answer concerns the definition of a political trend they call conservatism. And this is happening because there is an ongoing contest between two parties; the Democrats who lean toward liberalism and the Republicans who lean toward conservatism. Being in charge of the presidency at this point in time, the Democrats do little more than wait for the Republicans to choose one among them who will run against the sitting President. On the other hand, the Republican hopefuls are doing what they can to win the hearts and minds of the delegates who will pick the winner in the battle of ideas. To this end, each hopeful tries to define himself by defining the brand of conservatism that they should adopt as a party.

What seems to be happening is that the debate is coming down to a contest between two lines of thought. One line is articulated by those who call themselves social conservatives and have characterized their movement as being true conservatism. The other line is an idea that remains ill-defined but is called moderate which probably means that it is seen as being a diluted form of conservatism. Thus, we have on one hand true (or social) conservatism that is supposed to stand for a small government in charge of defending the borders of the nation, the personal liberties of the people and little else. Those who embrace it would be individuals that rely on themselves to do what is good for the self and the community. On the other hand, we have the so-called moderates who do not seem to have characterized their movement as yet but have left it to the other side to define them. And the way this was done is that their philosophy was painted as standing for a European-style big government that will redistribute the wealth by acting like a nanny state, taking from the have to give to the have-not. Or as they like to put it derisively; take from those who produce and give to those who don't.

Ask yourself: How superficial can the Americans get during the silly season they call the election cycle! In fact, the elephant in the room they all ignore is the Neocon factor. To be sure, the word Neocon has become a euphemism to mean the Jews who used to be Liberals but have adopted some of the Conservative causes, and have decided to champion them by joining the movement. The reality is that when it comes to social issues, these people still maintain their ultra liberal bent which means they work for a culturally permissive society that rejects the old values and embraces the new mores whenever they come and whatever they look like. Where the conservatism of these people shows up is in the idea of defending the nation -- or so they say. But here too, they veer off the mark by a wide margin, at least in this sense: To a true conservative the defense of the nation means the defense of its borders; but it is not so to the Neocons. To these people, defending the nation means to constantly be on the offensive somewhere in the world if not everywhere in it, poking the rib of this one, kicking the ass of that one and urinating on the dead bodies of a third one.

The trouble with this approach is that it will not do what the Neocons promise it will. They say that the role they envisage for the American military can be sustained indefinitely, resulting in a world that will be kept safe for ever. They even trumped up an expression to describe the world order they say will materialize out of their vision; they call it Pax Americana. To defend their point of view, they promise that America will be able to reverse the trend in which it has been locked for several decades now. They say the nation can build an economy that is large enough to sustain a military that will be equal to all the military powers in the rest of the world put together. This can be done, they say, even at a time when America comes to only 4% of the world population. And bear in mind that this is a world which is fast catching up industrially to what used to be the industrial superpower of the world but is no more. Add to it the fact that aside from its internal debt, America is indebted to that same world to the tune of two years worth of production in the tradable goods and services, and you will see the extent of ignorance and idiocy which are inherent to the Jewish predictions.

The fact is that the Jewish self declared leaders will make the prediction that suits the moment every time they approach you to convince you of something. This is how they dragged America into the many wars that have turned the once superpower into the current super fool. When you ask them to elaborate on their theory, they say that America is so exceptional, you see people from around the world try to flock to it. They go on to explain that the Administration can do two things. First, it can stop the flood of illegals who come from south of the border to pick fruits and vegetables. Second, it can open the door of legal immigration widely to take in the people who will start a business or invent a product that the world will want to buy. But the one thing that these jokers have not done yet is to invent the magic wand that will do all this by waving it. America listened to the jokers of yesterday; no wander America has become the joke of today. Repeat this silly performance one more time and there will no longer be an America to laugh at or weep over.

Now consider this. If America went around the world, poked people in the rib, kicked their asses and urinated over their dead bodies, will it not happen that someone will want to retaliate and come into the country under a false pretense to do damage? Maybe so, say the Neocons, but America can do what Israel is doing which is to profile the people who wish to come in, identify the bad guys among them and keep them out. Oh yeah! But who are the people who visit Israel? Are they not Jews from among the 18 million or so who still inhabit the world -- each of which is known to a synagogue somewhere on the Planet and whose application to travel to Israel is signaled months if not years in advance?

Also, are they not the American evangelicals who would be checked and vouched for by the pastors that send them to Israel confined to a small group and packed on chartered flights and chartered buses? The sad fact is that you cannot run a big country like America which is open to 7 billion people the way that you run little hermit Israel. Besides, America works for a living and needs to remain an open society. By contrast, Israel need not work because it feeds off America. And so, if America were to do what Israel is doing, no one will be there to feed America. No, that idea was never a good one but is a cockeyed Jewish suggestions that would not even serve as breakfast for a starving dog. Keep the idea and the breakfast for Israel if you want but leave America alone; it has done well without Israel and has done dreadfully since the establishment of that dreadful thing.

This being the case, we ask the pertinent question: what is it that the Jewish leaders really want to achieve? And we begin to formulate an answer when we look at the instincts we share with the organisms that have evolved to become us, and look at the cultural traits that we share with the other species. It all boils down to the preservation of the self and the clan; and down to the things that we do at the expense of everything and everyone else whether acting alone or in conjunction with the rest of the clan. What is clear from all this is that to make a mark on history, there has to be a clan powerful enough to battle against and defeat all perceived threats at least initially, and there has to be a leader who is knowledgeable enough to lead the clan to victory or even an eventual defeat.

In fact, every nation that left an imprint on history has lived through a similar pattern. The exception has been the Jews who for thousands of years have never formed a clan large enough or cohesive enough to battle against what they perceived as an infinite menace that is forever threatening their existence. Thus, they always climbed on someone's back and rode them to a war they hoped will result in a victory for themselves: The ultimate subjugation of the human race to their will as a fulfillment of the fantasy they have had for thousands of years and still believe was promised to them by God. Being useless, however, both in thought and in action, they only managed each time to do damage to themselves, to anything they touched and everyone they advised.

The young and intelligent Americans of today -- be they Conservatives, Liberals or Independents – are now beginning to see that the Neocons are but the con artists of olden days who ruined many a nation and have labored to ruin America for half a century. Those among the young Americans who aspire to lead their country out of its current difficulty are rejecting the Jewish narrative which seeks to maintain a status quo on which Israel and the Jewish organizations continue to feed like there is no tomorrow. Thus, the would-be leaders of the new America are rejecting the command which tells them to just go and suck an egg; but are freeing themselves from the yoke of the past while searching for a way by which to pull their country from the brink of the precipice to which the Jewish leaders have taken their country.

Good luck to them.

Forget The Rapture, Here Comes The Rupture

2012-01-10T04:22:00.000-05:00

On or about the first day of the new year, someone claimed to have discovered an ancient scripture in central America predicting that the world will end in 2012. Of course, there have been many such predictions before and there will be more as they are made by mischievous individuals who get a kick scaring people, or made by religious nuts who become rich practicing the trade of predicting the Apocalypse. One such wealthy nut is the 90 year old California preacher Harold Camping who predicted that the world will end in May of 2011 and was proven wrong – having made the same prediction seven years earlier and proven wrong there too. But he goes on predicting undeterred by his failures.

The reality, however, is that most people around the globe are sophisticated enough nowadays to dismiss such claims but there are those who may well be an educated lot yet believe in the predictions. Whether these people are naturally naïve or whether they are rendered childlike credulous by a religious training they received at an early age, they tend to take what the perpetrators preach at face value and not question it. These people are especially prone to what is being said when the perpetrators coat what they say with a religious language that was inculcated into the listeners as children. These people may have been prepared for this moment long ago but fate would have it that they should succumb to the temptation only now.

Still, from the mythologies of ancient times to the writings of the astrologer Nostradamus in the Middle Ages to the predictions of the end of the world in modern times, such stories do little more than entertain the majority of the people who hear about them. They wait for the date to come and go -- perhaps with a little apprehension -- but then shrug off the episode, asserting that they never fall for something like this and denying that they were apprehensive for even a short moment. In some ancient cultures, however, predictions about the end of the world brought out the deep seated human fear as to what the “gods” had in mind. In some of these cultures, the prediction was reason enough to initiate an offering that included the sacrifice of human beings – usually young children -- to please the gods and subdue their wrath. Fortunately, however, no such action was called for in most other cultures. When the time came and the prediction did not materialize, the people deemed it to have been baseless and dismissed it as a nightmare that came and went.

In modern times too, such predictions were usually dismissed as fantasy till something happened in America that gave the subject a new dimension and turned the matter upside down. Irony of ironies, it is in the republic where the separation of church and state is deemed to be as safe as a rock that religion began to tangle with the political manoeuvrings of the democratic process. The two are now tangled up so intimately that a prediction about future happenings is liable to become a major factor in the unfolding of the electoral activities. In fact, we now see the entanglement impose itself with force when candidates who run for a high office seek what has come to be called the Evangelical vote; that of the Christian fundamentalists.

To be sure, the trend started to put down roots some time ago, albeit imperceptibly, before growing into the irresistible force that it is today. We can see revealing evidence of this when we look at America's political interaction with the rest of the world in a historical context. To this end, few people would argue against the idea that America had always been non-interventionist if not isolationist in world affairs from the day of its independence to the middle of the Twentieth Century. Yes, America did participate in the First World War but only because it was urged to do so by local ethnic groups who pushed it to take one side or the other in a war that was too savage to ignore. America was also goaded to participate in the Second World War by Winston Churchill of Britain who warned that if Europe fell to the forces of the Axis, America will be the next target.

But this is not all that Churchill did. At the end of a war in which the United States, Britain and other allies such as the Soviet Union were victorious, Churchill warned the Americans that the Soviets were building a dangerous empire, and he incited them to oppose it in every way they can because the empire was expansionist and a threat to the world, especially to America. The warning was taken to heart by the Americans, and they became obsessed with it as they started to see a communist threat over the horizon of every sea and every ocean, and see the threat behind every mountain in Europe, Asia, Latin America and Africa.

This was an incredible shift to the state of mind of what used to be optimistic America. And the first result of this shift was the tragedy that came to be called the war in Vietnam, a backward country that can legitimately claim to have defeated a superpower with the bare hands of its sons and daughters whose thirst for freedom burned bright in their hearts regardless of the flag under which they operated. Yes, these boys and girls fought under a communist flag and yes, they fought against the American boys who had come to rob them of the freedom to choose how they wanted to live. In the end the Vietnamese won the war and guess what; they adopted the Americans as their best friends. Go figure and try to explain how a superpower can be made to fear something as innocuous as the wish to live freely without outside interference. Try it and let me know if you have found an explanation.

The truth is that Vietnam was not alone, however. It had China and the Soviet Union supply it with small arms, and had the treacherous hand of saboteurs inside America working for it. These were the hidden allies of Vietnam as much as they were the openly vocal opponents of the war against it. They were the people who conspired to weaken the home front by opening a crack in it, and working tirelessly to broaden that crack. To this end, they employed a subtle kind of destruction that America was not familiar with and had no means to defend against. In the end, the saboteurs contributed mightily to the defeat of America in Vietnam as seen by the chaotic and humiliating scenes depicting the helicopter-mounted evacuation of the American embassy in Saigon. What came after that was the vow to never again fight a ground war on the Asian Continent; a vow that was broken three times in two places already and promises to be broken yet again.

But who were the hidden allies of Vietnam who sabotaged the American war effort from the inside? It is clear today that they were the Jewish organizations whose goal was to get America out of Eastern Asia -- a corner of the world that is neither Arab nor Muslim -- and embroil the country in Western Asia where there was an Israel itching to go on a rampage and seeking the protective “umbrella” of a superpower to support it and resupply it if and when it stretched itself too far or came close to the brink. Western Asia is where America went eventually, having been groomed to fight against the Arabs and the Muslims; and groomed to die for the glory of Israel as well as the benefit of all the Jewish causes. To successfully pull off a scheme like this, the Jewish leaders worked hard to cultivate a grassroots constituency for themselves inside America, one that increased the power of their internal sabotaging machine by several orders of magnitude.

Now comes the true demonic part of this horror story. Having tried and failed to get enough Christians to hate themselves and hate their religion for what the Jewish leaders were claiming was the ill treatment of Jews at the hands of Christians throughout the ages, the Jewish leaders reversed themselves. They now worked on making the American Christians join them; and they did so by using a trick that can only be called sorcery. The problem had been that for two thousand years, Christianity and Judaism were considered to be mutually exclusive. The reason was then -- as it is today -- that the Jews are waiting for a Messiah to come and redeem them while the Christians consider Jesus to be the Messiah that has come already and has redeemed them. If you believe in one narrative and if you are sane, logic would dictate that you reject the other narrative because the two cannot coexist in one and the same cranium. It is simply that the two narratives are mutually exclusive.

To get around the brute force of this logic and defeat it, the Jewish sorcerers came up with an ingenious solution. What they did was to make the rituals of the two religions look so much alike, they became the one and same Judeo-Christian religion. This done, the Jewish leaders launched a campaign to recruit Christians of the evangelical flavor as foot soldiers; and they put them in the business of damning America while predicting at every turn that America the beautiful will go straight to an ugly sort of hell if it did not live and die for the glory of Israel as well as the promotion of the Jewish causes. Sunday after Sunday after Sunday, preacher after preacher after preacher went on television to give sermon after sermon after sermon in which they damned America for not standing solidly enough with Israel and all the Jewish causes.

This had to be done, said the newly converted idiots, because the Jews are the gods that the American people must worship from now on and accept to serve as their slaves. Don't ask why because this is a dogma that does not lend itself to explanation. Thus, the evangelical foot soldiers took the message of their newly found faith under the banner of CUFI (Christians United For Israel) to the American Congress of pimps and prostitutes, madams and gigolos; and they forced the horrible characters of that stinky institution to act on the message as if it were the new and improved gospel truth of the new and screwed up army of imbeciles.

But despite all that effort, some Christians were not fooled by the Jewish scheme. In fact, these Christians had a scheme of their own up their sleeve with regard to the relationship they maintained with the Jews. Instead of snubbing the flirtatious advances of the Jewish leaders, they welcomed them and responded in kind because they saw that the situation could play in their hands just fine. As it happens, both the Christians and the Jews are waiting for a moment they call the Rapture when the Messiah is expected to appear and convert everyone to the one and true religion. The Jews believe that it will be Judaism while the Christians believe that it will be Christianity. When you juxtapose the two expectations side by side, you see that the Evangelicals and the Jews in America now look like two scorpions engaged in a mating dance. They circle one another, each waiting for the moment of the Rapture to pounce on the partner and mate with it or eat it alive. A divine comedy that turned so tragic, it must be making Dante Alighieri squirm in his grave.

Rational people do not expect to see an ending like this to the drama of human existence but writers and artists of all sorts have used their works to describe other possible end scenes. From the way that things are developing at this time, it can be said that the one certainty we may hold is that a rupture and not the celebrated Rapture will occur between the Jews and the Christians. If and when this happens, it may invite a rupture between the Jews and everyone else in the world. And this could be the event that someone will most certainly try to exploit and score a final victory over the Jews. As you can see, it was never “never again” but was always “here we go again”. And this is where the matter stands at this point yet again.

It is not too difficult to see a scenario like that unfold when you consider how far things have gone already. To get a sense of this, imagine the following parable. The parents of a number of children leave the little ones in the care of the oldest son and go away for a while. One day an evil character comes along and rapes one of the daughters. Instead of seeking justice, the older brother offers the next daughter to the rapist. Being a pedophile of equal opportunity, the rapist asks for a little boy instead, and the big brother acquiesces. The pedophile-rapist keeps demanding more and more, and the brother keeps acquiescing more and more till the rapist gets to acquire and own as sex slaves all the boys and girls in the family, doing with them anything he wants anytime he wants it.

I now ask you this, my friend: What do you think the parents will do when they come home and see that situation? Think about it and think about the Republican candidates who seek the nomination to the presidency of the United States by saying things that go more or less like this: I am for the display of my Christian faith in public places and for the Jewish organizations that work to ban my faith from such places. I am for the marriage between a man and a woman, and I am for the Jewish leaders who fight to legalize gay marriage. I am for life and also for the Jews who would butcher the unborn by partial birth. I am for mentioning God when I feel like it and for the Jew who works to throw me in jail when I try. I am for freedom and for the anti-defamation league that censors me when I say something it does not like. And so on and so forth.

Don't you think that while this spectacle is maintained, someone will want to say: We have had enough of this; let's make the Jewish big brother see what it's like to be raped by a stranger over and over and over again? America is thirsting for justice and we are left with only one way to quench that thirst: it is the shedding of Jewish blood one final time.

Don't come and cry on my shoulder when this happens, mindless big brother. I stuck my neck out and I spent a lifetime warning you about this eventuality. The last thing I want now is to see you come anywhere close to my shoulder or my neck ever again. And remember this, when I say never again, I don't say it to impress; I say it to mean it. Never again means never again.

A Muddled Web Of Self Fulfilling Prophecies

2012-01-05T04:53:00.001-05:00

The Iowa Caucuses which are the first of the primaries to choose the Republican nominee who will run against the incumbent Democratic President in the upcoming American election has come and gone resulting in an outcome that is at best inconclusive. When this is added to the confused scenario that was developed along the way, the result may be signaling that a change is taking place in America. To see this and to grasp the potential ramification, we need to understand something about the current situation, and how things got to be where they are. But we can do so only by going through the maze of noise and distortions that were pumped into the cultural life of America during the past half century, and this is where we begin to probe.

It is that in the name of moral clarity, the self appointed leaders of the modern Jewish movement have managed to erect a construct of ambiguities that is so contorted, it has muddled the web of relationships which ordinary Jews were trying to forge in good faith with the American public and the American pillars of power, having survived a sorrowful sojourn in Europe; one that triggered a string of pogroms against them and culminated in a Holocaust that did away with many of their relatives. Never again, said the Jews but their leaders had other ideas as can be seen from what follows.

The result of the work done by the Jewish leaders has been that contrary to the path normally taken by immigrants when they move into a new society, the path of the Jewish evolution in America ended up looking like an accident waiting to happen much as it looked in all the places to which they migrated over the centuries. This happened because instead of welcoming the opportunity to be like everyone else, the Jews were again made to trace the tortuous pattern that has led to their demise in every society where they tried to mix. It happened in America at the urging of their self appointed leaders who once again pulled the old trick of predicting that annihilation will be their fate if they did not follow the instructions handed to them now, and those that will be handed to them as time moves on. Thus, it can be seen that the false prediction of their annihilation has always been the main factor to trigger the attempts to annihilate the Jews. This has been the self-fulfilling prophecy that always delivered or came close to doing so.

What happens in practical terms as people migrate from one place to another is that they get to study the new environment so as to discover the traits that they and the locals may like or dislike about each other. This done, they highlight their similarities and iron out their differences then organize manners of interaction that satisfy everyone after which they live together in relative harmony. Instead of doing any of this, the Jews were forced by their leaders to seek a special place in American society and were granted that place. This was a success that the Jewish leaders managed to score by advancing the notion that antisemitism was a genetic defect common to all human beings; one that can only be contained by highlighting the uniqueness of the Jews and by treating them better than everyone else.

And there lies the mechanism responsible for the eternal damnation of Jews. It is a tool in the hands of leaders who use them and use their recurring tragedies to exploit every environment in which they set foot. But after they have squeezed all that they can from each environment, and when trouble begins to raise its head, the leaders who would have enriched themselves by now, bolt out in a hurry and leave ordinary Jews to suffer the consequence of what they themselves have wrought over time. Another tragedy takes place; it is used by a new crop of self-appointed Jewish leaders who quickly ask for monetary compensation and a special treatment for themselves and for the Jews they claim to protect. Thus starts the cycle once again as it has for hundreds of years if not thousands of them.

To pull off a demonic scheme of this nature in America, the Jewish leaders started to work on it the moment that they were allowed to migrate into the country, something that happened as a consequence of the events which took place during WWII in Europe. Knowing what they attempted to accomplish everywhere else in the world but failed miserably time after time, they modified their plans to suit the American scene. To this end, they engineered a master-slave sort of relationship with prominent figures whereby the Jewish leaders took on the role of master, and the Americans the role of slave. But unlike the claim they made to those they called their people, the aim of the leaders was never to save the Jews from the threat of a non-existent annihilation; it was to forge for themselves and for Israel a parasitic relationship with the American taxpaying public.

In fact, the aim of the Jewish leaders was twofold. First, it was to rig the American system of governance so as to make it possible for them to live well and prosper with the tax exempt donations sent to them by the wealthy Jews who took the trouble to establish fake charitable organizations and shelter their monies there. The second aim was to maintain the semblance of a viable economy in Israel where they temporarily parked their surplus money. They needed that facility to hunt for opportunities in the region and to hunt for them elsewhere in the world where they invested the money they spirited out of America under false pretenses.

To give this act of treachery the look of legality and remain safe, the Jewish leaders had the Americans tweak the foreign aid program in such a way as to protect them from being caught doing something illegal. These people did not mind being caught doing something unethical because they knew that being Jews, they were not going to be held accountable for that. On the other hand, the red line they tried to avoid crossing – not always successfully – was to do something that would be outright illegal. To this end, they had the prominent Americans convince the loathsome congress of treasonous prostitutes to tweak the laws in such a way as to serve the Jewish causes. And the horrible characters of that detestable assembly of legislators responded by writing the laws in such a way as to make the Jewish high crimes look like unethical indiscretions of such low intensity, they were not worth prosecuting. And the money flowed from America to Israel with some of it being kicked back to America and distributed as campaign contributions to the congress of pure filth.

And that filth does not remain in the US Congress alone but spills over to infect all forms of American political life. In fact, you see and feel aspects of the drama of horror when they hit you in the face as you watch the ongoing race of the primaries. Knowing that the final choice, when it comes, will be the nominee who will run in the general election against the incumbent president, you observe with fascination a uniquely American struggle unfold inside the same Republican party. You see players who are supposed to be on the same team clobber each other as if they were mortal enemies. And this is something they claim will help them determine who will merit to run against the Democratic antagonist; but they also acknowledge that the fight will produce the ammunition that the other side will use against them later on.

And this is when you begin to think that there is more to the drama than meets the eye. You see that the struggle must be unfolding inside a cocoon where deceitful ideas are incubated by the strategists, and dubious declarations are drafted to accomplish two opposite goals. You understand that the strategists aim to win the immediate vote of the hardcore Republican base which is extreme by its nature while trying to avoid losing the more moderate vote of the public at large; the one that will be solicited later in the year. But this is not all that you suspect is happening because you feel it in your bones that something more odious is shaping inside the cocoon. You spend time analyzing what you see and hear; and you realize that subtle work is being done to defeat the time honored notion which says that foreign policy disputes among the antagonists -- even of opposing parties -- must stop at the water's edge. But here they are of the same party, and they openly violate this notion. You conclude that what is happening is the work of the Jewish leaders whose aim is to make the talk about Israel the most important topic in this election cycle, not the future of America.

The way they pull off this feat in practice is that the Jewish handlers who volunteer to work for the candidates do so not only for one party but for both; not only for one candidate but for all of them. When debating each other, they highlight their ideological differences as each is seen to articulate a contrary position; be it the left leaning position or the right leaning one; be it a moderate position or an extreme one. You see such differences rise to the surface in all the subjects that come up for discussion except one. When the subject touches on matters that may be of interest to Israel, the debaters turn the exchange into a farce of Third World caliber. You are prompted to laugh and dismiss the discussion the moment that you see the antagonists become same-side protagonists; and you see them fall over each other as they compete to proclaim their undying love for Israel and their unbounded desire to inflate the importance of the Jewish skunk in the Arab garden whatever will be the cost to America in terms of lives and of treasure.

You understand that the aim of that policy is to prevent the Arabs from recreating in the region the model of peace and tolerance they once had; a model that the world clamors to see rise again but that the war mongers in Jewish America dread; a model that the Jewish leaders would kill and cause American boys and girls to be killed to stop in its tracks. You put two and two together and realize that the Jewish leaders anticipate the devolution of America; thus they turn up the screws on the system of governance to transfer more of America's wealth to Israel and more of America's influence to world Jewry before the Republic becomes a spent force. Being the opportunists that they are, they take advantage of the current election campaign to argue among themselves that since America still has something left to it, they can squeeze out a little more of it even if such act will leave nothing for its people but a depleted fruit that was once so full of juice and sweetness, it was the craze of humanity but is no more. Shed a tear for America and celebrate the glory of Israel.

It dawns on you that once again, the Jewish leaders have resorted to playing the card they always played to motivate their followers. It is the self-fulfilling prophecy of doom and gloom which they invoked the last time around not to warn the Jews but warn of a gathering storm that will unleash a mushroom cloud over America and thus annihilate that country and everyone in it. The false prophecy triggered the war on Iraq which they promised was going to result in kisses being blown to every American who will visit that country but whose consequence has been a calamity that America could have done without. The prophecy was fulfilled but not in the way it was predicted. And here we go again as the Jewish leaders push the candidates in the Republican primaries to warn that America is about to be annihilated, and thus advocate the launch of a war against another Middle Eastern country which they promise will result in kisses being blown to every American who will visit the Persian Gulf region. Don't bet your glut of houses on it, America.

And yet, you sense that despite the noise and the distortions that swirl around you, individual Jews are becoming increasingly conscious of what is happening around them, and conscious of the horror that is being committed in their name by leaders who appoint themselves head of one thing or another in the service of Jews. While these individuals show concern, they still feel helpless to do anything about the fake appointees. However, a handful of them are beginning to speak out and explain that the problem lies not with a humanity that is said to be antisemitic by genetic defect but with Jewish leaders who use the Jewish people and their tragedies to buttress their personal interests. Those individuals also see that the problem lies in part with the mass of ordinary Jews who are forbidden by religious beliefs to question the motive of their patriarchal leaders, a stance that prevents them from rebelling against the higher-ups however fake or useless they may be.

Reacting to these developments, you wonder what the American people are thinking of the never ending demands that the Jewish leaders keep making on behalf of Israel and of world Jewry. It dawns on you that individual Jews may be realizing for the first time that history is about to repeat itself, that Hell may be coming to the world once more and that they will find themselves at the center of it yet again. The dreaded end that their leaders always beg for may happen if only by accident, and the annihilation that the leaders keep predicting may be around the corner, brought to them by the activities of those same dreadful leaders.

You wonder if those Jewish individuals will be able to do something about the matter in time, and if the time has come during this election cycle when someone will be courageous enough to stand up and say that if elected, he will cut Israel loose to make peace with its neighbors and live inside the model of peace and tolerance that the Arabs know how to construct better than anyone else as they have demonstrated during the centuries when they were on top and never allowed a pogrom or a holocaust to happen.

The Jews are to accept this reality or suffer the consequence alone because not one American life or one American dollar will ever again be spared to give an Israeli prime minister a fake political erection he can show off in world forums and brag about the control he has over America's system of governance. Never again.

A North Korean Lesson For America

2011-12-30T05:05:00.000-05:00

The dear leader of North Korea has died, long live the dear leader. Like the dear before him, the new dear was followed to the seat of power by the newest of the dears. And like the first (call him grandfather), the second (call him father) was given a hell of a funeral lest the third (call him son) forget from where his wisdom springs and how it gushes a fountain of pure knowledge that ought to be used to protect the nation and all those inside it but nothing else. Thus, all the people of North Korea, young and old, men and women, invaded the streets of their cities and villages even before the funeral was held, and they poured their expressions of grief in public to let everyone know that they are not skimping on the intensity of their love for the departed even though he had departed and could no longer protect them from the enemy they dread, or shower them with the wisdom they used to long for, used to receive in abundance and were forced to swallow on an empty stomach.

Then came the day of the majestic funeral when only the women were supposed to express their grief in public by shedding a tear or two, by wailing a shriek or a few. And this was supposed to happen while the men were instructed to pretend to keep the women from throwing themselves at the funerary procession. But something at this level must have gone wrong inside the lines of communication because a number of sissy-like men -- including one high ranking officer of the army with decorations to prove it -- were seen to go out of control and cry openly like did the women. And this was a development that was contrary to the plan by which the men were instructed to look stoic and act accordingly. Thus, you must draw the conclusion that even the dearest of the dead cannot always count on things being done according to plan when they seek to rest in peace and try to enjoy the good afterlife they believe is owed to them for eternity and beyond.

Now, my friends (notice that I dare not yet say dear friends), guess where you can expect to see a striking parallel to this disgustingly entertaining spectacle. You guessed it; you will find it in the Congress of the United States of America and in other forums each time that the Netanyahu of Israel feels he is about to depart this world in a political sense, and thus decides to pull a farcical event during which the American Congress of pimps and prostitutes, madams and gigolos are instructed to emulate the women of North Korea -- not by crying their grief, but crying out their joy as they repeatedly jump to their feet and give the almost departed a life-renewing standing ovation. This sort of thing has happened in a series of second chances that the American politicos have given the Netanyahu; an event that bores the civilized world to death but not the American media types and their sidekicks of the think tank concoction who get tickled to a state of heightened orgasm at the thought that a foreigner is appreciated in their country more than the President of their own republic will ever dream to be. You may lament that the spectacle is shocking to the extreme but it is true to the letter!

And the most disgusting of the comical performances comes about when members of the Congress jump to their feet not once or twice but twenty nine times during a speech of the guest that lasts much less than it takes to conduct a public funeral in North Korea. And you know that the jumping happens on cue because professional clowns of the jack-in-the-box type are hired on these occasions, and they are planted throughout the chamber where the speech is given. They start the ball rolling every time that something is said which suits the Jewish causes, by jumping to their feet where they maintain the applause till the rest of the crowd in the chamber of fools joins them by standing in turn and clapping like a bunch of empty headed puppets with strings attached to their clapping hands. Yes, you may claim that this would be an artificially provoked standing ovation forced on the retarded whores of the American Congress by an elaborate ruse of the Jewish lobby but, in fact, nobody cares what the spectacle represents because in the end, a whore is a whore is a whore whether he is a male whore or a female one; whether he is artificially motivated by forces that come from without or naturally animated by forces that come from within.

And this is why my dear friends (I now say dear friends); this is why I dare say the following, and say it loudly so that everyone may hear me loudly and hear me clearly: Eat your dead hearts out, dear leaders of North Korea, Netanyahu the Jew is here to beat you at your own game, something he can do hands down, you will see. It is not only that he can stand alone in the lobby of the US Congress in his capacity as the unofficial stud in the business of screwing the American political class; he also stands as the official pisser who serves the rugs at the White House. And this is something he does in competition with the one named Bo who is known to have been neutered to give the Netanyahu the edge he always demands when he gets involved in similar situations. May the best dog win the rug pissing contest. I bet on the Netanyahu.

The question to ask now is this: What secret does Netanyahu possess which makes it possible for him to control the Congress of the American nation the way that the North Korean brass control the grieving women of their nation? The answer is that fear is the potent weapon used by evil men everywhere to control the emotional state of other people, be they a wife, a congress, a male whore or a country in decline. Such men do not care whether the expressed emotions are real or they are fake; they only want to make sure that the emotions are displayed in public so as to impress everyone who may be near or may be far because they know that the practice is contagious and liable to spread like wildfire. And spreading the practice is the effect that these people hunger to see happen when and where it can happen.

And there is a reason why these people want to see the sickly effect take hold and spread. It is that they begin their careers with very little clout by which to threaten the few people around them who may refuse to submit to their will. If they manage to score a first success by coercing a handful of them just enough to make them bend to their will, the evil ones use the example thus established to impress the next group of people and get them to bend likewise. If the evil ones succeed in the second instance to have someone bend to their will yet again, they realize that they have started a contagious trend. They seek to have it repeated as many times as they can, and have it spread like wildfire. From here on, they let the fire of their coercive methods eat through the dried up brushes of a frightened society, having developed in their own heads the notion that they have achieved the status of a God, one who is worthy to have his ring kissed by an adoring crowd of genuflecting prostitutes, be they of the American congressional type or any type you may find in a gutter of the same low level.

So then, how did the Jewish leaders get to convince the American political class to hand the nation over to them on a silver platter like seems to be the case? The short answer is that they employed in the past -- and they still do -- a big demonic scheme of little satanic tricks to play out their never ending games. A favorite strategy they often used has been to incite successive American administrations to do the things that the Jewish leaders know will create a conflict between America and someone else. When the conflict erupts, it automatically creates the opportunity for them to be consulted on the subject which is what allows them to take ownership of it, something they gladly do while pretending to be experts on everything. When they have the thing securely in their pocket, they take the time to make it work for the benefit of Israel and the other Jewish causes. And because there is little in this world that is not a zero sum game, what Israel and the Jews gain always comes at the expense of everyone else especially America, their generous and very naive benefactor.

What the Jewish leaders incite the Americans to do can be something as small as to insert an offensive expression in a speech that is slated to be given by the President or by someone of high stature, or it can be the implementation of a measure that is as big as the historical debacle of the Aswan dam. This was the time when the Jews had incited the Americans to pressure the World Bank to withdraw the financing of the dam and the hydroelectric station at Aswan, an act that was so hurtful to the Egyptian economy and to the progress of the nation, it triggered consequences of a magnitude that may never be fully assessed. What can be said, however, now that six decades have passed is that the event was the most pivotal in the modern history of the Middle East in the sense that the course of history was changed on that day. Things turned badly for many of those involved but most of all for America which is still paying for this act of utter stupidity and will continue to pay for a long time to come. It is generally acknowledged that one consequence has been the end of the British empire; it may someday be seen that the idea of Pax Americana never took hold as a consequence of that foolish act.

And because the genius of the Jewish leaders is that they always manage to get you to do it to yourself, you find it difficult to admit that you have been conned, let alone hurt as a result of listening to them and gladly taking their advice. Thus, instead of protesting what happened to you, or instead of calling on the Jew to account for his bad advice and his unsolicited incitement, you hide your shame by keeping quiet and licking your wounds in silence. You do this to put the matter behind you and forget that something of the sort has happened at all. You do it as an individual, you do it as an institution and you do it as a nation. The result is that the Jew gets away with it and he continues to do what he has been doing without a push back from someone. He thus proves to young Americans that the Jew is so special, he is never called upon to account for his behavior no matter how badly he behaves.

The ultimate consequence of this sickly-looking state of affairs has been that several generations of Americans have now grown with the belief that the natural order of things is that the Jew remains supreme and beyond reproach no matter what he does. Thus, while the Jewish incitement in America may cause a foreign country some damage, this is something that is usually repaired when enough effort is put into it and enough time has passed, something that can be seen to have happened in the case of the Aswan project. But what remains irreparable in this saga is the damage that is caused to America because what happens here is the worst that you can imagine. What happens, in fact, is the piling up of a cumulative damage that goes on generation after generation. It is a damage that has already taken America from the status of superpower to that of a failed state or something close to it with no promising end in sight or a prayer.

With all this, believe it or not, America may yet extend a hand to help the North Korean people get out of their predicament but there is little that North Korea can do to help the American people get out of their predicament except for the Korean people to offer themselves as an example to show America and the world what damage a dictatorial rule can inflict on the psyche of a people, be it the rule of one man, one family or one supremacist ideology.

A Christmas Fantasy From Outer Space

2011-12-08T12:11:00.000-05:00

The people at NASA have said that looking out into space, they discovered a planet resembling Earth so closely that it can sustain life. Well, let me tell you something, my friends, this is not the whole story because the truth is that NASA has known about this planet for a number of years now. It knows for certain that life does exist on it, and knows what sort of life it is because what is out there has come from here. Yes, what happened was that real people – earthlings like you and me -- were sent on a secret voyage of discovery when the warp engine was developed and a starship was built.

The people from Earth settled on the new planet and called for more people to go there taking with them tools, construction machines and transportation equipment. NASA and the US government informed a number of other nations what was happening, and they all agreed to keep the project secret for a while. Upon this, a number of expeditions were sent to the new planet with people from several places on Earth. They built villages in several locations and connected them with a network of roads and highways. They built an electric grid to take power to the villages, some of which had grown to become towns. They also installed an electronic highway to transport digital and audio-visual signals to every location where people live.

They grow the food, exploit the quarries and mine the grounds for metals and minerals. They have established a number of light manufacturing industries and some heavy ones too, including the making of spare parts for the machines and the equipment they brought from Earth. After a while, the elders in charge of the Planet determined that they had what it takes to erect an auto assembly plant and so they did. They put one up for which they designed a car and made it nicely suited for the Planet's terrain and atmosphere. They hired young workers and got the old assemblers from Earth to teach them how to assemble cars. The Elders in charge then ordered the modification of the factories that were making spare parts to now make parts for the car and feed the assembly plant with parts.

While doing all this, the people also managed to establish a central bank and started to print a currency they call the dollar which they back with gold at the fixed rate of 100 dollars per gram of gold. But given that they lived for a time on spaceships and in settlements where the daily routine was planned and executed by specialists, few of them – especially the younger ones -- had seen money, had felt the necessity to fend for themselves or had the experience of wheeling and dealing with other people. For these reasons and a few other ones, the Elders decided at a meeting of the Council of Elders to educate the public as to the ways and the merits of the free market system which they decided will only be implemented gradually. The Elders chose this method over the one suggested by someone whose idea was to administer the “shock therapy” that was tried on Earth and was proven to be a failure. In fact, the approach would have forced a system on a people that was not ready for it, the way that things were done in Russia when the Soviet regime was overthrown.

In fact, the reason for the voyage of discovery in the first place was that Ronald Reagan, the American President at the time, had predicted that the Soviet Union will soon be out of its misery because his Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) -- better known as “Star Wars” -- was going to work like a charm and force the Soviets to surrender. As it turned out, SDI did not work but the Soviet Union collapsed anyway. Something else happened in the meantime, however, as a result of the activities associated with SDI. It is that the scientists working on it discovered the secret of the warp engine by a lucky accident and were able to build a prototype that worked. This gave the Americans the idea of rounding up the Soviet leaders and sending them to a far away planet where they could not contaminate Earth with their screwy communist ideas.

None of that happened, of course. Instead, Russia struggled and failed more often than not to become as capitalist as the green dollar bill while “Red China” stayed as politically red as ever but managed to turn itself into an economic giant that is forever preoccupied at covering itself with America's green bills. Then came the fateful year of 2008 when the whole system collapsed under its own weight and proved to be as fake as a three-dollar bill. And this made it so that no economic system could be trusted to deliver the good life on a sustained basis.

For this reason among the other reasons, the Elders on the new planet decided to experiment with a system they will develop as they go. They said that for now, each working person will be paid an amount of money proportionate to the value of the work they do during the week. To this end, the central bank will open a number of branches, each of which will have a regular staff that includes a person they call “wage and salary officer” whose job will be to liaise with the business owners that keep an account with the branch. The officers and the business owners will meet from time to time to review and to set a monetary value for the work done by each class of workers below the managerial level, be they blue collar workers or white collar ones. Thus, having a wage level and a salary level set for each class of employees, the timekeepers and the bookkeepers in every company will do the math each week and issue the checks.

The Council of Elders also decided that the launch of the auto plant should mark the start of the Planet's industrial age and be the point at which they will begin to introduce changes to the system of governance. The aim will be to alter the culture and get the Planet closer to having a true democracy not a fake one, and to install an economic system that is free for everyone not only for the charlatans. The Elders met several more times and took up the business of writing down the principles that will guide the wage and salary officers when they sit with the business owners to determine the pay level of the various workers. They also wrote down the principles that will guide the heads of enterprises when they negotiate a compensation package with an applicant that seeks a position at the managerial level.

The Elders then discussed the overhauling of the system of financial institutions, and this is where the background of each of them played a role in determining how the discussion proceeded. Among the group, some were chief executive officers (CEOs) on Earth, some were bank managers and some were blue collar industrial workers. The focus of the discussion narrowed down to the definition of the role that ought to be played by the financial institutions. In this regard, the Elders decided that the central bank will divest itself of its branches so that the latter may go their separate ways and become a stand alone institution or merge with other institutions thus become the sort of bank they want to be. For example, they could turn themselves into a credit union, a small local bank, a household finance or an investment bank. And if they wanted, they could offer new services such as insurance or brokerage or anything financial.

This done, the Elders began an abstract philosophical discussion that touched on several subjects. They discussed the wage gap that existed in some places on Earth between the pay levels of those who determined their own compensation package and the pay levels of those whose income was set by someone else. They also discussed the subject of the gap that existed between the pay of the CEOs who run the financial institutions and the pay of their underlings. And they discussed a sticking point that took time to exhaust: the pay gap that existed between the auto assemblers and the CEOs of the financial institutions. To illustrate this last point, an elderly gentleman told of his own experience on Earth, a story that set the tone as to how the rest of the discussion proceeded.

He said he dropped out of high school. He started to work at the age of 16 as a material handler in a factory that made car parts where he stayed for two years and learned a great deal about many industrial processes as well as life itself and what it takes to make it a success. He then worked for a car assembly plant where he assembled cars by day and went to school by night. Twelve years later he had been promoted to plant manager overseeing 3,000 workers, and had become the holder of a master's degree in business administration. He left the car assembly plant to work for an investment bank where he was promoted several times over the years to attain the position of CEO.

Betrayed by the hint of a guilty feeling, he told his fellow Elders with a heartfelt sadness that was evident in his voice about the time when he made 180 million dollars a year in salary, bonuses and perks for making not one decision that his secretary could not have made in her sleep. And he revealed that this sum of money was equal to the wages paid to the 3,000 workers at the car assembly plant when these people were making 60,000 dollars a year. And he went on to say that this was not the whole story because what happened after that was that the wages of these people were cut in half, a move that management asked for and the workers accepted to save the plant from bankruptcy and save the jobs because the plant was burning money faster than it was taking in. More than ever, he felt that a situation like this was so grotesque, it must never be allowed to happen on this Planet. By the time he was finished telling the story, the other Elders had adopted him in their hearts as their eminent Elder Statesman.

But how to prevent something like this from happening and still move toward the free market system that everyone agreed must be adopted? His answer was that given the nature of their society, it will be a while before a situation like this developed here. Thus, they had enough time to think about and to adopt a Constitution that will set the right balance between the work of the invisible hand of the marketplace and the heavy hand of the law. To this end, he put on the table a number of points which he invited them to think about and debate for as long as they needed to.

First, he said, we must accept that human beings will never devise a system so flawless that it can never fail. Second, because of that, it must be recognized that a Constitution is never a perfect document despite the adoption of amendments meant to improve on it. Third, it must be understood that the invisible hand of the marketplace is not a supernatural occurrence operating in a vacuum. Rather, it is a phenomenon that takes place inside the imperfect system we devise for it. Fourth, it should be possible to suspend any provision of the Constitution without having to amend it if and when a case comes up that may not be illegal but that the public regards as being grossly unfair. Fifth, when such a case comes up, a referendum will be called and voted on. If passed, the decision becomes a law to apply only in this one case without ever becoming a precedent to guide future cases.

To incorporate the philosophy of fairness into the culture, the Elders realized that they must start to ingrain into the consciousness of the population a number of principles. The most important of these being that if an individual is found to receive an income beyond what is reasonable, it does not mean that this person is above everyone else or that the situation cannot be changed. Rather, it should be viewed as a signal that the system has failed precisely because it was devised by human beings who are themselves imperfect and prone to failure. The natural thing to do under the circumstance is not to say that the invisible hand of the marketplace cannot be contradicted but to take the necessary measures that will allow reason to triumph over dogma and thus reverse the situation.

The Elders then shifted their attention to the fiscal and monetary principles that will guide the Planet to the future they had envisaged for it. After long debates, they reached a number of principles which they wrote down. First, in order to give everyone the chance to start their own enterprise, credit must remain easy at all time regardless of the inflationary pressures that may be evident. Second, to diminish the probability that inflation will rise, money will be lent only to the producers of goods or services, and to the consuming public. Third, although speculation will not be criminalized, it will be illegal to borrow money for the purpose. Measures will be introduced to detect such activities and prosecute the culpable. Fourth, if inflation rises anyway, money will be drained from the system by raising the taxes and not the interest rates. Fifth, those who are deemed to be a credit risk will not have to pay a higher interest rate when they borrow money. However, they may be asked to make higher payments at the beginning. But as long as they do not default, the payments they make will be reduced month after month so that when the loan is paid out, it would have cost them no more than anyone else.

When a number of years had passed and the system proved to work well on that far away Planet, the people on Earth asked for details with the view of duplicating it here. This is why NASA decided that the time had come to break to the world the news that a life sustaining planet existed out there. But this is not where the big drama is unfolding. It so happened that during the exchange of messages between Earth and the new Planet, it was determined that as long as America had the system, the Congress and the political class that it has, nothing good will come out of the attempt to duplicate the system here. For this reason, it was decided to round up the members of Congress and send them into a hellish sort of exile the way that the Reagan people wanted to do with the Soviet leaders.

Upon hearing this, the Elders of the Planet told of the moon around their planet that is about to leave its orbit and crash into the sun. They suggested tongue-in-cheek that maybe the moon could be packed with members of the Congress and the rest of them to then send them tumbling into a place as hot as hell itself. But on second thought, it was decided that because this is the Christmas season when people are supposed to be good to each other, it will be enough to pick one person to represent the entire political class of America, and send him alone to that hellish fate.

They studied the record and came up with the name of the GOP presidential wannabe Rick Perry who said the most outrageous thing so far. He said that the current President, Barack Obama had declared war on the Christian religion (including Christmas) when in fact, he was the one to sell his soul to the Jewish organizations like a shameless low life, criminally insane male hooker. These were the organizations that severely damaged Christmas, that plotted to kill it and that worked to replace it with Hanukah and the Festival of Lights when they were caught red handed and stopped at the last minute. I know this to be true because I was the one that stopped them.

Here is what happened. Some time during the mid-Nineties, it came to my attention a month or so before Christmas that building on the Bertolt Brecht play 'The Rise of Arturo Ui' in which a character said something to the effect that: The bastard may have been dealt with but the bitch that bore him is hot again, the Jewish organizations were preparing to blanket North America with the notion that: Something evil is lurking in the belly of the bitch on her way to Bethlehem. They wanted to signal by this campaign their extreme dislike of the Virgin Mary and of Jesus whose crucifixion has been causing them suffering for two thousand years.

The Jewish organizations were preparing this campaign while stressing in every way they could the need to do away with the word Christmas and to replace it with the word holiday. They also fought to ban the representation of Christian motifs in public places, especial baby Jesus, the holy family, the nativity scenes and the Christmas tree. And while savagely attacking those Christian symbols in every way they could, the Jewish organizations lobbied the US Congress to press the post office to issue a stamp bearing the menorah so as to celebrate the Jewish symbol which they were now associating with the Festival of Lights.

Upon learning of this plot, I alerted the world as to what was happening, and the Jewish organizations stopped doing what they were doing. But since these characters never drop for ever the evil they take up once, they changed their tactic and possessed the body of Rick Perry like a devil would do. And they got him to mouth their evil pronouncements for them.

There are those who say only a fire as hot as the sun will exorcise the evil spirits out of Rick Perry's body. If we put him on that moon and we let him crash into the sun, he may perish for ever or he may be set free of their hold on him. All we can do now is pray for him while they prey on him.

Time for me to take a vacation. Merry Christmas everyone and a happy New Year. See you next year.

The Economy Of Egypt In Perspective

2011-12-06T12:42:00.004-05:00

Another piece on the Egyptian economy and another apparent paradox that seems unsolvable. This time the article came under the title: “The Economic Threat to Egypt's Stability” and the subtitle; “Getting the economy back on its feet is as important for security as transferring power to civilian leadership.” Written by Dalibor Rohac, the article was published in the Wall Street Journal on December 6, 2011.

The two pieces of information that get you thinking are the following. First, there is this: “The country's debt-to-GDP ratio is close to 80%”. And then there is this: “The elephant in the room is ... the military, which controls … 40% of Egypt's economy...” Well, what is known at this time is that the economy of Egypt is humming at the yearly rate of 1.5 trillion Egyptian Pounds (EP). The debt being 80% of this value, it amounts to 1.2 trillion EP. But if the military -- which is supposed to be the invisible elephant in the room -- represents 40% of the economy, it means that the 1.5 trillion value represents only 60% of the “real” economy. In turn, this means that the economy comes up to 2.5 trillion EP. If this is the case, then the 1.2 trillion debt comes to only 48% of the GDP; a far cry from the 80% mentioned earlier. But what is going on that would create a discrepancy like this?

This is a simple question that merits a simple answer. It is this: “When it comes to evaluating the wealth of nations, everything is done wrong.” If it were not, we would not be in the situation we are today, a situation where we are hit by a surprise each and every day. Who but a lunatic would have dared to predict a decade ago that a good part of Europe will be teetering on bankruptcy or that the Chinese will be buying more cars than the Americans? Yes, there is wisdom in the saying: “Figures do not lie but liars can figure.” And when on top of this, the liars you listen to and rely upon don't even know what they are lying about, you find yourself swimming in a pool that has become a big mess. And what can be bigger than America's indebtedness to China, its new arch-rival, and like the situation in Europe?

Money may or may not be at the root of all evil like goes a famous saying. But when it comes to evaluating the wealth of nations and you base the evaluation on the output of a country as measured by money, you definitely go to the root of the erroneous findings that you will be making, and the root of the bad conclusions that you will be reaching. And there are reasons for this; it is that when (a) you have several markets, each of which changes its “fair value” by the very transactions that take place within it; when (b) the transactions that take place do so based on the law of “supply and demand”; and when (c) you “mark to market” what you believe is the output of the nation you are evaluating -- you are bound to make the mistakes that will hurt you more than anyone else because you will be the one to use the false information, and make decisions based on that.

Let us take an example to see what all of this means. Like everywhere else in the world, the value of Egypt's currency as compared to the other currencies is determined in the local markets by the people who have a stake exchanging currencies. But who in Egypt has a stake exchanging the Pound with other currencies back and forth? Well, the people who buy goods or services from abroad do exchange the Pound for say, the American dollar given that the latter is the most liquid currency in the world. On the other hand, the people in Egypt who sell goods or services abroad and get paid in dollars, do exchange the latter for Egyptian pounds. And of course, there is the Central Bank of Egypt whose mandate is to maintain price stability for the goods and services produced locally as well as those which are imported because they too have an impact on the local prices. Hence the need to maintain the exchange rate between the currencies as stable as possible which is what the Central Bank does by buying and selling the Dollar; i.e. by artificially manipulating the supply-demand equation.

This is simple enough but who are the Egyptians that buy goods or services from abroad? They are mostly the importers of raw material that Egypt does not produce enough of. They are the base metals and some food staples such as wheat and sugar. The country also imports high end production machinery for its factories as well as sophisticated equipment for its hospitals and laboratories. And although Egypt has the potential to build enough cars to satisfy the local market and export some, it imports twice as many cars as it produces and exports almost none. The reason is competition from abroad and policies that were put in place long ago. All in all, the price tab for these imports comes up to 60 billion dollars a year.

As to the exports, Egypt receives a great deal of money from services it exports such as tourism, the Suez Canal, the Suez-Mediterranean (SUMED) pipeline and the remittance from expatriates. It also exports agricultural products, processed foods, medicine, some metals and minerals, manufactured goods such as car parts (but not fully assembled cars), textiles, furniture, appliances, electronic equipment and a great deal of petrochemical products such as plastics, fertilizers and insecticides. All in all, the price tab for these exports comes up to a little more than 60 billion dollars a year. And this gives the country a small surplus which allows it to build up a reserve of foreign currencies.

If we ignore the inflow and the outflow of capital, we see that because there is a rough balance between the imports and the exports, the Central Bank of Egypt does not have much of a problem keeping the value of the EP stable in relation to the dollar. But then, what should be the real value of the EP? It is currently valued at about 6 pounds to the dollar or a little under 17 cents. Is this a fair value or is it unfair? Whatever the answer to this question, it is here that you open a Pandora's box from which you can pull any myth you desire. But there is the reality that to determine a rate of exchange between two currencies, you must have a point of reference against which the two are compared. That is, you need a mark-to-market operation that can be applied equally to both currencies. And it is here where the problem begins.

Look how things work out. If you are an Egyptian living and working in Egypt, you can buy an average condominium apartment for 150,000 EP. If you are an American living and working in America, you can buy a similar apartment for 150,000 dollars. You determine that the fair value for the Egyptian Pound should be parity. That is, one EP should be exchanged for one dollar. You now look at something else: In Egypt, you buy a loaf of pita bread for one piaster which is a hundredth of an EP or 0.17 US pennies. In America, you would pay at least 17 cents for a similar loaf. And this puts the value of the EP at 17 dollars believe it or not. So now, you look at yet another example: In Egypt you buy a car for 150,000 pounds whereas in America you would pay 25,000 dollars for a similar car which puts the exchange rate at 6 EP for a dollar; the value that is currently set by the market. And you ask yourself: which is the real EP? Is it the one that exchanges for 17 cents? Or the one that exchanges for a dollar, or the one that exchanges for 17 dollars?

How does all this help us understand what is happening in Egypt, and help us determine what might unfold in the current circumstances as compared to what Dalibor Rohac says might happen? In fact, he takes up three points. The first is the balance of payment which he says has come close to a crisis. The second is the debt-to-GDP ratio which he says is getting worse as shown by a deficit that will reach 9% of GDP. And this is happening, he says, because of a system of subsidies that is neither sustainable nor fair. And the third point he brings out is the matter of the military's control of a large chunk of the economy.

We can simplify the matter considerably when we view an emerging economy such as that of Egypt as being made of two parts. There is the part that functions as if the rest of the world did not exist; and we call it the internal economy. It can be stagnating or it can be growing organically as if it were experiencing an industrial revolution of its own. It has a currency that is divorced from the rest of the world, one whose value is determined in relation to the amount of the locally produced goods and services that the currency can buy. The other part of the economy is the business which is transacted in foreign currencies; and we call it the external economy. As long as the inflow and the outflow of foreign currencies remain in balance, there will be no spillage between the two parts. But if not, the internal economy will be impacted by the external economy. However, the smaller the population of the country, the more that the external economy will affect the internal one. A small surplus or deficit will swing the economy considerably one way or the other.

Because Egypt has a large population, a drop in the inflow of foreign currencies will have a small impact on the country's ability to grow the internal economy. When this happens, Egypt may have to postpone buying some of the equipment it usually buys or it may have to curtail the importation of foreign cars for a while but this will do little to dampen the economic activity of the nation. Thus, the GDP can still grow at a clip that prompted Rohac to write the following: “Before the revolution … the IMF once called Egypt an 'emerging success story' for its impressive growth rates.” When things stabilize in Egypt, that performance can be repeated.

Also, if we believe that the debt-to-GDP ratio is smaller than the purported 80% which is most probably the case, and if the country will go back to the high growth rate it used to score which will most probably happen, then the problem of subsidies will become manageable as it has been managed for several decades.

A revolution is a tough period for a country to go through. Egypt is going through one now. But this is a country that has been around since the beginning of recorded history. It lived through all sorts of hardships and survived them all, coming out of each of them stronger and more resilient than ever before. Egypt will do so again; I am confident of that.

Eunuchs On The Prowl Seeking An Orgasm

2011-12-03T19:50:00.000-05:00

In a piece that was published in the New York Times on November 30, 2011 under the title: “U.S. Policy on Egypt Needs a Big Shift”, Marc Lynch and Steven Cook make themselves look like two desperate eunuchs bursting out the door and going on the prowl to look for something – anything at all -- that will give them an orgasm the way things used to be prior to their castration. But who are these people and what do they do exactly as they search for the fabled orgasmic experience? Well, these two and others like them are a subset among a set of people who make a good living teaching about foreign affairs in the colleges and the universities. In addition to their teaching duties, the members of the subset seek to give advice to the government on how it should conduct its foreign policy. To do this, they engage in extra-curricular activities such as writing in the various publications that open their pages to them, and by speaking on the radio, on television and in the halls where they are sometimes invited to speak to a live audience.

Now called pundits and talking heads, these people were originally spurred to come down their ivory towers by a Vietnam War that was going from bad to worse, especially the so-called “Pentagon Speak” that confused the public and got it to ask for someone trustworthy to come and explain in simple language what was happening to them and to their society. The pundits came out of their hiding places and did a satisfactory job explaining the unexplained. The Watergate Scandal then broke and these people received a shot in the arm that made them indispensable to the media outlets. Thus, they became a permanent feature of the landscape where they remained for three decades before their profile was suddenly raised to a much higher level. It is that they gathered power and influence by advising Uncle Sam to turn himself into a swaggering stud as if endowed with an elephant size golden tool; and waving it like a threatening sword at a world that was increasingly becoming insolent and disobedient.

To a public that was told it should feel humiliated by the defeat in Vietnam, this was a welcome display of America's rising power and influence in the world. But when the country's back was broken in Iraq, the American people began to realize that the advice had come from the Jewish organizations whose interest was to serve Israel at the expense of their country. The people of America then turned against the media that brought them the advisers of bad advice, and this is how the pundits and the talking heads were made to bear the cross of America's second defeat. Castrated, they were made to relinquish their golden tool, and could not even replace it with a wooden piece; and so they wore the mantle of has-been stud. This is how they became the eunuchs who lost the ability to have the orgasm they used to enjoy. And this is why they are going out on the prowl trying to regain their lost glory and the pleasure that goes with it.

What they do more than anything else, however, is justify their existence by warning of an upcoming apocalypse that never comes, then advise the US government on how to avoid it. This is what you see Lynch and Cook do in the first paragraph of their article: “Washington should not be fooled by the peace that has returned to Egyptian streets.” But how is Washington fooled? Here is how they say things are happening: “The U.S. State Department ... has called on S.C.A.F. [Supreme Council of the Armed Forces] to transfer power … That is a good start, but is not enough.” But why is it not enough? This is how they respond: “Egypt's military rulers clearly believe that...” Wow! Did you get this, my friend? The two authors are Americans who could not tell you what goes on inside the head of their American compatriots in Washington yet, they “clearly” see what goes on inside the head of Egypt's leaders. What pompous assholes, these things are!

As if there is not enough pomposity in the claim that they figured out Egypt's rulers, they now tell you they figured out what the entire Egyptian population will do in the future. Here is how they accomplish this: “The violence last week … has created the conditions under which even small problems and challenges can spark massive instability. And has shown that Washington's ... approach to Egypt … must change.” Thus, they tell what the people of Egypt will do and they use this to say that America's attitude toward Egypt must change to avoid a looming apocalypse. This means they are advocating the remake of Uncle Sam's golden tool to wield it again like a threatening sword. And this is how they hope to shed the cross of defeat and start once again to enjoy the orgasmic experience of being influential.

They want this so badly, in fact, that they use both reverse psychology and forward psychology to goad the Obama administration to listen to them. Look at the supreme craftiness they employ in this passage: “...the Obama administration has done better … than most critics recognize … [Its] approach … worked, but it has lowered America's status in the eyes of many Egyptians.” What they hope to accomplish here is to make the government practice world diplomacy in the open so that they can participate in the process and highjack it by the sheer weight of their numbers and by their ability to hound the administration to go the way they choose for it. Their secret desire is to duplicate what the Congress has done when it snatched foreign policy from the hands of the executive branch, turning it into a tool to sell America short and boost the interests of Israel.

Lynch and Cook continue to play the double-edged psychological game. This time, they do it this way: “Until this week, arguments could be made either way on the balance between private influence and public pressure ... The U.S. was virtually silent as ... U.S.-made tear gas bombarded Tahrir Square. Only after a few days did it muster a demand for restraint ... Washington has toughened its language in recent days ... But few Egyptians even noticed ...This cautious ... response has done ... damage to ... Obama’s ... efforts to place the United States on the side of Arabs who want ... democratic societies. It is time for ... Obama ... to rise to the moment ... and shift its focus.”

Do you now see the problem that prompted our friends to act? It was the Egyptian people who did not “even notice” what must have been too subtle for them to notice. The moral of this story is that things must be made much clearer for the Egyptians to notice -- like perhaps hitting them on the head with a two-by-four. But in case this will not be sufficient to convince the administration to do things differently, Lynch and Cook resort to the use of the old style twisting of the arm. That is, they invoke the power of the precedent. It should be said that in America where the Common Law is practiced, the precedent has a quasi-judicial force even when it is invoked in matters that have nothing to do with the law. Thus, when the authors say: “The events of the last week … are not the only compelling reason for a policy change,” they signal that they have an argument with the force of law to throw in Obama's face. And here is that infamous argument unedited:

“The administration has articulated a new standard of legitimacy in its responses to Libya and Syria, among other countries, that leaders who use violence against their own people forfeit their standing to rule. Although Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi and his officers are hardly in the same category as Muammar el-Qaddafi and Bashar al-Assad, the same standard should apply to Egypt.”

Now that our two authors have put their foot down, they feel that the time has come to tell in a nutshell what exactly they want the President to do. This is how they tell it: “The Obama administration's response should begin with a clear, public presidential statement … Washington should put the Egyptian military … on notice … [what] is unacceptable.” There is no mincing of the words here because the authors gave themselves the authority to speak with authority as to what presidential statement the president must issue – in public this time, of course. Understand this? In public this time. And what the presidential statement must contain is a notice to the Egyptian military as to what is acceptable and what is not. Get it, Obama? You have your marching orders, now march.

These people believe they have so much under their belt already that they feel confident enough and feel not the least bit ashamed to openly ask for something that is already happening all by itself; their intent being to take credit for what someone else has achieved. Look what these characters have written: “In addition, Washington should now throw its weight behind early presidential elections, a demand shared by virtually all Egyptian political forces and which the S.C.A.F. recently agreed to under pressure.” And of course, the menu of demands extends well beyond these points, but who wants to waste time reading them anyway? Not me.

By the time you have accomplished all this on paper and have it in your head also, you feel you are as good as a god, and so you behave like one. How you do that, you ask? Well, you pretend to yourself that the Egyptian people who did the revolution did not rely on themselves alone when they acted. This gives you the right to take the revolution to its ultimate conclusion, which authorizes you to get involved and commandeer it to where you feel it ought to go. How do you do that, you ask? Well, our two characters knew how to do it. Like two shameless dogs having sex in public, they wrote the following to end a piece of trash they believe is an article worth publishing in a prestigious publication:

“Egypt is now entering months of elections that hold out the promise of delivering the democratic system that Egyptians want and deserve. Now is the time for Washington to push Egypt’s military leaders to make the political changes needed to deliver on that hope.”

But will one of these two or both get the orgasm they have been seeking? I don't care. Do you?

Clichés And Stereotypes That Refuse To Die

2011-12-01T00:10:00.000-05:00

Fouad Ajami has tried for years to interpret the Arab World to his English readers but has, in my view, failed deplorably. I thought I knew the reason why but am now more confused than ever because he is offering a reason of his own, one that differs markedly from what I thought. He says: “Egyptian history plays tricks with its interpreters.” Yes, my friend, he is blaming it on Egypt. He does this in an article he published in the Wall Street Journal on November 29, 2011 under the title: “Egypt and the Fruits of the Pharaohs” and the subtitle: “The disorder in Cairo is not the result of democracy but rather of a half-century of authoritarianism.” But Egypt is not the entire Arab world, so how can he single out one country and be correct? Could it be that he is wrong today the way that he has been wrong all those years? It seems we have a conundrum here; so let us probe into it.

Right after he accuses history of trickery, Ajami calls Egypt: “This ancient society” then talks about: “Egypt's peasant society” which prompts you to wonder if he believes Egypt has been a peasant society throughout its history -- the ancient part and the modern part of a very long history. If this is what he believes, I have news for him: It is generally accepted that even if the industrial age did not officially start until 250 years ago, the backbone of the Industrial Revolution was put in place nearly 5,000 years ago. This happened the moment that industrial production in the style of the assembly line was launched to manufacture the thousands upon thousands of blocks of granite that were assembled into pyramids – those that have been discovered already and those that are buried under the sand waiting to be discovered.

Ajami then goes on to say that Egypt: “...has been prone to violent upheavals. Order has often hung by a thread, as a proud people alternate between submission and rebellion … We are now in the midst of one of these alternations.” And he says this without giving a single example from the past to illustrate his point. But if you feel uneasy about the way that he came to this conclusion, you also feel intrigued enough by the premise of his thesis that you look forward to seeing it expanded. Sadly, however, he disappoints you when he fails to do so. In fact, instead of elucidating the point that could have merit, he relies on the warn out method of recycling old clichés and stereotypes; most of which are patently false, even libelous.

After that, he takes a few paragraphs to make it sound like Egypt's revolution is different from all the others in consequence of: “...a half-century of authoritarianism. The [current] lawlessness issue out of the lawlessness of the former regime. As crony capitalism had its way ... the officer corps, had to be given its share of the loot.” And this is where you despair because you see that not only he failed to elucidate ideas of his own, he is also borrowing a style of writing that aims to criticize Egypt for doing on a small scale the bad things that other countries do on a much larger scale. And this is an approach that has always been used by the propaganda machine in charge of attacking Egypt. In this instance, Ajami tries to convince the readers that crony capitalism is an Egyptian peculiarity, a system of economics that exists nowhere else.

Even with all this, and for a brief moment, you still want to forgive the man because you think that perhaps he is too busy watching the political developments in the Middle East to check on the economies of the other regions in the world where crony capitalism flourishes in places like the good old USA, the BRIC nations and many other places where their crony capitalism makes that of Egypt look like a socialist utopia. But Ajami surprises you by taking an entire paragraph to mention a few economic numbers that add to your puzzlement. More will be said about this in a moment but first, notice that he goes from that paragraph to the next where he says the following: “This is not the legacy of Tahrir Square but of the 1952 military coup … Nasser … Sadat … Mubarak had … secured obedience through a defective command economy riddled with cronyism.” And this is where he blows your mind. It is that you have a hard time trying to reconcile the idea of a crony command economy and a crony capitalism coexisting in one place at the same time.

We now look at the paragraph where he mentions those economic numbers. He says this: “...Egypt was living dangerously, running through its financial reserves at an alarming rate. Tourism, 10% of GDP, has ground to a halt ,,, the country has wheat reserves of around six months, and cooking oil, sugar and rice supplies that can only see the country through another three months.” Well, let me begin by discussing the matter of food reserves. First, Egypt is an exporter of rice, so I fail to see why it is on this list at all. Second, no country in the world is self sufficient in everything, and neither is Egypt. While the country exports rice, fruits, vegetables, seafood, spices, cut flowers and cotton, it only produces 60% to 80% of the wheat, cooking oil and sugar it consumes, and thus needs to import the balance of these staples.

The record also shows that during some years, Egypt bought more food than it sold; and there were years when it sold more than it bought. In general, however, the country has scored a trade surplus year after year, and this is how it was able to build up a reserve of foreign currencies. The purpose of having such reserves in Egypt and elsewhere is to use them when the country is hit with unexpected hard times, and having a revolution certainly qualifies as being hard times. This is why the country's currency reserves were seen to diminish for a while before they stabilized. In fact, nothing of what happened here is spectacularly out of the ordinary except for what goes on inside the head of the people who wish it was otherwise -- whatever their motives may be.

And like everyone else, Egypt has silos and warehouses where agricultural products are stored. These places are closely monitored; and a report is issued on a monthly basis indicating how much of what they hold is left in them, how much of it is on order from local suppliers and from abroad, how much is on ships sailing toward the country and on ships at the harbor being unloaded. And there is here a point that everyone who writes about economic matters needs to know even if they only write about them in passing. It is this: To have reserves of a commodity for 3 months is ample; to have reserves for 6 months is huge. In fact, this was the first time that Egypt's reserve in wheat had reached the 6 months level. The revelation was a reassuring piece of information not a cause for alarm like Ajami has tried to make it sound.

Let me now take up the subject of tourism and the contribution that the industry makes to the GDP of the country. I begin with this question: Do you believe that someone going through a leisurely day, spending all their time sightseeing and consuming food and drinks, can create 8 times as much economic activity as when they work to produce goods or services that other people would buy? If you answered no, you are on your way to understanding why it is that to say tourism represents 10% of Egypt's economy is to talk rubbish. To see this clearly, you only need simple mathematics and you will understand the example below where I use round figures to make things easy.

The number of foreign tourists who visited Egypt in the last full year before the revolution of 2011 was about 12 million tourists, each of which stayed an average of 10 days in the country. This comes to 120 million person/days which you divide by the 365 days of the year to find that on any given day, there were about 330,000 tourists staying in Egypt. Each day a batch of 33,000 new ones came into the country while 33,000 others left, having stayed in the country for 10 days. These people do sightseeing, eating, drinking and maybe shop for souvenirs also. If you say that these activities represent 10% of the country's economy, it means that 10 times as many tourists or 3.3 million of them being in the country at any time, would create as much economic activity as the entire workforce of Egypt which happens to number 27 million people.

What you do now is divide 27 million by 3.3 million to get the ratio 8, an important number. What it means is that a tourist doing nothing more than eat, drink and be merry creates as much economic activity as 8 working people who may be in the field producing food and cotton, or in the desert mining metals and minerals, or in the factories producing cars and home appliances, or in commercial buildings running a bank or running an insurance company -- and so on and so forth a few million times. Well, my friend, if there exists a place in this world where consumption creates 8 times as much economic activity as production, we should all go there and solve our economic problems once and for all. Alas, there is no place like this anywhere because this is only an optical illusion that was created by people who do not know what they are talking about.

In addition to that -- in case you haven't noticed -- I neglected to take into account the activities generated by the 84 million Egyptians who are the country's consumers. Along with the 330,000 tourists, they too eat, drink and shop for the goods and services produced by the 27 million in the workforce. In reality, therefore, we have here not one ratio but two of them. There is the ratio of 8 we know about, and there is the ratio of 25.5 which you obtain when you divide 84 million by 3.3 million. This means that one consuming tourist generates as much as 8 working people and 25.5 local consumers put together. And what all this adds up to is that we have here what looks like a paradox but really is not. In fact, this is only an apparent discrepancy that can easily be explained. However, this is something that will have to be done in another context at another time.

So then, if you are Fouad Ajami, what do you do after you've made miracles and created optical illusions rivaling the legendary Fantasy Island? Why, there is only one thing to do; you speculate about the gloomy times that promise to mar the future of Egypt. And here is how our esteemed author does it: “The way out of Egypt's impasse is a flawed electoral process … A staggered election … began … and despite expected fraud and intimidation...” By now you are just about ready to give up reading, waiting only for the coup de grace to come and finish off the adventure you started when you chose to read the article. But as surely as there is a Wall Street Journal willing to publish fantasy under the rubric of reality, Fouad Ajami obliges and delivers the coup de grace you have been waiting for.

And here is how he does that. He begins by telling you something that sounds important: “Revolutions always return to their moments and places of brilliance and clarity.” Oh what a nice surprise, you say to yourself, because you always wanted to know if there was something brilliant or clear about a revolution. But expecting him to redeem himself and to brighten your day, you find him saying this instead: “...the protesters returned to Tahrir Square, and in confrontations with the police, 40 people were killed and untold hundreds were wounded.” And this is where you let out a scream of horror that shakes the buildings all around you. And you follow the scream with this puzzled question: Did he just describe as brilliant and clear the death of 40 people and the wounding of hundreds of others? You give up. You don't know what to think anymore except that this man did not brighten your day. He did something else instead; something so horrifying it cannot be described with words.

From there, Ajami goes on to mention a few selected passages out of Egypt's modern history with the purpose of frightening the readers about a political party called the Muslim Brotherhood. And this is an idea that has generated a great deal of fuss in America; fuss that is fed with clichés and stereotypes, themselves concocted to maintain the relationship between Christianity and Islam in a state of perpetual agony. This is how the aim of the Jewish organizations are served, and this is how the ambition of their leaders are fulfilled.

What Fouad Ajami is doing is not interpret the Arab World to English audiences; what he does is enforce the distorted picture that those audiences have of the Arabs. Whether he does what he does deliberately or does it inadvertently is not important because if he didn't know it then, he knows it now and he is not changing.

The Hate Machine Spreading The Hate

2011-11-26T16:27:00.000-05:00

November 25, 2011 was a remarkable day because it looked like Jurassic Park was coming to life again. On that day, an apparition occurred on the pages of the Wall Street Journal, a happening that revealed to the skeptics that the dinosaurs are still with us both in the form of preserved DNA from which they can be reproduced, and in the form of ideas vibrating a brand of democracy that belongs more to the Stone Age than to our Tablet Age of digital communication. It was on that day that Mortimer Zuckerman published an article in the Journal under the title: “How America Can Escape the Energy Trap” and the subtitle: “Soaring natural gas production has already cut the share of oil consumption met by imports to 47% last year from 60% in 2005.”

At the beginning of the article, the author asks two questions, the first being this: “Can America escape the energy trap?” to which he gives this answer: “... yes and no … we can achieve a degree of energy security … but only if we can sort out our priorities.” Before giving the answer, however, he asks a second question: “Must our lives and security be forever held hostage to the vagaries of the political power in the Middle East oil states?” And you recognize this as being an attempt at motivating the reader to accept a set of priorities he is about to discuss in detail. And, in fact, such attempt is what the rest of the article is made of.

The feeling that you get when you read the article is the same feeling you would have gotten had you red the previous articles he published in the Journal. It is that being the owner of several publications, he has a research department that will quickly gather for him the information he needs on any subject. His problem, however, is that he will do a bad job putting it all together, and a worse job drawing what could be the obvious conclusions. Why is that, you ask? The simple answer is that the man is of such character he has a personal set of priorities that make up the prism through which he sees the world. And this prism is so colored and so deformed, it makes him see the world in a way that is both selfish and divorced from reality.

There is no doubt that Zuckerman is wealthy but when you hear him talk about his wealth, you cannot help but get the sense that he exaggerates the value of his net worth. The man is also influential but when you read what he writes, you cannot help but get the sense that he has an exaggerated view of the power of his ideas. To put it differently, the man is full of it but he takes himself too seriously to know it. In addition, he is one of those Jews who believe they have what it takes to reach out and realize any dream they hold in the mind. The reality, however, is that when it comes to execution, these people often chicken out at the last minute fearing to lose what they have accomplished so far. Thus, when their greedy side kicks in, you hear them talk about what they plan to do, but then the fearful side kicks in and they end up doing much less than they signal beforehand.

While these are the character traits that motivate Mortimer Zuckerman, he can be motivated by other realities as well. Even though he does not appear to be a religious man, people think of him as a strong supporter of Israel, and there is a good reason for this. It is that most wealthy Jews maintain charitable organizations in America where they shelter some of their money from taxes. A good part of this money is then sent to Israel, a country they use as an offshore tax haven. They may invest the money in Israel itself or they may use the country as a base out of which they invest in the countries of the region or in countries beyond that. Thus, to the group of wealthy Jews who may or may not be religious, Israel is a business opportunity they will do what they can to keep open and keep it viable because it serves their bank accounts more than anything else.

There was a time, in fact, when Zuckerman was chairman of the Conference of Presidents grouping the big and wealthy Jewish organizations in America. It was then that he was accused of being too pro-Israel and too much a supporter of the other Jewish causes, an accusation to which he responded with a metaphor. The remarkable thing is that he did not respond directly to the accusation but responded obliquely to the notion that the Jews who stick together and operate like a machine, have gained a disproportionate influence on the life of the country. Zuckerman said that he feels like the 92 year old man who was accused of impregnating a woman. The old man was so proud of being so accused at his age, he pleaded guilty as charged. Well, a response like this – being imbued with sexual connotation -- shows that Zuckerman means to say he is happy that the Jews are able to screw America so effectively, they can at any age impregnate it with their culture.

And given that these people never shy away from saying that their culture vibrates like a stiffened democracy, Zuckerman may have hinted that the old man of the metaphor was equipped with a mechanical vibrator when he impregnated the woman who may well represent the image of a fertile and laid back America. And this is typical of the smart Aleck remarks that he fires off every once in a while to say something that looks innocent on the surface but means something more than meets the eye. And while being 92 years of age does not exactly make someone a dinosaur, the methods that Zuckerman uses to motivate his readers make of him a creature of the Stone Age more than a creature of the Tablet Age.

So then, what is it that he is up to, you ask? Simply put, he wants to maintain and to fuel the artificial hatred that exists between the Arabs and the Americans which is something that was started by the Jewish organizations a long time ago and has been nurtured by them ever since. When they keep this hatred going, they maintain the status quo which suits the wealthy Jews just fine as they do business in Israel and around the world, financing their operations by sucking the blood of America's taxpayers. And they manage to do all this by working together with the traitors inside the American Congress who get a kick back come election time and they need financing for their own campaigns. This is what they call democracy at work; and to see how things are done under its umbrella, we need to analyze the premise upon which the Zuckerman article is based.

The fact is that America buys about 2 million barrels of oil a day from the Arabs which comes to something like 700 million barrels a year. It pays about 60 billion dollars for that because America pays the stable contract prices of about 80 dollars a barrel and not the volatile spot prices that can go up to 100 dollars or more. At the same time, however, America sells to the Arabs about a 100 billion dollars worth of services and of products that come mostly from the agricultural and the manufacturing sectors. To see how important this is, it can be stated that if America could duplicate this performance with the rest of the world, it would rise again to the glory days it enjoyed during the decades of the Fifties, Sixties and Seventies. The obvious conclusion is that contrary to what Zuckerman is spreading, the Arabs are not hurting the business of America; they are fueling it and they are recycling back to it the money they receive from it and from the rest of the world. It just cannot get any better than that for America.

And this is what is alarming the Jewish organizations. In their panic, they spread the lies and the hate, and they interfere with the relationship between America and the Arabs to get in the way of America doubling or even tripling its exports to the Arab countries, something it can do without having to buy anything more from them. Thus, instead of advocating the expansion of trade and cooperation with the Arabs for the sake of America, the Jewish organizations and such individuals as Mortimer Zuckerman are expending enormous amounts of energy to sabotage the efforts that could help America put its own people back to work in good paying jobs thus regain the position of economic superpower it used to occupy.

This is what is meant when someone says that Israel, the Jewish organizations and such individuals as Zuckerman are screwing America with the vibrating dildo of the mechanical democracy they concocted themselves from ancient recipes. To see what satanic powers this setup has acquired over the decades, we first need to recall that the early pundits and the commentators in the media and the think tanks used to be able to point out that the Jewish organizations were advocating policies and courses of action that served Israel and the Jewish causes to the detriment of America. The Jewish organizations responded by launching a savage campaign in which they accused those people of being motivated by antisemitism and nothing else.

Then, they followed up by fashioning a remedy which they enshrined in a decree they issued to the effect that everyone has the right to criticize a policy or a course of action advocated by them but people must refrain from saying they serve Israel or the Jewish causes even if this is true and obviously so. And everyone that wanted to keep their job were so coerced into obeying the decree. And now, my friend, you see that in order to incite the readers to hate the Arabs, Zuckerman writes that American life and security are held hostage by the politics of the Middle East oil states when in reality, this is so false, it is readily demonstrated that America is conducting the healthiest form of commercial exchanges with the Arabs. And this kind of inversion of the facts is nothing but the satanic expression of Judaism when it is at its worst.

All in all, Zuckerman cited no new facts in his article, and he brought no new ideas or new insights to the debate. Nothing in what he said will help America move an inch closer toward energy independence or help its economy improve one iota. His researchers have simply assembled the already known facts, and he rehashed the old ideas pertaining to the Jewish need to keep the Arabs and the Americans apart so as to serve Israel and the other Jewish causes. And he did all this knowing full well that it will hurt America more than the Arab countries or anyone else on the planet.

This article is a treacherous stab at the heart of America, and its author is Mortimer Zuckerman.

The Eunuch's Advice On Being A stud

2011-11-22T11:51:00.000-05:00

A metaphor that can help explain the behavior of the eunuch is that of the motivated parasite. You become aware of this when you follow the drama now playing in America with regard to the developments unfolding in the Middle East. You see the Jewish organizations representing parasitic Israel frantically stir the pot as they sense that the Arabs are fighting their way toward a promising future while Israel is slumping toward a barren existence, having depleted America's reservoir of testosterone while protecting Israel's right to rape those who cannot defend themselves.

Because Israel does not have the element of surprise on its side anymore, it cannot play the role of the rapist stud it used to play. This makes it feel diminished in its own eyes and makes it look like the eunuch who used to be a stud in the eyes of others. As to the Jewish organizations, they are stirring things up in a desperate attempt to alter the calamitous outcome they sense will befall Israel. To do this, they are teaching America how to be a stud and they are pushing it to rescue Israel by temporarily taking on the role of rapist extraordinaire. To see how they do this, you need to know how the parasite behaves in real life.

Biologists will tell you that a parasite does not kill its host because it needs it alive to feed on it. But the way things are in matters concerning life and death is that an exception to the rule must exist in all cases; and so it does in the case of the parasites. What we need to know about this newly discovered area is that the Jewish parasite can feed on a host only when the latter begins the process of dying and of decaying. In fact, when this happens, the pace of feeding accelerates to keep up with the speeding rate of decay. And if the process of dying does not start on its own, the Jewish parasite will inject into the body an agent that starts the process and keeps it going till the host becomes effectively lifeless. And while the Jew is feeding on the current host to its heart's content, it looks for a new host to which it will transfer and start a new cycle when the current body will have reached the end of its own cycle.

America is the current host on which the Jewish parasite is feeding. Sensing that the process of decay is beginning to accelerate, it is feeding voraciously to sustain itself and prepare for the next cycle. To this end, it is using the good standing of America in the world to secure a new destination for itself as it can see the day when America will have been completely depleted. The unexpected difficulty, however, has been that the parasite found itself using an enormous amount of energy to find a new destination and prepare it for itself because doing so has become a much tougher undertaking than ever before. It used to be easy for the Jews to transfer from one host to another where they were received with open arms because the world considered them a positive addition to any society. But given the behavior exhibited by Israel in the last few decades, and given what has come to light about the activities of Jewish individuals in every corner of the globe, the nations of the world now feel trepidation when asked to take-in those Jews who look for a new place to call home.

Moreover, the people of the world see that the Jews already have Israel; the result of a dream they have realized after centuries of yearning about a place they can call a home of their own. And so the people ask this simple question: If they already possess what they have sought, what more do they want? In fact, when you ask them the question directly, they give you a direct answer. But when you look at their actions on the ground, you cannot help but read into them a set of answers that differ from the one they vocalized. They will tell you they want security but what you see them do is threaten the security of their neighbors. You see them do this not in subtle ways but do it overtly to communicate to the neighbors and to the world that they have the power to harm anyone they wish to harm. In fact, they want the world to know that they can get away with anything they do because they have the weight of the American superpower behind them -- the host on whose body they feed like a parasite; the host whose brain they control like only a virus can take control of a brain.

To feed on the body of a nation, whether it is tiny or it is a superpower, you first need to control its brain. To accomplish this, you need to have a compelling narrative that no one can challenge. But a narrative such as this would sound like a fantasy, the reason why it is nearly impossible to put one together about the ordinary mortals that we all are. So then, what do you do if you are a Jewish organization seeking to control the brain of America? Well, what you do is begin by eliminating every possible challenger to your own narrative. When you do this, your narrative stands as the absolute truth even if it is no more than a fantasy. But could something like this be done in America, the oldest democracy on Earth where speech is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be suppressed? Yes, it could. It could precisely because America was a functioning democracy which may or may not be the case anymore.

In fact, taking democracy for granted not knowing how fragile it can be when eternal vigilance is not there to defend it, the American people and their representatives failed to detect the lethal effect that the Jewish influence was having on their most cherished of concepts: the free flow of ideas in the marketplace of ideas. First, they resisted the notion that a blockage to the flow of information was forming, let alone a blockage that can grow and become a serious threat to their system of governance. Second, they rejected the idea that the blockage, if any, could be caused by the Jewish virus of authoritarian control, something they did not even know existed. Third, they expected to see a counterpoint pushing against every point made but when no counterpoint came to push against the Jewish points, they concluded that none existed and thus accepted the Jewish narrative at face value. It was through this long, belabored and subtle process that the Jewish virus managed to take control of America's brain and get it to work for the benefit of Israel.

Measured by any standard, this accomplishment was a miracle that the Jewish leaders succeeded to pull off in America. They did it by quietly infiltrating the existing think tanks as well as the large media outlets, and by taking them over from the inside -- one tank at a time and one outlet at a time. They also created new think tanks and new outlets, and they got them all to work like viruses on America's brain. The Jewish leaders were able to do all this because they made use of the pogroms and the holocausts inflicted on Jews in the past to suppress every opposition to their fake narratives.

In fact, the Jewish organizations made it a priority to keep an eye on the individuals that showed signs they had the wherewithal to expose those fake narratives. They accused such people of being antisemitic; they shut them up and had them removed from the marketplace of ideas. But when they failed to scare off those among them who refused to disappear and go quietly into the night, the Jewish leaders blackmailed everyone else who could have worked with them. In the end, the Jews were able in the land of the First Amendment to make the amendment work for them, and make its use by someone else an application to go on the blacklist. How demonic! How satanic! How hellish! How so very Jewish!

So now, we know that the Jewish parasite is feeding on the body of America while the virus is reshaping the brain – both activities conducted to maintain the body and the brain in a posture subservient to the wish of the Jewish organizations. Given this, how in practical terms do these organizations manage to implement their plans? The best way to answer this question is to take two examples and analyze them. As it happens, there is an ongoing example, a good one to discuss because it represents the thoughts of a dozen or so think tanks, most of which are Jewish or Jewish dominated or Jewish influenced. They published a paper titled: “Conditioning Aid to Egyptian Military: A Statement by the Working Group on Egypt”. It was designed to work on the brains of the decision makers in America and was circulated among the media people in mid-November, 2011.

The authors begin the discussion like this: “Nearly ten months since the start of the Egyptian revolution, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) has yet to take basic steps towards establishing a human rights-respecting democratic, civilian government.” When someone innocent who knows little or nothing about the subject in discussion reads this passage, they automatically assume that “nearly ten months” must be a long time in a matter like this because the venerable think tankers have so hinted in their paper. But those of us who know that these are neither think tankers nor venerable but are worms that swim inside a network of septic tanks and raw sewage; we take what they say with a grain of salt and a good doze of cultural antibiotics.

We compare their latest statement with statements made in the past by them or by similar groups. This was a time when they tried to convince the public that ten years (not ten months) were a short period of time for a country like Iraq to become a true democracy. They justified their argument by citing the fact that following its own revolution and the civil war, it took America a much longer time to whip up anything that was worth calling a democracy. But the ever present low life lunatics of the Jewish think tanks have now decreed that Egypt must whip up a true democracy in a shorter period of time or face the consequences.

What consequences are they talking about? Well, knowing what came at the start of the first paragraph, we go see what comes at the end of it to find out what these people have in mind. Here is that passage: “The U.S. should ... support ... a ... democratic transition … and use all the leverage it has … including the placing of conditions on future aid to the Egyptian military.” This is what it's all about, my friend. By hook or by crook, the Jewish organizations want to establish control over the Egyptian military for the benefit of Israel as indeed, they would seek to do with any other military if given the same opportunity. But how in practice would they do that? This is a more complicated thing to achieve, and you get an answer to the question at the very end of their article. They give you the answer by first saying that conditions must be placed on what they call the American military aid to Egypt; and then say this: “The United States Congress should adopt these conditions, and the Obama administration should welcome then.”

In fact, these conditions were written into bills now circulating in the US Congress, say the tankers. And so I invite you, my friend, to think about this: The Congress we're talking about is the same institution that is so paralyzed, it is unable to rescue America as the world watches with jaws dropped while the nation is dissolving before its eyes. And the super-committee that was formed to pull a rabbit out of the hat turned out to be a super farce with the Star of David stamped all over it by an Eric Cantor who is Netanyahu's man in the US Congress. Thus, what the Jewish vermin is saying to America is that it should stop working for itself and turn its attention to Egypt where things are happening that may not work in favor of Israel.

But Egypt is not Israel's only problem; the whole world is. And this leads to the notion that along with Egypt, the entire world must be fixed to suit the needs of Israel. To do this, new advice has come from the Jewish controlled media outlets such as the Wall Street Journal where its most fanatic writer, Bret Stephens, has written a column in which he tells the Republican presidential hopefuls who will be debating tonight (November 22, 2011) how to transform America into a surrogate stud that will rape the world for Israel while waiting for the latter to grow back the tools that make the stud-rapist all that he can be.

The title of the Stephens column is: “The GOP's Foreign Policy Debate: A Cheat Sheet,” and the subtitle is this: “The notion that the 21st century must be an American one isn't a cliché, especially when the alternative is China.” After a few paragraphs of small talk -- perhaps to give the impression that he holds moderate views -- he writes the following: “Let's … remember what our national security owes to immigrant scientists like Albert Einstein and Edward Teller.” The first is the scientist who, while still in Europe, put into a mathematical equation the relationship that exists between mass an energy; that which is at the basis of the nuclear weapon. The second is the nuclear physicist who, contrary to the views of the pacifist Einstein, advocated the vast expansion of America's nuclear arsenal as a way to “bludgeon” the Soviet Union if it should come to that.

Having said that, Stephens follows up a little later on with this: “Reagan knew better. He didn't mind being hated by the nuclear-freeze crowd in Western Europe … He won concessions from the Soviet Union by building up the military … He didn't seek a global consensus to liberate Grenada or bomb Libya.” The choice of words and the way that the ideas are formulated in this passage give the impression that Reagan was a Bush 43 style cowboy who went around the world and kicked people left and right, bombing this one here and blowing up that one there. But the fact is that Reagan was no cowboy; and he was anything but an impulsive man. He came into the presidency with ideas he had been formulating in his head for a long time; and he implemented them in a manner that suited the time that he did.

The difference between now and then is that America was the industrial power that catered to the needs of the public thus made its society so prosperous it could afford both the guns and the butter. By contrast, the Soviet union was the heavy industry behemoth that catered to the needs of its military industrial complex thus kept its society in poverty unable to afford the guns or the butter. The result has been that the Soviet Union collapsed and America lived to become the sole superpower.

What the Stephens of this world are asking America to do now is wear the shoes of the defunct Soviet behemoth while China is busy putting on the shoes of industrial America. Consequently, I ask the Presidential hopefuls to think seriously about who will own the Twenty First century if America continues to impoverish itself thus lose the military advantage it now has for the purpose of giving the Jewish rapist the erection he can no longer have.

It comes down to this: You can save Israel or you can save America but you cannot save them both. Israel will just have to stop raping those who cannot defend themselves, learn to get along with its neighbors and learn to live like a normal nation.

Governed By The Emotionally Rattled

2011-11-17T14:00:00.000-05:00

Nothing is more alleviating of the pain and more salutary to the soul than to remove a cancer that was deliberately planted inside the body and left there to keep the body in a weak state and render the soul more pliant to commands as would be a puppy on a leash. This is what will happen in a few days -- if it has not happened already -- when Dennis Ross will be removed from the governing body of the American Republic. At last, a gust of oxygen will blow onto the scene and will engulf the body. It will go to revive a brain that has been artificially induced into a political coma of the Judeo-Yiddish type, and kept in this state for some time. But, as we shall see in a moment, there is concern that this reprieve may be short lived because new ill winds are blowing in the same direction at the same time.

Dennis Ross being one of the most fanatic creatures ever cultivated by the Jewish lobby known as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), he was sent to serve inside the government of the United States, something he did with the eagerness of a diehard Judeo-Yiddish zealot while enjoying the privileges and influences which are normally bestowed on American patriots only. He was an Israeli cancer planted inside the American body with instructions to paralyze America's interests in the Middle East at any cost for the purpose of advancing those of Israel and world Jewry.

Elliot Abrams, his counterpart in the previous Republican administration, lamented his departure and wrote the following in a November 11, 2011 blog on the website of the Council on Foreign Relations: “Ross's departure … is … a problem for the Obama re-election campaign. For Ross was the only official in whom most American Jewish leaders had confidence. As most of them are Democrats … they viewed his role as the assurance that a ... pro-Israel hand was on … the tiller.” And this is exactly what someone would write when his moral gyroscope is made to rotate in a reverse direction inside his skull. Instead of seeing the departure of Ross as a gain for America and the world, he says that America is losing something valuable because a fanatic Jew will no longer be there to crap his blessed Jewish feces all over it.

But the potential ill wind we must be concerned about is that Abrams went on to write the following: “No one else … can now fill that role, as the President enters an election year with a powerful need to maintain the 78% percent support he had last time in the Jewish community.” The translation here is that the Jewish organizations will now work to defeat the President. This is not a legitimate political discourse but a blackmail that should be made illegal by a law that would be specific to it to get around the limitations of the existing laws. The reason is that it is one thing to work inside your precinct to support a candidate you agree with or oppose a candidate you disagree with; it is another thing to blackmail and then sabotage the chances of someone who refuses to betray his country or refuses to work for the benefit of a foreign entity. This is not democracy at work; it is treason that is punishable even under existing laws though it would be difficult to establish the nexuses.

This said, where is Dennis Ross going after leaving the White House? Well, he is going back to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) which is one of the Judeo-Yiddish think tanks -- more like septic tanks -- with the added dimension that this tank was established by AIPAC working with Ross himself and with like-minded diehard Jewish zealots and fanatics. What is noteworthy about this whole matter, however, is that while Dennis Ross was calling the shots inside the White House of the Obama Administration, that same tank never stopped criticizing the President, accusing him of not being pro-Israel enough to suit the stinky expectations of its members.

If anything, this shows that no matter who the American people pick to govern them at the helm, and no matter which political party they choose to represent them in Congress, the influences that will make things happen in America will be those of an Elliot Abrams or a Dennis Ross who will take instructions not from the folks in the heartland of America but from Tel Aviv out there in Israel. Moreover, because most Jewish leaders have so far been on the democratic side of the political spectrum (like says Abrams) the Republican wannabes running for the 2012 primary race are trying to outdo them in devotion to the Jewish causes and to the rug-pissing Netanyahu of Israel. Except for one brave soul who maintains a healthy dose of self-respect, the other Republican candidates stand in a straight line to debate each other; but they look more like stray dogs walking in a circle sniffing each other's anal exhaust pipe to see which one smells more like Netanyahu's hot gas thus determine how better to mouth-fart their undying love for Israel and the other Jewish causes.

And when all will have been said and done, when the election will have come and gone, guess who will lead the rapprochement between the two American political parties to make them serve Israel and the Jewish causes more efficiently? You guessed it; it will be Dennis Ross working hand in hand with Elliot Abrams, the two manifestations of the same cancerous growth that will live again and thrive inside the American political body. And if you want to know what this will do to America, think of the time when Abrams was laboring inside the Bush 43 White House. Think also of what he said about Ross leaving the White House – specifically this part: “Ross was the only official in whom most American Jewish leaders had confidence.” This, my friend, is all that mattered during the Bush years; it was not the confidence that the American people had in their government – they could not care less about that and said so repeatedly – it was the confidence that the Jewish leaders had in the Bush Administration.

Under circumstances like these, what is left for the people of goodwill the world over to do is to think of a solution to a problem that has global ramifications. To do this, we all need to ask a pertinent question: Who is more dangerous to America and to the world, a Dennis Ross or a Jonathan Pollard? The first is an avowed advocate for Israel and for all the Jewish causes, a mole that held various civilian positions inside the American government. He did his work openly and did it to the detriment of America's interests. The latter is a Jew who was trusted enough to be given the job of intelligence analyst in the military, a position he used to spy for Israel and thus cause untold damage to American security. He was appointed to that post and kept in it despite the numerous signs that he was a traitor and despite numerous warnings about him that came from highly placed Jews and non-Jews alike.

Jonathan Pollard was a Jew to the core who never wore the mask of a gentile but wore his natural Jewish face all along, and wore it with pride. You get a sense of what motivates him when you read his account of his boyhood years. He says the kids in the school he frequented and the kids in the neighborhood where he lived used to bully him, even beat him up because he was a Jew. But he says he took solace in the thought that the Israelis were beating up the Arabs, something that made him feel good about himself. So then what happened after that, you ask? Well, he went to school in Israel where things did not go well for him even there.

Living like a Jew among Jews in Israel, you might think he was happy being there but the truth is that he was not. In fact, he got into fights with the other kids and got beaten up very badly by them. Unlike in America where the beating was relatively benign, the beating in Israel was so savage, it sent him to hospital. Well, maybe the Israeli kids mistook him for an Arab or something, and this thought alone must have made him feel so good about himself that he returned to America where he decided, of all things, to spy for Israel. He did so eventually and was caught red handed. He was tried in a court of law, and guess who was there to represent him. It was none other than the one and only Alan Dershowitz; who else!

As to Dennis Ross, not much is published about his biological father, but his mother was Jewish who later married a catholic and thus gave young Dennis the opportunity to grow up in a mixed environment fashioned by a Jewish mother and a Catholic stepfather -- although both parents avoided being overtly religious one way or the other. Able to wear the mask of a Catholic, young Ross was not beaten up in school or in the neighborhood where he lived thus remained religiously neutral himself. But he started to change, and did so steadily and quietly after the eruption of the 1967 war in the Middle East. Now a teenager, he began to feel overpowered by his Jewishness, and the feeling kept growing inside of him ever after. With time, he became so absorbed by religious thoughts that he decided a few years later to found a synagogue which to this day does not yet bear his name. Maybe this will happen after he dies, and given the trajectory of his religiosity, he may even become a rabbi before then.

But going back to his days after graduation, Dennis Ross got involved with the AIPAC crowd where he met Martin Indyk and teamed up with him to found WINEP, the Jewish septic tank that pretends to be a think tank. Indyk who is a notorious Jewish fanatic in his own right hit the trail of the talk shows after that where he gained the reputation of being excessively foul mouthed when it comes to talking about the Palestinians. As to Ross, he wrote a personal manifesto to serve as a policy paper for the stinky think tank he co-founded. It was a paper in which he called for the appointment of someone like himself to be America's Middle East envoy. He wanted someone, he said, who will not feel bad about being a Jew or being a friend of Israel. Dennis Ross had finally dropped the Catholic mask which served him well in the past, and started to face the world with his natural Jewish face.

You now pause, my friend, and think of the people in the Bush 43 administration who admitted that they planned the war on Iraq a decade before it took place because they were the children of Holocaust survivors who had the duty to avenge their dead relatives. You think of the massive fraud that was whipped up by Israel working together with the Jewish organizations worldwide to make it look like Iraq was producing weapons of mass destruction. You think of them feeding this garbage to the intelligence agencies of the Western world and thus drag America into a war that broke its back. You think of the emotionally rattled Jonathan Pollard who felt good about being a Jew every time he heard of Arabs being beaten in Israel. You think of Elliott Abrams whose moral gyroscope is rotating in the reverse direction inside his skull. You think of a Dennis Ross that hid a Jewish face behind a Catholic mask for decades only to drop the mask after taking control of the American levers of power. And you think of him using that control not to work for American interests but to work for the glory of Israel, something he did at the expense of the American hand that fed him, and the expense of a Palestine on which Israel never stops feeding.

You think of all this, my friend, and you realize that America is governed not by its elected representatives but by the emotionally rattled who are chosen by the Jewish lobby and sent to occupy high places in the government. And so you ask yourself: How can America be saved from a situation where horrible characters can easily take control of sensitive posts, and use them to wage war on the human race? You think till you hit on the one answer that satisfies the question. It is this: Wherever you are in the world, speak the truth as loudly and clearly as you can till it sinks into the consciousness of those who are able to do something about the matter. In this case, salvation will come to America and to the world when the majority of Americans will have risen and said enough of this; and when they will have decided to reject the bad hand that was dealt to them demanding that they be dealt a better one.

And this brings us to the prayer of the moment. May the American people see the light, feel the heat and realize that they are being used as fodder to feed the worldwide Jewish engine of monopolistic control, an engine that forever fires on all cylinders. When this realization will have taken place, the American people will need to speak against the political candidates who shamelessly put the interests of Israel and those of the Jewish causes ahead of America's, and they will need to work hard to soundly defeat those shameless candidates. The people will also need to state loudly and clearly what they think and what they are doing. They will need to continue doing the work even after being called anti-Semites, a charge that will be leveled against them at the start for telling the truth, I am certain.

I know this will happen to them because it happened to me early on, but no one dares do it to me now because they know better than tell lies about me. And the same thing will happen to the American people who will be telling the truth and everyone will know it. In the meantime, America deserves better than to be governed by a bunch of emotionally rattled sickos; and the time has come for the American people to take back their country from the Jewish hordes that invaded Palestine physically; and invaded America emotionally, spiritually and intellectually.

The road ahead will be long and hard but will be worth it because the rebirth of the nation will be as exciting as the birth of a nation.

Take A Giant To Hell And Drop Him

2011-11-14T04:45:00.000-05:00

If you are a Lilliputian and you befriend a Gulliver, you may be tempted to train your giant friend to do things for you that you could not do for yourself. You may, for example, turn him into a beast of burden that nevertheless possesses some human attributes such as a limited capacity to reason and the power of speech. Think of what could happen if you got caught in a situation akin to that of “Paranormal Activity 3” and had no one but him to come to your rescue. Well, it looks like PA3 was not enough to keep the editors of the Wall Street Journal awake at night, but they seem to say that having read the assessment of the International Atomic Energy Agency about Iran's nuclear activities, they lost their sleep. Consequently, they look to their designated Gulliver to rescue their designated alter ego that is Israel.

This is the message that comes out of the editorial they published on November 11, 2011 under the title: “If Iran Gets the Bomb” and the subtitle: “The world immediately becomes a far more dangerous place.” They say that much in the first paragraph of the article, and they add that the annex alone “...lays to rest the fantasies that an Iranian bomb is many years off, or that the intelligence is riddled with holes and doubts, or that the regime's intentions can't be guessed by their activities.” Well my friend, I read the report and concentrated on the annex where I encountered what I consider to be the most damaging evidence. It came in the section titled: “Integration into a missile delivery vehicle” where the end of paragraph 63 reads as follows: “While the activities described as those of Project 111 may be relevant to the development of a non-nuclear payload, they are highly relevant to a nuclear weapon programme.” This, however, did not keep me awake at night. But being no expert on the subject, I researched all that I could research, and verified all that I could verify but found no one of consequence who would support the Journal's assertion that we should lose sleep.

And to be honest, I would not have been swayed one way or the other because my position has always been that the Middle East -- if not the whole world -- should be free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. As to the situation specific to the Middle East, keeping the region free of nuclear weapons is something that will be achieved when every nation in there will have signed the non-proliferation treaty and opened itself to inspection. This is a proposal that has been on the table for a long time and was accepted by all the nations in the region except one. It is that Israel is rejecting the idea because it wants to continue playing the juvenile game of ambiguity, and America is willing to kill and get killed to support this behavior. Consequently, if someone should be told to mind their own business and leave the world of adults for adults to manage, it is juvenile Israel and that weirdo nation which America is fast becoming.

This said, what prompts me to discuss the Journal editorial is that it represents something new about that rag. I see that while the piece was written with the same old Judeo-Yiddish mentality behind it, the authors have tried to hide their collective face behind the mask of a style of writing that is more gentile than Jewish. Free of the convolutions that used to characterize their old style; this piece tries to reflect a more honest face -- at least on the surface. However, it still fails to completely hide the true face behind the mask, and I feel that the readers should be made aware of this change in style so that they can remain on guard and not take anything the rag says at face value. To this end, they will need to develop sharper analytical skills because the Journal will be more subtle from now on. Indeed, having been criticized for being too Judeo-Yiddish in the past, they seem determined to become more persuasive by reflecting a new face however fake it may be.

Look at the Journal editorial. It is one that combines the style of a gentile with the mentality of a Judeo-Yiddish. You detect this odd blend because you sense that the message is the gentle rehashing of the harsh views of olden days. Here is how these people do it: “So much, then, for the December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, which asserted … that Iran had abandoned its nuclear-weapons work in 2003...” Had they stopped here, they would have reflected the mask of a gentile and only that. But they went on to say this: “...and ended any chance that the Bush Administration would take action against Iran.” This is speculation and not any speculation but that of the worst kind because it is about a past you cannot revisit. Normal speculation being about a future you can wait for, see coming and check things out; to speculate about a past that is gone for ever is to tamper with history. This is what these people are doing, and nothing can be more Jewish than that.

Having lamented the end of something no one can verify, they now hitch a ride on the coattail of the lamentation to advocate the end of any attempt by the Obama Administration “...to move Iran away from its nuclear course … with diplomatic offers … sanctions and covert operations.” This is the strongest manifestation yet of the Judeo-Yiddish mentality at work behind the mask. And you know this to be so because it is a preparation put down by the authors to lead to a call for bloodshed. And here is that call, the punchline for which the authors have prepared you: “The serious choice now … is between military strikes and more of the same … [which] means a nuclear Iran, possibly within a year.” Whoa! Say that again! Did they say a nuclear Iran within a year? Have they not been saying within a year ... within a year ... within a year for the last ten years or more? These people have again chosen the path of terror as they never gave up accusing someone (this time Iran) of being dangerous while inciting another one (this time America) to go after him. They have been pulling this trick since time immemorial, and nothing can be more Jewish than that.

Confident that they are able to hide their bloodthirsty mentality behind the mask of a gentile, they now mimic the talk of a responsible adult. This is how they do it: “It's time … to consider … what that choice means,” and they do eventually consider what the choice means but before they do so, they want you to know it's not the first time they spoke like adults. To this end, they quote themselves from their past writings: “In the run-up to the war in Iraq, we wrote that 'the law of unintended consequences hasn't been repealed … no war ever goes precisely as planned.'” They now fulfill their promise by warning that this time: “[in] an aerial campaign to demolish or substantially degrade Iran's nuclear facilities … Planes could be shot down and airmen taken prisoner. Iran could close the Straits of Hormuz, sending energy prices upward … or fire missiles against U.S. military installations in the region, or spark … another insurgency in Iraq.” But you ask: What on Earth are they talking about?

First they tell you they behaved like adults when they warned of the possible consequences in the run-up to the war against Iraq, and now they admit that one such consequence has been that Iran gained the upper hand which allowed it to spark an insurgency and gave it the ability to spark it again and again at will. But instead of being apprehensive about this development and conclude that America should stop here to consider another course of action, they say that such development is acceptable because: “These are among the contingencies that military planners would have to anticipate, though Iranian leaders would also have to think twice before responding to a strike with attacks that could mean further escalation.” My God, you shout to yourself, we're not dealing with retarded juveniles; we're dealing with murderous lunatics who depend on the good sense of the Iranians to save America and the world from their incitement. And they do this at the same time as they tell America to double down on a misadventure they created themselves, one that has ruined the country already and promises to turn it into a second rate power which will probably happen even if it stopped immolating itself right now.

They ignore all this and justify an attack on Iran by listing the wrong things they say the Iranians did without mentioning what America was doing in the meantime. And they go on to say this: “These acts were perpetrated by Teheran without a nuclear umbrella. What would Iran's behavior look like if it had one?” They answer their question by saying that some people advocate a strategy of containment in which case Iran's behavior would not change much because the U.S. and its allies could warn that if it did, it would face nuclear annihilation. But they counter this argument by saying it is a red line that “would be hard to credit once the U.S. squandered its credibility by allowing Iran to go nuclear after spending a decade warning that such outcome was 'unacceptable.'” And they paint an even more horrifying picture of the future by speculating that other Middle Eastern nations will go nuclear or fall into Iran's orbit.

But seeing that there is no logical scenario by which a few non-events can be used as raw material to construct an apocalyptic fantasy of this magnitude, you ask yourself: What is it that these people aim to accomplish? You know they pushed America to attack Iraq in the past for no reason except that it made the fanatic Jews among them feel good. You know and they know this act triggered a series of unintended consequences which escalated to a point where they are now saying the region has moved closer than ever to a nuclear arms race. And they say that this will trigger a new series of unintended consequences whose reach they cannot fathom and yet, instead of being perturbed, they feel comfortable with all this. They feel comfortable because they count on the Iranians doing the right thing to save themselves and the world. Failing this, the editors count on the American planners to respond in the appropriate manner which is to annihilate Iran.

In fact, these people are so committed to push America on the path of war; they are creating loud and shrieking noises to divert attention from the sane solution that is on the table. It is a quick and permanent solution that will fix the troubled Middle East and bring calm to it for ever. The solution is for Israel to come clean and start working with its neighbors to make the region free of nuclear weapons, and free of other weapons of mass destruction. And this is where you find the answer to the question you posed earlier. Sadly and simply, what these people aim to accomplish is destroy the Middle East and the whole world if need be to please the bloodthirsty and ghoulish Jews among them. In fact, emptying the Middle East of trouble is to these people what emptying a fish tank of water is to the fish in it. They both die.

But this is not what they say it's all about. Instead, they say this: “The question … is whether those dire consequences are worse than the risks of a pre-emptive strike.” Okay, you say, have it your way but at least you expect to see an attempt at formulating a reasonable response from one who says he has matured and can talk like an adult. You read on, and you are shocked to find that what you expected is not what you get. Instead, you get this: “We think we know what the Israelis will decide.” And to bolster their argument, the editors of the Journal mention this: “Israel's strike on Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981, without which the U.S. could never have stood up to Saddam after his invasion of Kuwait.” Oh yes. What you see here, my friend, is the mentality of a rapist who believes he is God's gift to women and to all mankind.

The historical fact is that whatever Saddam's plans were for the Middle East, the Osirak reactor was never meant to make nuclear weapons. But the bombing of the reactor (achieved with information stolen from the American spy agencies by a Jewish American traitor) is what prompted Saddam to want to be a friend of America as he realized it was the only way he can commit murder and get away with it. He thus attacked Iran which was America's enemy in the region, and having done this, he expected America to let him get away with the swallowing of Kuwait. This is exactly what happened initially but the Arab countries said no, this cannot be and they hired the American mercenary army to get Saddam out of Kuwait, paying something like 30 or 40 billion dollars for the service. And this is when the Iranians discovered it was not Israel that was facing an existential threat but Iran itself. To protect their country, they cultivated their influences in Iraq, something they achieved with brilliant success, and did so to the detriment of America. On their part, Israel and the Jewish organizations that were seen to have raped America, now claim credit for doing what they consider to be a wonderful thing.

Instead of looking at the series of consequences that began more than thirty years ago when a Jewish traitor in America betrayed his country, the new American traitors -- like those working for the Wall Street Journal and other media outlets -- now look to Israel for guidance as to what they should incite America to do next to maintain the murderous adventure and thus keep raping America in the process. Here is a sample of how they achieve this: “A nuclear Iran on Mr. Obama's watch would be fatal to … his legacy.” As you can see, if they cannot threaten to ruin someone's chances at getting elected or reelected, they threaten to make his legacy meet a fatal ending.

These people never start an adventure they do not take to a calamitous end. They started this adventure more than thirty years ago, they never suspended it for a moment, they are fueling it like mad at this time and they will continue to fuel it till something happens that is more horrifying than anything we saw before. What that thing will be remains a mystery but what is noteworthy is that these people took the American giant to hell and dropped him there enough already. Things can still get worse; which is the reason why it stands to reason that this time, America should tell Israel: It's your turn to go to hell and stay there. We, as a proud and free people, shall have nothing to do with you anymore; not now, not ever.

Mythology As A Self Destruct Machine

2011-11-10T04:35:00.002-05:00

To respond to a myth circulated by the usual crackpots in the Judeo-Yiddish fraternity of think tanks, Hillary Clinton who is the American Secretary of State, found it necessary to go before an audience at the National Democratic Institute in the District of Columbia and make it clear that her government will not oppose the political parties with an Islamic bent that may be elected in predominantly Muslim countries.

It must be understood that mythology powers the mentality of people who claim to adhere to the Jewish religion. And the latest myth they created is to the effect that Islam is not compatible with democracy. But because America was mandated by the self-described Jewish organizations to destroy what they choose to designate as undemocratic, America was expected to oppose the election of “Islamic parties” or destroy the countries that elect them. This possibility sent the chill down the spine of an America that is still agonizing from the Jewish ordered misadventures, many of which are still in progress. And this is what prompted Hillary Clinton to reassure the American people that their country will not obey the Jewish command this time.

But what is a myth and what do the Jewish organizations hope to achieve by creating them?

What a complicated question requiring a complicated answer! Well, let me try to answer it. If you define mythology as that which is impossible to make in reality but can exist in the imagination, you will find that mythologies do exist in the subject matters relating to the humanities because that is where the human imagination is fertile. But mythologies also exist in the subject matters that relate to the sciences, and there are people who believe in them. One myth that refuses to die is the perpetual motion machine which, if it can be made, would turn its maker into a God. Such machine rests on the idea that kinetic energy can be produced from nothing. But if this were true, it would mean that you can also create matter from nothing because matter and energy are mutually transmutable according to the relation E=mc2. And the ability to make matter from nothing would lead to the creation of a universe full of galaxies, stars and planets. In short, if you can make the perpetual motion machine you become God, the creator of all things.

This said, an interesting question poses itself: If the perpetual motion machine is impossible to make, can the reverse be true? That is, can we make a perpetual annihilation machine that will destroy things and turn them into nothing? The answer is no, we cannot do this either because the law that says you cannot create something out of nothing also says that you cannot turn something into nothing. It is one and the same law, and the principle upon which it is based is that we cannot add to what already exists or subtract from it; we can only transform it from one thing into another. Burn wood, for example, and you transform it into ash and an assortment of gases but every atom is still here and will remain to the end of time.

Being human, however, and possessing abilities that the other species do not possess, we can borrow rules pertaining to the humanities and apply them to the other spheres. For example, we can create the physical condition by which something is so transformed, it can be considered annihilated for all practical purposes. Sadly, this is what happens when people push matters to such extreme that war becomes inevitable. And when this happens, peoples, tribes and whole races are destroyed, even made to vanish altogether. What is notable is that when war happens, we always find at the center of the activities that led to it a group of people who adhere to a philosophy of life that is different from all the others. They are the people who claim to be Jews.

They claim that theirs is not just a philosophy of life but a full fledged religion and a monotheistic one at that. It is called Judaism, they say, and it has attracted adherents to its ranks for thousands of years. But like a bottomless pit, it has also vanished them as fast as it got them. Thus, while the other two well established monotheistic religions -- Christianity and Islam -- have existed for less than two thousand years and count more than a billion members each, Judaism counts less than twenty million members even though it has existed twice as long. It is that Judaism – whether a philosophy of life or a religion -- is a perpetual self destruct machine that obliterates its people and takes down other peoples in the process.

If you wonder how such thing can happen, two articles that appeared on November 2, 2011 in the Wall Street Journal illustrate how it can happen and why it does. One article was written by Douglas J. Feith under the title: “Israel Should be a U.S. Campaign Issue.” and the subtitle: “Major Jewish groups are trying to shield Obama from legitimate criticism.” The other article was written by Bret Stephens under the title: “Why Islamists Are Winning” and the subtitle: “When secular politics fail, Islamism is the last big idea standing.”

Feith who once served as under secretary of defense in America, sets the scene. He says this: “Pro-Israel organizations have long been active in American politics … Jewish groups ... have helped ensure that candidates' attitudes toward Israel would be an important element in congressional and presidential elections. Yet now, two venerable Jewish organizations ... are saying that it is improper to do this … But since when have American supporters of Israel believed that a candidate's attitudes toward Israel should be kept out of electoral politics? Since never.” The point made here (which thankfully can no longer be denied at someone's whim the way they used to deny it) is that the Jewish organizations have always injected themselves into the thick of things to promote their causes. It is right here, out of the horse's mouth in black and white.

In addition, there is also a revelation that is so sensational, it is explosive. It is that two “venerable” Jewish organizations now admit they have been doing the wrong thing since for ever. And this compels us to ask two questions. The first is this: Why were these people allowed to do the wrong thing for this long without someone stopping them? And the second question is this: Why some Jewish organizations are having a change of heart at this time? To find the answers, we need to understand what is behind it all. And to do this, we need to understand (a) how Feith has seen history develop around the subject matter, (b) where some Jewish organizations fear to tread now and (c) why Feith is quarreling with these organizations.

Here, in his words, is a sample of how he sees the development of history, what he thinks of it and what he believes: “In 1984, pro-Israel groups … block[ed] the re-election of … Sen. Charles Percy … critic of Israel and champion of U.S. engagement with the PLO … [he] attributed his defeat to the Israel lobby. Other politicians who met a similar fate include Reps. Paul Findley and Cynthia McKinney” A little later on, Feith writes this: “When running against … George H.W. Bush in 1992, Bill Clinton took full advantage of Mr. Bush's testy relationship with Israel … Jewish groups predicted … that … Bush would pay in the ... election for his demand that Israel freeze settlements.” Later still, he writes this: “One [Jewish] leader spoke of the 'anger and dismay … over Bush Administration policy … I imagine it will be translated into an unwillingness to vote … or contribute funds.'” This is how it used to be and this is how Douglas Feith wants it to be again.

But things have changed, he says, which is undoubtedly the reason why some Jewish organizations are having a change of heart and why he is quarreling with them. He goes on to explain that things have changed because Obama was elected to the office of President, a development he laments, and one for which he expresses sorrow this way: “President Obama came into office determined to distance the U.S. from Israel and to portray Israel as the impediment to Middle East peace. He insisted on an unprecedented Israeli settlement freeze … And he went along with the PA's refusal to renew direct negotiations with Israel, agreeing that the Palestinians could use U.S. officials to conduct indirect talks.” What a pity! What a great pity! An American President that works for America and not for Israel; who would have believed it?

Here we see what Feith would have wanted the American President to do to mirror what was done before. He would have wanted the President to let Israel do what it wants, including the breaking of international and American laws by building Jewish settlements on stolen land. And if the Palestinians did not give their consent to the rape of their motherland by Jewish hordes, America was going to say to the Palestinians: tough luck to you guys because if you do not accept the Jew raping you, we stop talking to you. America is obligated to protect the right of the Jew to rape whomever he wants to rape and we take our obligation seriously. Let it be known that Jewish rape of local societies is happening all the time and everywhere, including here in America. Thus, we see no reason why it cannot happen in Palestine. America shall see to it that it does.

To end his rant, Feith gives this last warning: “Mr. Obama can expect to pay a substantial political price in 2012...” And you wonder if these people can still pull off a coup like this. You think of the feud which seems to have erupted between two factions inside the Jewish family but you do not rejoice because you realize that the faction having a change of heart is not being remorseful. This faction is merely asking for a temporary tactical retreat in the face of what it sees as a looming danger whereas the faction that is headed by Douglas Feith maintains that the Jews can still pull it off and survive. At first glance the factions seem apart and opposed to each other but in reality, they are the two indispensable parts that make up a perpetual self destruct machine.

While the relentless machination is going on inside America, and doing so at a fevered pitch in an effort to mobilize that country and bring its political, cultural, economic, industrial and military potentials under the control of the Jewish organizations, the Bret Stephens article gives a glimpse as to how the Jews view the world outside of America. It is a view that so frightens them, they seek to use America's power to annihilate what they perceive as their enemies and thus bring the world under their control. This is important to them because they are taught from birth that the only way they can live as Jews and remain safe in this world is to control it. They are told that the choice they will always face in life will be to control the environment in which they find themselves and survive or leave the control to someone else and risk vanishing. And in this age of globalization, they have no choice but to promote Israel and control the whole world or vanish altogether. First, they must take control of America then use American power to firmly plant Pax Americana throughout the world.

Stephens begins the article with a direct quote that is the saying of someone he mocks. Here it is: “This is not an Islamic Revolution.” He then explains that this is the opinion of Olivier Roy whom he describes as: “arguably Europe's foremost authority on political Islam.” He uses a French word “sangfroid” to describe how other writers are keeping their cool in the face of what he later makes clear is a serious matter. He singles out Tom Friedman and Nicholas Kristof, both of the New York Times, whose words he quotes to show that they remain undisturbed by what is happening in the Middle East.

But he says that all this sangfroid has proved to be misplaced because nine months after the start of the Arab Spring, everything has gone badly in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Turkey, Lebanon and Palestine where the people did not do what he would have wished them to do which was to renounce their religion and promise never to return to it. So much for the views of Roy, Friedman and Kristof in the eyes of Stephens. But “Closer to the mark,” he says, is Bernard Lewis whom he describes not as an “arguable authority” but a Mideast scholar. And why is he closer to the mark? Because he sees that as a concept, freedom is less important to the Arabs than justice given that they lacked the latter under the regimes they just toppled.

But, he says, we ought to be careful because justice, which is a concept imported from Europe by the old Arab regimes, had been the mainstay of those regimes until they were toppled. Justice did not work for the ordinary people, says Stephens, and he predicts that justice will now be used by the Islamists only to win elections but not to give the ordinary people a better form of politics or a better government. Thus, what will remain standing when all is said and done will be Islam and nothing else. And so he asks: “What does its future hold?” And he gives a pessimistic view of that future.

He describes his own views by first laying out the view of the optimists which he quickly rejects. According to him, the optimists say that the Arabs will probably follow the Turkish model rather than the Iranian model. But he goes on to say that even of this were true, Turkey's domestic and foreign policies do not inspire him. In the end, he concludes: “Get ready for a long winter.”

There is one thing missing in all of this. It is that neither the Arabs nor the Muslims are here to please the Jews or the Americans, and they will not start doing it now. Characters like Stephens, Feith and others may have succeeded at subjugating a superpower and got it to do the dirty work for them, but four thousand years of Jewish history say that these people always lose in the end despite the gains they make at the start of every adventure they undertake. And while Stephens will be living the long Arab winter he is predicting -- waiting for Godot or whatever -- he better make sure that an oven-hot summer does not explode closer to home for, this has been the enduring legacy of the Jewish self destruct machine.

And if you want to know how this may come about, read his column of November 8, 2011 in the Journal. It is titled: “Now For a Real Iran Debate” and subtitled: “There's no more doubt about Tehran's nuclear-weapons program. How the West will respond remains open to question.” It is the usual rant about why America should try to destroy Iran, at the end of which he gives a final thought: “What would a strike on Iran do for President Obama's re-election chances? Improve them, I should think.” He said this in anticipation of a UN report that came out the next day and said nothing new about the Iran question.

Now, my friend, if you ever wanted a proof that democracy in the hands of charlatans can be as lethal as the worst of dictatorships, here is your proof. You kill and get killed to win elections, say the Jews. What can be more democratic than this? Sometimes they call it populist democracy to differentiate it from what is presumably a regular kind of democracy. But the fact remains that the Jews who invented communism are now running an apartheid regime in Israel and maintaining an intellectual censorship on the English speaking world that rivals the book burning celebrations of the Nazis. And they want America to destroy a world that is not democratic enough to suit their taste. It's all neat, clean and logical, isn't it?

Which leaves us with one question to ask: Which way to the gas chamber?

A Step For Palestine, A Leap For Mankind

2011-11-05T12:36:00.002-04:00

The editors of the Wall Street Journal want to convince you and me that Unesco is on its way back to the future without first attempting to convince themselves that America is on its way back to the past, taken there by a never ending stream of proposals dropped in its lap by characters like the editors of the Wall Street Journal no less. In fact, these people have hurled their latest proposal at America on November 1, 2011 in a piece of writing they titled: “Back to Unesco's Future” and subtitled: “What the U.S. gets for its money at the U.N.”

The story behind it all is that the people of Palestine are the victims of an ongoing home invasion that has lasted several generations already; and they had it up to here with the beastly savagery of the intruder. He is one of two siblings in a family that has feuded in Europe for centuries where the two competed for supremacy and for dominion over the Continent. At some point in the Twentieth Century, the Nazi sibling turned extremely violent against the one calling himself the Chosen, and forced him to go look for a new home elsewhere in the world. Now calling himself Judeo-Yiddish and swearing he only wants to secure a small enclave where he can live in peace and quiet as a Jew, the former Chosen schemed with the mischief maker of the day that was Britain, and they both looked at places in East Africa and Palestine for the outcast sibling to occupy, choosing ultimately to invade and to settle in the latter.

He started to describe his group as being the Chosen Judeo-Europeans and thought of himself as being a unique breed now living in a neighborhood of Christian and Muslim non-Europeans. He changed the name of the homestead he invaded from Palestine to Israel and proceeded to terrorize the local inhabitants, pushing them out of the places that had been their homes since the beginning of time. To justify a behavior deemed as savage as that of the Nazi sibling he left behind, the Jewish sibling claimed that the neighborhood was a tough one, necessitating his kind of response. But this being contrary to the promises he made at the start to the effect that he only wanted a small enclave where he will live in hiding, his abrupt reversal made it clear he had an elaborate secret agenda in mind all along.

The appearance of this agenda may have come as a surprise to some people but not to those who knew him well and knew how he operates. And by the time several decades had passed following the original invasion, it became clear to everyone that the demonic plan of this sibling had always been to ethnic cleanse the land he stole and to acquire more of it so as to realize a supremacy of some kind and have absolute control over a dominion of some sort. Here we go again repeating in the Middle East the tragedy he authored and played out in Europe. And you know that tragedy will be the ultimate outcome because when the plan is completed, it will represent but the first step on the way to scoring greater conquests, the kind that will rival the mythological conquests of the Old Testament. To the people who had an inkling as to what was transpiring in the Middle East, the plan began to look like the dream that has lived among the disciples of the movement for a thousand years, a dream that the diehard among them now believe is within their grasp.

But the combination of beastly behavior and satanic trickery employed by the squatting invaders of what was once a peaceful Palestine convinced the rest of the world that the Chosen was not chosen to be a saint but chosen to be the incarnation of evil itself. It is now becoming clearer by the day that he exists for one reason and one reason only; to keep humanity from progressing steadily on the path to a civilized coexistence where everyone was going to adhere to the philosophy of live and let live. It was meant to be that Planet Earth was going to transform into a place where people learned from each other, picked up the best of practices from one another and worked together to advance the human species in the fields of education, science and culture. But because this proved to be a receding dream at least for now, the UN Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) was called upon to play a role in the debacle and do what it can to mitigate the damage caused by the sibling that outlived the Nazis; the one that picked up the mantle of prince of darkness and became sole owner of it.

Yes, it was the Palestinians who went to the Unesco and asked for the recognition that was due to them. Having tried for decades to reason with the beastly savage in a never ending series of so-called negotiations, there came a point when they had it up to here with his trickery and his bad faith. They decided to cut loose from him and cut loose from a setup that was never meant to go anywhere but meant to buy the beast enough time to implement his demonic agenda for the region and satanic agenda for the world. And the UNESCO spoke in the name of the civilized part of that world saying yes to the request to admit Palestine as a full member of the organization. To paraphrase the first human who walked on the moon, Neil Armstrong, this was a small step for Palestine but a giant leap for mankind.

Rather than see this development as a metaphor for the progress of mankind in the same way that the landing on the moon was a triumph for humanity, the editors of the Journal used another metaphor to express the meanness of their spirit and the pettiness of their character. Lucky for us, however, it turned out they did not know what they were talking about, and their rumination backfired. Here is their problem. “Back to the Future” which is paraphrased in the title of their piece, is actually the title of a 1985 science fiction movie in which a scientist modified a car and turned it into a time machine.

He traveled to the future, came back to the present and decided at the end of the movie to go back to the future again, hence the title of the movie and the hint that a sequel was in the offing. And this is what happened, in fact, not once but twice because a sequel came out in 1989 and another sequel in 1990. But ever since that time, some people have used the expression “back to the future” in a negative sense to mean moving forward in time while looking backward in spirit. And this is how the editors of the Journal are using it; a confusion that weakens their presentation.

What these people are trying to present is a distorted image of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas who, they say, took his “statehood road show” to Unesco where he won a “symbolic fillip for Palestinian aspirations,” having previously made the fateful decision of “grandstanding at the UN halls”. Well, my friend, this style of writing tells you right away that the piece was written by the Jewish faction at the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal. And you know this to be true because the language seeks to trivialize the holocaust being inflicted on the people of Palestine at this very moment by the Jewish hordes that invaded their homes. Having monetized and trivialized the holocaust which the Nazis inflicted on the Jews of Europe nearly a century ago, these people are now laboring to trivialize the Palestinian Holocaust because it is in the nature of their religion to pick the most evil thing to do and do it as if it were God's command to them. And when it comes to doing evil, they can be a very pious bunch.

It would be natural at this point for you to be perplexed by what you see and thus seek the answer to several questions that may have popped up in your head. Consequently, you make the effort to understand what powers the mentality of the Journal editors. To this end, you read their piece several times over and you notice two passages that say something about that mentality.

First, you encounter this passage: “Unesco has never changed. Six years ago … it adopted a 'convention' … that gives countries … cover to close their borders to Hollywood imports or California wines. The U.S. made clear … that either the PA would get a seat or the U.S will … defund Unesco. The Obama Administration should … cancel the U.S. check.” The immediate impression you get from the passage is the fact that two ideas – one about import of American products and one about recognizing Palestine -- were juxtaposed for a reason. But unclear about what the reason may be, you hold back on your judgment for now.

Then, you encounter this second passage: “Under American law … the U.S. can't fund any U.N.-affiliated body that accepts a Palestinian member … The U.S. provides $80 million a year to Unesco … [whose] … decision means that the PA can now automatically join three other agencies, so American support for those outfits is also in jeopardy.” The idea here is clear; it means to say that there is an American law against funding Unesco and all the UN agencies that may follow suit and recognize Palestine. And this law must be followed to the letter, say the editors of the Journal.

You now put two and two together; you come up with a complete picture of what these people are saying and you get a glimpse as to what powers their mentality. They are saying the only laws the world must obey are those made by Jews. The Unesco “convention” being a non-Jewish law, it should be treated like a toilet paper. But since the world treats it with respect, America should go it alone and treat it with contempt. Although they do not say it outright, you know they mean to convey a notion they have advocated on previous occasions which is that where possible, the Americans who do business with the French should circumvent that convention by getting Hollywood products and California wines into France through loopholes they see and loopholes they may create for the occasion.

As to the law pertaining to the defunding of Unesco, this is a Jewish law that was shoved down the throat of the American people in the middle of the night by an American Congress of pimps and prostitutes, madams and gigolos you find in abundance inside both parties. The law must, therefore, be respected and obeyed, but since it is enforceable only in America, its effect will be inflicted on the American people alone. Too bad for these people but then again – like they say -- you get to be governed by the regime you deserve until you change the entire regime not just replace the governing party by another of a different color and the same ilk.

What is not lost on anyone in the world is the reality that the Israeli beast has become a pariah to be shunned on this Earth. And because of its close association with that beast, America too is becoming a pariah that people are beginning to shun. But you ask: Why is this allowed to happen to America? And the answer is that it is happening because there are people who never stop hurling proposals at that country; proposals that aim to achieve the wrong thing. These are writings such as those regularly published in the Wall Street Journal by the Jewish faction of its editorial board and by contributors of think tanks who contribute nothing really but the stuff that septic tanks are full of.

To see this phenomenon at work, look what closing arguments these people have put together to give the American regime a reason to remain in the camp of pariahs. They begin like this: “The [Unesco] vote … carries unfortunate consequences for the U.S., the U.N. and the Palestinians.” A little later on, they say this: “[The] vote is in fact a rebuke to America's efforts to engage with the U.N.” So here you have it my friend; they are saying that America is so good it wants to engage with the UN but the world is so bad it keeps rebuking America's efforts and thus hurt the US, the UN and even the Palestinians.

And using the editorial comment as vehicle, they pretend to remind the world of the historical reasons why: “Ronald Reagan pulled the U.S. out of Unesco in 1984 after it became a byword for corruption and anti-Americanism.” As you can see, they invoke the name of Ronald Reagan to make a point he never intended to make. While he responded honestly to a situation in the way that he saw it, the point they are making is that if the world refuses to do what the Jews want it to do, it must be that the world is corrupt and also anti-American. The old man must be turning in his grave.

As to the Palestinians, wait till you see what they say about them. Here it is: “The Palestinians know the U.S. will block any Security Council bid, yet they continue … to force Washington to wield a veto … Mr. Abbas ... has expressly tried to embarrass the U.S.” You know what this means, dear reader? Let me tell you what it means. It means the editors of the Wall Street Journal believe that America is such a weakling, Washington can be forced by Abbas of Palestine to do something it would not normally do. Also, America is such a crybaby, it must feel embarrassed by the UNESCO vote and must cry like a baby.

Is this it? No, not yet; there is more. Now think of this, my friend: If Abbas -- who is the head of a powerless political authority under occupation -- can do this to America, think of what these people believe the God-like Netanyahu can do to a Congress that has been certified several times over to be made of pimps and prostitutes, madams and gigolos. Think about it and weep.

But they still have the temerity to remind the world that they hold the trump card. Well, it is not exactly they, but their alter egos. Here is how they put it: “Yet Mr. Abbas needs both Israel and the U.S. to gain independence.” Alas, they go on to lament that while Israel would have done the right thing to keep America entrenched in the column of pariahs, the Administration in Washington will be reluctant to do so. They put it this way: “None of this will shake the … conviction that the U.N. is the forum to solve … problems...”

And so they make a final appeal, one that sounds more like a distress call. They appeal to the American people to go against their own government, and keep their country in the column of pariahs. They put it this way: “[this] should show Americans what they are getting for their money at Turtle Bay.”

It is said that misery seeks company. You can add to it that pariah seeks the company of pariah.

Moribund Nation Of Competitive Workers

2011-11-01T01:48:00.000-04:00

The word “competitive” is popping up in conversations these days more often than its use is warranted. It is, therefore, important that we formulate a good understanding of its meaning especially that people often use it not to express the complex ideas it carries but use it as an ID card to gain entry into an ongoing debate where they contribute a huge amount of noise and very little substance.

To begin with, we must understand that the word competitive can carry a different meaning depending on where it is used. For example, when we say: “This product is competitive,” the word means something different from when we say: “This worker is competitive.” In the first instance, we assume that several products have the same quality but that the price of one is cheaper than the others; therefore we deem it to be the most competitive. As to the second instance, when we say that a worker is competitive, we make the mistake of imagining a superhuman being that has the ability to consistently produce goods and/or services of the highest quality, and do so in record time each and every time. We then compound the mistake by attributing the ability of this one being to the entire workforce he supposedly represents.

To enter into a debate having only a superficial understanding of the word competitive is an approach that diminishes the value of the debate and sends it in the wrong direction, a situation that results in the formulation of false conclusions. To avoid this outcome, we must acknowledge at the start that only a potential buyer can judge whether or not a product is competitive; not a disinterested party such as a journalist, an analyst or an economist. And this is because to be competitive is not a quality that is intrinsic to the product but a judgment that is colored by the relative status of the buyer. For example, a wealthy buyer to whom money is no object will deem a product or a service to be competitive when it is of high quality regardless of the price. On the other hand, a buyer with modest means will deem a product or a service to be competitive if he can afford it regardless of its quality.

As to the competitiveness of a worker, much will depend on the work that is being done and the circumstances in which it is done. For example, the work can be as simple as cutting trees with an ax. In this case, a healthy and physically strong man or woman will be more competitive than a weak one because – all else being equal -- they will cut more trees. But if the work is done with a machine, the worker that has experience using this machine will be more competitive whether or not they are physically strong. But how do we judge the entire workforce to which that man or woman belongs? Here again, the answer will depend on the assumptions we make at the start. Several examples follow to illustrate this point.

First example. You own a firm that employs ten lumberjacks. Everyday you sell as much lumber as they cut. An outfit that fabricates a tree-cutting machine wishes to sell you its product and sends someone over to show you what the machine can do. The demonstration goes well and you are satisfied that two individuals with the machine will do the work of ten strong and healthy lumberjacks; a five fold improvement. At first, there will be no doubt in your mind that the switch from manual to mechanized will render your firm more competitive than before because each of your employees will become five times more productive. But on second thought, it dawns on you that you will have to pay for the machine, pay for its maintenance and pay for the fuel it will use. You work out the math, taking these realities into account, and find that a good part of what you save on wages will go to pay for the new expenses. In the final analysis you see that you will not be five times more competitive but maybe just twice – and possibly acquire negative side effects as well.

Second example. You are that employer and the ten lumberjacks in your employ are members of your immediate family. If you mechanize your operation, you will not let them go but will keep them in the house and support them just the same. You will, however, be paying for the machine, the maintenance and the fuel. Thus, you begin to understand that unless you find a market that is large enough to absorb more of your lumber (preferably five times as much as before to keep everyone employed) you will not be employing all of your people and you will not fully benefit from having mechanized your operation. Yes, each of the two employees remaining on the job will be five times as competitive as before but as a family unit, you will not be. In fact, you may now think of the family business as indicating “moribund” on the scale of competitiveness. And this is never a pleasant state in which to find yourself.

Something else will crop up to add to your sense of unease. It is that having mechanized the business, your lifestyle will have to change to suit the times. Now earning a little more than before, you will also spend a little more to accommodate the new lifestyle; a sign that says you have a higher standard of living. Paradoxically, however, you will have lost the ability to make ends meet each month or save some money -- which you could do before. And this is a sign that says you now have a lower standard of living. To be richer yet poorer at the same time will weigh on you and drag your spirits down in a way you never imagined. The unpleasant feeling is compounded and you dream of the good old days when life was simpler.

Third example. Despite all this, you decide that you must catch up with the times and you proceed to mechanize the operation anyway. This done, you go look for new markets to sell your lumber but find none because other firms did the same as you. The result is that you all managed to create a glut of lumber on the market, and you have triggered a price war that turned the blessings of mechanization into a curse. Many of the firms are now threatened to go out of business – yours among them -- and you frantically search for a way to save your firm and your family. You hit upon the idea of creating new markets -- not for lumber -- but for new products that will be made of wood. To avoid having to face another competition early on, you judge that the products you make will have to be something that no one made before. This means in the final analysis that to stay in business in this new world, you must innovate and keep pushing the bounds of innovation further and further all the time. And this is not a very practical thing to do.

Fourth example. You are in charge of a high wage, industrially advanced nation that is holding its own in the capital intensive, high value-added industries but you are challenged in the labor intensive, low value-added industries because of a price cutting competition that is coming from the emerging nations. Companies in your jurisdiction are going out of business as a result, and people are being laid off in droves. You respond by gathering your best thinkers in the field and commission them to study the situation and offer solutions. They do just that and come back with the following options to choose from.

First option. You are made aware of the fact that contrary to popular belief, the work in the developing countries is not all done manually but done with off-the-shelf automated machines that are cheap to buy and friendly to operate because to make them has become a well understood and mature industry. These machines produce large quantities of goods whether they are located in the advanced nations or the developing ones. The difference is that the price of the goods they produce is kept low in the developing nations because of the low wages paid to the workers there. Thus, to compete against these people, you must automate even more the already automated low value-added industries in your country.

But if it is possible to do this -- which is not always the case – and you go ahead and do it, you will create a glut of goods on the market while absorbing very little of your laid off workforce, a move that will tend to make matters worse not better. And the optic will be that while the workers who hold a job have become more competitive as individuals, the nation as a whole has not for the same reason that mechanization did not make the family of lumberjacks more competitive but made it look moribund. And do not forget that sooner or later, the emerging nations will get their hands on the new super-automated machines; and they too will develop a super competitive workforce to stand against yours. This solution just won't work in the medium or long runs.

Second option. You realize that being an advanced economy at the leading edge of science and technology, you already have an infrastructure of venture capital houses where ideas in the head of an individual are picked up, financed and developed into useful products or services that the public will want to buy. But you wish to speed up the process and so, you offer government financial incentives to encourage your people to innovate faster by rewarding those who do. The intent here is to develop new products and new services for markets where you (as a country) will meet little or no competition – at least for a while. Of course, you understand that someone will catch up with you eventually and will force you to innovate again till someone catches up yet again and so on without end. But you go ahead and offer the incentives to innovate anyway.

The trouble with this option is that government encouragement may be a useful thing in the emerging nations where they lack the infrastructure to pick up an idea in someone's head and develop it into a useful product. Thus, the helping hand of the government can fill a void and do good in such cases. But when it comes to the developed nations, the hand of the government almost always proves to be more toxic than benevolent because it bypasses an existing structure that grew organically over the decades, and threatens its integrity. When left alone the infrastructure functions well but it tends to come to a halt when the government encroaches on its turf. Indeed, the involvement of the government attracts the unworthy charlatans who usually have no good ideas to sell and no public that hungers to buy them. But these people know how to walk into the lobby of power and how to cruise the corridors of the incompetent and corrupt bureaucrats who hand out the money. And where the charlatans go with this money, the venture capitalists leave it and take flight because they know what will come next and they dread it. Many end up going offshore to get away from the artificial climate of a home that can no longer be called sweet home.

Third option. If and when sectors of your economy can no longer compete against the developing nations of the Third World, you must admit to yourself that you have become two nations in one: You are an advanced nation when it comes to the leading edge industries, and you are a Third World nation when it comes to the other industries. To avoid responding to the situations in a schizophrenic way, you do not impose on the Third World portion of your economy the policies that apply to the advanced portion, and vice versa. Instead, you treat the various sectors with an approach and a psychology that suit each of them.

To this end you will let the private sector handle the low value-added industries but you will help protect these industries by negotiating new trade deals with the rest of the world. The aim will be to recognize that while competition is a good thing for humanity, cutthroat competition is not a panacea that will save the human race. Thus, the negotiators will agree that every nation has the right to protect its struggling industries so as to gain a share of its own market and maintain a percentage of it – perhaps 25% to 30% of the local market. It is only logical to want to do this; and doing it will be an antidote to cheating which is hard to detect but something that happens all the time. In return for this gain, the nations will be forbidden to export the products that come under protection. For example, if America wants to protect its textile industry, it can do so but it cannot export textiles. To succeed at obtaining an agreement of this kind, you will argue in world forums that you too have a problem of unemployment and potentially one of social unrest that must be addressed the way they are in Third World nations because a Third World nation is what you have become in these industries.

This done, you will use every tool you have in your tool kit to protect those industries -- from raising the import duties on similar products imported from abroad to subsidizing your own industries directly and indirectly. One additional measure you can take will be to allow the businesses to pay their employees less than the minimum wage by calling them apprentices no matter their age. The social service agencies will then step in and make up for the difference so as to raise the income of these people to a level that will give them a decent life, encourage them to stay on the job, offer them opportunities to learn new skills and help them move on to a regular job at a regular pay.

As to the advanced sectors of the economy, you will let the venture capitalists and the marketplace decide which innovations will be developed and when they will be. But if the need will arise to develop an idea that is national in scale, that will take a very long time to complete or that is beyond the ability of the private sector to handle alone – like, for example, the construction of the highway system, the landing on the moon or the construction of a high speed rail -- then the government can step in and partner with the private sector to work with it or simply lend financial support to the firms that will subcontract the associated projects.

All in all, you do not need workers with superhuman abilities that can crush the competition and help you survive economically. And you do not need to see your workers labor like bees to maintain an economy that gives everyone in the country a decent life. What you will need is a smart finger on the pulse of the economy; one that will give you accurate information at every moment. And you will need the courage to describe truthfully what you see, thus communicate the right message to your assistants.

When this happens, you will be aware of the problems as soon as they appear and before they grow too big or too difficult to solve. In fact, the solution to each problem will suggest itself early on and you will deal with it right away before the bad things can accumulate. And you will never have to take a drastic action to save the economy because you will never neglect it so much as to let it reach this stage.

Self Delusion By The Power Of Dogma

2011-10-27T04:31:00.001-04:00

Apparently psychiatrists can tell what someone thinks and desires by the dreams that he or she is having in their sleep. This may be true but I believe there is a more accurate method by which to tell what someone thinks and desires; it is to look at the dreams they are having while awake – that is, to look at their daydreams. If it happens that a man in this condition is also expressing himself in writing, he will produce a written record that expresses what goes on inside his heart and soul above and beyond what his head wants us to know. This, in fact, is what happened to a character called Jeffrey T. Kuhner who wrote a column that was published in the Washington Times on October 25, 2011 under the title: “Obama's Arab winter” and the subtitle: “President plays active role in America's decline, Islam's rise.”

If anything, this piece demonstrates what in practical terms the adherence to a set of dogmas can do to someone. You see this when you read the first three sentences of the first paragraph in the column. Here they are: “President Obama is empowering radical Islam across the Arab world. He is presiding over both the American decline and the rapid advance of our mortal jihadist enemies. From the Middle East to North Africa, the Arab Spring has turned into an Islamist winter.” This method of writing is akin to using the dogma as a sledge hammer to clobber the reader at the start of the presentation and thus get his attention early on. It is an approach that is rarely used by seasoned writers because it is too risky. But when they use it, they will make sure their point has come across persuasively before they publish. Well, as a writer, Kuhner seems seasoned enough; he uses the method and yet his column reads like a third rate diatribe that would not make the pride of a schoolboy. It would only persuade the teacher to shake his head in dismay.

You want to know what went on inside the heart and soul of this columnist, and so you keep reading the piece till you encounter this passage: “In Tunisia, an Islamist party … is poised to win … Its goal is to repeal the nation's secular tradition (inherited from the French empire) and erect a Muslim theocracy.” You see that the sentence falls in line with the dogmas articulated in the previous paragraph. You see further that it fails to improve the diatribe, fails to move you, the reader and fails to convince you to embrace any of the dogmas. But you notice that it has a parenthesis inside of which is carried a message that you realize Kuhner never intended to give out. What he wanted to say was simply this: a tradition (inherited from the French empire). But this brings to your mind the following question: If the Tunisian people willingly inherited a tradition from the French and lived with it for several generations, how come they are abandoning it now at the start of a new relationship they wish to forge with the Western world? And in trying to answer the question you are set off on a journey of discovery that the author had no idea was there to be taken.

For him to have neglected to ask that question and look for answers says something important. It says that his approach clearly demonstrates why the adherence to dogma is a toxic state for any mind to be in. In fact, when you look at what comes after the introductory paragraphs, you find it to be a repudiation of the freedoms that the author says he is for and you find it to be an embrace of the autocratic rule that he says he is against. Here is what he complains about in one instance: “Muslim fundamentalists have used street protests against … autocratic regimes … to expand Islamic militancy.” Thus, in his view, to protest in the streets against autocratic regimes is a bad thing. And here is another instance where he also complains: “Next month, it will be Egypt's turn to hold elections. The Muslim Brotherhood is expected to gain the largest number of seats.” Thus, in his view, unless the party you favor is expected to win, elections are a bad thing. Obviously, this man is so wrapped up in his set of dogmas, he cannot see beyond them even though he was handed the necessary information.

You come to understand that this man has been chained to a set of dogmas that so deluded him, he was made to string together a ton of false statements and a mountain of absurd assertions with which he built a monumental diatribe on a thin foundation. And you want to know what would have happened had he asked the right question and wrestled to find the answer instead. Well, he would have realized that the Arabs are following the pattern that was taken by other cultures and civilizations when they reached a level of industrialization that allowed the wholesale shift of people from a subsistence agrarian life to that of an industrial middle class. And if the columnist had the intellect to dig past this point, he would have seen that because the circumstances are now different, the “Arab Spring” is following a path containing a few variances that are peculiar to the history of the region and the times in which we live.

What distinguishes the Arab pattern from say, the European pattern is that the Europeans distanced themselves from the proverbial church as they revolted whereas the Arabs now seek to draw strength from their religion. Why is that? Well, it is easy to see why the Europeans – beginning with the French revolution -- turned against the political authority and the church at one and the same time. It is because the two were in cahoots with each other and they worked together to exploit and suppress the population. Then came the Russian revolution which stood against the Church in a more pronounced way only to be reconciled with it, even embrace it wholeheartedly when the population had it up to here with a Communist regime that turned out to be as authoritarian as the one that preceded it.

But unlike the European Christian church which has a rigid hierarchy that does not allow the individual to interact directly with God, Islam abhors the idea of a religious hierarchy and encourages the individual to deal directly with his God. Thus, the Muslims never quarreled with the Mosque in any serious way, and they always felt comfortable with a political authority they regarded as an extension of the family. In fact, this attitude is so ingrained in the Middle Eastern cultures that the same applies to the Christian populations. But what changed all that and allowed the Arab spring to take hold is something that began with the advent of colonialism to the Arab countries. Colonialism brought to them a taste of the European style tyranny and left them with bad memories after it ended. What made matters worse was that after they got rid of colonialism, the local political leaders who took over began to behave like an internal colonial power. For a while, the Arab populations felt trapped, at a loss and not knowing what to do. Patience being the trait that distinguishes them, they relied on it to endure and survive while waiting for a break. And the break came when industrialization hit their shores. The middle classes revolted in the Arab world the way that they did everywhere else, and the Arab Spring was born at long last.

With this in mind, you can see why it is dangerous for the leaders of the Christian world to express the dogmas expressed by Kuhner in his article. It is that the leaders confirm a narrative which goes like this: The neo-colonial powers have returned and they have cut the Arab world into two parts by establishing the Jewish entity of Israel in the middle of it. They now have a Jewish theocratic state that is propped up by a Christian fundamentalist movement, and they have it for a reason. They are waging a war against us to plunder our resources and they will maintain that war for as long as we have the resources. Be alert because the war will wear an economic mask as long as we remain quiet; but if we rise up and protest the mask will come off to reveal the face of the true dogs of war. Therefore, we must be prepared to fight fire with fire and religion with religion. They have their Jewishness and their Christianity which they never cease to call Judeo-Christian; let us be proud of our Islam and display it whichever way we can. Wear the veil, pray in the street or do anything you can that will defy them.

There is no doubt that the world is being polarized and radicalized on all sides, and the reason is obvious. It is that the Jewish organizations never stop fueling it. They have moles in the Western think tanks who continually incite what Kuhner is inciting in his column. They have speechwriters who write speeches for the American and European leaders. And what the writers do is get paid to spend all their time thinking of ways to drive the wedge between the West and the Arabs to maintain the war between the two. They look for the most vexing words and the worst of expressions to insert in the speeches of the American and European leaders who then jump in front of the cameras and blurt things considered incendiary in the Arab world and beyond it, the Muslim world. With this happening under the radar, so to speak, the Western leaders unwittingly maintain a state of undeclared war against the Arabs by constantly reminding their youngsters of this message: You are my mortal jihadist enemy and I shall come after you when I will be ready.

What is surprising about this is that the mouthpieces which the Jewish organizations employ to go around and create all that mischief are of an IQ which does not exceed that of Kuhner. And they all have but one and simple method by which they move the politicians and the armies of the West to basically commit suicide fighting the Arab and Muslim kids who seem to always find a way to outwit them. The method of the mouthpieces is to cry out that the enemy is on the march and that he has weapons by which he will be able to mass destroy us. And they go on to say, we must preempt that enemy before he gets too far ahead or if we fail, it will be the end of us as we know us to be. The question for us at this point is therefore an existential one for, it comes down to this: to be or never to be on top of the heap once again may be our lost dream.

Finally, to give credit where credit is due, I must say that Jeffrey Kuhner found a novel way by which to express that message. It comes in the last paragraph of his piece. This is how he puts it: “Like emperors in the final days of Rome, our leaders can pretend that the barbarians pose no imminent threat. Everyone knows, however, that … The Islamists are rising, threatening freedom wherever they tread.” It is too bad for him, however, that he neglected to insert a caveat in there because without one, he created a weakness that ends up destroying his metaphor. The fact is that Rome was destroyed more by the senility of its rulers than by the barbarians at the gate.

In a similar fashion, America which he regards as representing the Western world, must worry more about the senility of its own leaders than some Arab kids who are delighted to have found a big boy called Uncle Sam willing to play cops and robbers with them. They kick him in the ass, go hide and taunt him to seek them. And this is happening because unlike the Roman senate where the horses were allowed to vote, America has a congress where the jackasses are allowed to vote. And to keep in line both the ass of the uncle and the jackasses of the congress there are the assholes of the Jewish think tanks and their obedient media.

Kuhner is one of those assholes who must nevertheless feel like asinine being surrounded by all these asses, including his company of himself.