When the gimme Crowd loses its calling Card

Tom Rogan wrote an article under the title: “Toure, the Holocaust and Hashtagosophy” and the subtitle: “In four words he trivialized mass murder.” It was published on May 26, 2014 in National Review Online. I don't know who Toure is but the picture accompanying the article tells me I may have seen him once or twice while surfing the television channels.

I reckon he is of African descent as much as I reckon from Tom Rogan's writing that he must be Jewish. I am not going to mediate between these two gentlemen; they are capable of looking after themselves. But there is something about the Rogan article that reminds me of discussions I had with Jews that were friendly to me and others that were not so friendly. No matter which way the discussions began and what course they took, they always boiled down to a couple of related questions: What moral or financial claim do Jews who did not experience the Holocaust have over society? What moral or financial obligation does anyone that was not responsible for the Holocaust have towards the Jews?

The answers always came down to the reality that Jews who never experienced the Holocaust were owed nothing, morally or financially. As to those who were not responsible for the Holocaust, they owed nothing even to the survivors of the Holocaust, let alone to those who weren't even born then. And so, during my discussions with the Jews who thought I owed them something because they were as Jewish as those that experienced the Holocaust, they came to understand that I had every right to be contemptuous of them if they believed I owe them enough deference not to criticize them if they did what may offend me.

Thus, to have offended Canadian Jews who never experienced the Holocaust, such that I deserve to be blacklisted for life because I wrote an article titled: Don't listen to propaganda, Egypt is a civilized country – in response to a year-long barrage of insults that portrayed my countrymen as being primitive savages – gives me the right to tell the truth as I see it about the nature of Judaism. And the fact that six million Jews were exterminated at just about the time that I was born does not give a Jew the right to make a claim on me because of something that happened long ago, away from here that neither he nor I had anything to do with.

And no, I shall not visit a Holocaust memorial or a concentration camp because they mean nothing to me. In fact, the people who suffer and those who die today – be they Palestinians or human rights advocates – because the Holocaust happened to Jews long ago, concern me more than those who died then and cannot be brought back to life. If I want to learn about man's inhumanity to man, I have my own experience to study, and the experience of those who at this very moment suffer at the hands of Jews. I do not need to visit a Holocaust memorial or a concentration camp to teach me that lesson; I am the lesson in flesh and blood.

And so are the individuals who may have been passed over for a slice of the good life because of the color of their skin to accommodate a Jew whose skin might be of a different color. Toure can speak for himself in this regard, but I can say that to make reference to the fact that skin color still matters in America is not something that can be countered with an argument about the Holocaust.

The fact that Rogan has mounted the savage attack he did on Toure tells me that Norman Finklestein's argument to the effect that the Holocaust has become a business by which the Jewish leaders enrich themselves is true. Finklestein lost family during the Holocaust, and he could have joined the gimme crowd to get rich in the process but that's not what he wanted. Because his moral compass is not of the kind that guides the likes of Tom Rogan, he would have been satisfied to see a dignified yearly ceremony at which time the living would take a minute of silence to remember the dead.

Rogan, on the other hand, shows every sign that he is terrified of the possibility he may lose the privileges he has gained by virtue of the fact that he is a Jew, that Jews died long ago, and therefore he is entitled to things which people who suffer today because of the color of their skin are not entitled to. He has a calling card to the cushy life, and he does not want to lose it. He is a miserable creature that deserves only contempt.

Now you now why pogroms and holocausts are inflicted on Jews only. Blame it on their leaders.

Treating others like Wusses kills your Message

First, let me tell you what I think a wuss is. A wuss is someone who would stand in front of a television camera and confidently declare: “they fight us because they hate freedom.” This is what we saw on American television over and over again by ordinary American human beings – males and females – whose heads, hearts and souls had been filled with Jewish moral syphilis.

It happened in America because the Jewish leaders, who long ago planned to take over the country, recognized the potential of the media to help them succeed. They worked stealthily and steadily till they succeeded so brilliantly, they could make people believe in ideas so absurd, they shook the confidence of the world in America's ability to think straight, even to be classified as a good citizen of the Planet.

Whereas in the past, the official Voice of America, as well as the voices of the private American media were treated the world over like sterling voices of truth and authority, they are now regarded as the incessant bark of running dogs competing in the rink of extremist absurdities to catch a bone thrown at them by their Jewish master. And the result has been a society of wusses that will regurgitate whatever the Jew will feed them, thus make the world shake its head with disgust, sorrow and even pity.

I used to listen to the Voice of America while living in Egypt from the late 1950s to the early 1960s, and I liked it. I have not listened to it ever since but I am not surprised to learn it is in trouble now. An editorial in the New York Times tells all about that under a title that reads: “The Pitch of America's Voice,” published on May 26, 2014. What is so alarming about this editorial is that it fits exactly – and I mean exactly – the saying about the blind leading the blind.

I cannot speak directly about what is wrong with the Voice of America having stopped listening to it a long time ago. But I know the state of American journalism well enough that I can say something in this regard. I also followed for a while the American television channel aimed at the Arab world known as “Horrah” which is Arabic for freedom. And there is NPR which is partially funded by the American government, and knows about the Arab world as much as a rat knows about the Big Bang Theory.

These are all lamentable failures because they treat the Arab audiences the way that the Jews have been treating the American people. Whereas the Americans turned into wusses, the Arabs turned into fierce anti-American tigers that get filled with anger by every attempt to inject into their heads, hearts or souls the infamous moral syphilis of the Jews. And I am certain that the same thing must be happening with the Voice of America in every language that it broadcasts because the Jews are interested not only in the Arab World but in the whole wide world.

Can this change? Apparently not from the looks of it which is that the blind editors of the New York Times – and probably others like them – have taken the trouble to advise the blind in charge of fixing the federal broadcast outlet. Look how they start the editorial: “Vladimir Putin's aggressive return to Cold War propaganda is feeding congressional momentum for a bipartisan overhaul of Voice of America.” Well, the Times editors may not know it, the American people may not know it but the world knows that when you have the two words, congress and bipartisan, in the same sentence, you do not mean to say America speaks for itself, you mean to say America is mass producing the Jewish moral syphilis.

Furthermore, the idea of having an outlet for news, information and education is to do the right thing without regard to what others may be doing. You do not get into a competition with someone, and pretend to be a neutral observer of life. This is how the Voice of America behaved long ago, and why I liked it as did many others. But now, nothing that the American media do escapes the Jewish view that every truth uttered by the enemy of the day must be balanced by a shower of lies that can smother it.

In fact, to tell a lie so convincingly that it cannot be detected is what makes a young Jew eligible to grow up and become a rabbi. And it looks like those who strive to fix the Voice of America are competing to show their eligibility to become rabbis.

The editors of the New York Times may not see it that way, ordinary Americans may not be sophisticated enough to detect it but audiences the world over can smell it from ten thousand miles away. And they get sick of it.

Distorted Visions leading to American Errors

If you want to know why America is doing so badly on the international stage, you only need to study the kind of vision its leaders develop when trying to interpret what the foreigners are saying and doing. Because we live in an age of abundant information, the political leaders and opinion makers have the option of letting themselves be overwhelmed by what is happening, or that of relying on aids to review the mass of incoming information, choose what they determine are essential, and brief their bosses on them.

If the leaders take the first option, they will be confused; if they take the second, they will acquire a vision that's in line with the biases of the aids – neither of which will do the country any good when acted upon. On the surface, this seems a conundrum that is faced only by the so-called democracies. To check it out, you dig deep into the subject, and discover that the appearance is indeed correct. It turns out that the systems in other countries – whatever they call themselves – do not have the same problem; and the leaders over there do not have to choose between bad options. They know exactly what they see, and they respond accordingly.

So the question: What is the difference between those who pretend to be democrats (whether or not they are) and those who do not pretend to practice democracy (whether or not they do)? To answer the question in two words; it is the double standard. Yes, the difference between the two is none other than the practice of the double standard. Because it is difficult to live up to the ideals of a true democracy, the people who pretend to be of the democratic stripe have set up two sets of rules, and a list of talking points to buttress them. They apply one set to themselves and their friends; and apply the other set to everyone else.

As history continually writes itself, the sets must continually be refreshed which means that new opinions must continually be generated to serve as a basis for the making of new rules and new talking points. This is where the opinion makers come in handy, whatever their stripe. They generate a mass of opinions spanning the spectrum from one end to the other. This gives the aids of political leaders all sorts of material to work with. They formulate an argument to describe their stance on the issues of the day, and formulate an opposite argument to describe the stance of the opponents.

In America, the opinion makers, the political leaders and their staff learn to play the game with domestic issues before playing it on the international stage. For example, if a Democrat is in the White House and he opts for deficit spending, those of the stripe will say that deficit spending is good for the economy, and will unleash a list of talking points to justify their stance. In the meantime, those who profess to be of the Republican stripe will say that deficit spending is bad, and use a contrarian set of talking points to buttress their argument. This situation remains the order of the day till a Republican gets elected to the White House, and the roles are reversed.

A similar game is played on the international stage by more seasoned operators, but they play it with a slight difference. Since the chances are slim that today's foes will be tomorrow's friends, the foes will be so labeled for life, and the friends will be so labeled for life. There will be a set of rules and talking points to apply with the friends, and there will be a set to apply with the foes. The Americans see nothing wrong dealing with the world in such manner; the world sees a double standard, and deeply resents it. This should tell you why America is doing so badly on the international scene.

A recent article you can look at has the title: “Egypt's New Strongman, Sisi knows Best.” It was written by David D. Kirkpatrick and published in the New York Times on May 25, 2014. It is a remarkable article because the journalist is making a genuine effort to dampen his stereotyping impulses in order to write a normal article, not one of those propaganda pieces which the New York Times uses to distort the image of Egypt. However, you can tell that the title of the article, being the only passage that is savagely stereotypical, must have been written by the editors of the Times who still live in the Dark Ages.

Despite his effort to get away from this kind flimsy reporting, Kirkpatrick could not overcome the tendency to write the following: “His [Sisi's] move into the presidential palace will return Egypt to the rule of a paternalistic military strongman.” What on Earth gives this journalist the right to speculate on something that has not happened, writing an article that is not an opinion piece?

And where he could have helped the readers understand the meaning of what he was reporting, he failed to do so because it would have entailed the association of Sisi's temperament with that of Margaret Thatcher, the late Prime Minister of Britain who dared her people to start working hard so as to make their country a first-class nation again. Here is the passage that Kirkpatrick reported on but left without explanation: “You want to be a first-class nation?” he asked of Egyptians. “Will you bear it if I make you walk on your feet? When I wake you up at 5 in the morning every day? Will you bear cutting back on food, cutting back on air-conditioners?”

Nor was this the only time that Sisi spoke of working hard and making sacrifices to build a better country. He did so when he shouted at a group of young doctors urging them “to work harder for less.” And did it again in a television interview when he promised Egyptians: “I will not sleep and neither will you. We must work, night and day, without rest.” And he encapsulated his temperament with the following: “People think I'm a soft man. Sisi is torture and suffering.”

Where Kirkpatrick could not have done better than he did because he is too young to remember the Nasser era, and because he is too misinformed by the torrent of toxic propaganda that has been unleashed on Egypt over a period of six decades – is where he writes about the current plan to deal with the vast desert areas of the country. He describes the Nasser economy as having been state dominated, which is what “set the stage for six decades of stagnation,” he says.

He goes on: “He [Sisi] has proposed … to irrigate and give away vast areas of desert.” What Kirkpatrick does not realize is that building the Aswan dam, and the agrarian reforms that followed were the glory of the Nasser era, and the engine of growth that propelled Egypt into the industrial age where, despite all the negatives that befell the country, Egypt managed to build an economy so diversified and so resilient, it kept registering positive growth during a two-year revolutionary period that also coincided with times so bad, most of the world was going into negative territory. That's a 60 years achievement almost unparalleled in history thanks to the foundation that was put down by a man called Kaissouni, a minister in the Nasser cabinet.

Oblivious of that history and of the current realities, Kirkpatrick says that the Egyptian economy now teeters close to the brink without explaining what that means because he cannot. It is that the economy is neither on the brink nor teetering around anything. The author also reports on the ongoing debate in the country regarding the subsidies employed to keep the price of energy low. He does that without telling of the measures that have been taken, and are improving the situation already. And he tells of the package of loans and grants that Egypt has received from the Arab countries ($12 billion in total which he exaggerated to $20 billion) without putting that in perspective. It is that America borrows not only from friends but also from rivals $12 billion dollars every 6 days.

In short, contrary to what Kirkpatrick is insinuating, Sisi wants to maximize the efficiency of the state bureaucracy by reducing it, not by expanding it. He was drafted by the Egyptian people whom he calls the “ultimate authority” to serve them; and they see him, according to a political scientist, as being “soft and sweet, as if he is flirting with a beautiful woman.”

That's not being paternalistic; it's a love affair between a people and their soon to be President.

America's Place in a World that is reshaping

As it happens during the metamorphosis of some species, the world is molting at this time, and shedding its old skin to replace it with a new one. The parts of the body are still there, but they will take different forms, and will be given new functions to fulfill. America is one of these parts, and the question being debated is what new form will it take, and what new functions will it fulfill?

There are as many opinions on this subject as there are debaters, of course, but two trends seem to emerge which, between them, seem to encapsulate most of those opinions. Articles are published all the time in the daily, weekly and monthly publications, and two of them stand this week as being representatives of the two major trends. One article was written by Charles Krauthammer, and it may be called the neocon view; the other was written by Vali R. Nasr, and it comes closest to representing the mainstream American view.

The Krauthammer article comes under the title: “Vladimir Putin Pivots to Asia” and the subtitle: “Russia's new energy deal with China undoes the Kissinger-Nixon achievement.” It was published on May 22, 2014 in national Review Online. The Nasr article comes under the title: “A Great-Power Outage” and was published on May 24, 2014 in the New York Times.

Reading the articles, you come out with the sense that in general, the neocon view is a religious belief based on the principle that the fate of humanity has been preordained by God the Almighty since the beginning of time. It regards “our side” as being the good side; one that is locked in a struggle against the bad guys for dominance over the planet. They believe that God is on our side which is why we shall triumph in the end. In the meantime, however, there are those among us – such as our leaders – who do not understand that their role is to fight for the ultimate goal of total victory regardless of the cost in life and treasure.

As to the mainstream view, it parallels the pragmatic attitude that as a nation, you must take life as it comes. Unless you are threatened physically in which case you fight back to defend yourself, you do not take anything as being exclusively yours until you have earned it. And you do that by competing against the other powers for what you want in life. You compete mindful of the rules that forbid you from stepping on someone else's toes lest you provoke them needlessly and get into a fight that can bleed you or that can kill you.

The neocon approach, being at its core a superstition more than it is a true religion; it regards each and every happening as being a sign that proves the validity of the Jewish view as to what the natural order of things ought to be. Thus, Krauthammer considers the gas deal between Russia and China as another sign and a proof that the preordained order which guided our good side to pull off the Kissinger-Nixon achievement has been violated by the bad guys who must now be treated like mortal enemies.

The problem, however, according to the superstition, is that our leaders have allowed their leaders to secure “a spectacular energy deal” which demonstrates how “defiant” Putin has become of the natural order of things, making a “mockery of U.S. boast to have isolated Russia.” And that, in the view of the neocons is what makes “Obama's own vaunted pivot to Asia” an embarrassment. And why is that? Because “the Obama foreign-policy team [does not] understand what is happening.”

At this point, Krauthammer pulls a typical Jewish trick. He paves the way for advocating what used to be called the 19th-century gun-boat diplomacy by accusing the other side of practicing it. He begins by calling the old-style diplomacy “balance-of-power maneuvering,” then discusses the recent history of the world in a manner that suits his purpose before making a recommendation. But mindful of the reputation that the neocons have acquired, he first seeks to tone down the hawkish feel of what he is about to recommend.

He does that by reassuring the readers that his aim is “not a fight to the finish, but a struggle for dominion and domination.” This done, he makes his recommendation in a roundabout way. Having accused Obama of retreating, he now says: “The retreat is compounded by Obama's proposed massive cuts in defense spending … even as Russia is rearming and China is creating a sophisticated military soon capable of denying America access to the waters of the Pacific Rim.” In plain English, this means America must engage into an arms race with both Russia and China no matter the cost, and regardless of the responses that such decision will trigger on the other side.

And this is what is so much at odds with the mainstream American view as presented by the Nasr article. Here, the author begins by admitting that Putin did something that is unusual, unexpected and dangerous: “It has opened a window on a dangerous confusion among the four leading power centers of the globe.” But rather than respond in a knee-jerk fashion thus aggravate the situation, Nasr explains: “each power center interprets the goals and instruments of strategy – power politics or economic interdependence – differently.”

He does not minimize the inherent danger in the current situation, and reinforces that view by asking a series of questions for which there are no immediate answers. But there is one certainty in all of this, he says; it is that: “Europe is putting commercial interests above security interests, and that puts it at odds with American policy.” But does that mean America now relies or indeed, should rely on a military response while Europe is looking only at economic pressure as a means to change the behavior of Russia?

No, Vali Nasr seems to say, it is that both are using economics as a strategy to pressure Russia except that each has developed a different variation of the strategy. Whereas the Europeans, led by Germany “fear more that Russia could make their energy supplies uncertain and expensive,” Nasr views America's grand strategy as pivoting the attention toward Asia “which could account for two-thirds of global gross domestic product by 2025.”

To end his presentation, he relies on historical perspectives and explains the confusion that exists between the strategies of the four power centers: America, Europe, Russia and China. This done, he comes up with his own ultimate recommendation, which is the following: “This is no time to pivot to Asia so completely [where] America has interest in managing Russian ambitions – an interest that now demands a rebalancing of American foreign policy, back to paying primary attention to Europe.”

Nasr is not being more specific than that but his assertion that a decade from now, two-thirds of the world GDP will be concentrated in Asia, means that the rest of the world will command the remaining one third. It also means that the combined economic power of America and Europe will be less than half that of Asia. And this is no time for America to get engaged in an arms race that will do to America what America did to the old Soviet Union: provoke its bankruptcy.

Thus, America has the choice of metamorphosing into an important part of the butterfly that will fly high the American way, or it will take on he shape of a worm that will fall into the mud below where it will wallow the Jewish way till an early bird gets it and swallows it for breakfast.

The perpetual Wheel of Misfortune

Anyone that is moderately familiar with science would have heard of the perpetual motion machine; something that can never be built because it would violate one of the most fundamental laws of physics. But for several centuries before the principles of thermodynamics were formulated at the end of the nineteenth century, the idea of a perpetual motion machine preoccupied many minds as well as their time. But now that the idea has been discarded, and no one tries to build such a machine, the concept has transformed into a metaphor that is used to describe the never ending efforts of someone that never stops doing the useless thing.

An example of that is the effort of the Jews to gain control of all of Palestine by sabotaging the moves made by the Palestinians to bring an end to the status quo. So far, the Palestinians have tried to come to an equitable arrangement with the Israelis or, failing this, to take their case for arbitration before an international body that would be free of direct Jewish influence or the influence of America which is shaped by the Jewish lobby.

And so, having exploded a thousand volcanoes of the belly as they howled their outrage at Secretary of State John Kerry for trying to revive the peace process in a way that is even-handed, you see the Jewish leaders come around and say that the peace process need not end here. They came up with suggestions that basically say to America: use your power and influence to (1) freeze the Palestinians where they are, (2) fend off the other powers, especially the Europeans, who will surely try to interfere, (3) supply Israel with money and weapons, (4) make Israel's talking point your own and run around the world amplifying them, (5) put pressure on the Palestinians to hand Palestine to the Jews, and (6) put pressure on the Arab countries to pressure the Palestinians to accept the new “old” Jewish suggestions.

You can see all this in two recent articles, one written by an Israeli; the other by an American Jewish leader. The first came under the title: “A New Plan for Peace in Palestine” and the subtitle: “Dismantle the security barrier in the West bank. Let most Palestinians who live there govern themselves.” It was written by Naftali Bennett who is Israel's minister of the economy. It was published in the Wall Street Journal on May 21, 2014. The second article came under the title: “Open a Middle Road to Mideast Peace” and was written by Dennis Ross who once pretended to represent America's views while negotiating peace in the Middle East, but was in reality more Jewish than the Pope is Catholic. His article was published in the New York Times on May 23, 2014.

Bennett calls his concoction “Stability Plan” which he says can be achieved when “Israel allow[s] Palestinians complete freedom of movement, which requires removing all roadblocks and checkpoints in the West Bank.” Not realizing what he is divulging, the Israeli minister is saying that in Israel, they always knew what the world has been telling them mainly that the roadblocks and checkpoints are a major source of instability in the region.

But that's not all because there is also the matter of what he calls the security barrier; a construction that the world has called the “apartheid wall.” Of this, Bennett says: “In particular, Israel should dismantle the security barrier erected throughout the last decade.” So you want to know why the Israelis erected it in the first place, and what they think of it now. Bennett speaks his mind on both these issues in a roundabout way that betrays the true motives of the Israelis.

He says that the excuse at the time was to “defend against Palestinian attacks during the Second Intifada.” But the Intifada took only days to exhaust itself whereas the building of the apartheid wall took a decade to complete. And this says that the Israeli minister is now admitting what the world has been saying, mainly that the wall was erected to separate the peoples and to render impossible the creation of a viable and contiguous Palestinian state. This means they were planning to maintain the Palestinians in a walled ghetto as second class citizens in what used to be their own country.

If this was their excuse then, what is the excuse they prepare for the future? Bennett tells what that is: “Many Israelis credit the barrier with the dramatic increase in security over the past decade … The remarkable drop in terror happened thanks to high-quality intelligence coupled with Israel's ability to conduct targeted military operations in the West Bank.” In other words, he says that Israel will want America to keep supplying it with helicopters and smart bombs to continue bombing Palestinian families as they sleep in their bedrooms at night. And to be sure that the military operations will be conducted without opposition, they want a Palestine that remains demilitarized, which means undefended, innocent and helpless.

He goes on to say: “Israel can now stay secure without the barrier.” But being the Jew that he is, he must get paid for suggesting he would reduce the savagery of his never-ending rape of the defenseless. How does he do that? This is how: “This will prove especially true if the Israeli government works with the international community to promote Palestinian economic development.” In other words, he says the world must pay the Israeli government that will then pretend to use the money to promote Palestinian development.

This is the new Israeli plan that Dennis Ross has seconded, sitting as he does in the Washington, D.C. area. He begins his article with this: “the administration should declare that it is not walking away from the conflict.” To this end, John Kerry should declare the following: “I will focus on conflict management, instead of conflict resolution.”

In other words, he says let the Israelis maintain the perpetual wheel of misfortune in motion, and use America's power and influence to (1) freeze the Palestinians where they are, (2) fend off the other powers, especially the Europeans, who will surely try to interfere, (3) supply Israel with money and weapons, (4) make Israel's talking point your own and run around the world amplifying them, (5) put pressure on the Palestinians to hand Palestine to the Jews, and (6) put pressure on the Arab countries to pressure the Palestinians to accept the new “old” Jewish suggestions.

Here we go again.

The Philosophy behind fair Taxation

Writing in the prestigious business publication, Forbes Magazine, George Leef makes it clear he does not like the way that the conservative critics of Thomas Piketty's book have argued their case against his theory; one that favors raising more taxes on the rich.

Before elaborating, Leef made his point succinctly with this one sentence: “Rather than going after Piketty's numbers, we need to go after his philosophy.” All this comes in the article he wrote under the title: “Piketty's Book – Just another Excuse For Legal Plunder and Expanding The State,” published on May 21, 2014.

In going after Piketty's philosophy of raising more taxes on the rich, Leef begins the presentation by telling the readers that “Piketty's countryman Frederic Bastiat coined the perfect term for that more than 150 years ago, [he] called it 'legal plunder.'” This done, he starts his own argument by agreeing with Bastiat. He then goes further and attributes the motive of envy and resentment to the people who wish “to see the successful pulled down and their wealth redistributed to themselves.”

This is where you stop for a moment to reflect on what Frederic Bastiat meant when he pronounced himself in the manner that he did more that 150 years ago. Well, there was no central bank then, and there was no printing of fiat money to represent the wealth of the nation. Also, the income that someone received was measured by the amount of goods and the pieces of silver or gold that was given to them in exchange for their services. As to the wealth that the family had accumulated, it was largely made of real estate and goods such as the number of live animals, artifacts and pieces of precious metals that the family had to its name.

Given that no one could be wealthier than the amount of real estate and tangible goods in the entire jurisdiction, there was a natural limit as to how much wealth someone could accumulate over a lifetime. More importantly, there was no mechanism by which the earnings or the wealth of the people who toiled in the fields, the mines and the factories could be spirited away from them and given to those who did little or noting to earn it. This kind of mechanism was created with the establishment of the central bank and with the printing of money. It could happen now because every dollar that the central bank printed and gave to someone enriched that someone by diminishing the value in the hands of everyone else. It is a mechanism we now know will create inflation if and when it is abused.

As the way we live has changed from being essentially rural to essentially urban, and as industry began to make products that were never dreamed of during previous generations, the creation of wealth was now measured by more than the people needed to have in order to buy the bare necessities of life such as food, clothing and lodging. Wealth now extended to the kind of leisure and entertainment that people bought and enjoyed. Thus, the amount of printed money that someone was paid, and the amount of wealth they had accumulated took on a significance not known in the days of Frederic Bastiat.

Printing money and handing it to some people amounted to transferring the wealth from those who made it by producing the underlying goods and services to those who handled the money but did little or nothing to create it. And the taxation that may have looked like legal plunder to Bastiat more than a 150 years ago, now looks like a legitimate way to attenuate the immoral transfer of wealth from those who make it by toiling in the fields, the mines and the factories to those who enjoy it by consuming the kind of leisure and entertainment not known even to the idle nobility in Bastiat's times.

Another thing that George Leef ignores in his article is that the money which gets into the hands of those who do not create the underlying wealth gets in those hands because of the inventions and the innovations that were dreamed up by the people who left it for the benefit of all mankind. Thus, the people who get wealthy because automated machines make more products than ever before, because airplanes can fly them to exotic places around the globe, and because the leisure and entertainment products they make are duplicated and sold to millions of people – must understand that paying taxes comes down to paying royalty for the modern way of life which they exploit, a way that is the property of the entire human race and not theirs alone.

When all this will be understood by the likes of George Leef and transmitted to others, those who are asked to pay more taxes will feel better paying them.

The Newton-said, Einstein-said great Debate

Every human progress that was made came about because someone said something, and another one said something else. For example, Newton said that time was absolute, and formulated a great hypothesis that worked under certain conditions. Then came Einstein and said that time was variable, and formulated a great hypothesis that worked under Newton's conditions, as well as a wider set of conditions.

That was a he-said, she-said kind of debate across time that was a good one. On the other hand it can happen that a car standing in a driveway is damaged by a scratch that extends from end to end. Since only kids were seen playing in the neighborhood at the time, they were asked if they knew who did it, and they said they did not. The parents were then asked and their responses made it clear it was going to be a matter of he-said, she-said. This would have been a bad kind of debate.

The conclusion we draw from these two examples is that the phenomenon we call “he-said, she-said” is one that belongs to the human species only. And like everything else, it can be used to good ends; and can be used to dubious ends. But the very fact that it can be used to dubious ends does not mean it can be trashed. To do so would stifle a debate by cutting out one side of it. This will make of the side that remains a dogma to be believed on faith as if it were a religion.

And this happens to be the current epic battle; one that is conducted on a planetary scale between those who wish to preserve the right of human beings to conduct free debates, and those who wish to regulate debate for the purpose of steering it in the direction that suits their purposes. The first regard debate as the endowment bequeathed to humans for the purpose of advancing the achievements of the species; the second do all they can to trash free debate so as to monopolize the marketplace of ideas and turn their causes into dogmas to be believed religiously by all of humanity.

You can see one such attempt by reviewing the article that came under the title: “The Holocaust is not a he-said, she-said debate” written by Michael Gerson and published in the Washington Post on May 19, 2014. Gerson is not a Jew, but the Washington Post is heavily influenced by Jewish thinking therefore advances Jewish causes at the expense of everything else. One such cause being the transformation of the Holocaust into a construct that is complete with religious level dogmas to be believed without question by all of humanity, you see the author trash the very concept of debate by associating it with the he-said, she-said style of human give and take, and then belittling the latter by trivializing it.

Gerson begins the article by telling the touching story of a man who survived the Holocaust to become a grandfather, and viewing this happening as a personal triumph over a Hitler that tried to exterminate him. That's fine. There are many people in this world who beat tremendous odds, and survived to beget children, even dynasties after that. Their stories should be told for their human value, however, not used as a prop as it was done in this case.

And what was done in this case is use an event to which all human beings can relate in order to attain a goal from which any and every human being would recoil the moment they understand what is being pulled on them. And this goal is to use every insidious trick known to man so as to advance the notion that whereas there exist equivalences among all subject matters relating to human beings, there is no such equivalence when it comes to matters relating to Jews.

That approach has been the Jewish way to truncate the other side of the debate, leaving only their side to take on the force of a religious dogma. Throughout time, people have gone along at first with this Jewish sort of approach to every subject in which a Jew or his surrogate were engaged. But when people discovered what they were being dragged into, they became Hitlers at heart no matter where they were on this planet and no matter when that was since the beginning of time.

And for Michael Gerson, who is not a Jew, to have written the article the way he did, makes you suspect he is not all that innocent in this matter. Just look at the following three quotations and ask yourself if he is trying to do the Jews a favor or trying to speed up their day of reckoning in North America:

First, there is this: “The assumption of two-sidedness when considering the Holocaust is positively dangerous.”

Second, there is this: “The argument requires a morally offensive false equivalence.”

Third, there is this: “In this case, the assertion of two-sidedness is a victory for one side.

You must conclude that Gerson is either a fool or an incubator of little North American Hitlers who will grow up to make the original Hitler look like a toy soldier.