Speculated wishful Thinking they live by

Because people who commit violent acts are usually of the quiet and discreet type, the remark often heard is that they should have been spotted and fingered by their friends or relatives because something about them must have changed that those who are close to them would have detected.

If this is so with regard to an individual, can the same be said about a group of people that marches to one and the same drumbeat even when the members are not of one and the same association? The answer seems to be yes if we judge by Benny Avni's article that came under the title: “Why Palestinians are on the verge of civil war,” published on July 27, 2016 in the New York Post.

There is nothing strange about Benny Avni writing strange things. Also, there is nothing strange about the editors of the New York Post choosing funky titles for the articles they publish. And there is nothing strange about Avni attacking a prominent Palestinian figure for something he said that puts Israel in a bad spot. What is strange is that you find all of that and more in a single Avni article. This is what we find in the latest of his creations; a work that tells us something is in the offing.

In fact, clues abound in the article that point to what’s worrying these people at this time. The writer begins with an attack on Hillary Clinton, Tim Kaine, Bernie Sanders, Hank Johnson, the idiots who burned an Israeli flag, America's progressive left, and guess who else: Benjamin Netanyahu … but only because he is considered a usual suspect.

This done, Avni reveals the name of the Palestinian figure on whom he unleashes a vitriol so ferocious, you'd think the man is responsible for the sun rising in the East instead of the preferred West. That man “is none other than the president of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas,” says Avni. Calling him Mr. Yesterday, he chides him for “launching a battle against the Balfour Declaration.” Not to forget his foreign minister who “blamed England for the mess in Palestine and asked for help in suing the British government.” What's the world coming to? You'd think only the Jews can ask for compensation, now you see the Palestinians do it too.

To denigrate Mahmoud Abbas, Benny Avni unfurls the usual litany of insults that even he realizes will do little to diminish the stature of Abbas. And so he pulls the big one on him. It is the regular Jewish trick of adding insult to injury by blaming the victim for failing to deflect a crime inflicted on him by a powerful criminal. Just look at the following stomach wrenching piece of intellectual dishonesty, and marvel at the brazen fashion by which the Jewish brain tends to function:

“Abbas has already raised a Palestinian flag at Manhattan's First Avenue UN headquarters and received blessings for a Palestinian state in places like Geneva, Sweden, Mauritania and the back pages of the US party platforms. Yet he has proved completely useless in creating a state on the West Bank”.

In essence, Avni says that despite the success achieved at the UN as well as Geneva, Sweden and Mauritania by the civilized Palestinian leader, his success pales when compared to the criminal acts which are committed by the savage Jewish settlers who team up with the American equipped Israeli army of occupation, and frustrate every Palestinian effort to create a viable state in the West Bank. Because of this, Abbas is useless, says Avni.

Is that it? Is that the only thing brewing inside the heads of Benny Avni and those who march with him to the sound of the same drumbeat? Or do they all worry about something bigger; something that preoccupies them so much, they are forced to act strangely even by their own standard?

Well yes, there is something bigger. It is that the month of September is approaching. This is the time of the year when the bigwigs of the nations gather in New York for the annual General Assembly event that keeps legitimizing the Palestinian cause, and keeps delegitimizing the fake Jewish claims to a piece of Palestine, if not the entire Palestinian piece.

Benny Avni does not mention that reality because Jews do not speak the language of reality. Instead, he does the Jewish thing of speaking the language of speculated wishful thinking, which is how he ends his article: “Israel will continue to flourish.” Maybe he believes that another compensation handout for Israel is in the offing.

He wants to double-down on Failure

You cannot try a medicine on a patient, and when it proves ineffective or detrimental, decide there was not enough of it and administer a higher dosage. That doubling down on failure would be the most reckless thing you can do to a patient. What you should do instead is go back to square one and rethink your entire strategy.

This is exactly what America should be doing concerning its relations with the rest of the world. That's because from the beloved Republic that the world used to look up to, America has squandered all that goodwill in a period of time considered a blink of an eye in the lifespan of a nation. And the worst part is that some people continue to counsel America to do more of what hurt it badly in the first place.

An article will help us shed some light on this matter. It came under the title: “The dark dilemma of modern globalism” and the subtitle: “Neither globalist nor isolationist understands effective world engagement.” It was written by Clifford D. May and published on July 26, 2016 in The Washington Times. May uses the issue of globalism as a springboard to discuss America's role in the world. He runs the discussion in such a way as to flesh out both the conservative and the progressive sides of the debate while hinting that he is a centrist, standing between the two extremes.

However, he suddenly takes a sharp turn to the Right and starts articulating a point of view considered to be of the extreme Right. Here is how he does that: “I can't imagine any conservative calling himself a globalist.” And he proceeds to expand on the talking points that make up the conservative narrative. This includes President Obama's decision to withdraw from Iraq, which he criticizes because it had tragic results, he says. To prove it, he cites the false evidence that “al Qaeda in Iraq had been decimated by the [W. Bush] surge”.

He repeats that assertion without saying how it was arrived at. What he omitted saying, in fact, is that wars that last several months or years go through cycles of intense fighting followed by lulls. And so, the people who claim that the surge had worked, point to one of the lulls and say: “See; the surge has worked.” In saying so, they try to give the impression that the temporary period of quiet meant the war had ended.

And these people don't stop here because they go on to say that Obama made the mistake of withdrawing from Iraq. They say this much despite the fact that the natural thing to do at the end of a war is to pack your gear and go home. The way they see things, however, is that Obama should have kept the troops in Iraq to play the role of peace keepers and nation builders.

Is there a parallel to that? Do they point to a precedent that might reassure the world and the American public they know what they are talking about? Yes, they do point to precedents. Look at Korea, they say; don't we have a beautiful situation there? And the listener is stunned by this logic. Undeterred, they go on to explain that there is also Afghanistan – apparently not bothered by the fact that this war has gone through hundreds of cycles over a fifteen-year period, and there is no end in sight. Still, Clifford May and those of his ilk would have loved to repeat in Iraq the scenario of a perpetual war in which building the nation proves to be an impossible task.

President Obama was wrong, he says, and there must be a better way for America to proceed in the world. He explains the way he has in mind with these words: “It recognizes the need for American engagement and American leadership … The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for Americans to persuade themselves that what happens abroad doesn't concern them”.

It is not surprising that the writer has reached those conclusions despite the obvious reality that everywhere America has meddled in the affairs of others after the Second World War, things went horribly bad. Vietnam was a disaster that the French handed to America because they wanted someone to do the work they would not do themselves.

As to America's interventions in the Middle East, they came about as a result of Jewish insistence that there is a need for American engagement and leadership in that region. To that, they add a flattery to the effect that what's necessary for evil to triumph is for Americans to be unconcerned with what happens abroad.

What is urgently needed is not for America to double-down on failure, but to go back to square one and rethink her entire strategy.

Name that Civilization to save it

Is it a smorgasbord, a minestrone or a bouillabaisse? Look at it anyway you want but these are the images that come to mind when you read the latest installment by Bret Stephens. It is a column that came under the title: “Is Europe Helpless?” and the subtitle: “A civilization that believes in nothing will ultimately submit to anything.” It was published on July 26, 2016 in the Wall Street Journal.

The author's point is that Europe is not doing what it should to protect itself and preserve its civilization. And so he gives that assembly of nations the standard Jewish advice of looking to Israel for guidance. To elaborate on the points he makes – by which he arrives at his conclusions – he cooks up an assortment of arguments that frankly, would require the stomach of a bear to digest.

What is not new in his approach is that he says Europe ought to live in fear of the Muslims and remain on guard at all time. This is steady Jewish diet; a system of managed hysteria; an approach that the self-appointed leaders of the Jews have used to maintain control over their followers since the beginning of time. It is also how they manage to maintain control over the American Congress at this time. And it is how they brought leaders of other nations under their control till such time that the public discovered what they were doing and responded by unleashing the pogroms that chased the Jews away.

As to what is new in his approach; it's that he used the steady Jewish diet as a foundation upon which to construct an argument that warns the European countries they are risking the destruction of their civilization. And that's where things go from bad to worse – where the argument degenerates from being a smorgasbord of useless ideas to a bouillabaisse of rotting fish.

His weakness lies in the fact that he wants to believe civilization is based on identity. From where did he get this idea? It is that Netanyahu is promising America there will be instant peace in Palestine if only President Mahmud Abbas agreed to call Israel a Jewish State. And so, Netanyahu drummed into the heads of those who run the Jewish propaganda machine – Stephens among them – that they must believe in the principle of a Jewish identity that will be born with the recognition of a Jewish state. He wants them to believe that when this happens, they will all become citizens of a rising new civilization; one that will grow so powerful, it will conquer the world.

But is that true? Is civilization based on identity? Or is it based on a shared vision? Well, America did not come into existence because there was an American identity that the early pilgrim were eager to be apart of. It came into existence because people of different identities shared a single vision; that of religious freedom. When they came together and worked together to make a living and make life bearable for themselves and their offspring, a byproduct of their shared vision started to take shape. In time, that byproduct became the now recognizable American civilization.

It follows that a civilization can be altered by altering the vision underlying it; or be killed by vanquishing that vision. When you accept this and you see what Stephens is proposing to “save” the European civilization, you understand how and why the Jews have been eroding the American civilization while pretending to enhance it, even save it.

Look what Stephens says about Europe: “Can the decline be stopped? Yes, but that would require unlearning the mythologies on which Europe was built: that the Union is the result of commitment to peace; that there is no such thing as a military solution; that one's country isn't worth fighting for; that tolerance is the supreme value”.

As can be seen, all these points have nothing to do with identity, and everything to do with a shared vision. Thus what the European Union did was forge for itself a shared vision that now forms the foundation of its civilization. And this is the foundation that Stephens wants to vanquish in order to save a civilization he mistakenly believes was originally built on identity.

He does not have a name for that identity, so maybe he'll call on Mahmud Abbas to name it, and call on the American Congress to threaten Abbas if he does not come up with a name. This whole Jewish enterprise is that silly.

A good Analysis but missing a crucial Point

Ralph Peters wrote a good piece under the title: “Terrorism as therapy” and the subtitle: “The takeaway from Munich,” published on July 24, 2016 in the New York Post.

It is a serious analysis of what motivates youngsters of all races, religions and political persuasions to commit terror knowing that they will die in the process because someone will kill them or because they will take their own life. Peters identifies three categories of terrorists, and discusses each separately.

Looking at the Munich occurrence, he put it in a category that no one talked about before in North America. That is, no one talked about it publicly until now for a reason – though the whisper and the hush talk were all around us. It is that the analysis points an accusatory finger at the media. And so, whereas the media made it a point not to discuss its own shortcomings, Ralph Peters mustered the courage to describe the Munich shooter as follows:

“He seems to have been the sort who, in the past, might have committed suicide in a corner. But violent headlines about mass killings obsessed him. Today's loners want company when they go … The pervasiveness of terror, magnified by the media, provided the shooter with an example of how to go out in a blaze of glory and the sense that 'everybody's doing it'”.

This is good work, but is it missing something? Yes it is. There should have been a parallel discussion as to why the various media outlets do what they do. Normally, a brief mention of the adage: “if it bleeds, it leads,” would have explained it all, but not this time. So the question is this: Was Peters aware of something he did not wish to stir up at this time? Well, he seems to know there is something in that he writes: “There was no indication that Islam was a factor.” But why did he stop here?

The reality is that the media, especially the cable networks, have ceased to operate as news outlets, having turned themselves into propaganda mouthpieces for one dogma or another. The exception is when the dogma is bipartisan – such as the Judeo-Israeli causes, for example – in which case all outlets bark from the same song sheet. And one of those sheets has come with an exotic title: Allahu akbar.

What happened during the Munich occurrence is that the shooter had a lengthy conversation with other people at which time he made it clear he was born in Munich, he considered himself a German and he hated the Turks because they are foreigners whose presence defiles his perfect country. This incident was broadcast throughout the world, and was known to CNN and to Fox News.

And yet, those two networks deliberately committed the hate crime of lying to their audiences, saying that the shooter yelled Allahu akbar before he started shooting. That was totally false. Wolf Blitzer of CNN knew it; Bret Baier of Fox News knew it, and yet the two purveyors of hate propaganda committed what amounts to perjury with the obvious intent to incite and promote terrorism.

This reality clearly shows that to vanquish the modern phenomenon of terrorism, it is not enough to seek remedies for the mental deficiency of youngsters. It is more important to shut down the activities of the Judeo-Israeli propaganda machine whose task is to brainwash new hires to the publishing industry, and transform them into mouthpieces that will promote the causes of Israel, always Israel and no one but Israel.

For the machine to work efficiently, those in charge of the propaganda have discovered that the game is a zero-sum game, which means that to score for Israel, someone has to pay a price. As it happens, the price often comes at the expense of the Arabs and the Muslims, and also at the expense of America. That's because the propaganda works well when it motivates the mentally deficient to go out and commit acts of terror.

The obvious lesson that comes out from all the above, is that if you put an end to the activities of the Judeo-Israeli propaganda machine, you'll find that the problem of the young – mentally deficient or otherwise – will be mitigated, and will tend to solve itself in the long run.

What is needed, therefore, is for people to rid themselves of the fear of telling the likes of Blitzer and Baier they are incubators of terror and copycat terrorists.

Understand the Problem you try to solve

Charles Koch wrote: “The Closing of the American Mind,” an article that also came under the subtitle: “There are dangerous signs that the U.S. is turning its back on the principles of a free and open society that fostered the nation's rise.” It was published on July 22, 2016 in the Wall Street Journal.

In making his points, Koch quotes Matt Ridley who described the fusion of ideas that engender innovations as “ideas having sex.” He did so without adding the caveat that the species having fun must be the same or be close enough for fertilization to occur. Otherwise, the different species can be seminal all they want, and still end up producing neither fish nor fowl.

And yet, this is exactly the kind of insemination that Charles Koch has tried to perform. Here is the passage that tells where he went wrong: “Despite our enormous potential for further progress, a clear majority of Americans see a darker future. Some 56% believe their children's lives will be worse off than their own … I empathize with this fear. The U.S. is already far down the path to becoming a less open and free society”.

This says that the view of the American people is of one species, and the view of Charles Koch is of another species … and the twain is not conjugating well. It is that the people believe they are losing their industries and the future of their children to foreign societies which are less open and less free than America because of reasons which are different from what Charles Koch is implying.

On one hand, the public believes that the captains of America's industries – such as Koch and others – have determined they can make more profit relocating their businesses to those countries. And so, they used the openness and freedom of America's system to do just that … and they are getting away with it. On the other hand, pointing to the false intercourse he effectuated, Koch has tried to convince the readers that the American people accept his hypothesis so well, “promoting a free and open society ought to be the great moral cause of these times.” But these are two different species and the intercourse produced not even a stillborn.

Still, having made those arguments, Koch goes on to describe the kind of system he wants to see implemented in America. He makes a number of recommendations, among which is this one: “Government, which often has strong incentives to stifle the revolutionary advances that could transform lives, may be the most dangerous.” And this is how he displays his true colors. They boil down to showing that in the tug of war between big business and big government, he sides squarely with big business.

But he has a problem. It is that he says something at the very beginning of the article, and something at the very end of it which, when put together, demolish the point of his core idea. Here is what he says at the beginning: “I was born in the midst of the Great Depression.” And here is what he says at the end: “The transformations in my days have been astonishing, with marked improvement in well-being for all Americans.” Those transformations included the introduction of Social Security into the system.

The reality is that several opposing, even contradictory ideas have been generated in the debates that tackled the Great Depression, but two ideas were accepted by all sides. One pertains to the fact that the Depression was caused by the extreme laissez-faire climate that existed at the time. The other is that another depression was never repeated thanks to the Social Security and the general welfare systems that were instituted in response to it. That is, the Depression was caused by unregulated business. Calamity was averted by the intervention of government.

This tells us something we must always keep in mind when discussing the system of governance in relation to economics. When during a debate a participant takes the extreme position that business ought to be completely unregulated, or the extreme position that government ought to be in complete control of the economy – that debate should fold at once, and everybody go home. This is because the suggestions are too far removed from reality to be of any use.

The fact is that an economy is made of two parts: the production part and the consumption part. The economy functions at optimum capacity when the two are in equilibrium. Because many factors work at all time to upset that equilibrium, measures must be taken to restore it. This means, there are times when you'll have to favor business, and other times when you'll have to favor government.

It follows that to be useful, a debate on the subject must restrict itself to identifying the problem and prescribing a remedy that will favor which side; favor it by how much and do so for how long.

To have a permanent remedy that will address a problem inherent to international trade; I have argued that competition between nations ought to function like sport and not like war. The difference is that in sport, the loser does not die the way he does in war.

Consequently, there must be an international agreement allowing the nations to protect the industries they deem important to them – up to a certain percentage of consumption ... say, 30 percent or thereabout. The balance can be subjected to cut-throat competition, which is good for efficiency.

The creation of a mechanism that removes anxiety while retaining the incentive to compete should be considered seriously by those who seek solutions rather than adherence to dogma.

Lies more virulent than a thousand deaths

One senseless death is painful not only for the loved ones by for all of humanity. It is even more painful when committed by terror. But that's not the worst that can happen. When someone tells a lie that can result in multiple deaths, the pain is compounded proportionately. When the lie is committed by someone in a fiduciary position, it is compounded exponentially.

Unfortunately and painfully so, this is the kind of lie that Bridget Johnson has committed. As a contributor to the publicly funded National Public Radio (NPR,) she has fiduciary obligations that go beyond those of commercial broadcasters. As a fellow with the Hayman Salomon Center and PJ Media, her obsession is Israel, always Israel and no one but Israel. This means she will tell any lie, cost America any price and cause any number of deaths if that will serve the interests of Israel. Is this a conflict of interest? You judge and let NPR know.

All of that comes out clearly from reading the article she wrote under the title: “Is ISIS 'on the run'? If so, it's no comfort,” published on July 23, 2016 in the New York Daily News. Her point – which is that of the Jewish establishment – is that the Obama administration is saying the wrong things. And this, my friend, is reminiscent of the Jewish expression: You are antisemitic for saying 'Jewish lobby' instead of 'Israeli lobby,' and you are antisemitic for saying 'Israeli lobby' instead of 'Jewish lobby.' How can that be, you ask?

To see how it happens, we need to recall what the Jewish establishment has been saying all along. It’s been saying that if you mobilize enough American troops and send them to destroy the bases of operation used by the terrorists; you destroy the core of those operations and diminish the appeal of the terror groups. Consequently, they will not be able to recruit new members, and this will bring an end to them. Well, that's what the Obama administration has done, though it did not mobilize as many troops as the Jews would have liked to see.

So now that this mission is nearing completion with apparent success, guess what Bridget Johnson is saying. She is saying she is not comforted because what counts, she argues, is not that ISIS is on the run from something, but that it is running toward something. And that, she says, is the result of a miscalculation committed by the Obama administration.

But did she offer an alternative? Not on your life. Jews do not counsel anything that would end or win wars, they only counsel how to start them … and they leave it at that. On second thought, amend that to say, she could not help but take a mocking shot at the administration on her way out. Here it is: “But does the threat really get more diffuse the further away it is from some imagined core”? As you may have observed, whereas the core was the be-all and end-all, it is now only an imagined core. But she is not saying who was imagining things.

And here is how she ends her article: “Rather than hyping where terrorists are running from, America's greater focus should be on where they are running to.” What she says here is this: Stop making empirical observations with regard to what happens on the ground, and start speculating as to what the terrorists may be thinking, and where that will lead them.

She says this much because in Jewish philosophy, it is a sin to tell the truth based on what you observe. Also, it is a virtue to wish something, to speculate that it will happen, and then convince those who will listen to you that your speculation will come true. If you do that, you elevate yourself to the level of a rabbi. In fact, this is how the Jews – rabbis or otherwise – convinced the American Congress of brain-dead zombies that Israel taught America how to design and produce drones, and that it made the Palestinian desert bloom.

Why all this? What is Bridget Johnson after? What is the Jewish establishment trying to achieve? Well, they are laboring to expand the current war and turn it into a perpetual one. They are terrified by the fact that ISIS is taking a beating in Iraq and Syria. They are also terrified that the Horn of Africa, West Africa and North Africa have quieted down considerably. And they are terrified that the only instruments left to root for the “strong horse” of bin Laden are the Jewish publications – which include NPR.

They want to put an end to the successes being scored by the Obama administration because they speculate that the next administration will see the world the way they see it. Adhering to their religious philosophy, they believe that their speculations will materialize and become reality. When this happens, they envisage being handed the world to govern as they see fit – in fulfillment of the divine promise made to them in their dreams.

The Iran nuclear Deal one more Time

The editors of the Pittsburgh Tribune are at it again, returning to the subject of the Iran nuclear deal as if to signal there is more to say about this topic.

They wrote an editorial under the title: “The Iran deal” and the subtitle: “A disaster grows,” published on July 21, 2016 in the Tribune. The only thing new this piece of work is adding to the debate is that it says something about its authors and those who follow them.

They began to reveal themselves in the first sentence where they spoke of the “prattle from the Obama administration, which insists ad nauseam, that the world is safer today...” But the fact is that the Obama administration, like all administrations, gives out little or nothing till pestered by the media types who fear they will not put food on their table till they are given something to write about.

But when the media suckers are given a bone on which to bite or run away with, they do more than tell their readers what they “scooped” from an administration that was not smart enough to keep the information from them. What you see them do is descend on a single bone like a pack of hungry coyotes, and munch on it interminably so as to make their idle talk about nothing sound like a find that deserves undivided attention.

But where did they get the idea to tell their readers that the Obama administration nauseates them? To be honest, I have no idea. So maybe the editors of the Tribune should write one more editorial on the subject and explain this mysterious point. Meanwhile, I have something to say about the subject of nausea. It is not a true story, but one that's based on real life experiences.

Suppose you live in a quiet residential area of town where apartment buildings and houses stand side by side. The house next door has a dog that does not like the headlight of cars. It happens that four or five times through the night a car may drive by and the dog barks at it. You wake up but are able to go back to sleep after he does it once or twice. If it happens again, you stay up all night tossing and turning and feeling nauseated at neighbors you deem to be sociopaths too obnoxious to deserve living in densely populated areas.

Well, my friend, this is the closest analogy that can be created to parody the Jewish editors who shout the first bark on a subject, and get their echo-repeating dogs going. As to the latter, they keep going in a never ending cacophony of noises that nauseate the good people as much as the barking dog that keeps the neighborhood awake all night. Maybe this will help to clarify the mysterious point that the editors of the Pittsburgh Tribune have not bothered to explain.

To be fair to them, it must be said that they tried to explain why they believe that Secretary of State John Kerry is seized by a cockeyed optimism about the Iran nuclear program when “intelligence sources do not share [that] optimism.” In fact, they cite three occurrences that amount to nothing serious. So you want to know what they contend is the problem.

To formulate a theory as to what might have happened, we first look at the three points they cite. First, they say that Iran is acquiring nuclear and ballistic technology and equipment. Second, they say that Iran is shopping for carbon fiber, which is required to build centrifuges for uranium enrichment. Third, they say, there is a secret deal that allows them to enrich uranium sooner than previously revealed.

Looking at those points, you can tell what must have happened. The first two revelations must have come from what the editors say are intelligence sources. Fine. But these sources did not say that what Iran bought violated the nuclear deal, whereas the IAEA said it did not. As to the third point, it is an assessment that was made by a news agency whose credentials in such matters remain suspect. But even if true, the point means nothing as shown in the two previous articles published on this page.

Looking at the tsunami of literary toxic waste that the Jewish publications have poured during the two years it took to negotiate the nuclear deal, and the year that passed since it was signed, you wonder what could possibly be motivating the Jews to show so much ingratitude with such ferocity toward a country that did more for them than it did for its own people, and still does. And then your eyes fall on this passage: “Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps … threatened Israel with more than 100,000 missiles”.

So that's what it is. Mention Israel, and watch these guys charge like a bull that’s shown a red towel. The trouble is that time after time, thousands of Jews and their barking dogs threaten Iran with “all American options are on the table,” and when Iran responds once in a while, the Jews go apoplectic and start bashing the American administration for not exercising the option on the table.

And there is nothing you can do to civilize these characters, so you give up on them.