The Prism through which they see the World

The best way there is to know how someone grew up is to listen to them tell how a third party should be treated. If you get acquainted with someone, and you detect in them a definite attitude as to how other people should be treated, you know this is the treatment they have themselves received while growing up.

It applies whether you work with someone; whether you just met someone socially, or even if you're a teacher and have a student or two constantly passing judgment on other students, and telling you how you should treat them. What is also true is that individuals of a certain culture have tendencies of varying degrees to advocate how someone else should be treated. If you see that the same tendency is repeated in a number of them, you can be certain this is a trait of their culture.

I have lived in Canada for half a century, and the most powerful influence here has been the culture next door; that of the United States of America. And as the culture down there kept transforming, so have the winds of change blown the evolving tendencies in our direction. But while most people interpret what comes from south of the border as being simply American, the more attentive minds can discern which developments are caused by what segments of the American culture.

Given my personal circumstances and what I have encountered since early on during my stay in Canada, the influence of one particular segment of the American society has been of interest to me more than any other. That was the Jewish influence. It happened because the work that the Jewish organizations were doing in America was not restricted to that country but was systemic at its core and global in nature. Thus, the work that was done in America was done in Canada – sometimes a little differently to suit a slightly different circumstance  – and echoes of it was reverberating everywhere else in the world that I was able to study.

The one thing that was pronounced and remained constant throughout the time that I have been studying the Jewish phenomenon in America is the role that fear has been playing in that culture. From a confident America where people walked with their heads high because of who they were, they have transformed into fearful little things running around accusing each other of not repeating often enough that they are exceptional. It is as if the repetition of the word – like the recitation of the rosary – was going to take them closer to the heavens where they will sit with the gods of admiration and world respect, thus become one with them.

Inciting America to use fear as a tool of foreign policy has been almost everywhere that a Jew put pen to paper, and I discussed several such instances on this website. But nothing has been as powerfully expressive of that tendency as the editorial of April 28, 2014 published in the Washington Post under the title: “Obama's half-measures give Vladimir Putin little to fear”. As far as I know, this is the first time that an iconic American publication has used the word fear in the title of an editorial concerning a country that may no longer be a full-fledged superpower but remains one militarily.

After the introduction and after telling what they have observed, the editors of the Post get to deplore what they see; they get to lament what they dislike, and get to make recommendations as to what ought to be done next. They deplore this: “the [Obama] administration did not want to act without the European Union, which announced its own minimalist sanctions.” They lament this: “the U.S. sanctions policy is 'calibrated' less toward rescuing Ukraine than toward … set back U.S. economic growth.” And they tell what must be done now: “Those motives ought to be trumped by the imperative of standing against forcible change of borders in Europe.” In other words, they say that Obama must choose to frighten Putin even if he must further starve the unemployed Americans and their families.

And the Post editors finally express their frustration at the fact that things are not going their way – the Jewish way. This is how they do it: “By choosing not to use the economic weapons at his disposal and broadcasting that restraint to the world, Mr. Obama is telling Mr. Putin as well as other[s] ... that they continue to have little to fear from the United States.”

And this last part is what the Jewish organizations have been telling the world means not the United States of all Americans but the United States of Jewish America.

Moral Compass of the Wall Street Journal

It is said that if you want to know where the moral compass of a publication (such as the Wall Street Journal) is pointing, look at the sort of opinion articles that its editors choose to publish. And we have two good examples of that in the April 29, 2014 edition of the Journal.

The first article has the title: “Busting Insider Trading: As Pointless as prohibition” and the subtitle: “Just as Americans found ways to keep drinking, Wall Street will always look for an edge.” It was written by Henry G. Manne who is retired dean of a law school. The second article has the title: “Germany Turns Against the West on Russia” and the subtitle: “Angela Merkel meets with Obama this week and says she's on America's side. But some think she's being played by Vladimir Putin.” It was written by John Vinocur.

The gist of the Manne article is that there is a kind of equivalence between the effort to eradicate alcohol consumption and the effort to eradicate insider trading. He says both are pointless efforts because they are futile attempts to accomplish the impossible. And why is that? Because, in the case of insider trading, “there is simply too much money sloshing around waiting for an edge.”

Manne then draws the parallel between the history of Prohibition and that of busting insider trading by giving detailed accounts of the sort of efforts that went into both situations. The one to ban the consumption of alcohol failed, he says, because the “massive criminalization of a generally benign activity became too scandalous even for the pious moralists who fueled the drive for prohibition.”

And then, with a sense of yearning which he does not disguise, he goes on to say this: “Perhaps the same will happen with insider trading … The imagination of wealth seekers in using valuable information will always outpace the ability of regulators to cope.” To close, he makes this astonishing point: “The case for outlawing insider trading is even weaker … Insider trading not only does no harm, it can have significant social and economic benefits.”

And so you wonder if he understands that trading in assets is always a zero-sum game. What someone makes on the stock markets is what someone else loses. The one that wins by cheating commits the crime of hurting the one that does not cheat. And for the retired dean of a law school to take a stance such as this is truly scandalous. But that's not the only thing to alarm you because this stance is also that of the prestigious business publication, the Wall Street Journal.

As to the Vinocur article, this author is writing about another author named Winkler who wrote an essay in which he “expressed alarm about a current rise in German sentiment showing understanding for Vladimir Putin.” Vinocur writes that Winkler has written: “this trend is creating new doubts about Germany's calculability.”

He tells of the upcoming meeting between German Chancellor Angela Merkel and US President Barack Obama regarding the situation involving Russia and Ukraine. His view of Merkel is that she wants to be friends with everyone because it is good for business. In fact, he mocks her with the sally: “we're in the money.” Aside from that, Vinocur makes clear that the German Chancellor is where the German people are … on the fence between East and West, between Russia and America.

And this prompts Vinocur to ask the question: “Could anything come out of the Merkel-Obama meeting?” And he answers by making a bizarre point which he says was whispered to him by someone called Michael Naumann. Apparently the point made is that the German people are afraid of Russia, and Putin knows this. And so, Vinocur predicts that America will have to face Russia alone.

Whatever “face Russia” means, it is obvious that the editors of the Wall Street Journal are okay with it. So here we have a situation in which the Journal says: let them rob each other all they want on Wall Street. But when it comes to Germany trading the value added of her workers against the raw materials of Russia, watch out because America will have to face that situation with stern actions.

Where is your moral compass, Wall Street Journal?

Anatomy of a Peace Maker's Crucifixion

The American Secretary of State, John Kerry said something mild about a situation in Palestine that is in reality far worse. And a volcano of molten lead that is in the belly of every fanatic Jew exploded in rage. The lava poured out their mouths calling for Kerry's hide when all that he did was warn that if Israel continues to sabotage every effort to end the occupation of Palestine, it will become an apartheid state.

The reality, however, is that Israel is now and has always been a terrorist state far worse than anything the planet has ever seen. Israel is that and only that, being the product of a murderous ideology that has been disguising itself as a religion for thousands of years. It is headed by a god they describe as a general of war; one that gave them a book of history and worship soaked in blood from cover to cover.

After the last of the holocausts that humanity has inflicted on these creatures to protect itself from their evil deeds, they developed the strategy of erupting like a concerted bunch of volcanoes every time that someone came along and tried to show them the way to a peaceful existence. But in the way that they crucified the first of peace-makers, they tried to crucify everyone that came after him. In modern times, Jimmy Carter, the former President of the United States, and now John Kerry have become targets.

The people who followed that history during the past few decades could tell it will all come to that, having witnessed the way that the Jews reacted to the Palestinian women and children who tried to protect their homes from being demolished. The Israeli army had sent its American-made tanks to demolish those homes, and the women came out accompanied by their children to do the only thing they could, which was to throw stones at the tanks in the hope of stopping them.

But unlike China during the Tienanmen Square uprising when a single man forced a column of tanks driven by human beings to stop, the Israeli tanks, driven by animals disguised as humans, moved ahead and demolished the homes to begin the process of confiscating the land. And those animals, now calling themselves Jews, sent their emissaries to New York where they erupted their abdominal volcanoes with the cry: “They throw stones at our soldiers … oh pity me, pity me.” And the Congress of rats in America pitied them and sent them more money and more tanks. And the Jewish mayor of New York at the time called the Palestinian women and children the scum of the Earth.

It is no wonder, therefore, that on April 27, 2014, the Boston Globe published a column by Jeff Jacoby under the title: “Kansas killer a throwback, but anti-Semitism still thrives.” And the next day, Jonathan S. Tobin wrote a piece under the title: “Kerry's Apartheid Slur Sabotages Peace” and had it published in the magazine Commentary.

Talking about the Kansas incident and comparing it to the “Shoah of 70 years ago” when Europe staged its latest attempt to exterminated the Jews, Jacoby says nothing to recall a book that was published a number of years ago in which it was demonstrated that Hitler was not alone but that the entire nation of Germany – reflecting all of Europe at the time – was full of “Hitler's Executioners.” That is, all of Europe was happy to see the Jews vanish. Why?

Instead of doing some serious thinking, Jacoby dismisses that history with the characteristic Jewish trivial quip: “Hitler's purpose in exterminating the Jews was for the Jews to be exterminated.” Do you now wonder why this sort of thing keeps happening? Here you have a John Kerry trying to start a serious conversation in search of profound conclusions, and here you have those things – calling themselves Jewish thinkers and leaders of the Jewish people – flush the entire conversation down the tube with silly little things which, in their minds loom large like a mountain of Jewish wisdom.

As for the Tobin piece – after calling Kerry's remark a slur, as he did in the title, and saying for the trillionth time it is what sabotages the peace process – Tobin delivers his most glorious example of Jewish thinking. Guess what that is. In case you could not guess, here it is: “Kerry exploded the notion that he is an evenhanded broker since he is effectively rationalizing, if not justifying the next intifada as well as the continued effort to sanction Israel.” Intifada being the revolt of the Palestinians to free themselves of the occupation; and the effort to sanction Israel being a worldwide movement, Tobin says that for America to finally stand on the side of history turns it into a biased broker.

And so you ask a very serious question: How many on this planet will shed a genuine tear the next time that a Shoah is inflicted on these people? I guarantee you it will not be many because this time, most of humanity will have become honorary executioner of that man 70 years ago with his picture tattooed on every shoulder and every chest.

You are begging for that day, Jacoby. You are begging for it, Tobin.

They want the old Wine in a new Bottle

You start reading an article and it bores silly because the content is a rehash of things that were said before and debunked almost instantly. You decide you're not going to respond to this piece because there must be something better out there requiring your attention. And then, you hit on a passage in the article that has an effect on you similar to a tornado lifting you in the air and slamming you against a brick wall at a hundred miles an hour. And you say to yourself: I got to write about this.

That notorious article has the title: “Demand-Side Policy gave Us the Big Economic Fizzle” and the subtitle: “The unstimulating stimulus ignored basic principles of economic incentives.” It was written by Alan Reynolds of the Cato Institute, and published in the Wall Street Journal on April 28, 2014. The passage that jolted me came near the end, and reads like this: “If private business had not produced $14.1 trillion, consumers could not possibly have consumed $11.1 trillion. Economies do not grow because consumers spend more; consumers can spend more only if economies grow,” which made me think: What are they trying to do now?

The purpose of the Reynolds article is to show that the politics of supply-side is better than the politics of demand-side. To this end, the author attacks all that the current administration, and all that the Fed have done since 2009 ... to then conclude that: “demand-side has encouraged families and firms to spend … A supply-side solution would incentivize families and firms to produce more income and wealth by minimizing regulation, trade barriers, unreliable money and dispiriting tax rates.”

Aside from that short passage which gives a glimpse as to how Reynolds thinks, you encounter a great deal of fluffed up rhetoric which means very little. Here is an example of that: “Demand-side economists focus on incentives to borrow and spend. Supply-side economists focus on incentives to work, save, invest and launch new businesses. Demand-side economists focus on the uses of income and debt (consumption). Supply-side economists focus on sources of income and wealth.” Putting all that aside, you look at the rest of the article and try to piece together his theory as to why the economy has not been growing at a faster rate.

You notice early on that he asks the question: Did fiscal or monetary stimulus actually “stimulate demand”? Which tells you right away that he acknowledges the secret to growth is higher demand. And in trying to answer the question, he makes the point that the administration and the Fed went about achieving that goal the wrong way. This does not demolish the theory that demand is key to growth; it simply says that he believes the supply-side remedy can do a better job. So you want to know how that would work according to him.

He explains this part by showing where the Fed and the administration did the wrong things. He says that the fed pushed the interest rates down; a move that had the effect of subsidizing “big borrowers (governments and banks) at the expense of small savers (seniors).” This is a mind blowing admission put this bluntly perhaps for the first time. It says that in America, there has been a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. As to the fiscal stimulus – what the administration did that was wrong – he quotes all sorts of reports, and displays all sorts of percentages to show that the stimulus did work but not as well as it could have.

He does not explain how supply-side would have produced a higher growth since 2009 given what the economy was going through. What he does, instead, is attack what he calls the “deficit-increasing schemes,” including the payroll tax cuts that the administration has implemented. And so he argues that the resulting increase in debt will have a detrimental effect on future growth. Nothing to explain past failures but plenty to predict future failures if the remedies he proposes will not be implemented.

And so he explains how he sees the future unfold: “Expectations of higher taxes on income will discourage investments … expanding business or improving education [will] dampen if the resulting higher income shoves you into higher tax brackets. Business investments are particularly sensitive to the prospect of higher tax rates on profits.” Which means to say allow the transfer of more wealth from the poor to the rich by adopting a policy of total laissez-faire.

He then throws in something that is truly revealing. It is this: “What is remarkable is that the number of Americans who were neither working nor seeking work soared from 80.9 million to 91.4 million.” He does not explain how this happened because he knows it is the bitter reality used by those who argue that the wealth he acknowledges has been transferred from the poor to the rich in America was invested overseas where the rich Americans are getting even richer while America adds to its unemployment lines.

And what Reynolds is proposing is to continue siphoning off what is left in America to send abroad. It is the same old wine even if it comes in a new bottle.

Unhealthy NY Times Obsession with Egypt

There was a time long ago when Egypt was governed by President Nasser, and I used to live in Cairo. A story surfaced to the effect that an American reporter – probably from the New York Times – was interviewing the President when he remarked that his paper had so far given Egypt coverage worth a million dollars if it were counted as advertizing and paid for. Nasser thought about it for a moment then said: With the kind of reporting we've been getting in your paper, I would pay you a million to keep quiet.

The moral of this story is that perception can vary greatly depending on which side of the table you sit. The American reporter thought the coverage in his paper had been good for Egypt whereas the President of the country thought it was not. This is natural, of course, and you can get a sense of what may have transpired between these two men when you read a recent article published in the NY Times on April 25, 2014. It was written by David D. Kirkpatrick under the title: “Religious Minorities Still Waiting for a New Day in Egypt”.

Already prejudiced against the coverage of Egypt that I see in the New York Times; a publication I feel is too obsessed with that country, I consider that article to be a distortion of reality, therefore detrimental to the country. I am certain, however, that there are people who would not see it that way, least of all the reporter who wrote the article and the editors who published it.

To me, the title itself suggests that the editors of the Times meant to project a bad image of Egypt when they used the word “still” in the middle of it. This article is supposed to be a reporting from the field, not an opinion piece. But the use of that word in the title turns it into an editorial because it suggests that something could have been done but was not done. And when you read the entire article, and you get exposed to the rest of the story, you realize that the title is at odds with the reality on the ground. It is so because you discover that the religious minorities in Egypt are being treated the same as the majority ... contrary to what the title suggests.

Moreover, the “new day” that is mentioned in the title has indeed come to Egypt. It came in the form of a new Constitution that mandates the treatment of everyone equally. You may like the articles of the Constitution pertaining to religion or you may not, but you cannot say they affect the minorities differently from the majority. And yes, despite all that, there are individuals in the country who display prejudice toward those of a different religion. But the government in Cairo cannot legislate bad behavior out of existence anymore than the government in DC can legislate racism out of existence. Prejudice is a fact of life that takes a long time to eradicate.

But what about David Kirkpatrick, the writer of the article? Is he any better than the editors who wrote that title? Apparently not; and this is because his first words are meant to express an opinion he knows will negatively impact the vision that the readers will form of Egypt. Here are the words: “The architects of the military takeover in Egypt...” The author knows that unlike the people of Egypt who appreciate their military as much as the Americans appreciated theirs after the Second World War, the current American population dislikes the military. It does so because it was disappointed by the country's adventures abroad, and so it became suspicious of any military that gets involved in politics. Thus, by using the words “military takeover,” Kirkpatrick is trying to solicit a negative emotional response from the readers.

And now, having prepared the readers to see things through the prism of bias, Kirkpatrick goes on to describe a situation he hopes will make Egypt appear even worse … but he ends up making the country look better. He does because he inadvertently demonstrates that where it takes generations to eradicate the effect of bias in a society, the Egyptians did it in a short period of time. He says this: “Nine months later Egypt's freethinkers and religious minorities are still waiting.” But after 1,200 words of futile attempts to prove the validity of that fallacy, the truth catches up with him.

And so, he is forced to reveal this much: “the complaints have not deterred church leaders from firmly supporting Mr. Sisi as their protector. The Coptic pope has hailed Mr. Sisi as overwhelmingly popular, a competent patriot on an arduous mission, and the one who rescued Egypt. Over Easter weekend, Mr. Sisi made a private visit to the pope at the main cathedral. The mass erupted into prolonged applause at the mention of Mr. Sisi's name.” And all that happened only nine months after what he calls the military takeover.

Well then, is there someone unhappy with the current situation in Egypt? Perhaps there is, but you'll have to look closely to find someone. Guess who it might be. You'll find it hard to believe what you're about to learn – it is the NY Times. However, it is not because the paper was censored in Egypt but because of this: “A panel of scholars has cited authority granted under the new Constitution to block screenings of the Hollywood blockbuster 'Noah' because it violates a prohibition against depiction of the prophets.”

This seems to make the NY Times people unhappy but those who know something about the history of the arts know that idolatry and superstition were prevalent in the Arabian Peninsula; and because of this, Islam restricted the depiction in painting and in sculpture of any and all figures that someone might be inclined to worship. This led to the type of design known as the Arabesque. It involves the fine art of calligraphy, and the sort of geometric figures which are highly decorative, but also play a role in the understanding of that branch of mathematics.

With time, however, the restrictions have been loosened to the point where everything is now permitted except the depiction of God and the prophets – one being Noah. Still, the debate on the subject is ongoing in Egypt because some people want to see this last restriction repealed, and others want it to remain.

And when it comes to the debate about cultural matters in the Arab world, the editors of the New York Times will have no contribution to make if they keep attacking what they don't bother to learn something about.

The surprise Checkmate that killed the Deal

Four American senators trying to sound reasonable write a piece that nevertheless exposes what is wrong with America – what has gone badly wrong with America. John McCain, John Barrasso, John Hoeven and Ron Johnson wrote an article under the title: “It is time for the West to move ahead without Russia” that was published in the Washington Post on April 25, 2014.

Beaten psychologically to a pulp by the hammering they take on a daily basis at the hands of lobbyists representing interest groups – most notably the Jewish and the gun masters of the buttonhole – the four senators do not start the article by saying: here is what we must do for the good of the country. No, this is not what they say. Instead, they draw legitimacy to what they are about to argue from the fact that: “We recently visited Norway, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Moldova … our allies want … they also believe...” These are American senators who no longer even pretend to make independent decisions; they flash the moral dependence they have developed on others, as if showing off their badges of honor.

And what is it that the overnight allies want America to do? They want an “enduring strategic response from the United States, Europe and NATO.” But the senators themselves point out later that Europe may not go along with a plan that is, after all, a return to the Cold War. Thus, America is asked once again to stand sentinel protecting someone, and holding the bag at perpetuity. So then, what is the response of the senators? It is this: “It should be clear to all … We cannot return to business as usual.” They are embracing the business handed to them by the overnight allies.

That was an instant demand from someone they sat with only a few hours, and that was their instant response as lawmakers of superpower America. It takes these people months to decide on keeping their own government from shutting down; it takes them hours to agree to rekindle the Cold War for the benefit of instantly made friends, and it takes them a thought – a simple thought – to know ahead of time what they must do for Israel, and do it without being asked. What a country!

It is obvious that the senators are disappointed at the turn of events. Russia was an adversary of the United States that became a friend when the Cold War ended – or so the Americans thought – and now Russia is back again being an unfriendly adversary. What happened? Well, simply put, what happened was a clash of visions. On the one hand “the West sought to include Russia in the promise of a Europe...” On the other hand “Putin will not compromise his quest to dominate Russia's neighbors.” These are two diametrically opposed visions.

What all this indicates is that the rupture in the relation between America and what it thought was its new ally, is rooted in those disparate visions. Here is the implication of the American vision: “NATO committed not to deploy significant military capabilities onto the territory of new alliance allies, even as it expanded.” And that is an admission by the senators that NATO expanded by deploying military capabilities in the territories that Russia let go at the end of the Cold War.

Even then, Russia accepted these developments and was prepared to live with them. But then, difficulties began to surface in Ukraine, the most important territory ceded by Russia. Where the West refused to help the country pull out of its financial difficulties, Russia came up with a 15 billion dollars loan. Meanwhile, an agreement was worked between Russia and the West on how to handle the situation. But on the eve of implementation, the West reneged on the provisions of the agreement, and came up with a package to rescue Ukraine financially, thus surprising Russia with what amounts to a checkmate.

And throughout the time that these developments were unfolding, the chat in the West was to the effect that Russia had “bribed” Ukraine with 15 billion dollars, and the promise of cheap natural gas. And there is the question: What did the Americans really think of Putin? This is what they think now and what they thought throughout the time that they dealt with him: “...a cynical way to build support for his corrupt and autocratic rule.” That was not very friendly, was it?

So now, what used to be a clash of visions has transformed into a clash of strategies. The Putin strategy as the senators see it is this: “He may play along with Western diplomats to avoid conflict.” And the Western strategy they want to see implemented is this: “The only thing he [Putin] respects, and that can change his calculus, is greater strength.” In other words, they are saying that because Russia wants to avoid conflict, the West must provoke a change in the calculus by making a show of force. This is the argument they are making to convince the world they are good, and that Russia is bad. They want the world to believe that Russia is back again being an “Evil Empire.”

The senators go from there to saying: “We must make policy on this basis.” And they do lay out a policy that need not be repeated here because it has been analyzed many times before on this website when it was laid out by its original authors, the propaganda arm of the Jewish lobby. It was represented by such advocates as John Bolton and his like-minded members of the sorority.

Not only does the strategy looks, sounds and feels Jewish through and through, the promise that the senators flash to entice the American people to bite, turns out to also be Jewish through and through. Look at the following and blow your mind: “These actions could weaken Putin, support our allies, strengthen the U.S. economy, increase federal revenue and create thousands of good jobs.” Wow! Let the good times roll. Alas, it is all as phony as promising a heavenly oasis in the middle of hell.

So you think that the instructions given to the senators during their overseas stopovers end here, and you would be wrong because there is more. Here it is: “Another fact repeatedly highlighted during our trip is that Putin is winning the war of ideas … Putin's propaganda rests on lies, but it is effective … We have given up on communicating the truth … This needs to change.”

The truth, they say. They wish to tell the world their truth. But let me assure them that the more they tell their truth, the more victories Putin will score because their truth can only be as true as the Jewish promises they make – big fat lies.

Poor America, what have you done to deserve being drowned in this cesspool of irrelevant mediocrities?

How could they have hired this Man?

You recognize a mental case – an advanced mental case – when you see someone associate things that do not necessarily associate, then go further and see a conspiracy woven into the phony association he just made. This is what Reuel Marc Gerecht is doing in the article he wrote under the title: “Holocaust Denial and the Iranian Regime” and the subtitle: “In Tehran's worldview, if six million Jews didn't die, then Israel has no excuse to exist.” It was published in the Wall Street Journal on April 26, 2014.

Plagued with living by the dictates of a twisted mind, he sees a relationship between Holocaust denial and the desire to develop nuclear weapons. Well, he does not exactly put things in simple terms such as these because a twisted mind never goes in a straight line. Instead, he says that, at least for now, such relationship exists only in Iran ... which is convenient for him because he does not have to explain why China, North Korea, India and Pakistan – all of them Asian countries – have developed nuclear weapons, having never said something that hints at a desire to deny Israel the right to exist.

Gerecht points to a speech that was delivered by Iran's ruling cleric, Ali Khamenei on March 21, 2014. He explains that the speech was an attack on the West, and the Iranians who embrace the Western ways. He goes on to say that Holocaust denial is part of the cleric's strategy to resist those Western ways. But that's not all, says Gerecht, because the man in Iran has additional ways to resist the West. Oh yeah! “And what would they be?” you want to know. Well, are you ready for the answer? Here come the many ways to resist the West: (1) developing a nuclear program, (2) developing a sanctions-proof economy and (3) developing a culture that has little tolerance for deviant conduct – all of which are, of course, alien behavior to Westerners.

But what can be alarming about someone saying he is not too clear about a historical event that had nothing to do with his society? Does everyone on Planet Earth know all that happened in Rwanda, Cambodia, Kosovo and Stalin's Russia? And why is it so vexing to someone like Gerecht that Khamenei expressed puzzlement at the fact that in Europe someone expressing doubt about the Holocaust can get stopped, arrested, sued or imprisoned? Has this not happened? Of course it did. And why should people learn to love horrendous situations of this kind, or profess to like them lest they be criticized by a sicko living thousands of miles away? Why?

In fact, this kind of destructive nonsense has to stop because it is becoming too destructive. And you can see why this is so in the Gerecht article where the impact of his mental deformity is in full swing. Look at the reality of what follows, and feel sick to your stomach: “Many observers, including in the Obama administration, have sought to play down the matter of Iranian Holocaust denial.” The writer hints that people – perhaps those living in Asia close to Iran – have something in common with highly placed individuals in the American government. They all pretend not to see what he sees, he wants us to believe, but does not elaborate.

The first thing he does, however, is demonstrate that he cannot see the difference between expressing doubt about aspects of the Holocaust, and denying it. Second, he involves the Obama administration in an accusatory way because that is where the nuclear issue is slated to play a big role. Third, he directly associates and weaves Holocaust denial with the nuclear issue: “It strongly suggests that Mr. Khamenei's republic will endure great economic hardship to realize its dream of becoming a nuclear power.” Thus, Asian nuclear issues and holocaust denial have become inextricably linked in his twisted mentality. Does he now expect that sooner or later, China, North Korea, India and Pakistan will admit they have hidden motives with regard to Israel's right to exist?

He has not yet made that leap but he lists all those in Iran who, in his view, have embraced Holocaust denial even though none of them actually came out and denied it. These would be all the commanders of the Revolutionary Guard Corps. It would also be the newly elected President of the country, Hasan Rouhani and his former mentor, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. And it would be the well known former President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Gerecht then does something that is truly perplexing because it sounds – at first blush – like it may be an exercise in reverse psychology, but when you analyze it in depth, you find that it does not rise to that level. In fact, reverse psychology would be to say something as simple as: “The Iranians believe that the Jews control America but this is not true.” Talking like that, you draw attention to the fact that the Jews do control America, but you don't want to take the responsibility for saying it, so you attribute the saying to someone else.

Our author started saying something in that style but then messed it up because he could not marry that thought with the main thesis he is spinning. And so, after saying that Iranians have “a passionate belief in the awesome power of the Jews [whose] capitalism controls America and via America the West,” he goes on to deny the validity of that statement in a very unconventional way. This is what he does: “Many Iranians appear to be flummoxed by the contradiction of the all-powerful Jews losing more than half their number to the Nazis.”

This being his approach, he goes on to explain; it must be that in the eyes of the Iranians, the Holocaust is “a narrative spun by the Jews to engender guilt and special advantages over Muslims and others.” Right there, Gerecht blows himself out of the water. This happens because the animosity that the Jews began to display toward the Muslims did not begin against all Muslims. It began against the Sunni Arabs, while the Jews were chummy with the Shiites of Iran. And none of that happened till 1948 when the state of Israel was established, whereas the narrative of the Holocaust began to circulate a number of years earlier than that.

Having blown away the advantage he could have had by holding on to the idea that the Jews control America and via America the West, he now tries to gain a similar kind of advantage but does a poor job. He says that the Iranians are unlikely to attack Israel because they fear American power and Israel's too. So you want to know: What's the problem, therefore? Well, are you ready for the answer, my friend? Do you expect a huge revelation to come down like a lightening bolt? Or would settle for an anti-climatic ending? Here it is: “The supreme leader's speech is ultimately about creating an Islamic bloc that is capable of turning back Judeo-Western imperialism.”

Is that it? The Jews, Israel, America and the West are upset – they are angry – red hot angry – enraged – willing to bomb Iran into the Stone Age – because the Iranians wish to be free of Judeo-Western imperialism. Is it that the Westerners devoted millions upon millions of words; wrote tens of thousands of texts and gave tens of thousands of speeches for no reason except to thwart that illegitimate Islamo-Iranian effort to be free? Is Western freedom more valuable than Islamic freedom?

What's this guy Reuel Marc Gerecht doing in America, anyway? Did he work for the CIA? How could they have hired someone like him? Did they pay him too? No wonder that place is screwed up. And what's he doing now? He is with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies? What does he do there? Train America's legislators to urinate over America and rob its people to fatten the Jewish moguls in Israel and those everywhere else? No wonder America is getting screwed, and screwed up in the process.