A Fantasy World to bloody America's Nose

John R. Bolton has asked a “what if?” question, and has discussed what he calls a pressing policy issue. He does that in an article he published under the title: “NATO Is Still the Answer” and the subtitle: Obama's floundering Ukraine policy.” The article is published in the Weekly Standard issue of May 5, 2014.

Asking a “what if?” question and answering it is a literary form that is in the genre of speculative fantasy. It was created to entertain the readers who wish to take a flight of fancy into a parallel universe where they experience an alternative reality. There, all that they ever wished for, does happen; and all that they wish never happened, vanishes as if by magic.

Bolton tells the story of what happened in the year 2008 at a time when President Bush proposed to bring the two former Soviet Republics, Ukraine and Georgia on a path to joining NATO, and the Europeans rejected the proposal. Thus, Bolton asks what if they had not rejected the proposal. And he follows with the policy question: Should we try again for NATO membership?

Because his aim is not really to entertain but to set-up a new scene upon which he will argue in favor of the issue he says is pressing, he begins the discussion by telling of an earlier scene that was played by good guys and bad ones. The Bush people were the good guys, he says. And he wants to make their dream come true even though it was rejected by the Europeans who were the bad guys. These were bad guys, he says, because they used Bush's Iraq war as excuse to argue against the NATO proposal. But that was a phony excuse, he goes on to say, and the real reason for their rejection was that the cowardly Europeans needed Russia's oil and gas, and they feared that country's response to admitting into NATO two former republics of the old Soviet Union.

What happened after that, according to our fantasy writer, is that “Moscow understood Western [European] cowardice.” And so, Russia bombed “its tiny neighbor [Georgia] and surged troops to within 30 miles of its capital.” But then, fearing the arrival of the Bush cavalry – even if Bush never said he would send it – Russia decided to snatch no more than “the two provinces it most wanted to hive off.” As you can see, even though the Bush people did nothing heroic, they continued to wear the hats of the good guys bestowed on them by Bolton.

This done, there remains the matter of linking the old scene with the new one for which Bolton has a presentation to make. One of the bad guys in the new scene being President Obama, he ties him to the old scene by making use of the fact that he was a candidate running to be President at the time. This is how he does the linkage by which ownership of the situation passes from the Bush hand to the Obama hand: “Then-candidate Barack Obama initially called for both Russia and Georgia to exercise restraint.” Now rendered immaculate, it is time for Bush to exit the scene gracefully: “With its term waning, and facing a daunting economic crisis, the Bush administration did little more for Georgia or Ukraine.” Goodbye lovely Bush, hello terrible Obama.

Upon this, Bolton unleashes a litany of errors, he says, Obama committed. There was the unveiling of the “reset” button with Russia. The trashing of the missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic. The adoption of the START treaty. The reliance on Russian diplomacy in Syria. The debacle that followed Russia's support for the Libyan resolution at the Security Council.

He goes on to say that “Obama left Ukraine and Georgia to fend for themselves.” And so, he suggests that “in the long term, joining the alliance is the only strategy that can secure Georgian and Ukrainian sovereignty.” But is that enough to motivate the American public to get involved in a European situation where the Europeans themselves are reluctant to get involved? No, it's not enough. What to do, therefore, to motivate that public? The answer is to start a convoluted argument, and end it with a warning that WW III could result if America remained aloof. This is how Bolton does it:

“Some argue that NATO should never have admitted ex-Warsaw Pact members, or added former Soviet republics, because geography and history relegated these countries to Russia's influence. [But] one could argue that Poland is in Germany's influence. That kind of dispute is why Europe saw two world wars. It is to prevent such wars, and further effusions of American blood, that we bring countries into NATO.”

As can be seen in that tour-de-force, fantasy allows the writer to create a fictitious situation (the dispute between Germany and Russia about Poland,) talk about it as if it were real, then draw the conclusion that it will compel you (America, Europe and NATO) to take measures having the potential to lead to a frightening situation (World War III) which he says he wants to prevent.

And there lies the contradiction because soon after saying that getting these countries into NATO will prevent trouble, he says that: “NATO membership of Ukraine and Georgia undoubtedly carries risks.” So the question: What situation is he aiming for? The prevention of trouble or the invitation of risks? Still, the fact remains that no one knows how the future will unfold, and he feels he must continue motivating the West, or at least motivating America alone to take action.

He begins this part of the argument by answering the “What if?” question: “The Europeans missed an excellent chance to reduce the risks in 2008...” and he begins the argument by which he unveils the policy question he mentioned at the start: “...and now, of course, they are even more dependent on Russian hydrocarbons.” He gives details by asserting that: “expanded trade between Russia and the EU has enhanced Russia's leverage , not Europe's.” And so he argues for the economic isolation of Russia which, he says, can now be done given the new oil and gas discoveries in America.

But he laments that Europe is timid and Obama is weak. Meanwhile “the stakes are high for Ukraine and Georgia … equally high for all the former Soviet republics, which understand … they will not be far behind.” And the matter does not end here, according to Bolton, because further afield China is watching, and it has made its own territorial claims in Asia.

And so, the response he wishes for is that America prepare itself militarily to stand up to the whole world alone if need be. Why is that? Because the world is full of evil empires developing the potential to threaten America's national security. But what about the American public that had it up to here being told this story for seventy years, and getting involved in adventures that made that situation possible in the first place? Well, skilled politicians, he says, will know how to sell the message to the public in the upcoming campaign for the presidency of the United States.

The part of history that John Bolton is missing is that following the Reagan buildup of America's military, someone remarked: “We borrowed a trillion dollars from the Japanese and had a hell of a party.” That buildup may have contributed to the demise of the old Soviet Union, which had the good sense to realize it would be futile to fight a losing battle thus changed course. But it also had the effect of contributing to the slow motion economic demise of America, and the simultaneous rise of China, Russia and a number of other economic powerhouses.

The shoe is now on the other foot. Will America have the good sense to realize it is futile to fight a losing battle, and decide to change course before hitting bottom?

Obama and the American public say let's try something new; Bolton and his kind say let's hit bottom and get our noses rubbed in the mud.

From a Culture of Ideas to one of Sound Bites

Once upon a time there were three regular audio-visual networks in America and not a single cable network. A first time visitor to the country would have seen a reflection of it in those media as well as their print sisters. In fact, everyone in the business of communicating with the public sought to reflect an image of the self as being the quintessential American. And this meant that the ideas and the concepts mattered more than the words that carried them to the audience.

For example, the television networks had two hours in the morning during which time they broadcast (a) segments containing the national and international news; (b) segments containing interviews conducted usually with experts in the field being discussed, and carried out at the highest intellectual level; (c) segments representing lighter moments such as interviews conducted with entertainers of one kind or another, allowing them at times to perform live on the set.

All this being a true reflection of the nation, you met people that came with a bow-tie or a T-shirt, people that came with a stiff upper lip or a loose tongue, and people that were naturally courteous or naturally vulgar. As to the noon hour, one network had a dry and formal half-hour news broadcast, and nothing else. In the evening, all three networks had half-hour news with the occasional two-minute commentary. Then one day, one of the networks went to a full hour broadcast of the evening news, and the others followed suit.

This was the post WW II America, an era that lasted a generation and a half or maybe two. Then several developments happened almost simultaneously, both in the realm of communication technology and the demography of the nation. This brought about a rapid change in the way that America's face looked to its people and to strangers. It was a development that turned the word into an end in itself, thus put the comprehension of the ideas and concepts beyond the reach of most people.

In technology, fiber optics gave birth to cable television, and this changed the face of the audio-visuals where 24 hours of cable news allowed the quips and the sound bites to replace the ideas and the concepts to being the preferred mode of communication. As to demography, the second and third generation offspring of the post-war baby boomers made it their pastime to fight the established order with the aim to absolutely eradicating the old … without having a clue as to what should replace it.

And while all this was happening, the old timers died off one after the other ... from the youngest such as Charles Kuralt to the oldest such as Mike Wallace. A handful of these people are still alive, but most have retired and have gone out of sight with one notable exception. That would be George F. Will who wrote a column under the title: “The Adolescent President” and the subtitle: “The rhetorical excesses of Barack Obama.” It was published on April 23, 2014 in National Review Online. Having all that background in mind, it should be easy to understand why he wrote the column the way that he did.

George Will criticizes young President Obama for using the quips “meanwich” and “stinkburger” while talking to a young academic audience, so he calls him an arrested-development adolescent. He goes on to say there are four figures of speech that teenagers use when communicating with each other that the President has used lately. Expecting him to show four strong examples that will make the President look like a true adolescent, you are blown away by Will's massive failure with his first example.

Look at what he calls the invocation of a straw man. To make his point, he quotes the President as saying: “They said nobody would sign up.” He then followed with his own observation which is to the effect that: “Of course, no one said this.” The fact is that some people did say “nobody would sign up.” They said it because it is a figure of speech that does not literally mean anybody, but means very few people, at best, will sign up. In fact, George Will's own observation illustrates this point. When he said “no one said this,” he did not mean it in a literal sense because only a fool would try that.

Do you know why? Because the attempt would be a futile effort to prove the negative. The only way he can prove positively that nobody said that, is to obtain seven billion affidavits from the seven billion people who inhabit the Earth, each saying they never said that. Since he cannot do this, he proved himself to be a fool for ascertaining that “no one said this.” And he proved to be an even bigger fool when he called the President a pyromaniac in a field of straw men.

George Will did not make that colossal mistake because he is of the old guard; he made it because he shed the old without embracing the new which is why he is currently living in a cultural purgatory. And you can see the effect of this reality in the other three figures of speech he says the President borrowed from teenagers. One of these being that Obama said the debate is settled and over. Well, teenagers may or may not have a good reason for saying the debate is over; the President has the duty and the power to call for cloture. The principle is in the constitution of every parliamentary democracy. Check it out, George.

Another point to which he objects is Obama's assertion that ACA is working. No, says Will, it is not working. Well, if one of these two must be considered adolescent, it will have to be the columnist because the President has millions of people on his side saying that ACA is working for them.

The last point brought out by the writer is that the President said ACA was not about him. This means it should not be about him. But if some “states have chosen not to expand Medicaid for no reason than political spite,” that's their problem and not Obama's. If George Will wants to make it his problem too, he can go right ahead and do so, thus prolong his stay in purgatory.

Importance of 'Gross Output' exaggerated

Mark Skousen is excited that the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) has at long last taken the idea of Gross Output seriously, thus making it as important as the GDP (Gross Domestic Product). He explains why he is happy about this development in an article he wrote under the title: “At Last, a Better Economic Measure” and the subtitle: “Gross output will correct the fallacy fostered by GDP that consumer spending drives the economy.” The article was published in the Wall Street Journal on April 23, 2014.

Although the value of Gross Output can be extracted from the mountain of data published periodically on the performance of the economy, it will nevertheless be very helpful to people doing a certain kind of analysis when the BEA will start publishing the raw data as it compiles it in the field. Another advantage of having this data is that the figures will be more accurate than those which can be extracted.

We need to take an example to see what all this means. Suppose you are a mogul so enamored with the auto industry, you wish to do nothing in life but mass produce a model of the ultimate mini-car. You build an integrated industry that starts with the mining of raw materials, that go through the various stages of producing parts for the car. The parts get assembled into cars that end up as finished products in the dealerships you open around the country. You do your bookkeeping to serve both the GDP method, and the Gross Output method.

To that end, you compile your figures as follows for each car. Your Mining Division sells 1,000 dollars worth of raw materials to the division that makes the parts. The added value here is the full figure of $1,000. The Parts Division makes the parts and sells them to the Assembly Division for 2,000 dollars. The value added here is $2,000 - $1,000 = $1,000. The assembly division does the assembly and sells the finished product to the showroom for 4,000 dollars. The value added here is $4,000 - $2,000 = $2,000. Ultimately, the showroom sells the car to the final customer for 7,000 dollars. The added value here is $7,000 - $4,000 = $3.000.

Seeing the final sale price of 7,000 dollars, you know right away that this is the sum total of all the added values. To be sure, you compile 1,000 + 1,000 + 2,000 + 3,000 = 7,000 dollars. You now compile the values for the Gross Output, and they would be the sale values of each division to the next ... all he way to the final customer. They are these: 1,000 + 2,000 + 4,000 + 7,000 = 14,000 dollars. This is double the figure compiled for the GDP.

Mark Skousen says there are advantages to having these two approaches rather than having only the GDP approach. He calls Gross Output, a supply-side statistic because it measures all the steps in the production side of the economy as seen in the above example. And this is different from the GDP which measures the “use” economy as represented by the figure representing the final sale – also seen in the above example.

Well, that view is obvious and not subject to question. But the Skousen argument becomes questionable when he says this: “[GDP] has led to the misguided Keynesian notion that consumer and government spending drive the economy rather than saving, business investment, technology and entrepreneurship.” He bases that argument on the fact that a great deal of activity is done before the final customer enters the picture.

That is true, but if the final customer is taken out of the picture, everything that is done before him will come to a screeching halt. This is because the showrooms will fill with cars that nobody is buying; the storage capacity of the Assembly Division will fill with parts that cannot be assembled; the factories making the parts will fill with raw materials that is not needed; the smelters at the mines will stop smelting the piles of ores piling at the hoppers, and the mills will stop milling the ores that keep coming from the mines.

Yes, a great deal is done before the ultimate buyer gets to do his thing and buys the car, but he is the king for whom all that is done is done. If he goes on strike, everyone else goes to sleep. The truth is that an economy is made of two parts in the same way that a bird is made of two wings. The economy cannot fly without the supply side which produces the goods and the services; and neither can it fly without the consumption side which absorbs those goods and services and gets things moving.

People like Mark Skousen will have to stop politicizing everything they write just to get published, and the Wall Street Journal will have to stop looking for politics in everything it decides to publish. A world class economy deserves better than that.

Mysterious Ways how Things turn around

The Dennis Prager article of April 22, 2014 in National Review Online sent me back to a time when Jews had less influence on the media in Canada, and I had the motivation to go see people in their newspaper offices, their radio studios and their television stations to befriend what I hoped will be the individuals I shall work with someday. The Prager article has the title: “From the Great-Man Theory to Dead-White-Male-Criticism Theory” and the subtitle: “When race and class eclipse values, pursuing the truth is just 'acting white.'”

What is mysterious even to someone like me who has seen much that is odd in life, is how some people – all of them Jews – can be responsible for creating a situation, and then be so adamant complaining about it. And this is what Prager is doing in the current article. I do not know what he may have done long ago to contribute to the situation he is complaining about, but I can tell you that neither he nor any Jew I know of complained about such situation in the past. In fact, no one at all – Jew or gentile – complained about it publicly.

A complaint that was whispered in my ear more often than any other came usually from young Christian women and men who wanted me to know – and if possible do something about – those Jews who appeared out of nowhere, and bossed them like a slave driver. They used to tell them they must do things they never did before; things that made no sense at all. It is that the Jewish bosses wanted the camera operators and floor managers to cut to the reaction shots of people making bad faces when an Arab was speaking or when a non-Arab was saying something good about the Arabs. As well, the bosses wanted to see happy reaction shots when a Jew was speaking or when someone was saying good things about Israel or the Jews.

And there were numerous stories about young television hosts or hopeful ones that were invited to dinner by people they only knew as being highly placed. During the dinner, the notion was slipped to them that the Arabs and those who speak on their behalf never answer the question directly but always go off on a tangent. The advice given to the hosts was to the effect that they should cut the guests off at the start, and tell them in a humiliating fashion to answer the question. Some hosts did just that, and felt bad about it later because they knew it was not the Arabs who went off on a tangent; it was the Jews who did so – and did it all the time.

There were other complaints as well that reached me, and they were just as bizarre and just as nonsensical. For example, there was the story of the Jewish boss who almost had a fit behind the camera when an Arab professor from New Brunswick was having a first class interview on live television. The problem that almost killed the Jew was that the host of the show refused to kill the interview and go to a commercial despite the frantic gesticulations by the boss to do so.

And this brings us to the current lamentation by Dennis Prager. He begins his presentation by giving examples as to how some things were perceived decades ago, and how they are perceived now. He finds the situation to be lamentable, and blames the transformation on the “left-wing trinity of race, gender and class” taught to students in American colleges so as to instill disdain in them for the white race. He explains: “The new dividing lines are no longer good and bad or excellent and mediocre but white and non-white, male and female, and rich and poor.”

Well. You know what Dennis Prager? Let me tell you something, Dennis. Thirty and forty years ago, I and a few like myself were saying something to the effect that the new dividing lines are no longer good and bad or excellent and mediocre but Arab and non-Arab, hyphenated and non-hyphenated, Jewish lackey and free spirit. And we predicted that someday, this virulent Jewish disease will spread throughout the North American culture, and will rot it so badly that even the Jews will suffer from it like the snake that bites itself. You are feeling the effect of the bite, Dennis and you are screaming bloody murder. But I am not shedding a tear for you.

You and your people (if indeed you are a people) have asked for it. You got it and more than that, you contaminated the culture that embraced you and gave you every opportunity to share it, contribute to it, add to it and improve on it, but all you did was exploit it and rot it so badly, you cannot bring yourself to even smell it.

You're sorry for what you did, and so is the rest of the world.

What Bret Stephens knows but won't tell you

When we speak of dictatorship, we usually mean the rule of one person, but the truth is that no man or woman has ever governed a society single-handedly. Such rulers would have had a small entourage of loyal toadies helping them govern, or they would have had a majority of the society agreeing with them if not urging them to impose even harsher measures on the nation.

For this reason, expressions such as (1) dictatorship of the majority, (2) that of the proletariat and (3) that of the Bolsheviks have been coined. Their use means that a nation does not necessarily need a single despot to be run like a dictatorship; the same effect can be had if a majority of the population adopts an extreme point of view, and demands that it becomes the accepted doctrine of the nation.

Thus, if we consider democracy to be the opposite of dictatorship, and if we reduce democracy to the act of staging periodic elections and the taking of a vote, we can construct a situation in which a society will live in a state of dictatorship and a state of democracy simultaneously. In fact, apartheid South Africa was such a society as does Israel at this time given that oppression and the staging of elections existed at the same time in the same place in South Africa as they do now in Israel.

There remain the pertinent questions: What about the former colonial powers of Europe that exploited other peoples? And America that enslaved its own people? Were they democracies at the time because they staged elections? If the answer is no, must we not, therefore, consider the current regimes which are offshoots of that past to be the expression of a false democracy? Or is there something else we have not thought about?

The above is what comes to mind when you read the latest of the Bret Stephens columns. It has the title: “What Samuel Huntington Knew” and the subtitle: “The dictators are back. The political scientist saw it coming.” The column was published in the Wall Street Journal on April 22, 2014.

Stephens starts his discussion by mentioning the political scientist, Samuel Huntington, who wondered what would happen if the American model of governance began to look like a loser. Apparently, he wondered at a time when “all over the world, people seemed to want democracy, capitalism, free trade, free speech, freedom of conscience, freedom for women,” says Stephens. But then look what happened, says he: “the dictators are back in places where we thought they had been banished. And they are back by popular demand.”

He mentions the Egyptian Abdel Fatah Sisi that is expected to win in next month's election overwhelmingly, the Hungarian Viktor Orban that just won a third term, the Turk Recep Erdogan whose party won resounding victories in key elections, and Vladimir Putin of Russia that has a public approval of 80 percent. All these people are established dictators, says Stephens, or expected to become one in the case of Sisi. And they all have something else in common: they are doing so badly, they should not be held in such high esteem by their people, yet they are – what is going on?

The author gives a quick rundown of the explanations offered by the West to account for that mystery, and says that not one account explains everything. And so he comes up with his own explanation; one that should not surprise those who know his thinking. He says that the West is not doing well because it is not delivering higher growth, lower unemployment and better living. A few paragraphs later, he elaborates: “ A West that prefers debt-subsidized welfarism over economic growth … A West that sacrifices efficiency on the altars of regulation...” This is Right Wing thinking. But to get from the assertion to the elaboration, Stephens finds it necessary to quote Huntington again who wrote: “Sustained inability to provide welfare, equity, justice, domestic order … could over time undermine the legitimacy of even democratic governments.” And this is Left Wing thinking. Stephens has just contradicted himself which is also typical of his style.

And there is worse. It is that he says this: “A West that consistently sacrifices efficiency on the altars ... of political consensus will lose the dynamism that makes the risks inherent in free societies seem worthwhile. A West that shrinks from maintaining global order … will invite challenges from nimble adversaries willing to take geopolitical gambles.”

In other words, Bret Stephens is calling for the dynamism of dictatorships to replace the inefficient political consensus of the democracies. For this to work, he attributes the taking of risks not to dictators but to free societies. And he explains what those risks are: the taking of geopolitical gambles, he says. These are code words to mean that he wants America and the West to keep fighting till they vanquish someone or be vanquished themselves.

Do we see something else at play here? Yes, and we do not have to go too far to see what that is. It is vintage Bret Stephens which means vintage World Jewry. Authoritarianism has been and remains the core of Jewish life, and while that core does not change, the outer skin does, taking on the color and shape most preferred by the beholder. Right now the beholder is a liberal democrat, and so the outer skin of the Jew appears liberal and democratic.

But the decision of the collective is what stands at the end of the day, which is why Jewish dictatorship rarely looks like that of one man or one woman. Rather it looks like the mysterious unfolding of events you know are Jewish inspired but have difficulty tracing to a single Jew. In the end, everyone in his country – be that America or Europe – is made to feel like a Palestinian in his own country.

And this is why people all over the world want to be governed by leaders who will deal decisively with Jewish infiltrators, thus keep them free to choose the life they want to live in their own country, not the life chosen for them by Jewish masters living somewhere else.

The Cleansing has started but not completed

America will have no hope recapturing its old cultural vibrancy till it cleanses itself of the rivers of Jewish moral syphilis running through all aspects of its journalistic, cultural and political life. Not only does the phenomenon affect the character of the American person at home where Christian children are taught that the only way they will succeed in life is by attaching themselves to a Jewish god, and be obedient to him – it also affects America's relationship with the rest of the world; one that gets shaped by the syphilitic lens through which America views everyone else, thus invites a reciprocal sort of response.

Fortunately, there are signs that things may be about to change. These may be false signs or they may be good omens – time will tell. What we can do in the meantime is watch what is happening, encourage the positive developments when and where we can, and hope for the best. One example giving off hopeful signs is the article that was written by Erin Cunningham under the title: “Young people led Egypt's revolution, but the old guard still rules.” It was published in the Washington Post on April 20, 2014.

Already from the opening few paragraphs, the reader senses the kind of internal wrestling that is undergoing in the mind and soul of the article's writer. On the one hand Cunningham went to Cairo equipped with old banalities (Egypt's increasingly authoritarian trajectory) as well as instructions on where to go in Cairo (modest cafe in the capital's impoverished neighborhood of Imbaba.) These were the old clichés and stereotypes that clashed with what the writer saw when she got there.

And what she saw, and was not afraid to describe with unusual honestly, was the reality that “the recent confrontation was a small reflection of a widening generational split – one that is likely to challenge Sissi should he be elected this spring.” She saw a generational gap; a human phenomenon whose association with those hated by the Jews was forbidden to make lest these people appear human to American eyes.

It may be that we are beginning to see a sign the Jewish moral syphilis infesting the American journalistic setup is being expunged. In fact, the rest of the article – or most of it – could have been written about a situation unfolding in a place like say, America, Britain, Canada or Australia. This is a treatment you never saw applied to Egypt in the last four decades. In fact, it is a treatment you never saw applied anywhere else in the world because every place had a set of specifications that were determined for it beforehand. They were specifications designed to comply with the view that the Jews have for each place.

But if the recent transformation of Cunningham is real and permanent, it means that America is on its way to being healed. This will happen because America's relation with the rest of the world will improve, and because the human condition at home is better understood when looked at it from several different angles. Given that the Americans were instructed to view that condition from the Jewish angle, they could never have realized what Cunningham is now telling them can happen and does happen.

Look at this passage: “The rift between generations is certainly not absolute. A significant number of young people support the current military-backed order, and some older people oppose the government and its security campaigns.” In other words, the author is saying that nothing is all black or all white, but things are made of shades of gray. This is true everywhere in the world, and it must be true in America as well. This is a good lesson to learn and to remember.

It also means that Erin Cunningham is re-injecting a sense of depth into the American culture. This is what the Jewish moral syphilis has been depleting since it arrived decades ago with the promise to educate the public as to the “Jewish sensitivities.” The Americans got sensitive alright, and the culture became superficial.

Another thing that Cunningham is telling her readers is that the young in Egypt are agitating because they want a seat at the table. Well, some of us remember what happened when an Egyptian billionaire spent a fortune trying to get them to go out and campaign for their candidates. But what did they do? They said: “don't worry, Mr. Sawiris, we don't have to go out and campaign. We can do it all by social media.” That was not good enough because these people need to walk the walk to get to the table.

Let's hope they learned that lesson.

The Politics of Intellectual Prostitution

The Jewish obsession with Egypt – going back almost three and a half millenniums – is not abating. In fact, it seems to become more intense with time as can be seen with the way that the politics around the subject has developed in the last few days. Let's begin with the online Forbes Magazine where Tim Ferguson wrote an article in which he mentions both the IMF view of the Egyptian economy, and that of Steven Cook whom Ferguson says is a senior fellow for the Mideast at the Council on Foreign Relations. The Ferguson article appeared in Forbes on April 17, 2014 under the title: “An Egypt Expert Doesn't Share IMF's Hopeful View.”

What's it about? Well, if you are modestly familiar with the events that have transpired in Egypt during the past three years, and if you have been following the IMF reports concerning that country, you'll come out with the view that the international institution has been painting a fairly accurate picture of the economic situation as it was evolving in Egypt. But parallel to that, Tim Ferguson of Forbes Magazine has been doing what most publications of the kind do which is to paint a bleaker picture than warranted. They do what they do for a reason, which is what motivated Ferguson. But he also had a second reason as we shall see in a moment.

The motivation for being negative on the countries that have gone through difficult times – like a revolution, for example – is that people such as Ferguson badmouth those economies to scare off potential investors. This keeps the value of the assets down while Ferguson and cohorts load up on them. It is only after they had their fill that they start saying the economy has performed well. When the buyers start lining up to buy those assets, Ferguson and cohorts line up to sell to them at a high price.

The second reason has to do with the Jewish obsession with Egypt. To begin with, it must be noted that the Jewish propaganda machine has developed the habit of speaking of the Arabs as if they were automatons that respond not to the full range of human emotions but to fear and fear only. That is, if you want an Arab to go left, you must make him fear going right. If you want him to backtrack, you must make him fear going forward. This is moral syphilis, of course, and the Jewish machine has ejaculated a heavy load of it into the heads, hearts and souls of the Americans, especially the congressional dogs who gorge themselves on syphilis.

And the way that the Jewish leaders and their running dogs have practiced that habit in relation to Egypt, was to mobilize hundreds upon hundreds of mouthpieces, who gave thousands upon thousands of lectures, and wrote tens of thousands of articles on how to punish Egypt for not doing as told. And with the warning came the threat that Egypt will be punished even more severely if it did not make the strategic decision of changing its ways fundamentally and for good. And would you know it, one of the mouthpieces, and a loud one at that, was Steven A. Cook who participated mightily at filling the heads, hearts and souls of Americans with moral syphilis.

And then, an advice put together by the revolutionary people of Egypt, was sent to the successive leaders of that country. It was to the effect that the way to deal with Jewish America is to show these people a big and fat middle finger telling the bags of moral syphilis they should stick the thing right up their rear ends. It should go deep inside ... and should reach the throat where they will tear their vocal cords. This will force them to stop making the kind of threats that work on no one but the Jews whose very existence rests on the fear of being annihilated. Fear motivates no one but the Jews; yet fear is advocated by no one but the Jews. Go figure.

Not too many got the message of revolutionary Egypt, but Steven Cook – a mouthpiece of the Jewish propaganda machine – did. And so, he wrote an article not to say punish Egypt as he used to, but to say something else. It is that he found himself in a quandary when the people of Egypt called his bluff. So he stopped saying punish Egypt but could not say reward it either. What to do?

Well, the Jewish obsession with Egypt being still there, and the intense desire for keeping that country “in the fold” growing more intense, Steven Cook and those like him had no alternative but to say: Help Egypt because that country is important to us, and it is in trouble economically. This is what his article is about.

As to Tim Ferguson and the Forbes people who could not understand the message if it were stuffed right up their rear ends, they got the bright idea of using the Cook article to claim vindication for what they have been echo repeating for ever and ever.

I gave up on these people, and you should too. They are a lost cause beyond any redemption.