Two weeks may not be a long time in the affairs of a world or a nation but they are long enough to reveal a great deal about the internal workings of a movement such as the rule of theocracies. And this is what happened lately when the mullahs of Iran started to consolidate their hold on their country while the rabbinical mullahs of the New World got busy consolidating their hold on their American colony.
What makes this an exceptional moment in history is that the two groups of mullahs came as close as they can to facing off their rivalry. It happened when the rabbis, their army of lobbyists and their lackeys were caught off guard by the rapidity of the events unfolding in Iran so they immediately pulled their usual trick of calling on the President of the United States to crack the American whip loud enough for the Mullahs of Iran to hear it. In the meantime, they went on to play their other tricks which included the handling of the press, among them the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), a hand they played with the superb mastery they are noted for.
What happened here was that on June 18, 2009 the Journal ran an editorial under the title "A Palestinian Choice" and the subtitle: "Israel’s PM gets no credit for bending on a two-state solution." This is a piece that demonstrates as well as any why the Journal’s prestige has declined and why it is suited to be a metaphor for the decline of America’s own prestige. That is, the decline that has been happening up to now; all the signs being that despite the work of the rabbinical mullahs, things are beginning to change for the better.
Look at this passage in the Journal’s editorial: "The Prime Minister [Netanyahu] also called for Jerusalem to remain Israel's united capital. We have our doubts on that last score: Too many Palestinians live in East Jerusalem … for it to remain in Israeli hands after any final settlement." Clearly, ethnic purity is advocated here by what sounds like (but may not be) the entire editorial board of the Journal. In any case, this is not how you earn the respect of the public especially that the WSJ pretends to be a mainstream publication.
Now look at this other passage: "Nor should the thought of Israel as a Jewish state be controversial: That's how it was conceived by the U.N. resolution that helped bring it into existence…" What is surprising about this statement is that the WSJ said it; what is not surprising is that the WSJ said it. Let me explain. The Journal considers the U.N. to be a useless body of idiots incapable of doing anything right. For the Journal to invoke a resolution of that body to bolster its own argument is a surprising thing. What is not surprising, however, is that the Journal simultaneously rejects the UN and uses it as a crutch. In fact, to latch on and to exploit two contradictory stands in one and the same breath is vintage Talmudism as any Jewish lobby will ever display. And with this article as with many others, the WSJ is signaling that it has become a Jewish lobbyist through and through. Clearly, the WSJ is now one of the official voices barking on behalf of the rabbinical mullahs.
As such, the Journal has allowed itself to do what Fox News has done before which is to break a sacred taboo in American journalism by insulting another American publication. Here is the evidence: "And that was the reaction among the Palestinian moderates. Only Hamas and the Huffington Post were more withering." Like any Jewish lobbyist, the journal considers Hamas to by evil incarnate. Thus, to associate the Huffington Post with Hamas is to commit a sacrilege that was forbidden by journalistic norms until now. But then the mullahs decreed that the Jewish causes be exempt from the taboo and promptly they were. Like monkeys, Fox News got on the back of the New York Times and the WSJ got on the back of the Huffington Post.
And like the subtitle indicates, the June 18 editorial in the WSJ was about the June 14 speech given by the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu. As noted in the editorial, this was a speech that the Arabs -- most notably the Palestinians -- dismissed as a worthless hoax, calling Netanyahu a liar and a crook. And why is that? Because as the editorial quoted directly from the speech, Netanyahu was saying: "we have no intention to build new settlements or set aside land for new settlements."
Well now my dear friends at the Journal, look what fate does to you when it has you in its line of sight. June 18, 2009 would have been just another day in the Universe of journalistic punditry had it not been for what happened later that same day. As fate would have it, only hours after the appearance of the Wall Street Journal, Netanyahu’s foreign minister -- one named Avigdor Lieberman -- was in Washington saying exactly what the Palestinians were saying. Not only that, but he was seconded by none other than the American Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who added more juice to the revelation.
Look what happened on that fateful day. The Foreign Minister of Israel said that Israel will not accept a complete freeze on settlements, and the American Secretary of State said that the Israeli leaders often staked out positions then changed their mind. What she did not say but is known to everyone is that the Israelis changed their mind over and over to suit the moment as taught by the Talmud. Conclusion: The Palestinians were correct in saying that Netanyahu’s speech was a hoax and that the man was a liar. And this goes to prove that the Wall Street Journal was fantasizing Talmudic fantasies when it analyzed the situation the way it did; but there is more to it than that.
The Journal was more than wrong because not only did it act as a lawyer for the Israeli causes, a role that lobbyists often assume, it also became a member of the client’s organization by taking part in its activities. It is like a lawyer for the Mafia becoming a member of the Mafia then committing the same sort of crimes. Here, the Wall Street Journal not only tried to explain the Israeli position, it deliberately lied to its readers so as to mislead them and mislead the American legislators who count on the publication to report on Netanyahu’s intentions. This is a crucial point because the legislators are a busy bunch who often rely on the press to predigest the information for them before taking a stand in the Congress, a stand that they hope will serve the interests of America and not those of someone else.
But what is terrifying about the phenomenon of the press becoming a de facto lobbyist, a lawyer and a participant in the activities that serve Israel is that the phenomenon has permeated the entire politico-journalistic body and has become a plague affecting a large swath of the American elite in the Press, in the Congress and in the Executive branch. Far too many people have made it their preoccupation to speak for Israel, to lie and to mislead the American people while ruining America as if it were a disposable thing created for the sole purpose of inflating the glory of Israel and the ego of the rabbinical mullahs.
Then came the performance of Ms. Hillary Clinton on June 18, 2009 and a ray of hope was injected into the American scene. Once a proud nation then no more, America may now be rediscovering her pride under the Obama Administration and coming out of her trance at long last. She may break away from the demonic grip that the rabbinical mullahs and their cohorts have had over her, and the hope is that she will do so before they manage to make her drink from the Kool Aid they are preparing for her.
Now let’s look at the subtitle of the WSJ article again: "Israel's PM gets no credit for bending on a two-state solution." Here the Journal is complaining that Netanyahu did not get his due for doing something that the Journal knew, as much as did the Palestinians, as did Lieberman and as did Ms. Clinton that Netanyahu’s bending was a lie tailor-made for the moment. In fact, Lieberman had been in Washington for some time already saying privately what the Palestinians were saying before he showed up in public and made it official. So the question to ask is this: What would make the editorial board of a leading publication in a superpower stoop this low and drag to the bottom of the pit the pride they used to have in their profession? There can only be one answer and it is the following.
The regular editors of the Journal were not the ones to write that editorial. What they must have done was to hand the space to those who take orders from Israel and they let them do their thing. But this is like refusing to kill somebody then handing the poison to someone who does. Such behavior is called being an accessory to crime which, beside being cowardly, makes the perpetrators as criminally liable as the one committing the dreaded act. The editors of the Wall Street Journal should not be smug about what they did; they should be ashamed of themselves.
And it is this sort of attitude on the part of the American media that led to the events of June 23, 2009. On that day the American President Barack Obama gave a news conference during which a reporter asked him if he was influenced by the senators who urged him to change his stand with regard to the business of commenting on the events unfolding in Iran. The President smiled, looked at the reporter and asked: "What do you think?" But it was clear that the President was really asking this question: What do you want the answer to be?
Indeed, that response would have better reflected the kind of climate that is gripping our epoch. We live at a time when a two-bit riff raff can have a former President of the Republic "dissed" by his own Party because the riff raff is a Jew and the President is not. The riff raff then goes around and brags about his exploits to show to the world that a Jew in America can boss around a powerful political party by personal fiat alone, and then call this performance a brilliant manifestation of the rule of law. That is, rule of law Judeo-American style sometimes referred to as Jewmocracy. It was a half-baked idea whipped up during the reign of W the Bush Leaguer to stand in opposition of Islamofascism, a vision that someone planted in the head of the ruler who could not rule out handing his country over to the Israelis.
And it is that same spirit which powers the mentality of the Israelis as they go around Eastern Europe, Asia and the Middle East where they brag to the peoples there about the exploits of the Jews who act like they own America and treat it like their backyard. Up until now, the peoples of those places believed the Israelis because the latter always managed to make the characters in the American politico-journalistic core lend credence to the Israeli claim. Indeed, the Israelis and their helpers in America accomplished all this by making the characters in the Washington zoological beltway say and do the wrong things at the wrong time for the world to hear, see and be amazed as to how well the Israelis have trained them.
However, things began to change with the advent of Mr. Obama hence the need during the press conference of June 23 for a reporter to ask a question that suggested the American President knuckled under when pressured by those who are known to be in the pocket of the Jewish lobby. This was the meaning of the apparently meaningless question of that treasonous reporter but the President was adroit enough to deflect its toxic intent; and he made it clear that as President of the United States his first priority is to look after the security of America. What he did not say but was understood by everyone was that he could not care less about the glory of Israel or the ego of a riff raff who, like Rodney Dangerfield and the rabbinical mullahs, may feel he don’t get enough respect so he gets the feeble minded in the editorial rooms of the nation to compensate by inflating his ego.
Yes, things may be changing for the better but what is needed for America to get out of the rut is a massive transformation in the people’s vision. And for this to happen, there must be a wholesale conversion into believing in the nation itself because something dreadful has happened on that score and it must be reversed. What happened was that the rabbinical mullahs succeeded in blackmailing a few television pastors and got them to spread a toxic message among the public. At first, the pastors spread the message among their individual flocks then they grouped all the flocks into one organization calling itself Christians United For Israel (CUFI).
CUFI then took the message to the US Congress and to all sorts of institutions in America. And what was the message? It was to the effect that Christians must worship and obey every Jew as if he were Jesus Christ, son of God. And of course, along with this principle comes the idea of worshiping Israel itself, an act that entails the sacrifice of America and everything American for the glory of Israel, home of the new deity. Thus, it was through CUFI and other organizations like it that the rabbinical mullahs were able to convince many Americans, including members of the Congress to turn against their own country and work slavishly for Israel.
In the face of all this, it can be seen that only when a massive change comes to America will her old prestige be restored to her. Such development will give her the standing to speak once again with the moral authority that used to make the peoples of the world listen and be respectful of what they hear.
The same goes for the Wall Street Journal and every institution that has been contaminated by the toxic teachings of the rabbinical mullahs and their CUFI lackeys.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Friday, June 19, 2009
The Leisure Society That Never Came
There was a time when people thought the leisure society was upon us. It was in the decade of the Nineteen Sixties that a dream was born to the effect that people will work not because they have to but because they want to. And when they do, they will engage in their preferred hobby under the guise of doing work, and will get paid for their effort. And all this will happen while robots will do the work that no human being will touch with their dainty fingers. Mind you, this was the age that paved the way for a song called: "Take that job and shove it" to be made. And the times were such that the song made it on the air and became popular.
The idea of the dream was carried over to the decade of the Seventies and then started to wane with the advent of the Eighties and the Nineties. It seemed at last that people -- from the ordinary to the sophisticated and from the politicians to the pundits -- were beginning to understand how an economy works and were becoming more realistic in their expectations. The result was that the dream of a leisure society was altered to become that of "Freedom 55". It is that the people thought they could retire by the age of 55 and go on to lead a wonderful life of leisure, travel, sports and relaxation for the rest of their lives.
To the disappointment of the diehard dreamers, however, this is not what happened. Worse, the exact opposite happened as people were forced to work past the age of 65 which was the age of retirement until such time it was raised in some places thus demonstrating that our collective wisdom regarding the way that the economy works still remains deficient. We realize, therefore, that we need a new model to explain how the economy works, a model that will help us maintain our prosperity as a society and plan our retirement as individuals.
I believe I have the outline of such a model and I am happy to share it with you. The brush I use to paint a picture of the inner workings of the economy is that of growth and it is the one I am using here. So let me begin with the definition of a stagnant economy; simply put, it is one where no growth is taking place. Otherwise, economies tend to grow which they do most of the time or they shrink which they do some of the time.
Whether they are growing or they are shrinking, economies change in two ways: horizontally and vertically. Like stretching the dough of a pie lying flat on a table, an economy can be made to grow in all horizontal directions by adding new businesses to it or by increasing the capacity of existing ones. These additions cause the economic activity to increase and they result in more wealth being added to the nation. Think of it as horizontal growth.
But the economy can also grow and add to the wealth of the nation without the addition of new businesses or the increase in the capacity of existing ones. It can grow by improving on the products it makes such as when black and white television became color television. The economy can also make improvements on the method it uses to run the assembly line such as when it upgrades from electromechanical systems of automation to solid state systems. These are called innovations, and the growth they bring to the economy can be thought of as vertical growth.
In theory there are two authentic types of innovation plus a number of phony ones. The first authentic type consists of making the improvements discussed in the previous paragraph. The second consists of developing entirely new products such as the air conditioners when they first appeared. But hidden from view and rarely discussed is a third type of innovation that should only be regarded as the semblance of one. It is to make "everything old new again." This type of innovation consists of recycling or repackaging old ideas to make them look like new products. Their value to the growth of the economy is dubious because they inflate the money supply yet do little to improve on the quality of life. For example, just before the crash of 1987 there was so much money in the system that people exchanged it for anything; and so they bought things like pet rocks and other useless products advertised as must-have objects.
This brings us to ask the question: What is it that we want from life anyway? Well, we want to live and function like a society and for this, we need an economy that produces goods and services. But the nature and quality of the services we produce can only depend on the degree to which the underlying economy is geared to produce hard goods such as food, clothing, shelter, chemical products, the means of communication, those of transportation and so on. These are basic needs because they represent the necessities of life; and you know they are important because someone hungry, naked or homeless does not go look for services like a facial or a manicure. In fact, in every economy, be it primitive or advanced, nearly 80% of the household spending goes to pay for the basic needs of life. What is left of the middle class incomes goes to pay for leisure or goes into savings.
So then, to take an example, let us take food which is one of the basic necessities of life, and ask the question: What is the difference between having 100 people living in a primitive economy each consuming 3 000 calories per day, and 100 people living in an advanced economy each consuming that same 3 000 calories per day? The answer is that in the first instance 50 people will be working directly on the land to produce the food while in the second instance only 7 people will be working directly on the land to produce the same amount of food. But what happens to the other 43 people? The answer is that they will be working away from the land to manufacture the farm machines, make the fuel and produce the fertilizers that will make it possible for the 7 people on the land to grow enough food to feed all 100 people.
And this is the reality that turned out to be at variance with the lessons we took in the related humanities courses at school. We learned in these courses that the mechanization of the farm created a surplus of manpower that went on to produce other things, a development that multiplied the wealth of nations by several folds. And it was this kind of thinking that made the young folks of the Sixties believe that the leisure society was upon us. But such society never materialized because of what we did not realize then. What was not apparent to us was that the things produced by the surplus manpower away from the farm were absolutely necessary things without which the 7 people on the farm could not produce the food that fed 100 people. The reality, therefore, was that while 43 people left the farm to work in the factories, a good number of them worked for the farm inside those factories.
Undoubtedly, this complex and layered approach to producing goods was an innovation in its own right and could be considered a fourth type. But we must not ignore the fact that it only creates a vertical growth that is more illusional than it is real. Yet this apparent growth cannot be dropped from the records because the value of the machinery, the fuel and the fertilizers produced for use on the farm must be reflected in the GDP figures. And while these inventions save on labor, they do not increase the quantity nor do they improve on the quality of the end products we call necessities of life.
Some pundits look at all this and conclude that as a civilization, humanity is running around complicating things only to produce the same amount of the same thing with the same number of people, be that food or clothes or shelter. The pundits then question if what we are doing deserves to be called progress. Moreover, they say that to run around as we do, we use an abundance of natural resources and we burn huge quantities of fuel to keep in perpetual motion a vicious cycle of humans and machines that achieve little in the end, get us nowhere and harm the environment.
Depressing to be sure but is it really like that or are these people missing something? To be fair to ourselves we have accomplished more than some people are willing to admit. Look at it this way, those who make farm machines also make refrigerators to preserve the food that would otherwise go to waste. Those who produce fuel to power the farm machinery also produce home heating oil to keep warm the people who live and work in cold climates. The chemical workers who manufacture fertilizers also manufacture the pharmaceuticals that alleviate pain and save lives. And the list goes on. More important, we live longer and healthier lives which is the main reason why the age of retirement needs to be raised.
In essence then, what we did as a civilization was that we abandoned the idea of a leisure society and replaced it with a complex way of life. In so doing, we used energy and other natural resources to discover the laws of science and develop the technologies that led to such things as brain surgery, instant communication, space exploration and many more good things. To paraphrase the old wise man: This is more than chopped liver.
On balance, some people will say we did well and some will say they are not so sure. But given that we can only go forward from here on and never go backward, that debate shall remain academic. And the question to which we must find an answer is this: Can we steer our civilization in a direction where we could develop a way of life that will approximate the leisure society we used to dream about without wasting too much resources? In short, can we achieve the kind of sustainable growth that will absorb the number of new people who enter the labor market every year without straining the planet?
Many good people are working hard to find the answer to this question knowing that the effort they make is part of a project carrying a wonderful dream for all of humanity.
The idea of the dream was carried over to the decade of the Seventies and then started to wane with the advent of the Eighties and the Nineties. It seemed at last that people -- from the ordinary to the sophisticated and from the politicians to the pundits -- were beginning to understand how an economy works and were becoming more realistic in their expectations. The result was that the dream of a leisure society was altered to become that of "Freedom 55". It is that the people thought they could retire by the age of 55 and go on to lead a wonderful life of leisure, travel, sports and relaxation for the rest of their lives.
To the disappointment of the diehard dreamers, however, this is not what happened. Worse, the exact opposite happened as people were forced to work past the age of 65 which was the age of retirement until such time it was raised in some places thus demonstrating that our collective wisdom regarding the way that the economy works still remains deficient. We realize, therefore, that we need a new model to explain how the economy works, a model that will help us maintain our prosperity as a society and plan our retirement as individuals.
I believe I have the outline of such a model and I am happy to share it with you. The brush I use to paint a picture of the inner workings of the economy is that of growth and it is the one I am using here. So let me begin with the definition of a stagnant economy; simply put, it is one where no growth is taking place. Otherwise, economies tend to grow which they do most of the time or they shrink which they do some of the time.
Whether they are growing or they are shrinking, economies change in two ways: horizontally and vertically. Like stretching the dough of a pie lying flat on a table, an economy can be made to grow in all horizontal directions by adding new businesses to it or by increasing the capacity of existing ones. These additions cause the economic activity to increase and they result in more wealth being added to the nation. Think of it as horizontal growth.
But the economy can also grow and add to the wealth of the nation without the addition of new businesses or the increase in the capacity of existing ones. It can grow by improving on the products it makes such as when black and white television became color television. The economy can also make improvements on the method it uses to run the assembly line such as when it upgrades from electromechanical systems of automation to solid state systems. These are called innovations, and the growth they bring to the economy can be thought of as vertical growth.
In theory there are two authentic types of innovation plus a number of phony ones. The first authentic type consists of making the improvements discussed in the previous paragraph. The second consists of developing entirely new products such as the air conditioners when they first appeared. But hidden from view and rarely discussed is a third type of innovation that should only be regarded as the semblance of one. It is to make "everything old new again." This type of innovation consists of recycling or repackaging old ideas to make them look like new products. Their value to the growth of the economy is dubious because they inflate the money supply yet do little to improve on the quality of life. For example, just before the crash of 1987 there was so much money in the system that people exchanged it for anything; and so they bought things like pet rocks and other useless products advertised as must-have objects.
This brings us to ask the question: What is it that we want from life anyway? Well, we want to live and function like a society and for this, we need an economy that produces goods and services. But the nature and quality of the services we produce can only depend on the degree to which the underlying economy is geared to produce hard goods such as food, clothing, shelter, chemical products, the means of communication, those of transportation and so on. These are basic needs because they represent the necessities of life; and you know they are important because someone hungry, naked or homeless does not go look for services like a facial or a manicure. In fact, in every economy, be it primitive or advanced, nearly 80% of the household spending goes to pay for the basic needs of life. What is left of the middle class incomes goes to pay for leisure or goes into savings.
So then, to take an example, let us take food which is one of the basic necessities of life, and ask the question: What is the difference between having 100 people living in a primitive economy each consuming 3 000 calories per day, and 100 people living in an advanced economy each consuming that same 3 000 calories per day? The answer is that in the first instance 50 people will be working directly on the land to produce the food while in the second instance only 7 people will be working directly on the land to produce the same amount of food. But what happens to the other 43 people? The answer is that they will be working away from the land to manufacture the farm machines, make the fuel and produce the fertilizers that will make it possible for the 7 people on the land to grow enough food to feed all 100 people.
And this is the reality that turned out to be at variance with the lessons we took in the related humanities courses at school. We learned in these courses that the mechanization of the farm created a surplus of manpower that went on to produce other things, a development that multiplied the wealth of nations by several folds. And it was this kind of thinking that made the young folks of the Sixties believe that the leisure society was upon us. But such society never materialized because of what we did not realize then. What was not apparent to us was that the things produced by the surplus manpower away from the farm were absolutely necessary things without which the 7 people on the farm could not produce the food that fed 100 people. The reality, therefore, was that while 43 people left the farm to work in the factories, a good number of them worked for the farm inside those factories.
Undoubtedly, this complex and layered approach to producing goods was an innovation in its own right and could be considered a fourth type. But we must not ignore the fact that it only creates a vertical growth that is more illusional than it is real. Yet this apparent growth cannot be dropped from the records because the value of the machinery, the fuel and the fertilizers produced for use on the farm must be reflected in the GDP figures. And while these inventions save on labor, they do not increase the quantity nor do they improve on the quality of the end products we call necessities of life.
Some pundits look at all this and conclude that as a civilization, humanity is running around complicating things only to produce the same amount of the same thing with the same number of people, be that food or clothes or shelter. The pundits then question if what we are doing deserves to be called progress. Moreover, they say that to run around as we do, we use an abundance of natural resources and we burn huge quantities of fuel to keep in perpetual motion a vicious cycle of humans and machines that achieve little in the end, get us nowhere and harm the environment.
Depressing to be sure but is it really like that or are these people missing something? To be fair to ourselves we have accomplished more than some people are willing to admit. Look at it this way, those who make farm machines also make refrigerators to preserve the food that would otherwise go to waste. Those who produce fuel to power the farm machinery also produce home heating oil to keep warm the people who live and work in cold climates. The chemical workers who manufacture fertilizers also manufacture the pharmaceuticals that alleviate pain and save lives. And the list goes on. More important, we live longer and healthier lives which is the main reason why the age of retirement needs to be raised.
In essence then, what we did as a civilization was that we abandoned the idea of a leisure society and replaced it with a complex way of life. In so doing, we used energy and other natural resources to discover the laws of science and develop the technologies that led to such things as brain surgery, instant communication, space exploration and many more good things. To paraphrase the old wise man: This is more than chopped liver.
On balance, some people will say we did well and some will say they are not so sure. But given that we can only go forward from here on and never go backward, that debate shall remain academic. And the question to which we must find an answer is this: Can we steer our civilization in a direction where we could develop a way of life that will approximate the leisure society we used to dream about without wasting too much resources? In short, can we achieve the kind of sustainable growth that will absorb the number of new people who enter the labor market every year without straining the planet?
Many good people are working hard to find the answer to this question knowing that the effort they make is part of a project carrying a wonderful dream for all of humanity.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Moral Equivalence Jewish Style
Let us try to define "moral equivalence" using an example. Ask the following question: Is there a moral equivalence between a government that is mistreating an individual and a corporation that is mistreating that same individual? Pose the question in this form to a number of people and the majority will say it is much worse for a government to mistreat people than it is for a corporation to do so, therefore there is no moral equivalence here.
Now pose the question in a different way: Is there a moral equivalence between a municipal government going after an individual over an unpaid water bill, and a department store going after that same individual over an unpaid purchase bill? And the reaction of the people will be a mixed one thus indicating that there may be a moral equivalence here.
The difference between the two situations is that in the first example, the people visualized an evil government possessing unlimited powers going after an innocent citizen, possibly for political reasons with the aim of destroying him or her. Consequently, the people reacted according to the stereotypes and cliches that the culture has instilled in them. In the second example, the people visualized the sort of case they may have seen happen to a neighbor or one they experienced themselves and thus concluded that a municipal government is not an ogre they should fear even if it is sometimes difficult to fight city hall.
The point here is that the mental disposition of people, which is always based on the prevailing culture and their personal experiences, is what prepares them for the way they view questions of moral equivalence and for evaluating them. And this brings us to the following question: Are the recent demands to call Israel a Jewish state morally equivalent to the Nazi vision of Germany being the home of a master race?
Most Jewish organizations and their backers will say no, there is no moral equivalence between those two. But most Arabs, especially the Palestinians among them, will say yes, there is moral equivalence between the two. This variation in the views is due to the different experiences that the two peoples have had, and to the different historical narratives to which each community subscribes. And this compels us to want to look at the mental disposition of the two respondents -- the no side and the yes side.
The no side will explain that there is no more harm in calling Israel a Jewish state than there is in a predominantly Muslim country calling itself an Islamic state, as indeed some do. The yes side will argue that things are more complicated than that and will amplify their point of view by giving a historical narrative.
They will begin with the undeniable fact that the Israeli government and its American supporters have repeatedly expressed fear about the demographic trend which is expected to turn Israel into a predominantly Islamo-Christian society from the predominantly Jewish one that it is today. Thus, it is clear that the intent of the Israelis and their American backers in calling Israel a Jewish state is to formalize, legalize and maintain the process of ethnic cleansing that the Jews have conducted since the establishment of the state of Israel. It is a cleansing they carried out at different times throughout the decades in more or less subtle ways, first to turn Israel into a Jewish state then to maintain it as such.
Moreover, the government of Israel continues to expand the reach of the occupation by building settlements on the West Bank of the Jordan River thus defying several resolutions issued by the UN Security Council, numerous appeals made by the world community and a strong nudge delivered by none other than Israel’s only ally and patron, the United States of America. And the excuse that the Israelis give for doing what they do is to accommodate the natural growth of their population, as they put it. And this, my friend, is the crux of the matter. This last part is so profound, I must pause for a moment and explain how deadly serious this thing is.
I had a Jewish friend who was never in a concentration camp but who knew what it was like to be in one. He did not like what the Jewish organizations were doing in his name and the name of Jews, and he thought little of the leaders who pretended to speak with authority when in fact, they knew little of what they were talking about according to him. He developed many ways to express his displeasure at those leaders, and one way to express his contempt at their mentality was to do the following. Whenever they said something that insinuated or implied that Jews are a superior race, he would say: This is exactly what will buy the Jews a one way train ride to the next holocaust.
I am certain that if my friend were here today he would be repeating this thought to express his view regarding the natural growth argument put forward by the Israelis and their American supporters. You see, dear reader, when they clear the jungle to make room for human settlements in places like Brazil, the clearing is done at the expense of the animals that live there. The excuse that humans give for doing what they do is that they are accommodating the natural growth of the human population. All the while, they say nothing about the animal population because animals are of no consequence in the competition between them and the humans. Thus, when the Israelis and their American supporters say they are accommodating natural growth, they mean to say the growth of the Jewish population which they believe trumps that of the Palestinians who are, after all, of no consequence. Wow! Do you get the drift of this mentality? Do you understand what these people are really saying?
Well, in thinking about such matters long and hard, my Jewish friend concluded that the Holocaust was the culmination of the rivalry between the Aryan master race as dreamed up by the sick minds of the Nazis, and the chosen race of the Jews as dreamed up by the sick minds of the rabbis and the Jewish leaders. My friend used to say that both sides lost this battle some six decades ago but the Germans were lucky because they lost the sympathy of the world, something that forced them to seek a new beginning. By contrast, the Jews gained the sympathy of the world, and this put them on a path to launch a new battle of rivals against someone else, a development that will send them back into the arms of the next holocaust. One way or the other the Jews will lose again as they have lost time and again over the past thirty five centuries, said my worried Jewish friend.
But how could the situation have evolved so drastically since the last holocaust when all that the Jews wanted was a small homeland of their own where they could lead a quiet life as if in a ghetto? The answer is simple but not at all a new one. It used to be said that the Jews were left in the hands of those who would harm them, and that no one lifted a finger to save them when danger came knocking at their door. True, but the trouble was that no one said who brought danger and harm to the Jews. And this omission was the reason why no one noticed that the culprits were the charlatans who appointed themselves leaders of the Jews.
These people founded organizations they labeled Jewish by the mere fact that they stuck a sign at the door that said Jewish this or Jewish that, then took control of the lives of the Jews. But time has proved over and over that to leave ordinary Jews in the hands of these charlatans was to do the moral equivalent of giving them the kiss of death. But who should have blown the whistle on these fake leaders yet did not? The answer is that the would-be whistle blowers were non-Jewish individuals who had power and influence and who resided mostly in Europe with a few residing in America.
Instead of standing up tall against the activities of the charlatans, those individuals did the opposite of what they were supposed to do. They encouraged the charlatans to keep on serving the Jews as they saw fit with no one allowed to question their activities. And the penalty for violating this edict was that the offenders would be called anti-Semitic and considered as good as dead professionally and socially. And all of this was happening at a time when the Palestinians were asking successive American Administrations to be even-handed in their handling of the Palestinian-Israeli dispute. But with the charlatans firmly in control, you can imagine what must have been the reaction of the Jewish organizations.
That reaction was to say no to even-handedness because when you are even-handed you set up a moral equivalence between two sides. But in this case, the moral equivalence could only have been a false one given the nature of the sides. And this stance was repeated so often that after a while, everyone came to understand it was forbidden to speak of the Jews and the Palestinians in the same sentence, let alone speak of them as if they were equal. Indeed, to put the two sides on an even keel was something that the Jewish leaders rejected vehemently and categorically, and the cowards of the world bowed to that and they said amen.
The fake Jewish leaders then used the phrase "moral equivalence" to obliterate every possibility at establishing a semblance of equality between the Jews and the Palestinians. The leaders then escalated their drive and made it impossible to establish equality between the Jews and anyone else. In fact, the phrase was used like a knife to cut the Jewish community out of the human race and to cast the Jews as a separate breed. In their eyes they were the superior breed, a claim that prompted other people to see them as the inferior breed.
And as always in such matters, things kept escalating to the point where the Israelis and their supporters considered it normal justice for thousands of Lebanese and Palestinians to be butchered so as to avenge the death of one or two Israelis, or to avenge the apprehension of a couple of prisoners who trespassed into Arab territory. In the view of the Jewish leaders, this would be the only kind of moral equivalence they can live with.
And this is why the Palestinians and their Arab friends have concluded that to call Israel a Jewish state is the moral equivalent of calling Nazi Germany home of the master race. Both claims are repugnant and both are rejected.
Now pose the question in a different way: Is there a moral equivalence between a municipal government going after an individual over an unpaid water bill, and a department store going after that same individual over an unpaid purchase bill? And the reaction of the people will be a mixed one thus indicating that there may be a moral equivalence here.
The difference between the two situations is that in the first example, the people visualized an evil government possessing unlimited powers going after an innocent citizen, possibly for political reasons with the aim of destroying him or her. Consequently, the people reacted according to the stereotypes and cliches that the culture has instilled in them. In the second example, the people visualized the sort of case they may have seen happen to a neighbor or one they experienced themselves and thus concluded that a municipal government is not an ogre they should fear even if it is sometimes difficult to fight city hall.
The point here is that the mental disposition of people, which is always based on the prevailing culture and their personal experiences, is what prepares them for the way they view questions of moral equivalence and for evaluating them. And this brings us to the following question: Are the recent demands to call Israel a Jewish state morally equivalent to the Nazi vision of Germany being the home of a master race?
Most Jewish organizations and their backers will say no, there is no moral equivalence between those two. But most Arabs, especially the Palestinians among them, will say yes, there is moral equivalence between the two. This variation in the views is due to the different experiences that the two peoples have had, and to the different historical narratives to which each community subscribes. And this compels us to want to look at the mental disposition of the two respondents -- the no side and the yes side.
The no side will explain that there is no more harm in calling Israel a Jewish state than there is in a predominantly Muslim country calling itself an Islamic state, as indeed some do. The yes side will argue that things are more complicated than that and will amplify their point of view by giving a historical narrative.
They will begin with the undeniable fact that the Israeli government and its American supporters have repeatedly expressed fear about the demographic trend which is expected to turn Israel into a predominantly Islamo-Christian society from the predominantly Jewish one that it is today. Thus, it is clear that the intent of the Israelis and their American backers in calling Israel a Jewish state is to formalize, legalize and maintain the process of ethnic cleansing that the Jews have conducted since the establishment of the state of Israel. It is a cleansing they carried out at different times throughout the decades in more or less subtle ways, first to turn Israel into a Jewish state then to maintain it as such.
Moreover, the government of Israel continues to expand the reach of the occupation by building settlements on the West Bank of the Jordan River thus defying several resolutions issued by the UN Security Council, numerous appeals made by the world community and a strong nudge delivered by none other than Israel’s only ally and patron, the United States of America. And the excuse that the Israelis give for doing what they do is to accommodate the natural growth of their population, as they put it. And this, my friend, is the crux of the matter. This last part is so profound, I must pause for a moment and explain how deadly serious this thing is.
I had a Jewish friend who was never in a concentration camp but who knew what it was like to be in one. He did not like what the Jewish organizations were doing in his name and the name of Jews, and he thought little of the leaders who pretended to speak with authority when in fact, they knew little of what they were talking about according to him. He developed many ways to express his displeasure at those leaders, and one way to express his contempt at their mentality was to do the following. Whenever they said something that insinuated or implied that Jews are a superior race, he would say: This is exactly what will buy the Jews a one way train ride to the next holocaust.
I am certain that if my friend were here today he would be repeating this thought to express his view regarding the natural growth argument put forward by the Israelis and their American supporters. You see, dear reader, when they clear the jungle to make room for human settlements in places like Brazil, the clearing is done at the expense of the animals that live there. The excuse that humans give for doing what they do is that they are accommodating the natural growth of the human population. All the while, they say nothing about the animal population because animals are of no consequence in the competition between them and the humans. Thus, when the Israelis and their American supporters say they are accommodating natural growth, they mean to say the growth of the Jewish population which they believe trumps that of the Palestinians who are, after all, of no consequence. Wow! Do you get the drift of this mentality? Do you understand what these people are really saying?
Well, in thinking about such matters long and hard, my Jewish friend concluded that the Holocaust was the culmination of the rivalry between the Aryan master race as dreamed up by the sick minds of the Nazis, and the chosen race of the Jews as dreamed up by the sick minds of the rabbis and the Jewish leaders. My friend used to say that both sides lost this battle some six decades ago but the Germans were lucky because they lost the sympathy of the world, something that forced them to seek a new beginning. By contrast, the Jews gained the sympathy of the world, and this put them on a path to launch a new battle of rivals against someone else, a development that will send them back into the arms of the next holocaust. One way or the other the Jews will lose again as they have lost time and again over the past thirty five centuries, said my worried Jewish friend.
But how could the situation have evolved so drastically since the last holocaust when all that the Jews wanted was a small homeland of their own where they could lead a quiet life as if in a ghetto? The answer is simple but not at all a new one. It used to be said that the Jews were left in the hands of those who would harm them, and that no one lifted a finger to save them when danger came knocking at their door. True, but the trouble was that no one said who brought danger and harm to the Jews. And this omission was the reason why no one noticed that the culprits were the charlatans who appointed themselves leaders of the Jews.
These people founded organizations they labeled Jewish by the mere fact that they stuck a sign at the door that said Jewish this or Jewish that, then took control of the lives of the Jews. But time has proved over and over that to leave ordinary Jews in the hands of these charlatans was to do the moral equivalent of giving them the kiss of death. But who should have blown the whistle on these fake leaders yet did not? The answer is that the would-be whistle blowers were non-Jewish individuals who had power and influence and who resided mostly in Europe with a few residing in America.
Instead of standing up tall against the activities of the charlatans, those individuals did the opposite of what they were supposed to do. They encouraged the charlatans to keep on serving the Jews as they saw fit with no one allowed to question their activities. And the penalty for violating this edict was that the offenders would be called anti-Semitic and considered as good as dead professionally and socially. And all of this was happening at a time when the Palestinians were asking successive American Administrations to be even-handed in their handling of the Palestinian-Israeli dispute. But with the charlatans firmly in control, you can imagine what must have been the reaction of the Jewish organizations.
That reaction was to say no to even-handedness because when you are even-handed you set up a moral equivalence between two sides. But in this case, the moral equivalence could only have been a false one given the nature of the sides. And this stance was repeated so often that after a while, everyone came to understand it was forbidden to speak of the Jews and the Palestinians in the same sentence, let alone speak of them as if they were equal. Indeed, to put the two sides on an even keel was something that the Jewish leaders rejected vehemently and categorically, and the cowards of the world bowed to that and they said amen.
The fake Jewish leaders then used the phrase "moral equivalence" to obliterate every possibility at establishing a semblance of equality between the Jews and the Palestinians. The leaders then escalated their drive and made it impossible to establish equality between the Jews and anyone else. In fact, the phrase was used like a knife to cut the Jewish community out of the human race and to cast the Jews as a separate breed. In their eyes they were the superior breed, a claim that prompted other people to see them as the inferior breed.
And as always in such matters, things kept escalating to the point where the Israelis and their supporters considered it normal justice for thousands of Lebanese and Palestinians to be butchered so as to avenge the death of one or two Israelis, or to avenge the apprehension of a couple of prisoners who trespassed into Arab territory. In the view of the Jewish leaders, this would be the only kind of moral equivalence they can live with.
And this is why the Palestinians and their Arab friends have concluded that to call Israel a Jewish state is the moral equivalent of calling Nazi Germany home of the master race. Both claims are repugnant and both are rejected.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Obama To Free America From Jewish Tyranny
On June 4, 2009 President Barack Obama of the United States of America spoke to the world and perhaps to history from the eternal land of Egypt. What the President said in essence was that he will do what influential people have lacked the knowledge to do in the past, and what influential people lack the courage to do today even though things have clarified and they know what needs to be done.
What needs to be done is save the Jews from the charlatans who appoint themselves leaders over them but do in hiding the things that inevitably result in the innocent Jews being sent to the incinerators while the leaders make money in the process. And the payoff for America will be that in saving the Jews from their leaders, Mr. Obama will also save America from those same charlatans. Here is the key sentence in Obama’s speech containing the principles by which the good things will happen: "I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors."
With this, Mr. Obama has admitted what no one has dared to admit before which is that in the "Washington beltway" policies are drawn based on rumors, and decisions are made based on whispers. And all this is done despite the fact that everyone knows that the rumors and the whispers are nothing but the verbal eviscerations of the Jewish leaders. Nobody until now has had the courage to challenge this demonic practice because everyone knew that to do so would trigger the end of their careers and would crimp their ability to earn a living. Indeed, the terror sweeping the heart of every American has always been to say something that the Jews will deem contrary to their interest or contrary to the interests of Israel and thus pronounce their own professional and social death sentence.
Thus, to comply with Mr. Obama’s new policy, never again will a former President of America be "dissed" by his own party on command from a two bit Jewish riff raff. Never again will the appointment of someone like Charles Freeman be derailed while on his way to chair the National Intelligence Council by orders from a foreign country. Never again will someone be blacklisted in America for refusing to express hatred for one’s own race and religion or refuse to endorse the criminal activities of the state of Israel. Never again will someone like Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa be "disinvited" having been invited to speak in America. Never again will the Jews be able to decree that a university cut off its commercial relations with a book publisher it has dealt with for decades. And so on and so forth, all of which are happening now in the Land of the Free where the only freedom America knows is to worship every Jew that walks the Earth as ordered by pastors of the television ministries.
And so, it is to be expected that after Mr. Obama has liberated America from the yoke of this Jewish tyranny, he will turn his attention to the rest of the world and look for other places to liberate. And this is when the good man will get the surprise of his life as he will discover that everybody is doing just fine the way they have been doing for the past seven thousand years without America’s nose being poked in their internal affairs. In fact, Mr. Obama may finally come to realize what everyone has known for a long time and the Russians have divulged just recently that the so-called civil societies which are set-up with American assistance to liberate the world are nothing more than the extended arm of AIPAC whose aim is to turn the world into a Jewish colony in the image of the pathetic colony that America has become.
Let me tell you a true story that will show what this situation says to someone like me. I was eight years old when my father, who was working for the Franco-Ethiopian railroad company, was transferred from Ethiopia to Djibouti, known then as French Somaliland. The family settled quickly into our new home and it took me little time to notice the differences between what I was accustomed to seeing before and what I was seeing now.
One of the differences was the look on some people; they were men who had patterned scars on their faces. I asked my father why these people had such markings and he explained that they were not Ethiopians or Somalis but Senegalese from the West Coast of Africa who follow the custom of marking themselves so as to be identified in terms of the tribe to which they belong. My father then brought to my attention the fact that they were policemen who patrolled the streets or soldiers who were stationed at the nearby garrison, but this was something I already knew because the people wore uniforms.
These people were in Djibouti because it was the policy of the colonial powers to staff the police and the military of one colony with men from another colony, something they did for two reasons. The first was to keep the local population under a constant state of humiliation as a way to remind it who was boss. Being watched over and if necessary put down was one sure way to accomplish this goal. As for the second reason, it was to prevent any empathy from developing between the forces of law and order serving the colonial masters and the people they policed. Being of different races and foreign to each other accomplished this goal.
Many years went by and, as a grown up, I found myself in a situation where I was compelled to study the behavior of the Jewish organizations in North America. I did so for a period that exceeded four decades during which time I delved into the relationships that the organizations were forging with the societies surrounding them and with the world at large. I saw the people who ran these organizations deliberately impose on one culture the irritating habits they imported from the other cultures, and I came to the conclusion that they were adopting policies whose purpose was to humiliate and to boss around the local population. This was the work of a bunch of self appointed would-be tin can colonial masters who tried to conquer the world but ended up time and again sending their innocent followers to the gas chambers and the incinerators of the pogroms and the holocausts.
This mentality was completely different from the one I knew while growing up surrounded by the Jews of North Africa and those of the sub-Sahara. And so I formulated the notion that the Jews I was meeting were not of the same culture or the same religion; indeed they were not the same people by any stretch of the imagination. And this view was further reinforced when I saw the transformation that the Jews of Arab and Persian descent were compelled to go through upon their arrival to North America and upon their encounter with the Jewish organizations. I have discussed the details of these points in previous writings and will do so again when the occasions arise.
Of course, with Mr. Obama at work implementing his new vision, the Jewish leaders are not going to sit idle, something they never did during the past three and a half millennia. They are the first to say they would not be Jews if they did not try to rule the World which is what they interpret their religion to be all about. Thus, they consider it their religious duty to recruit, organize and put to work police forces and armies from around the world so as to achieve their dream. And the dream is to fulfill what they believe to be the aspirations of Jewish people, aspirations that keep inflating with the injection of new fantasies into the modern Jewish folklore. In fact, the aspirations have gone from creating a modest homeland for the Jews to taking Judea and Sumaria to having a Greater Israel to dominating the entire Middle East to conquering the whole world. All of which leads to the question: What should we expect now?
Well, we have already seen a sample of what to expect. It happened during the maneuverings that led to the Durban 2 gathering not too long ago. The civilized world came together to tell it like it is in their communiqués but it was revealed that the Jewish organizations got upset at which point the Americans put pressure on the world to change a few things. The world agreed to make the changes out of respect for the Americans who are still admired and somewhat respected by a few people on this planet.
But right after the changes were made, the unexpected happened and the Americans fell on their knees like a rock when the newest of the Jewish demands hit them like a bolt from the sky. They were ordered to end their participation in the gathering and go home, period. Well, it was unexpected to the Americans but it was a manifestation of what the world knows to be vintage Talmudic behavior in that it is the deceptive game where the Jews negotiate a quid pro quo, and when the time comes to do the exchange, they take the quid and run without delivering the quo. Still, despite this savage behavior, the civilized world went on with its gathering and it set the cause of freedom one more notch up the totem pole without the participation of those who no longer know what freedom is.
In a similar fashion, Mr. Obama will be led down the garden path one more time, and when he reaches the end of the garden, he will find himself at the edge of a cliff where he will be asked to jump. They fooled him once and shame on them. They will try to fool him twice and the shame will be on him if he jumps again and pretend to be liberating the world when liberation is needed in America more than anywhere else. It is said that charity begins at home; so does liberation, and the American homeland cries out for Mr. Obama’s attention.
In the meantime, when it comes to implementing the agenda for which the President went to Egypt, the Jewish organizations will want Arab recognition, an initiative that has been sitting on the table for 5 years now without delivering on their part of the quid pro quo which is to freeze the settlements and to accept the premise of the two-state solution. It will be a typical Talmudic behavior that will be shrugged off by the Arabs.
But if Mr. Obama stands his ground and says no to nonsense, he will show the way to the cowardly but influential men and women of Europe who know what is going on yet choose to leave the innocent Jews in the hands of their self-appointed leaders who will march them again and again to new pogroms and new holocausts.
Instead of doing their part to put an end to this perennial problem, those influential men and women will pretend as they always do to be on the side of the Jews so that when the unimaginable happens, which they know is inevitable, they will be able to say they stood on the side of the Jews but did not think their own leaders would do this to them. They will shed a tear, attend memorials and display grief as they lament they should not have given the Jewish organizations the rope to hang themselves and hang their innocent followers.
It is to be hoped that Mr. Obama will put an end to this nonsense by knocking sense into the heads of those influential Europeans thus get them to take a firm stand against the Jewish organizations whose behavior will again lead to the holocausting of Jews. And the American people will forever be grateful for the work done by their President.
What needs to be done is save the Jews from the charlatans who appoint themselves leaders over them but do in hiding the things that inevitably result in the innocent Jews being sent to the incinerators while the leaders make money in the process. And the payoff for America will be that in saving the Jews from their leaders, Mr. Obama will also save America from those same charlatans. Here is the key sentence in Obama’s speech containing the principles by which the good things will happen: "I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors."
With this, Mr. Obama has admitted what no one has dared to admit before which is that in the "Washington beltway" policies are drawn based on rumors, and decisions are made based on whispers. And all this is done despite the fact that everyone knows that the rumors and the whispers are nothing but the verbal eviscerations of the Jewish leaders. Nobody until now has had the courage to challenge this demonic practice because everyone knew that to do so would trigger the end of their careers and would crimp their ability to earn a living. Indeed, the terror sweeping the heart of every American has always been to say something that the Jews will deem contrary to their interest or contrary to the interests of Israel and thus pronounce their own professional and social death sentence.
Thus, to comply with Mr. Obama’s new policy, never again will a former President of America be "dissed" by his own party on command from a two bit Jewish riff raff. Never again will the appointment of someone like Charles Freeman be derailed while on his way to chair the National Intelligence Council by orders from a foreign country. Never again will someone be blacklisted in America for refusing to express hatred for one’s own race and religion or refuse to endorse the criminal activities of the state of Israel. Never again will someone like Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa be "disinvited" having been invited to speak in America. Never again will the Jews be able to decree that a university cut off its commercial relations with a book publisher it has dealt with for decades. And so on and so forth, all of which are happening now in the Land of the Free where the only freedom America knows is to worship every Jew that walks the Earth as ordered by pastors of the television ministries.
And so, it is to be expected that after Mr. Obama has liberated America from the yoke of this Jewish tyranny, he will turn his attention to the rest of the world and look for other places to liberate. And this is when the good man will get the surprise of his life as he will discover that everybody is doing just fine the way they have been doing for the past seven thousand years without America’s nose being poked in their internal affairs. In fact, Mr. Obama may finally come to realize what everyone has known for a long time and the Russians have divulged just recently that the so-called civil societies which are set-up with American assistance to liberate the world are nothing more than the extended arm of AIPAC whose aim is to turn the world into a Jewish colony in the image of the pathetic colony that America has become.
Let me tell you a true story that will show what this situation says to someone like me. I was eight years old when my father, who was working for the Franco-Ethiopian railroad company, was transferred from Ethiopia to Djibouti, known then as French Somaliland. The family settled quickly into our new home and it took me little time to notice the differences between what I was accustomed to seeing before and what I was seeing now.
One of the differences was the look on some people; they were men who had patterned scars on their faces. I asked my father why these people had such markings and he explained that they were not Ethiopians or Somalis but Senegalese from the West Coast of Africa who follow the custom of marking themselves so as to be identified in terms of the tribe to which they belong. My father then brought to my attention the fact that they were policemen who patrolled the streets or soldiers who were stationed at the nearby garrison, but this was something I already knew because the people wore uniforms.
These people were in Djibouti because it was the policy of the colonial powers to staff the police and the military of one colony with men from another colony, something they did for two reasons. The first was to keep the local population under a constant state of humiliation as a way to remind it who was boss. Being watched over and if necessary put down was one sure way to accomplish this goal. As for the second reason, it was to prevent any empathy from developing between the forces of law and order serving the colonial masters and the people they policed. Being of different races and foreign to each other accomplished this goal.
Many years went by and, as a grown up, I found myself in a situation where I was compelled to study the behavior of the Jewish organizations in North America. I did so for a period that exceeded four decades during which time I delved into the relationships that the organizations were forging with the societies surrounding them and with the world at large. I saw the people who ran these organizations deliberately impose on one culture the irritating habits they imported from the other cultures, and I came to the conclusion that they were adopting policies whose purpose was to humiliate and to boss around the local population. This was the work of a bunch of self appointed would-be tin can colonial masters who tried to conquer the world but ended up time and again sending their innocent followers to the gas chambers and the incinerators of the pogroms and the holocausts.
This mentality was completely different from the one I knew while growing up surrounded by the Jews of North Africa and those of the sub-Sahara. And so I formulated the notion that the Jews I was meeting were not of the same culture or the same religion; indeed they were not the same people by any stretch of the imagination. And this view was further reinforced when I saw the transformation that the Jews of Arab and Persian descent were compelled to go through upon their arrival to North America and upon their encounter with the Jewish organizations. I have discussed the details of these points in previous writings and will do so again when the occasions arise.
Of course, with Mr. Obama at work implementing his new vision, the Jewish leaders are not going to sit idle, something they never did during the past three and a half millennia. They are the first to say they would not be Jews if they did not try to rule the World which is what they interpret their religion to be all about. Thus, they consider it their religious duty to recruit, organize and put to work police forces and armies from around the world so as to achieve their dream. And the dream is to fulfill what they believe to be the aspirations of Jewish people, aspirations that keep inflating with the injection of new fantasies into the modern Jewish folklore. In fact, the aspirations have gone from creating a modest homeland for the Jews to taking Judea and Sumaria to having a Greater Israel to dominating the entire Middle East to conquering the whole world. All of which leads to the question: What should we expect now?
Well, we have already seen a sample of what to expect. It happened during the maneuverings that led to the Durban 2 gathering not too long ago. The civilized world came together to tell it like it is in their communiqués but it was revealed that the Jewish organizations got upset at which point the Americans put pressure on the world to change a few things. The world agreed to make the changes out of respect for the Americans who are still admired and somewhat respected by a few people on this planet.
But right after the changes were made, the unexpected happened and the Americans fell on their knees like a rock when the newest of the Jewish demands hit them like a bolt from the sky. They were ordered to end their participation in the gathering and go home, period. Well, it was unexpected to the Americans but it was a manifestation of what the world knows to be vintage Talmudic behavior in that it is the deceptive game where the Jews negotiate a quid pro quo, and when the time comes to do the exchange, they take the quid and run without delivering the quo. Still, despite this savage behavior, the civilized world went on with its gathering and it set the cause of freedom one more notch up the totem pole without the participation of those who no longer know what freedom is.
In a similar fashion, Mr. Obama will be led down the garden path one more time, and when he reaches the end of the garden, he will find himself at the edge of a cliff where he will be asked to jump. They fooled him once and shame on them. They will try to fool him twice and the shame will be on him if he jumps again and pretend to be liberating the world when liberation is needed in America more than anywhere else. It is said that charity begins at home; so does liberation, and the American homeland cries out for Mr. Obama’s attention.
In the meantime, when it comes to implementing the agenda for which the President went to Egypt, the Jewish organizations will want Arab recognition, an initiative that has been sitting on the table for 5 years now without delivering on their part of the quid pro quo which is to freeze the settlements and to accept the premise of the two-state solution. It will be a typical Talmudic behavior that will be shrugged off by the Arabs.
But if Mr. Obama stands his ground and says no to nonsense, he will show the way to the cowardly but influential men and women of Europe who know what is going on yet choose to leave the innocent Jews in the hands of their self-appointed leaders who will march them again and again to new pogroms and new holocausts.
Instead of doing their part to put an end to this perennial problem, those influential men and women will pretend as they always do to be on the side of the Jews so that when the unimaginable happens, which they know is inevitable, they will be able to say they stood on the side of the Jews but did not think their own leaders would do this to them. They will shed a tear, attend memorials and display grief as they lament they should not have given the Jewish organizations the rope to hang themselves and hang their innocent followers.
It is to be hoped that Mr. Obama will put an end to this nonsense by knocking sense into the heads of those influential Europeans thus get them to take a firm stand against the Jewish organizations whose behavior will again lead to the holocausting of Jews. And the American people will forever be grateful for the work done by their President.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Beta Have Some Capacitance In There
That title is a play on words and you’ll know what I mean by the time you get to the end. I had the idea to write this article while reading a piece written by Mr. Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister of Great Britain. The piece was titled "Don't Go Wobbly On Trade" and was published in the Wall Street Journal on May 28, 2009.
I know electronic circuits well, and the first thing that came to mind as I red the piece was to ask the question: "But where are the capacitors?" Let me explain. Anyone who is familiar with electronic circuits cannot fail but notice the analogies that exist between them and the system of economics. In fact, many words and letters that were thought to belong purely in the domain of electronics have found their way into the realm of economics, most notable among these being the Greek letter Beta.
In electronics, Beta is the factor by which a transistor multiplies the power of a signal. For example, if the manufacturer says transistor 3N6 has a Beta of 100, it means that if you feed this transistor a signal measuring 100 milliwatts at the input terminal called the base, it will deliver that same signal, now measuring 10 watts, at the output terminal called the collector.
Similarly, traders on the stock market use the word Beta to refer to the extent by which the price of a stock tends to change. For example, a stock that has a high Beta is one that changes in price by a large amount in a short period of time. The people we call day traders love this kind of stock because traders make money when they buy the shares at a low price and sell them at a high price. And the wider the range between the lows and the highs of a stock, the bigger the gains that a trader stands to make.
Another important factor comes into play in this game; it is the frequency at which the price of the stock bounces back and forth between the low point and the high point. Frequency is known in mathematics as the reciprocal of time which means that something happening at a high frequency takes little time to repeat itself. And those who like to make money love to make it frequently as if money came to them in waves after waves.
Now, to say that something happens fast means that it has velocity. And this is a word that is used in economics. It is used in relation to the money supply as in "velocity of money". This expression refers to the frequency with which the money supply turns over in a given economy. But in his piece, Mr. Brown invoked the notion of velocity in a different context and without actually using the word itself.
The Prime Minister called on the nations of the world to refrain from taking protectionist measures in matters relating to trade. Protectionism, he says, would restrict trade, lead to a recession and maybe even a depression. What Mr. Brown is advocating, in effect, is the unrestricted flow of goods and services between nations, something that will undoubtedly increase the velocity of world trade.
Mr. Brown’s idea is one that must be juxtaposed with another idea because they are both cut from the same cloth, so to speak. This other idea is called the "just in time" principle and it is employed in manufacturing whereby the parts are delivered to a factory just in time for their use in the assembly of the products. The application of this principle adds to the velocity of production because it eliminates the time it takes to store the parts. And what must not be lost on anyone is the irony that the Japanese introduced the principle to their manufacturing processes just in time before the crash of their economy at the start of the so-called lost decade for which they have become so famous.
Let’s now get back to electronics and see how all this ties together. The designers of electronic circuits know they have to make a trade-off between two important issues every time they do a design. On the one hand there is the frequency response of the circuit, and the preference here is that it be high which means you want things to happen with considerable velocity. On the other hand there are the unwanted ripples which cause distortion in the circuit and therefore must be smoothed out or eliminated. But here is the difficulty: In almost every circuit that you care to design, to reduce one problem is to worsen the other hence the need to make a trade-off between the two issues.
In audio, a high frequency response is what gives you a clear sound. In the visuals, high frequency is what gives you a high definition and the quick response to the keystrokes of your computer. But the downside of high frequency is that the circuits are difficult to stabilize. Thus, any weakness inherent to the design or any stray signal entering the circuit from the outside will spread throughout the circuit and render it unstable. This will distort the audio, the visual and just about everything else you do with a circuit. You can reduce the problem by adding capacitance to the circuit but this is something that will slow it down. And this is where you have to make the trade-off as indicated already. Notice that the word capacitance and not capacity was used here, as there is a difference between the two.
Capacitance is represented by the value of a capacitor. In electronics, a capacitor is a component that performs the function of a non-chemical mini battery. Sometimes it is charged with current and sometimes it is drained of it. The charging and discharging of a capacitor can take a few minutes or it can take a fraction of a nanosecond. To obtain this range of values, capacitors are manufactured in different sizes and they are used in various ways inside a circuit. Like a storage space, a capacitor absorbs the excess electrons when there is an excess of them; and releases the electrons when the circuit is starved of them.
Something similar happens in business and in trade. Indeed the world still suffers from the fact that the distortion which began in the American economy was rippled through to the other economies by the speed of execution brought about by none other than the speed of modern communication. The good news is that some economies did relatively well considering the circumstances and despite everything that went wrong. And there was a reason for this; it is that these economies had capacitance in their business circuits.
In economics, the equivalent of the capacitor is the storage facility whatever its shape and whatever its measurements. It can be the warehouse, the wallet, the silo, the pocket, the fuel tank, the bank vault, the purse, the shelf, the freezer, the pantry, the safe, the refrigerator and so on where we keep reserves of any kind and any size. If you take these reserves away and make everything operate "just in time," you will have no cushion to fall back on and thus risk making the economy unstable. Yes, having a cushion slows down the economy but it eliminates the risk of instability. And so, you can choose how much of one you will tolerate to reduce the effect of the other but in the end you will have to make that trade-off.
When it comes to the service industries such as banking and the other financials, the need to have reserves is even more apparent and more compelling. In fact, no one who has lived on this planet in the past little while would deny the claim that the absence of adequate money reserves in the financial institutions is what caused the crisis the world has just experienced. These enterprises levered their operations highly to give themselves a high beta performance but they neglected to add capacitance to their circuit. The result is that they became unstable and they pulled the world economy down with them.
I must now explain something to avoid the confusion that may be generated by the similarity in the two words capacity and capacitance. Capacity refers to the potential of an enterprise to produce and deliver a quantity of goods or services. For example, an auto plant that is constructed to assemble 100,000 cars a year is said to have this capacity. If it produces say, 80 000 cars a year, it will be said that the plant is under utilized and has a spare capacity.
As for capacitance, it was defined earlier and was shown to be the reserves that we store and then use at a later time to cushion an operation. We draw on the reserves during the bad times to make up for a shortfall that may creep into the system, and we replenish the reserves when there is a surplus during the good times.
To conclude, yes we must have trade between the nations like says Mr. Gordon Brown, but we should have it where we need it and only when it is useful. We do not need unrestricted trade just for the sake of having it, and we do not need it at any cost. In the meantime, having gone through a serious crisis, the world needs to take a breather at this time and allow ourselves to "recharge" our mental batteries.
We must do this because many economies still face the potential to be distorted; and we shall need time to think of the best way to add capacitance to them. This is necessary in order to smooth things out before we rev up our frequency generators, something that will speed things up and risk multiplying the existing problems. Failure to act will cause some deficiencies to creep into the world economy and will send us back to square one if not do worse.
Now, about that title. In the colloquial of North American English we sometimes pronounce the word "better" to sound like "beta". Thus to say: "Beta have some capacitance" means better add storage to our economy and fill it with reserves.
I know electronic circuits well, and the first thing that came to mind as I red the piece was to ask the question: "But where are the capacitors?" Let me explain. Anyone who is familiar with electronic circuits cannot fail but notice the analogies that exist between them and the system of economics. In fact, many words and letters that were thought to belong purely in the domain of electronics have found their way into the realm of economics, most notable among these being the Greek letter Beta.
In electronics, Beta is the factor by which a transistor multiplies the power of a signal. For example, if the manufacturer says transistor 3N6 has a Beta of 100, it means that if you feed this transistor a signal measuring 100 milliwatts at the input terminal called the base, it will deliver that same signal, now measuring 10 watts, at the output terminal called the collector.
Similarly, traders on the stock market use the word Beta to refer to the extent by which the price of a stock tends to change. For example, a stock that has a high Beta is one that changes in price by a large amount in a short period of time. The people we call day traders love this kind of stock because traders make money when they buy the shares at a low price and sell them at a high price. And the wider the range between the lows and the highs of a stock, the bigger the gains that a trader stands to make.
Another important factor comes into play in this game; it is the frequency at which the price of the stock bounces back and forth between the low point and the high point. Frequency is known in mathematics as the reciprocal of time which means that something happening at a high frequency takes little time to repeat itself. And those who like to make money love to make it frequently as if money came to them in waves after waves.
Now, to say that something happens fast means that it has velocity. And this is a word that is used in economics. It is used in relation to the money supply as in "velocity of money". This expression refers to the frequency with which the money supply turns over in a given economy. But in his piece, Mr. Brown invoked the notion of velocity in a different context and without actually using the word itself.
The Prime Minister called on the nations of the world to refrain from taking protectionist measures in matters relating to trade. Protectionism, he says, would restrict trade, lead to a recession and maybe even a depression. What Mr. Brown is advocating, in effect, is the unrestricted flow of goods and services between nations, something that will undoubtedly increase the velocity of world trade.
Mr. Brown’s idea is one that must be juxtaposed with another idea because they are both cut from the same cloth, so to speak. This other idea is called the "just in time" principle and it is employed in manufacturing whereby the parts are delivered to a factory just in time for their use in the assembly of the products. The application of this principle adds to the velocity of production because it eliminates the time it takes to store the parts. And what must not be lost on anyone is the irony that the Japanese introduced the principle to their manufacturing processes just in time before the crash of their economy at the start of the so-called lost decade for which they have become so famous.
Let’s now get back to electronics and see how all this ties together. The designers of electronic circuits know they have to make a trade-off between two important issues every time they do a design. On the one hand there is the frequency response of the circuit, and the preference here is that it be high which means you want things to happen with considerable velocity. On the other hand there are the unwanted ripples which cause distortion in the circuit and therefore must be smoothed out or eliminated. But here is the difficulty: In almost every circuit that you care to design, to reduce one problem is to worsen the other hence the need to make a trade-off between the two issues.
In audio, a high frequency response is what gives you a clear sound. In the visuals, high frequency is what gives you a high definition and the quick response to the keystrokes of your computer. But the downside of high frequency is that the circuits are difficult to stabilize. Thus, any weakness inherent to the design or any stray signal entering the circuit from the outside will spread throughout the circuit and render it unstable. This will distort the audio, the visual and just about everything else you do with a circuit. You can reduce the problem by adding capacitance to the circuit but this is something that will slow it down. And this is where you have to make the trade-off as indicated already. Notice that the word capacitance and not capacity was used here, as there is a difference between the two.
Capacitance is represented by the value of a capacitor. In electronics, a capacitor is a component that performs the function of a non-chemical mini battery. Sometimes it is charged with current and sometimes it is drained of it. The charging and discharging of a capacitor can take a few minutes or it can take a fraction of a nanosecond. To obtain this range of values, capacitors are manufactured in different sizes and they are used in various ways inside a circuit. Like a storage space, a capacitor absorbs the excess electrons when there is an excess of them; and releases the electrons when the circuit is starved of them.
Something similar happens in business and in trade. Indeed the world still suffers from the fact that the distortion which began in the American economy was rippled through to the other economies by the speed of execution brought about by none other than the speed of modern communication. The good news is that some economies did relatively well considering the circumstances and despite everything that went wrong. And there was a reason for this; it is that these economies had capacitance in their business circuits.
In economics, the equivalent of the capacitor is the storage facility whatever its shape and whatever its measurements. It can be the warehouse, the wallet, the silo, the pocket, the fuel tank, the bank vault, the purse, the shelf, the freezer, the pantry, the safe, the refrigerator and so on where we keep reserves of any kind and any size. If you take these reserves away and make everything operate "just in time," you will have no cushion to fall back on and thus risk making the economy unstable. Yes, having a cushion slows down the economy but it eliminates the risk of instability. And so, you can choose how much of one you will tolerate to reduce the effect of the other but in the end you will have to make that trade-off.
When it comes to the service industries such as banking and the other financials, the need to have reserves is even more apparent and more compelling. In fact, no one who has lived on this planet in the past little while would deny the claim that the absence of adequate money reserves in the financial institutions is what caused the crisis the world has just experienced. These enterprises levered their operations highly to give themselves a high beta performance but they neglected to add capacitance to their circuit. The result is that they became unstable and they pulled the world economy down with them.
I must now explain something to avoid the confusion that may be generated by the similarity in the two words capacity and capacitance. Capacity refers to the potential of an enterprise to produce and deliver a quantity of goods or services. For example, an auto plant that is constructed to assemble 100,000 cars a year is said to have this capacity. If it produces say, 80 000 cars a year, it will be said that the plant is under utilized and has a spare capacity.
As for capacitance, it was defined earlier and was shown to be the reserves that we store and then use at a later time to cushion an operation. We draw on the reserves during the bad times to make up for a shortfall that may creep into the system, and we replenish the reserves when there is a surplus during the good times.
To conclude, yes we must have trade between the nations like says Mr. Gordon Brown, but we should have it where we need it and only when it is useful. We do not need unrestricted trade just for the sake of having it, and we do not need it at any cost. In the meantime, having gone through a serious crisis, the world needs to take a breather at this time and allow ourselves to "recharge" our mental batteries.
We must do this because many economies still face the potential to be distorted; and we shall need time to think of the best way to add capacitance to them. This is necessary in order to smooth things out before we rev up our frequency generators, something that will speed things up and risk multiplying the existing problems. Failure to act will cause some deficiencies to creep into the world economy and will send us back to square one if not do worse.
Now, about that title. In the colloquial of North American English we sometimes pronounce the word "better" to sound like "beta". Thus to say: "Beta have some capacitance" means better add storage to our economy and fill it with reserves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)